gamingqueen's forum posts

#1 Posted by gamingqueen (31062 posts) -

@Pffrbt said:

@Metamania said:

None of them. Final Fantasy XIII is one of the worst games in the history of the franchise. Fuck Square Enix for having us to deal with three games of shit!

The games are more entertaining than other games in the FF franchise.

No they're not and no other person on this forum will convince me otherwise. The FFXIII is pure shit. Period.


#2 Edited by gamingqueen (31062 posts) -

Well deserved :D So happy for them. Here's to more collaborations.

#3 Edited by gamingqueen (31062 posts) -

@platinumking320 said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

stories in games are not a waste. Walking Dead, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, hell even Journey qualifies for that. All of them are worth the money and there are many of them out there

I don't think Totalbiscuit thinks stories in games are a complete waste, its like what YTblogger Errant Signal said in his The Last of Us review. (which for the most was hard to sit wel with but I got the point.) Instead of treating story and gameplay like two separate entities more folks could find ways to blend story and game together so that the mundane stuff is enjoyed just as much as the combat.

ME series does this with dialogue wheel. Telltale and Quantic games attempt through QTE, and Brothers: Tale of Two Sons, minimizes dialogue to make the in-game obstacles, and gameplay controls the means of storytelling. Not everyone is successful but after hitting graphicsgate, fleshing out gameplay could be the pursuit of the future.

At the very least my opinion is that cutscenes should always stand out as highlight events in the game, and never used as content filler

<3 Brothers.

Yes we're seeing less narrative, the use of game play, sound and surroundings to tell a story, and more cut-scene. In creative writing, the more dialogues a writer writes, the less skillful he/she is. I think the same applies to video games. The more cut scene a game relies to tell a story, the worse that makes it for me. Team Ico games are the perfect example for using narrative to tell a story in games.

As to whether stories are important, they're very important to me. They're the reason I go through the entire game 90% of the time. There are rare cases where I skip the scenes just to get to the gameplay part but as I said, those are rare.

#4 Edited by gamingqueen (31062 posts) -

What annoys me more than the number of shooters out there is the number of so called gaming journalists who detest gun culture in reality but put down games for not being your typical shooter as the ones mentioned here. You can't be against gun culture in reality and praise it in games. A game doesn't have to be a shooter to be great. The same journalists have the tendency to stray away from Japanese games because "they're girly" and point out to developers the importance of making them more westernized. By westernized I mean shooters. A western game maker has to be an independent to make none shooting games with substance as Broken Age and Transistor. Of course!

#5 Edited by gamingqueen (31062 posts) -

It would be insensitive and you shouldn't be happy about playing a game where you kill other people. Have some respect/

#6 Posted by gamingqueen (31062 posts) -

So they swallowed all other small jrpg studios as Enix and what not to make more final fantasies? Remake final fantasies I mean..meh

#7 Posted by gamingqueen (31062 posts) -

@Metamania said:

@huerito323 said:

Agreeing with a review on a game you haven't even played is idiotic. If the time limit bothers you, then the game is not meant for you. It doesn't make it a bad game because you can't deal with that. If I don't like violent games, I'm not going to shit all over GTA and call it a bad game. Many people that have already finished the game have had no problem with the time limit, and you can increase it by doing quests. The time limit is part of the game design, and you don't have to do every side quest on your first playthrough. There's new game+.

It's ridiculous how much hate this series is getting, all for changing things up and actually doing something different. Yet people complain when games stay the same. I feel bad for developers.

I'm not going to listen to this crap and your theory about violent games and GTA has no purpose being here. If you enjoy the game, that's fine, but if not, that's fine too. I've only played the demo from start to finish and can pretty much imagine what the rest of the game will be like for me. But to tell me that I agree with a review of a game that I haven't played is idiotic is a waste of time. I do what I want, when I please.

I played enough Final Fantasy XIII to know that it's one of the worst trilogies I've seen and even if Final Fantasy XIII-2 made some improvements, that doesn't mean it's a great series. Basically, what I'm telling you is that Square Enix screwed the pooch on FFXIII and in order to justify its existence, they had to shove it down our throats to make money when it's not even that good to BEGIN WITH. Why aren't people realizing that?

You sure do, and I'm not going to do anything about it except be the guy that tells you it's idiotic. If someone asks for an opinion on a video game they're thinking about getting, are they going to listen to the guy who just played the demo, or the guy who played the full game? The answer is simple and I don't even need to explain it.

They didn't shove anything down your throat, nor did they take your money. You've only played the demo remember? The people who buy it are the people that are fans of the XIII series. Move on already and stop being such a baby for no reason.

This is a message board and anyone can come and post their impression about a game and they don't have to agree with you. Get it.

I agree with the OP. Ever since they said it was going to be "on thirteen days" I remembered the day and night system in Shenmue. When the game was first released Sega was boasting about the time concept. For me it made it repetitive and boring. It put you off playing rather than making you keep going. Sometimes one doesn't have to play the game to tell when a concept is going to fail especially when a game tried to do something similar before.

