I think big fans of
999 and
Demon's Souls/Dark Souls understand perfectly well that everyone isn't going to have a fun time playing those games. 999 is a very, very niche experience (compared to the vast majority of what's out there today) and Demon's/Dark Souls both have "click" moments around 2.5-3 hours in that you must experience for the game to work for you. It sounds ridiculous saying this, but its almost like an epiphany/revelation. If you don't get those moments, you aren't going to like the games. It's not something anyone has any control over. You simply hit that point or you don't. Its really the only franchise I can think of where the person who thinks its one of the greatest things of all time and the person who thinks it's terrible can both be right.
Anyway, the most recent GAF recommendation that failed me hard is
Xenoblade. Combat is boring, the characters don't shut the hell up, ever, and I hate running around ridiculously large areas that don't have anything to do but fight and hunt monsters. Fetch quests are not side quests.
Also, the game just doesn't look good. Animations are stiff/weird (running, jumping, attacks), texture quality is low, and the fact that it's not HD makes it look very blurry/muddled mess on my TV.
Radiant Historia is still the best JRPG of the generation.
I just mean that there is a difference between understanding why a game is considered a great game, and liking a game. For example, I can understand why people think Skyrim is a great game, but I really dislike it. It's just a taste-thing. Doesn't mean that Skyrim is a shitty game, it just mean that it isn't for me.
See, I can't understand why people think
this way. When you don't like something, why do you have an obligation to say that it's great? Or that it's great, but not for you? I don't care how well Skyrim scored, or how many people enjoyed it, I didn't like it, so I'm not going to describe it as "great". "Great" is an expression of
your opinion, not an objective measure of something.