Ni No Kuni has a lot of charm at first but it falls flat after the first 10 hours or so. It also doesn't help that the combat eventually comes down to mashing X with your monsters. The AI for your companions is awful and in a game that needs revives/healing/general support on a regular basis, it's amazing it was so badly done. It has a very nice look and presentation to it all but otherwise it's rather generic and boring.
If you've played Vesperia then you're going to be very familiar with Xillia's combat. It takes some of the elements from Graces F and adds it to the combat system of Vesperia. They're tiny details, but it basically feels like Vesperia. Xillia is also very linear. There's no overworld but rather connecting mmo like areas that are filled with battles that connect each major city. These are probably the least impressive parts of Xillia, otherwise it has a lot of game to give. It's a game that's also meant to be played through twice through two different perspectives. One playthrough can clock in around 30-40 hours with tons of side quests to do. Add on another campaign and you're looking at a 60 hour experience.
Personally, I liked Xillia a lot more than Ni No Kuni. Seeing as you played/enjoyed Vesperia, it's easy to recommend Xillia. Maybe next year once Xillia 2 has come out you'll be willing to playthrough another JRPG.
Haven't tried Graces F, so I don't really know what changes you're talking about. Just seems to me like Tales of Xilia has less personality than Ni No Kuni, or Tales of Vesperia for that matter. When I play JRPG's, it's for that super tasty nostalgia of watching anime as a kid. Ni No Kuni seems a lot - warmer, I guess - than Tales of Xilia.
Fuck, go play Graces F then.
EDIT: Oh right, your questions. Ni No Kuni is a very warm and lovable game. It just has boring combat. I really don't recommend it for anyone who isn't big into JRPGs. Again Xillia is easy to recommend since you've enjoyed Vesperia. It's a lot lighter than it leads on to be. It's super "anime" too if you get what I'm saying. It's up to you though.
Ni No Kuni has a lot of charm at first but it falls flat after the first 10 hours or so. It also doesn't help that the combat eventually comes down to mashing X with your monsters. The AI for your companions is awful and in a game that needs revives/healing/general support on a regular basis, it's amazing it was so badly done. It has a very nice look and presentation to it all but otherwise it's rather generic and boring.
If you've played Vesperia then you're going to be very familiar with Xillia's combat. It takes some of the elements from Graces F and adds it to the combat system of Vesperia. They're tiny details, but it basically feels like Vesperia. Xillia is also very linear. There's no overworld but rather connecting mmo like areas that are filled with battles that connect each major city. These are probably the least impressive parts of Xillia, otherwise it has a lot of game to give. It's a game that's also meant to be played through twice through two different perspectives. One playthrough can clock in around 30-40 hours with tons of side quests to do. Add on another campaign and you're looking at a 60 hour experience.
Personally, I liked Xillia a lot more than Ni No Kuni. Seeing as you played/enjoyed Vesperia, it's easy to recommend Xillia. Maybe next year once Xillia 2 has come out you'll be willing to playthrough another JRPG.
I love Monster Hunter. I've put a lot of time into multiple iterations in the series. It's the kind of game that you can put tons of hours into and still not see the end. It's also the kind of game that you can pick up at any point and have a blast playing even if you've dropped the game for multiple months. Both those things together I can appreciate a lot.
@joeyoe31: Fair enough, but what about newer games? Do you find yourself drawing comparisons between games that are more or less trying to do the same thing, but one achieving it much better than the other? I just find it hard to think about playing another story based zombie apocalypse game that isn't on the same level as the Last of Us or The Walking Dead. Maybe I'm just in a gaming slump.
That's a very grim look on video games if you think that games like the Last of Us and the Walking Dead are the pinnacles of gameplay/storytelling in video games or that they'll never be outclassed in someway. You're essentially setting yourself up to hate video games if you keep drawing drastic comparisons/conclusions like that. To answer your question, I guess? It's hard to not make comparison between games that are similar. It's another thing however to compare games that have nothing in common.
Log in to comment