The Review For Final Fantasy XIII

  • 78 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by ShinjiEx (625 posts) -
#2 Posted by Jimbo (10007 posts) -
@ShinjiEx said:
" "The game gets good at 25 hours"  "
Perfect pacing.
#3 Posted by PufferFiz (1387 posts) -

Like Ryan said, You can't make a game that is 90% shit and the last 10% is good. I don't care if the back half is good. If I can't get into it when I play the first half then I am just going to turn it off.

#4 Posted by Addfwyn (1947 posts) -
@PufferFiz:  
That's the thing, the entire 'first 90% is shit' is just pure hyperbole.  Yes, the game starts slow, but that doesn't mean the entire first part of the game is bad.  It's just slow.  Slow != bad.  The second half of the game is certainly better, but the first half isn't bad. 
#5 Posted by wefwefasdf (6729 posts) -
@Jimbo said:
" @ShinjiEx said:
" "The game gets good at 25 hours"  "
Perfect pacing. "
I laughed. :p
#6 Posted by Yukoei (1878 posts) -
#7 Posted by wefwefasdf (6729 posts) -
#8 Posted by Addfwyn (1947 posts) -

Also, I should point out that review had some bad premises.  It started saying basically that FFXIII needed to be more like a WRPG, because JRPGs were dying.  That is the worst thing a game can do, try to be something it isn't.  A FF game that just tried to be Mass Effect would be atrocious.  I just think that's a bad mistake too many reviewers are making
 
That said, the review really picked up after that point, with fairly solid criticisms AND praise where both were due for the game, and a fairly solid conclusion as well.

#9 Posted by Lambert (402 posts) -

I hate the fact that I followed one review that said 15 hours into the game it gets good. I'm 20 hours in, and I only see glimpses of a good game.
 
This shit shouldn't be put up with in gaming and it shouldn't be ignored. 
 
And of course the apologists will defend it to death. I'm sorry, but I don't like games with horrible game design.

#10 Posted by Jeust (10863 posts) -
@SpikeSpiegel said:
" @Jimbo said:
" @ShinjiEx said:
" "The game gets good at 25 hours"  "
Perfect pacing. "
I laughed. :p "
Me too... 
#11 Posted by Kombat (2205 posts) -

Then why did it "get good" at the three hour mark for me when the battle system opened up?  Really, this game is going to be extremely subjective to the person playing it.

#12 Posted by Ashwyn (202 posts) -

Myabe im alone on this but i found that 'Review' to be more like an 'Overview' of the game, rather than explain the ups and downs he just says the games trying to innovative and it gets good at 25 hours...

#13 Posted by Hitchenson (4682 posts) -
#14 Posted by dogbox (464 posts) -
@Lambert: It can't  be THAT bad if you've played it for 20 hours in like 3 days.
#15 Posted by Yukoei (1878 posts) -
#16 Posted by Addfwyn (1947 posts) -
@Lambert: Then you are playing the wrong genre, and it's probably just not for you.  Though it's odd that you have an avatar from the one series MORE cinematic and hands-off than Final Fantasy.  The first 20 hours isn't bad, it's slow, but not bad.  If you don't like the slow-pacing, that's okay...but it's probably a qualm you have with the genre more than anything else.  Much how I don't like WRPGs, I think perhaps JRPGs just aren't your thing?  
 
I think it's a quality of the expanding FF playerbase, players who haven't really played a FF or JRPG game are jumping into this and expecting a totally different genre than what they are getting.  It's unfortunate really, for the player's sakes.
#17 Posted by natetodamax (19220 posts) -
@PufferFiz said:
" Like Ryan said, You can't make a game that is 90% shit and the last 10% is good. I don't care if the back half is good. If I can't get into it when I play the first half then I am just going to turn it off. "
Don't take everything Ryan says seriously.
#18 Posted by Yukoei (1878 posts) -
#19 Posted by InfiniteGeass (2059 posts) -

I don't care what reviewers say. I still like the game.