#8 Posted by gamingqueen (31062 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

Actually i wasn't making a sole economic point.

I was also at least trying to make that point that if we look at the art world or more comparable movie/music/tv-show/book world we don't hear the same whining, which is interesting because why is that? I think its because there are more pride and also more "hey go eat a donkeys leftovers if you dont like it" attitude. Because imagine a Van Gogh today, would his masterpieces be less criticize ? or Michelangelo? of course not, its in the human and particular kids behaviour to go crazy when they become fans

So the only thing bad is the game developers whining and they should really grow a pair.

Fair enough. And I agree that developers should/could grow a pair. But I also think it's too easy to completely blame the developers for other people's social shortcomings. I can sit here and say these developers simply have to deal with all the hate, but that wouldn't be fair. I simply don't know what it would be like to be in that situation. I can imagine that not every individual can deal with all that aggression, no matter how much you prepare for it or are aware of how the media work. And I can understand that it must be frustrating if pretty much everything you do is constantly hated by a significant amount of people and that every attempt to defend yourself is met with more hate. There's no excuse for being an asshole, no matter how the internet and people work. And the whole Van Gogh example doesn't fully fly, because the massive scale of criticism by (often) ignorant and entitled people really isn't that old yet. And just because a lot of people can't handle the freedom of the internet (and many forms of freedom in general), doesn't mean we should just expect others to simply grow a pair and deal with it.

I also think we don't hear the same whining in film, music, etc. because people there have accepted there are different audiences and genres (and they stay within the context of that audience or genre). When it comes to videogames, there are a lot of people who still think videogames in general belong to a very specific group of people and that when they speak they express the opinion of the majority of gamers out there. They think their anger is the majority's anger. And they get their anger justified by other angry and loud people. That's the problem with the internet: there are always enough people who will support your opinion and keep the illusion alive that your opinion is the majority's opinion.

So, no, angry fanboys shouldn't be valued, because they have lost the ability to think straight. They should be fully ignored, until they can criticise with a bit of composure and respect.

That's what annoyed be about Fez's guy the most. He cancelled something he spent hours making, poured his heart in for a guy who didn't look like he had the skills to review a game. And if he did had the skills, why didn't he use them instead of name calling? I think he felt he was making a game for an unappreciative, unsupportive and uneducated audience who can't even construct an opinion.

#9 Edited by gamingqueen (31062 posts) -

@Jag85 said:

@Randolph said:

@JangoWuzHere said:

She's popular in japan

JAPAN!! Oh Japan, how I wish I understood you. I really do. Clearly they meant to vote for Terra. :P

Or Rydia.

I'd even give them Yuna, Fran, or Ashe. But Lightning?

I just don't understand the how and why of that.

It's really not that hard to see why Lightning is more popular than your might think. People seem to forget just how popular Lightning is among fangirls. A lot of fangirls, and even feminists, liked the whole "badass" female super-soldier thing that Lightning has going for her, i.e. like a female Cloud. And in Japan's case, fangirls make up a huge chunk of the fanbase.

While Terra, Rydia and Yuna might be better characters, they kind of lack that "badass" super-soldier attitude of Lightning, who's so self-dependent that she doesn't need any man to help her (I never completed XIII though, so can't say for sure). Yeah, she's a shallow jerk and an unlikable ice queen, but it's no different to how many fanboys love a good ol' ultra-masculine "badass" anti-hero regardless of how much of a shallow jerk he might be.

I would agree that her attitude does make her come off as this strong female but the idea of a "badass Lightning" was destroyed when they decided to add a million other useless character with her in FXIII. I was under the impression that she was the face of FFXIII until I played the game. Square fails at both plot driven games and "character based" games.

#10 Edited by gamingqueen (31062 posts) -

I don't think the guy in the video knows what a "fanboy" means. Angryjoe is someone who paid sixty dollars for a choice game. Granted, in any game with a choice system, you get different scenarios depending on the choices you made. Instead, Angryjoe and any angry person at mass effect's 3 ending got three similar endings instead of three different ones even though it's a "choice" game. There's nothing "fanboying" about this. A fanboy or a fangirl is someone who likes a game and not someone who simply critiques it.

The guy makes it seem as if what's written on message boards or social media ALWAYS influences game makers which is wrong. Many things influence game makers and pushes them to making either right or wrong decisions. The maker of Fez might have cancelled the game after being called an asshole hipster but that doesn't mean the case applies to all game developers. Here's a list of things which influence developers besides "what's written out there": Sales, business offers as a movie adaption/commercial/collaboration, personal circumstances as death, lack of finances, pressure... Anything could influence game developers. It doesn't have to be "angry fanboys" I would say developers rarely listen to "angry fanboys" Fez is a rare case of the subject in hand.