So i got FF XIII does it get interesting or fun at any point?

Recommended Videos

Waaghpowa

Needs more Dakka
Apr 13, 2010
3,073
0
0
I personally thought the game was terrible. I bought it expecting a good old Final Fantasy game, but I ended up with a shallow grind fest.

In my opinion, saying "It gets better 10 hours in" is ludicrous, why should I stick around for over 10 hours for the "good parts"?
 

Arina Love

GOT MOE?
Apr 8, 2010
1,061
0
0
Matthew94 said:
Crying? Let me again remind you what you posted when someone criticized the game... Let me say that again, just because someone disliked something you liked you flamed them and acted as if reviewers were somehow more "right" than them over their opinion on a piece of media.
i showed that majority of people on metacentric liked this game and it's not worst game ever it's just have some problems other can't oversee.Pro-reviewers is reviewers for a reason they can analyse game without too much bias and nostalgia. shown in duke nukem reviews.
 

Moonlight Butterfly

Be the Leaf
Mar 16, 2011
6,157
0
0
I played it until Gran Pulse it didn't get any better. I thought ffX was too linear and it was only the characters and story that saved that game for me. No such luck in this one :/
 

-Dragmire-

King over my mind
Mar 29, 2011
2,821
0
0
verdugo136 said:
Iv'e been playing for about 6-7 hours running down one way paths and i'm getting bored out of my mind, so do i have to bear with it a little longer to get to the interesting or fun part or am i with in my rights to fuck it.

Looks like you're where I was a couple months back... haven't picked it up since then.

The characters stories didn't make me care about them, I didn't want to read the damn glossary to learn the lingo people say without explanation and the linear hallways with enemies at fixed distances sent me beyond caring about this game.

I hear the second last chapter opens up and things get explained and interesting by then but that's way too much time I could spend on other games where I don't hate the people I'm playing as.

Generic_Username said:
It gets fun at chapter 11, when you get to Gran Pulse. Then you can free roam and do a bunch of other stuff you couldn't earlier.
How many chapters are there? I thought there were 12, but I could be wrong.
 

Arina Love

GOT MOE?
Apr 8, 2010
1,061
0
0
Matthew94 said:
Arina Love said:
Matthew94 said:
Crying? Let me again remind you what you posted when someone criticized the game... Let me say that again, just because someone disliked something you liked you flamed them and acted as if reviewers were somehow more "right" than them over their opinion on a piece of media.
i showed that majority of people on metacentric liked this game and it's not worst game ever it's just have some problems other can't oversee.Pro-reviewers is reviewers for a reason they can analyse game without too much bias and nostalgia. shown in duke nukem reviews.
Bias for the Duke? It was well warranted, it was in production for longer than Led Zeppelin were around and was mediocre, did you expect "pro" (again, LOL) reviewers to do anything but bash it.

Reviewers are people, they are subject to bias and have flaws, they are not emotionless demi-gods as you percieve them to be.
yes they are not perfect. that's why there is metacritic to gather a big group of reviewers and take all their biases and dislikes and sum it up in average score. simple. for years iv'e used metacritic as guide on what games are good and bad it's never was wrong at least for me.
 

Termagent

New member
Sep 5, 2011
24
0
0
Personally I have played nearly every mainstream Final Fantasy bar 3, 11 and 14. I personally hated 13, for a multitude of reasons, but most of all simply because it just didn't feel like a final fantasy game. The first ten to fifteen hours which I spent walking down a very narrow corridor felt incredibly boring and the combat system for me did devolve into simply mashing x in every fight with the occasional paradigm shift to spice things up. I loved the previous games much more. I tended to put a bit more thought into what moves I used etc as well as having more control over the fight by being able to control the entire party. Also inb4 being a fanboi of the combat. I love Final Fantasy: dissidia, its gameplay is amazing. I also love tactics and the gameplay in that. As far as I'm concerned FF 13 had the weakest gameplay of any of them.

Also on the gameworld, whilst Final fantasy has always been somewhat linear, this was generally combated by giving the world a very large feeling to it, with a variance of locales. It didn't feel like a massive corridor which is what FFXIII had. So to me this game was terrible and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

And just because I like making massive posts, /sarcasm on/ Metacritic gives a higher score to
Final Fantasy 6 7 8 9 10 12. Which means that obviously their gameplay/story are much better then 13's so your point is invalid /sarcasm off./
 

Arina Love

GOT MOE?
Apr 8, 2010
1,061
0
0
Matthew94 said:
Arina Love said:
Matthew94 said:
Arina Love said:
Matthew94 said:
Crying? Let me again remind you what you posted when someone criticized the game... Let me say that again, just because someone disliked something you liked you flamed them and acted as if reviewers were somehow more "right" than them over their opinion on a piece of media.
i showed that majority of people on metacentric liked this game and it's not worst game ever it's just have some problems other can't oversee.Pro-reviewers is reviewers for a reason they can analyse game without too much bias and nostalgia. shown in duke nukem reviews.
Bias for the Duke? It was well warranted, it was in production for longer than Led Zeppelin were around and was mediocre, did you expect "pro" (again, LOL) reviewers to do anything but bash it.

