Great soundtracks that are mismanaged in-game are like a staple of the Xeno series. Xenosaga 1 and 2 being the biggest offenders.
Not really true. They gave high marks to a number of games this year.They don't like any games though.
Not really true. They gave high marks to a number of games this year.
But seems to be an exception, I read around on the site and like every review had pretty bad scores. Won't even talk about the Xenoblade review, that was actually a pain to read.
I really think people have selection bias. Not every game has bad scores. That's a patently ridiculous claim. Of "big" titles or ones thought to be in "GOTY" running, they gave many of them fairly decent scores:But seems to be an exception, I read around on the site and like every review had pretty bad scores. Won't even talk about the Xenoblade review, that was actually a pain to read.
I really think people have selection bias. Not every game has bad scores. That's a patently ridiculous claim. Of "big" titles or ones thought to be in "GOTY" running, they gave many of them fairly decent scores:
Xenoblade Chronicles X: 50
Life is Strange Episode 5: 82
Halo 5: 83
Rise of the Tomb Raider: 68
Undertale: 65
Super Mario Maker: 83
Destiny: The Taken King: 78
MGSV: TPP: 69
Until Dawn: 78
Batman: Arkham Knight: 65
Her Story: 83
The Witcher 3: 87
Splatoon: 82
Pillars of Eternity: 85
Bloodborne: 90
Of those 15 games, selected as an example because how many of us have played them, 5 of them have what you could call "bad scores." And even then, every single one of those games is a 50 or above, meaning they're all getting "average" or better scores. The only really "bad" review of those is their Undertale review, which is actually just pants-on-head stupid. The reviewer whines about some part of the game not allowing him a choice, when it did and he just failed to realize it. The rest are well within the realm of fairness in my opinion, and it's nice to have reviewers who aren't afraid to give out some harsher critiques.
I just started reading their reviews recently myself. I don't agree with all of their critiques, nor do I always agree with their scores (though I agree with almost all of the ones I posted), but I think they take a really interesting look into games. Sometimes it can feel pretty pretentious, but it's one of the few sites to give me any inkling of the deeper analysis and critique that you can find in music, film and literature. Well worth checking out, even if just to see unique opinions.i agree with all of these scores except Xenoblade and Halo should swap scores.
i need to give this site a chance.
I really think people have selection bias. Not every game has bad scores. That's a patently ridiculous claim.
but I think they take a really interesting look into games. Sometimes it can feel pretty pretentious, but it's one of the few sites to give me any inkling of the deeper analysis and critique that you can find in music, film and literature. Well worth checking out, even if just to see unique opinions.
Final Fantasy XIIIs Pulse, that wide-open area at the end of a game so notorious for its stifling linearity, felt bigger than anything you can traverse herein part because, in that classic JRPG move, it was a space that wasnt available at the beginning of the game, a suddenly and dramatically expanded horizon.
So your comment was just based on a fairly useless cursory overview. Fair enough I guess.No, I admit that I simply did not read every review they published in last 12 months (why would I). I checked their last reviews and they all seemed extremely negative with XB being the absolute icing on the cake.
If you read his profile, you'd also know that the man is an English PhD with a focus on 19th-century British and American literature. His style comes across as pretentious at times, but I appreciate that he's bringing a scholarly and erudite approach to the medium. Too much of industry critique reads like low-brow trash written by two-bit bloggers rather than people interested in delving into more complex questions and meaningful conversations about the content being portrayed. We have threads like the recent one about "Ebert and games," where people vehemently assert that video games are art. And yet when people who actually want to talk about games as art come along, they generally seem to get shunned.And that's what is my problem with the Xenoblade reivew, it felt pretentious as fuck to me. I even went as far as to check out the reviewer and his twitter profile is "Pretentiousaurus [...]", well there you go. I actually agree on your second point as some interesting ideas were brought up, but I simply cannot get over the guy's writing (I guess thats because I really dislike pretentious people).
I really don't find that section quite so problematic. It might be if you have some blinding hate for FFXIII, but otherwise he's raising a rather interesting question of open world game design that he elaborates on in the next sentences:The worst part of the review certainly was:
I simply have no words for that part, it was the last straw for me not to take the reviewer seriously.
I don't think he's attempting to put out a ringing endorsement of FFIII’s overall game design. In some ways, it's actually an indictment of FFXIII that the relatively average area of Pulse actually feels so large. It shouldn't feel so large, but the game cramps you for so long that Pulse feels massive. But like I said, I think he is raising an interesting question regarding open/large world games: is there any value in narrowing the scope of the world before you let the player roam free? FF7 keeps you confined to Midgar, and the entrance into the overworld is an absolute revelation. He elaborates on that later when he points out that:Think of the bigness of the overworld after 10 hours spent in the streets of Midgar. Think of a world with one continent suddenly becoming a world with four in Final Fantasy IX—that quintessential example of the JRPG’s Magellan effect. There’s nothing dramatic about the scale of things in Xenoblade Chronicles X—nothing revelatory, nothing sudden or strange.
