Games with Criticisms You Don't Understand

Hey guys, I know there are probably other forums with this same topic, but what are some games whose criticisms you frankly do not get?

2 immediately come to mind for me:
Assassin's Creed 3- Frankly, I think this is right up there with 2 as the best in the series. The story and characters are great and well developed, despite some bugs the gameplay is more refined, and honestly the ending is really good if you think about how it reinforces the themes of freedom never truly being obtained and always having to fight for it.

Final Fantasy XIII- OK, I do understand the criticisms of this game, but here this is more of a case of the problems not bugging me that much. I do think the problems of this game are pretty hyperbolic in description. It's different from other FF games and I will agree it's too linear, but I like linear games.

What are your guys picks?

The thing with this game is a combination of flaws and negatives that make the experience a chore a few hours in.

The AI behavior was not changed or improved a bit, the crowds and guards moved and behaved in the same way as they did in AC2, more or less. The gameplay was also more or less the same, and so was the presentation of the story as a whole. After FOUR games of that gameplay and AI, AC3 just killed the fun with the severe lack of change or innovation. Brotherhood was the zenith of the formula, then the series clearly got recycled for yearly titles, and AC3 failed to keep it interesting.

After a few hours you just get sick of running across rooftops chasing side missions on the map, it was done to death in the franchise. The silliness of the "economy" system and the crafting and all that other jazz was just more useless fun-less stuff crammed into the game. It only truly shined when you set sail to the sea, otherwise it was the same stuff. How exactly was the gameplay refined?

Also the game was very cutscene-heavy, story is good but that shit was a buzzkill.

I thought it was refined because I felt the controls were better since you didn't have to hold 2 buttons to sprint, the combat to me is more interesting because the enemies are more aggressive and you have to actively counter while you attack guys instead of just waiting to counter, and I liked how the recruits had their own abilities. It was a cool way of combining the guilds of 2 and the recruitment system.

I just didn't mind the slower story pace to be honest. I mean MGS is one of my favorite game series so I'm kind of used to it at this point. It'd be more of a problem if the cutscenes went on for a long time and were bad. But because they were so well acted and presented, I didn't mind. On a side note, the only time a bug created a problem was when a weapon I put on the D-Pad for some reason disappeared and I had to go to a city to re-equip it.

Weirdly enough, 4 isn't doing anything for me. There are some story decisions they're doing I disagree with (anyone can access any person's memories in the animus, not just descendants) and the series needs a break after 3.

It's not that I don't understand it, but I think saying "Final Fantasy XIII is half tutorials" is grossly unfair. It gets a lot of the tutorials out of the way pretty damn early, and then introduces one or two new features when you get to Pulse. It'd be like saying Xenoblade Chronicles is half tutorials because of Fiora's combat abilities.

@video_game_king: no xenoblade was crap for other reasons.

@jz:

Yoko Shimomura says otherwise.

I think Bioshock 2 was really harshly treated by a lot of people as they just couldn't look past the fact it wasn't made by Irrational and it's very nature as a direct sequel, to see a really brilliant game. The combat was a real step forward from Bioshock, and made the combat in Infinite feel like a real step back; in Bioshock 2 the plasmids felt like integral parts of the combat, while the vigors felt perfunctory and kind of generic in infinite. While Bioshock 2 lacks the crazy twists and moments from the Irrational games, I think the story was really good, and can easily stand beside the other games.

I can't think of anything where I don't get the criticisms but I can think of one where I don't get the praise. What's the deal with Nier? Why do people think it is a good game? When I played it all I could think was this isn't bad, this isn't good, it just exists. It's not fun, it's not boring; it's just mediocre.

@video_game_king: and look how much I care about them.

You do realize what I meant by that, right?