#20 Posted by Addfwyn (1947 posts) -
@Yukoei:  
Very true, I've said it countless times now, but people are confusing 'slow start' with 'bad start'.  The first hours of the game are slow, but still really good.  Look at other highly cinematic games like Persona 4 (okay, it's dialogue cutscenes not CG, but the same idea) some Metal Gears, or even some past FFs.  They start slow, that doesn't mean they start badly.  I loved the first 4 hours of P4, even though you don't get to do so much as move during them.  Even once you move, it's another few hours before you even get to any combat.  
#21 Posted by rjayb89 (7729 posts) -

If the game was racist, I'd purchase it right away.

#22 Posted by Jeust (10863 posts) -
@Addfwyn said:
" Also, I should point out that review had some bad premises.  It started saying basically that FFXIII needed to be more like a WRPG, because JRPGs were dying.  That is the worst thing a game can do, try to be something it isn't.  A FF game that just tried to be Mass Effect would be atrocious.  I just think that's a bad mistake too many reviewers are making That said, the review really picked up after that point, with fairly solid criticisms AND praise where both were due for the game, and a fairly solid conclusion as well. "
He praised Mass Effect 2, but looking back at the game, no game was like it before. I think that what he was praising was how good Mass Effect 2 was.  
 
What is jrpg? And wrpg? They are both belonging to the rpg genre.  
  
And what he said was not how FF should be more like a wrpg, but that the focus of gaming has changed from jrpg to wrpg, and called jrpg "aged". Was that wrong?
#23 Posted by mnine (11 posts) -

I have yet to play it, but so far to me it sounds like even the "negatives" are things I will like. 
 
That said, I still think VIII is on top.

#24 Edited by Addfwyn (1947 posts) -
@Jeust:  
At one point in time you could say they were both RPGs, but the way they have migrated from each other, WRPG and JRPG are two totally different genres that really shouldn't be compared anymore.  They have two entirely different foci and very few similarities (outside of often having level-up and powering up mechanics).  That's why I almost never say just RPG anymore (If I do, I'm probably talking about JRPGs and forgot the J).   There are totally different characteristics that really set them apart.
 
I'd say that the focus of gaming hasn't necessarily changed from JRPG to WRPG, nor that JRPGs are aged.  The focus has certainly changed towards WRPG in the WEST, but well...that's a given of the name of the genre even.  I also  think that just cause there has been a vast amount of WRPGs this generation and very very few JRPGs, so that the obvious focus has just been on WRPGs.  Outside of a couple action-rpg hybrids, this and WKC are really the first JRPGs we've had in years on a non-portable system.  So an under-represented genre is just going to seem less popular overall. 
 
@mnine: You seem like a man with similar tastes, I approve :P
#25 Posted by ZenaxPure (2569 posts) -
@rjayb89 said:
" If the game was racist, I'd purchase it right away. "
Theres only like 2 black people in the entire world (that I've seen anyway), I'd say that's pretty racist.
#26 Posted by KaosAngel (13764 posts) -
@Zenaxzd: There's barely any black people in Japan (outside from those Nigerians trying to sell me hookers), does that mean Japan is racist?  It's just the setting...if the game took place in the desert, I'd bet you see more darker complexion than the paler ones.
#27 Posted by ZenaxPure (2569 posts) -
@KaosAngel: I was making a joke, of course I am not really surprised you didn't see any sort of sarcasm there so haha....ha...
#28 Posted by KaosAngel (13764 posts) -
@Zenaxzd: I was being sarcastic too...that's why I put the line about hookers in there.  :P  
 