Similar to the value of narrowing the scope, I do have to wonder if there's a value in slowing the pace of traversal down. Some games have maps and planets that take days to actually cross, and I think that's a rather neat approach to make the massiveness translate into a reality for gameplay. But beyond that, I think he feels that XCX is focusing on size too much, and that it's to its detriment. His entire conversation about maximalism, if you're willing to look past the FFXIII remark, is actually a very interesting one.The game might be “big” in a literal sense, but it feels very small in a conceptual and emotional sense. Part of the reason is that you can traverse it at great speed, effortlessly and weightlessly, like some sort of hyperactive space squirrel: it doesn’t really matter that you’re crossing a plain that’s five miles wide if you can run at 60 miles per hour
Pretty sure I'm getting this for Christmas, looking forward to it.
Question: I like the look of the guns in this game. Combat seems MMO-like, and I tend to play MMOs as ranged characters. Can you play a primarily ranged character, or is the game designed to have you alternate between ranged and melee?
I agree wth most of his points, and felt he even lacked to mention a few things, but not in the score, a 7 or even 6 at worst for this game. An opinion is an opinion, but X has enough quality to pass the 5 bad entirily mediocre score.So your comment was just based on a fairly useless cursory overview. Fair enough I guess.
If you read his profile, you'd also know that the man is an English PhD with a focus on 19th-century British and American literature. His style comes across as pretentious at times, but I appreciate that he's bringing a scholarly and erudite approach to the medium. Too much of industry critique reads like low-brow trash written by two-bit bloggers rather than people interested in delving into more complex questions and meaningful conversations about the content being portrayed. We have threads like the recent one about "Ebert and games," where people vehemently assert that video games are art. And yet when people who actually want to talk about games as art come along, they generally seem to get shunned.
I really don't find that section quite so problematic. It might be if you have some blinding hate for FFXIII, but otherwise he's raising a rather interesting question of open world game design that he elaborates on in the next sentences:
I don't think he's attempting to put out a ringing endorsement of FFIIIs overall game design. In some ways, it's actually an indictment of FFXIII that the relatively average area of Pulse actually feels so large. It shouldn't feel so large, but the game cramps you for so long that Pulse feels massive. But like I said, I think he is raising an interesting question regarding open/large world games: is there any value in narrowing the scope of the world before you let the player roam free? FF7 keeps you confined to Midgar, and the entrance into the overworld is an absolute revelation. He elaborates on that later when he points out that:
Similar to the value of narrowing the scope, I do have to wonder if there's a value in slowing the pace of traversal down. Some games have maps and planets that take days to actually cross, and I think that's a rather neat approach to make the massiveness translate into a reality for gameplay. But beyond that, I think he feels that XCX is focusing on size too much, and that it's to its detriment. His entire conversation about maximalism, if you're willing to look past the FFXIII remark, is actually a very interesting one.
I have only poured in a bit more than 20 hours into the game, but I'm not entirely sure if a ranged character is viable. I have just finished maxing out Partisan Eagle and I'm now continuing with Astral Crusader. These two classes use sniper rifles and javelins. It is nice to be able to attack enemies from afar with your rifle, but if your party members ask for a melee Art, you have to close in if you want to answer their Soul Voice.
Obviously, Matt disagrees with you.I agree wth most of his points, and felt he even lacked to mention a few things, but not in the score, a 7 or even 6 at worst for this game. An opinion is an opinion, but X has enough quality to pass the 5 bad entirily mediocre score.
Obviously, Matt disagrees with you.
¯|_(ツ_|¯
Yes, you can customize Soul Voice, but only for your avatar. If you want to focus on ranged arts for your own character, you'd have to choose party members who mainly call out for ranged arts.You CAN customize Soul Voice, so theoretically you can equip as many ranged arts as possible (from one weapon) and customize soul voice to revolve around those arts (I don't know the extent of the customizability though...).
I don't think this last line is true at all. I think he feels the "new" wasn't that well done, so he might be thinking that treading the older, safer path might have been a better path. Obviously I can't know exactly what he's thinking, but that's a possibility. There's really nothing wrong with following that old JRPG formula, they're classic story archetypes. The problem really comes into execution and how so many games flub it up.Which is the great thing about reviews. They are never wrong since its entirely subjective.
For example Matt actually critiques the game for not going down the your-hero-is-the-one-true-hero route like every other jrpg in existence, whereas I felt it was one of the positive things about the game.
Also I liked that they managed to give me a wow this world is refreshingly huge feeling within the first few minutes, whereas Matt felt that the grass pasture of grand pulse was much more of a huge world to him.
I like games that try something new, Matt obviously doesnt.