"I'll tell you why: Because an idea executed perfectly does not make it perfectly fun."
Exactly! So WHAT isn't fun about it? He needs to back up why. Its not too personal. You're giving an excuse to be objective about something. Ratings are subjective. Your opinion has to come into it and I wanted to find out his opinion on it. What wasn't as fun about it? Its not that anything is subtracted. Its what does that value mean?
No I didn't. It was significant to make it an 8 and not a 10. Isn't that how a scale works? When you are asked to rate a product through a a survey, don't they usually ask you why you gave it that numerical score? Something is not making it good enough to be a 10. Why isn't it more enjoyable? What wasn't enjoyable about it. Numbers don't mean anything alone. Thats why I read the actual review and it did not validate his score.
Also, being a critic does not mean his opinion better and more "in-tune" than other people. The profession of being a critic signifies that you are able to express your opinion by identifying strengths and weaknesses of a work and convey it effectively into an article to inform readers. Not "my opinion matters more because its my job."
This article tells me nothings. Sounds just like Tropico 4 to me. Is that why the score is an 8? Who the hell knows?
"There are millions of other people who just like the "feeling" they get, and ignore massive problem mountains and dish out 10s like candy at a 5-year-old's birthday party."
But what problems are preventing this from being a "masterpiece." You say he's not ignoring the problem and thus not dishing a 10. If you read the review, he mentions NO issues. There's an inconsistency between his review and score.
That doesn't make sense that numbers are arbitrarily assigned. I understand that there's no scoreboard, so to speak, but the number has to come from somewhere! Although its a person's opinion, I'd certainly want to know why he/she thought it was "great." and not say "Masterpiece" (10) or "Superb" (9). If the number was arbitrarily assigned, the actual review itself wouldn't matter. We would only consider this person's "gut instinct" concerning the game.
The combat is supposed to emphasize paradigm shifts. By the midway point of FFXIII, I had to constantly and rapidly switch between paradigms . Having me select specific attacks in between this would have been too much.
This video however, only shows one character so I'm hoping you'll eventually get new party members. The paradigm system is awesome, but the first half of FFXIII limited you to only two characters (they all split up for no reason!) thus limiting your paradigm options and making it boring as hell. Once I had access to all the party members, however I fell in love with the system. It added a nice speedy pace to it.
No I haven't. The only other game I played that converted was The Secret World which has the best model as you get the ENTIRE game (minus the extra "episodes") with no restrictions. However, while you do not need to purchase a sub, you do need to buy the game so it might not qualify as a true F2P.
The game is too punishing to be enjoyable as a F2P game:
-Inventory and bank space are severely downsized to the point where you'll have to sell every few minutes.
-Awards from completing quests are often not given because "you are not a subscriber" and the game constantly reminds you of the rewards you are missing out on
-Experience is cut
-you can only have a limited amount of in-game cash
- you are only limited to two crafting specialties (of which you need 3 to be efficient in increasing your skill).
-Resurrecting on the spot is limited to only 5 times (Otherwise you have to rez at a selected location
-weekly limit for warzones and dungeons
-It takes longer to get "mounts" or speeders
-You can not hide headgear (of which 99% of them look ridiculous)
You really need to subscribe to actually enjoy this game and I guess that was their intention. Getting people to try it out by promoting it as F2P and then convincing them to buy the sub to remove all the restrictions. Sort of a low-ball technique but unfortunately, according to this article, it seems to be working...
Visually, yes. The games look absolutely nothing alike. However, SWTOR plays ALOT like WoW and not the WoW we know now with all its updates and expansions, but vanilla WoW. The gameplay is extremely dated.
This would sound great if they were going to move on to the PC. I would personally love a new FF for the PC that wasn't an MMO. But that's not what they said!!!
Why do they want to focus instead on games for browser, iOS, etc- platforms with EVEN LOWER SPECS than what they were complaining about....
The difference is minor...I don't get why the 360 has the lowest score of all simply because of minuscule differences. Same for the PS3 compared to the PC.
XenoSage's comments