But seriously, they do it a lot in Roppongi...it's annoying when it's 3 a.m. and all you want to do is pray the morning train isn't delayed with a morning suicide jumper.  >.>
#29 Posted by ZenaxPure (2569 posts) -
@KaosAngel said:
" @Zenaxzd: I was being sarcastic too "
It's hard to tell with you sadly.
#30 Edited by KaosAngel (13764 posts) -
@Zenaxzd: Off the record, is that was the majority of people here think too?  >.>
#31 Posted by ZenaxPure (2569 posts) -
@KaosAngel: No idea, not those people. But there's something there trust me.
#32 Posted by SneakyPenguins (242 posts) -

i liked the first half its slow but sets up characters nicely and most importantly taught me how to play as i dont play rpg's hardly ever

#33 Edited by ShinjiEx (625 posts) -

 I don't get the complaints there is no 1 true style when it comes to a Final Fantasy game
Ever installment changes the setup an rules of how the game plays
For example
FF9 The last "True" Old School Setup much like the first 6 chapter of the series
FF10 Liner Character Driven Story
FF11 MMO Online only game pay to play per month
FF12 Offline version of a MMO dungeon crawler basic bland story rarely any cut scenes or character development
F13 returns back to Liner Character Driven Story setup but is more of a action adventure
^_^

#34 Posted by Milkman (17342 posts) -
@Kombat said:
" Then why did it "get good" at the three hour mark for me when the battle system opened up?  Really, this game is going to be extremely subjective to the person playing it. "
You mean like every other game ever made? Of course, it's subjective.
#35 Posted by Toxin066 (3330 posts) -

When did JRPG become it's own genre? I thought there were just "RPGs", which even then is a very loose term. Why can't FF13 be judged against games like Oblivion and the Mass Effect series?

#36 Posted by MildMolasses (3229 posts) -
@natetodamax said:
" @PufferFiz said:
" Like Ryan said, You can't make a game that is 90% shit and the last 10% is good. I don't care if the back half is good. If I can't get into it when I play the first half then I am just going to turn it off. "
Don't take everything Ryan says seriously. "

So you would like a game that was awful for the first 25 hours, but great for the last 3? He wasn't saying that in reference to this game, it was a generalization about games. A game isn't good if you have to force yourself through hours or boredom in order to get to the fun parts, and that was the point he was making
#37 Posted by Addfwyn (1947 posts) -
@Toxin066:  
Because they are two totally different genres of games under a very broad category of 'RPG'.  Much like FPS and Third Person Shooters are both 'shooters' but very different styles of games.    A WRPG is more focused on open worlds, player choices, and customization.  A JRPG is more focused on story, narrative, and characters, being more of a cinematic method of storytelling.  They both of their ups and downs and neither is inherently better than the other (Though personally I don't like WRPGs, as many won't like JRPGs).   
 
Trying to cross-compare between WRPG and JRPG is very difficult to do because they frankly have so little in common except some basic gameplay mechanics like levelling up, and even that varies heavily from game to game.
#38 Posted by Toxin066 (3330 posts) -
@Addfwyn:  Fair point. And I like the FPS-TPS analogy. My problem though, is I hear a lot about how FF13 isn't a good "RPG", while others are saying "you just don't appreciate it because it's a JRPG." And it seems to be the same back and forth. And it's starting to irk me. I don't care if it's good for a JRPG. I care if it's a good game.
#39 Edited by Addfwyn (1947 posts) -
@Toxin066: Well, that's the thing, it's a good game IF you like the genre.  It's probably not a good enough game to make you like it if you normally dislike JRPGs.  So it's not genre-transcendingly good,  it's just a solid entry for that genre.   So the statement 'you just don't like JRPGs' is accurate when people bring up a lot of complaints that are just characteristic of the JRPG genre.  It's an understandable problem, cause SO many RPGs lately have been WRPGs, people are expecting a different kind of game then what they are getting.  A lot of times, even a good game can be a disappointment if it wasn't what you specifically wanted when you bought it.
#40 Posted by wefwefasdf (6729 posts) -
@KaosAngel said:
" @Zenaxzd: Off the record, is that was the majority of people here think too?  >.> "
Yeah, most people can't tell with you for some reason. It is blatantly obvious to me. haha
#41 Edited by Ulong (447 posts) -

Adam gave the game a 4/5. Just posting adam's quote of "the game gets good at 25 hours" is completly taking his review and comment out of context and is delibratly misleading. I expected a 1/5 or 2/5 from the quote you posted on it's own.
 