Reviewers are people, they are subject to bias and have flaws, they are not emotionless demi-gods as you percieve them to be.
yes they are not perfect. that's why there is metacritic to gather a big group of reviewers and take all their biases and dislikes and sum it up in average score. simple. for years iv'e used metacritic as guide on what games are good and bad it's never was wrong at least for me.
Metacritic is biased as well.

It gives some reviewers more influence than others and if that review is flawed then the whole aggregated score is flawed.

Simple.
again i would like a proof.
 

Arina Love

GOT MOE?
Apr 8, 2010
1,061
0
0
Matthew94 said:
Arina Love said:
Matthew94 said:
Arina Love said:
Matthew94 said:
Arina Love said:
Matthew94 said:
Crying? Let me again remind you what you posted when someone criticized the game... Let me say that again, just because someone disliked something you liked you flamed them and acted as if reviewers were somehow more "right" than them over their opinion on a piece of media.
i showed that majority of people on metacentric liked this game and it's not worst game ever it's just have some problems other can't oversee.Pro-reviewers is reviewers for a reason they can analyse game without too much bias and nostalgia. shown in duke nukem reviews.
Bias for the Duke? It was well warranted, it was in production for longer than Led Zeppelin were around and was mediocre, did you expect "pro" (again, LOL) reviewers to do anything but bash it.

Reviewers are people, they are subject to bias and have flaws, they are not emotionless demi-gods as you percieve them to be.
yes they are not perfect. that's why there is metacritic to gather a big group of reviewers and take all their biases and dislikes and sum it up in average score. simple. for years iv'e used metacritic as guide on what games are good and bad it's never was wrong at least for me.
Metacritic is biased as well.

It gives some reviewers more influence than others and if that review is flawed then the whole aggregated score is flawed.

Simple.
again i would like a proof.
http://www.metacritic.com/about-metascores

It's no secret but it's not a good practice.
and i'm totally fine with it. some places just not as good and not respectable as others. it's doesn't mean it's flawed it's selective yeah sometimes good guys not carry much weight but there is still pretty big number of respectable sites. that's just how stuff works and judging how it's one of the most biggest sites to get your reviews and scores+judging from my experience i say metacritic is alright for me.
 

Arina Love

GOT MOE?
Apr 8, 2010
1,061
0
0
Matthew94 said:
Arina Love said:
Matthew94 said:
Arina Love said:
Matthew94 said:
Arina Love said:
Matthew94 said:
Arina Love said:
Matthew94 said:
Crying? Let me again remind you what you posted when someone criticized the game... Let me say that again, just because someone disliked something you liked you flamed them and acted as if reviewers were somehow more "right" than them over their opinion on a piece of media.
i showed that majority of people on metacentric liked this game and it's not worst game ever it's just have some problems other can't oversee.Pro-reviewers is reviewers for a reason they can analyse game without too much bias and nostalgia. shown in duke nukem reviews.
Bias for the Duke? It was well warranted, it was in production for longer than Led Zeppelin were around and was mediocre, did you expect "pro" (again, LOL) reviewers to do anything but bash it.

Reviewers are people, they are subject to bias and have flaws, they are not emotionless demi-gods as you percieve them to be.
yes they are not perfect. that's why there is metacritic to gather a big group of reviewers and take all their biases and dislikes and sum it up in average score. simple. for years iv'e used metacritic as guide on what games are good and bad it's never was wrong at least for me.
Metacritic is biased as well.

It gives some reviewers more influence than others and if that review is flawed then the whole aggregated score is flawed.

Simple.
again i would like a proof.
http://www.metacritic.com/about-metascores

It's no secret but it's not a good practice.
and i'm totally fine with it. some places just not as good and not respectable as others. it's doesn't mean it's flawed it's selective yeah sometimes good guys not carry much weight but there is still pretty big number of respectable sites. that's just how stuff works and judging how it's one of the most biggest sites to get your reviews and scores+judging from my experience i say metacritic is alright for me.
Well I disagree with how it works but we will leave it at that.

The energy is gone from the argument and the fun is gone too.

Enjoy your day/night, I enjoyed our little debate.
good night.
 