In context, I think he just ment the game get's better at 25, like, it's a good game and then get's much much better at 25, in adams opinion.
 
Editing to add: I love the game, but 4/5 is a completly fair score and adam did a good job on this review. I don't have much love for xplay (I realized it was crap when they gave a 2/5 to manhunt but then a bit later reccomended manhunt as a great christmas present during their christmas special), but there is nothing wrong with this review.

#42 Posted by Addfwyn (1947 posts) -
@Ulong:  
  
"It's a good game that gets better at 25" is a very accurate statement.  I agree that it is probably one of the fairer reviews (both in good and bad) i've seen.  Though I don't think you should be surprised to see people on the internet taking things out of context to suit their ends :P
#43 Posted by Puppet_Master (1 posts) -

I think the pacing in this game is all wrong. Especially the beginning.
 
I miss the downtime of towns. Not enough time to soak the atmosphere.
 
The battle system becomes more strategic and fun once all the roles are available.
 
The production values are great. I like the story, characters, graphics and audio. 
 
The game play takes a while to kick in.
 
 I think SE have dropped the ball on this one. 

#44 Posted by sixpin (1309 posts) -

  Yeah, I'd have to say I'm pretty disappointed in the XIII overall. I like it okay, but just okay isn't really what I expect out of a Final Fantasy title. I played FF since the first one on NES, maybe that makes me bias. My favorites to this day are still FFVI and FFIX.    

#45 Posted by caseylakes (293 posts) -

If it wasn't for the battle system and the story which is complimented by amazing cut scenes and characters (whom's back stories have a lot of detail) I wouldn't be playing it any more. The linear thing I will have gotten over as it isn't game breaking. 

#46 Posted by TheHBK (5563 posts) -
@Addfwyn: I think he meant that is should be more open world, that it should feel like you are in a real place with history but that it gets you to learn about it.  Not some dialogue you dont understand only for you to be told to look it up.  And for the characters to not be retarded.  Like seriously, enough with the japanese conventions (blonde hair, retarded names), its not cute anymore.   and Dude, there is a difference between starting slow for a couple of hours and having the game get good 25 hours later.  You know how many good games people can play in that time?  I am counting a lot right now.
 
But here is my review.  This game is dumb.  Endorsed by Giant Bomb's Jeff Gertsmann
#47 Posted by spazmaster666 (1993 posts) -

I agree that the game definitely gets better after you're given full control of your squad but that's not to say that the first 20 to 25 hours of the game isn't good, just that it has some frustrating moments and some tedium involved. But what JRPG doesn't have that? At least I'm not constantly grinding like I would be doing in many other JRPGs (since the linearity of it makes grinding somewhat more difficult especially in the earlier portions). In any case, it hasn't really detracted me from the game since for me a big part of the fun is collecting all the items and upgrading them as much as possible.

#48 Posted by Ataxia (131 posts) -
@PufferFiz:
25 hours out of 40 isn't 90%
#49 Posted by Bobby_The_Great (1015 posts) -

Am I the only person that's 5 hours into the game and loves it?
#50 Posted by Rirobuge (163 posts) -
@Bobby_The_Great said:
" Am I the only person that's 5 hours into the game and loves it? "
I feel the same way.
If you don't like the way the game is, then don't play the game. It's starting to get quite obnoxious with the amount of bitching there has been about the linearity of the first section of the game. Either deal with the way the game is or quit wasting your time complaining about how this game doesn't cater specifically to how you want it to be. So what if most of the other games in the series have open worlds and towns, do you really want to be playing the same game masked with a different story that many times?

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.