Waaghpowa

Needs more Dakka
Apr 13, 2010
3,073
0
0
Arina Love said:
Matthew94 said:
Arina Love said:
Matthew94 said:
Arina Love said:
Matthew94 said:
Crying? Let me again remind you what you posted when someone criticized the game... Let me say that again, just because someone disliked something you liked you flamed them and acted as if reviewers were somehow more "right" than them over their opinion on a piece of media.
i showed that majority of people on metacentric liked this game and it's not worst game ever it's just have some problems other can't oversee.Pro-reviewers is reviewers for a reason they can analyse game without too much bias and nostalgia. shown in duke nukem reviews.
Bias for the Duke? It was well warranted, it was in production for longer than Led Zeppelin were around and was mediocre, did you expect "pro" (again, LOL) reviewers to do anything but bash it.

Reviewers are people, they are subject to bias and have flaws, they are not emotionless demi-gods as you percieve them to be.
yes they are not perfect. that's why there is metacritic to gather a big group of reviewers and take all their biases and dislikes and sum it up in average score. simple. for years iv'e used metacritic as guide on what games are good and bad it's never was wrong at least for me.
Metacritic is biased as well.

It gives some reviewers more influence than others and if that review is flawed then the whole aggregated score is flawed.

Simple.
again i would like a proof.
I would like to point out that metacritic users have a history of automatically rating games 0 because of certain features. Portal 2 received many 0 scores on the basis that it had hats in co op. Then there was Crysis Warhead that got 0 from users because it used Securom DRM. If people will rate zero on stupid reasons like those, what's stopping fanboys from rating a game 10 just to skew the ratings to entice people?
 

Arina Love

GOT MOE?
Apr 8, 2010
1,061
0
0
Waaghpowa said:
Arina Love said:
Matthew94 said:
Arina Love said:
Matthew94 said:
Arina Love said:
Matthew94 said:
Crying? Let me again remind you what you posted when someone criticized the game... Let me say that again, just because someone disliked something you liked you flamed them and acted as if reviewers were somehow more "right" than them over their opinion on a piece of media.
i showed that majority of people on metacentric liked this game and it's not worst game ever it's just have some problems other can't oversee.Pro-reviewers is reviewers for a reason they can analyse game without too much bias and nostalgia. shown in duke nukem reviews.
Bias for the Duke? It was well warranted, it was in production for longer than Led Zeppelin were around and was mediocre, did you expect "pro" (again, LOL) reviewers to do anything but bash it.

Reviewers are people, they are subject to bias and have flaws, they are not emotionless demi-gods as you percieve them to be.
yes they are not perfect. that's why there is metacritic to gather a big group of reviewers and take all their biases and dislikes and sum it up in average score. simple. for years iv'e used metacritic as guide on what games are good and bad it's never was wrong at least for me.
Metacritic is biased as well.

It gives some reviewers more influence than others and if that review is flawed then the whole aggregated score is flawed.

Simple.
again i would like a proof.
I would like to point out that metacritic users have a history of automatically rating games 0 because of certain features. Portal 2 received many 0 scores on the basis that it had hats in co op. Then there was Crysis Warhead that got 0 from users because it used Securom DRM. If people will rate zero on stupid reasons like those, what's stopping fanboys from rating a game 10 just to skew the ratings to entice people?
that's why there is critic score and common folk score yeah it's not prefect but it's best i know of.
 

thelastmccabe

New member
Jun 23, 2011
126
0
0
It doesn't ever get any better or different. I played for about 25-30 hours, constantly expecting some big payoff which never arrives. You'll be doing yourself a huge favor if you just stop playing now. I sure wish that I had. And don't believe that "It gets good 20 hours in" crap. To quote from a review I wrote of it:

I also want to address the whole "well it really hits its stride about 20 hours in" thing that I always hear. First of all, a game that takes 20 hours to hit its stride is a horrible game. It is true that about 20 hours in (roughly 2/3rs of the way through the game I'd guess), you reach a wide open area that you are actually allowed to explore and given some freedom of movement. The only things you can do here are 1) Fight challenges against various boss type enemies (I think you win rewards) and 2) Pick up item orbs and buried treasure--I think it's possible to use a Chocobo to look for buried treasure and to reach some otherwise inaccessible treasure orbs. I explored a fair amount, but never messed around with the Chocobos and only did a few of the challenges. There are no NPCs (I mean literally 0 anywhere) or really anything that interesting in this area, except that, like the rest of the game, it's very nice looking. In order to advance the plot, you have to leave this area and go back to trudging down tunnels fighting stuff.
 

Waaghpowa

Needs more Dakka
Apr 13, 2010
3,073
0
0
Arina Love said:
that's why there is critic score and common folk score yeah it's not prefect but it's best i know of.
My point is that you shouldn't rely on the opinions of others on games, professional or not, everyone has bias.