XIII: The Flaw thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by champagne supernova

I made a thread about this, but really don't understand why the linearity freaks people out so much. Yes, you can't run around everywhere. Wow, big deal. I can't run around everywhere in Metal Gear Solid 4 either. It must also be a bad game! And in all honesty, since when has a Final Fantasy game not been linear. I will admit XIII lacks any illusion of choice until Chapter 11 (more so than in MGS4 even, before someone uses that against me), but it's not like any other Final Fantasy has allowed much in the way of exploration until mid or end game. For the first 6-7 (maybe even 10, I haven't played this in ages) hours of VII, you are stuck in Midgar, literally on a straight path. You then head onto the World Map where you go to Kalm, for some more straight-line stuff. Then through the tunnel and onto Junon (unless you stop at the Phoenix tower place, whatever it's name is). Across the sea to Costa de Sol. To Coral. To Golden Saucer. Even if you wanted to explore, your choices of destinations were limited because of natural barriers that you were unable to cross, or engine problem (by Cosmo Canyon).

---

By your logic, every game is linear because you are aiming to reach the end. FFVII wasn't linear even while in Midgar. You had places that you could explore, even if you couldn't advance in a different direction. Choices you made would affect scenes much later, hidden things were available to find, mini-games popped up occasionally - basically it was far from straight forward.

FFXIII IS straightforward. There is nothing to do except move forward, fight what you are told, and fight it more or less how you are told. Again i say it's fine for people to enjoy it, but i still find it shocking when people can't comprehend why other people don't enjoy it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by champagne supernova

And the game favours style over substance. I can admit that. But I don't see why that is a flaw either. There are many movies that favour style over substance which are very enjoyable. Yes, the battle system does have some kinks in it, and the AI can do some silly things (I will get into that when I write my flaws), but it was good fun. I notice that people are complaining that there are too many things happening at a time. Pay attention or slow down the battle speed. And whatever you do, don't play WipeOut on anything above the slowest speed, otherwise there may be cranial explosions. XIII's battles were exciting, they were fun, and yes, you might be nothing more than a glorified general providing broad strategies, but it looked good and it felt good. And I don't see why the AI automatically choosing to do what I was going to do ANYWAY is a bad thing! I would call that progress.

---

Again, it's preference so i understand your point of view on this. But i still wouldn't call it progress. Battles are designed to be flashy which sums this game up perfectly. Which is different and obviously people enjoy that, but removing large chunks of options in battle (Blue magic, stealing etc) and limiting strategies and customization is not progress. A different approach that seems to have worked for a lot of people, but not progress, just as many people were disapointed at the lack of strategy in favour of faster paced flashier battles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by champagne supernova

Inability to move characters in battles

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by champagne supernova

Inability to provide some broad strategy for non-AI characters

---

Two very good reasons to argue the battle system was not "Progress"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by champagne supernova

And that is why I cannot understand why some individuals who have not actually played the game can make broad, sweeping statements about it. It's like someone talking about what sex feels like while still being a virgin. Yes, you can read up about it as much as you like (even watch it being done), but you can't describe what it feels like until you've done it.

---

I agree with the majority what said person says (in regards to XIII anyway) but until he has experienced the game himself noone is going to take what he says seriously so i wouldn't worry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by champagne supernova

I made a thread about this, but really don't understand why the linearity freaks people out so much. Yes, you can't run around everywhere. Wow, big deal. I can't run around everywhere in Metal Gear Solid 4 either. It must also be a bad game! And in all honesty, since when has a Final Fantasy game not been linear. I will admit XIII lacks any illusion of choice until Chapter 11 (more so than in MGS4 even, before someone uses that against me), but it's not like any other Final Fantasy has allowed much in the way of exploration until mid or end game. For the first 6-7 (maybe even 10, I haven't played this in ages) hours of VII, you are stuck in Midgar, literally on a straight path. You then head onto the World Map where you go to Kalm, for some more straight-line stuff. Then through the tunnel and onto Junon (unless you stop at the Phoenix tower place, whatever it's name is). Across the sea to Costa de Sol. To Coral. To Golden Saucer. Even if you wanted to explore, your choices of destinations were limited because of natural barriers that you were unable to cross, or engine problem (by Cosmo Canyon).

---

Shin Gouken kind of hit on this though I disagree with what he said about VII (or the other games) not being linear. It certainly was linear, but the problem with XIII is that there is nothing to the game other than run, fight, run, fight. Except maybe allocating CP and customizing weapons, but allocating CP was almost as linear as the maps and weapon customization had all of the depth of a puddle, and isn't really required.

As much as previous games may have been linear, there was a lot more to do in them. You could explore towns, hunt for all of the treasure in dungeons, and a lot of them even offered some mini-games and side quests along the way instead of just at the end. So they may have been fairly linear, but there was more to them, and I never found that little diversions like exploring towns killed the pacing of those games. Square implemented a game design choice in XIII that solved a problem that didn't really exist in previous games, and implemented it by stripping the game down to one element: the battle system. So the people who can stand the gameplay in XIII can be broken down into two groups, those who loved the battle system and those who didn't care for it. I think it was the worst battle system in an FF ever to be honest, which means as a game it fails miserably with me.

Quote:

---

But I don't think it's the linearity that actually bothers people. I think the whole loss of relaxed towns where you can do fun random things and play side-quests and chat to NPCs is where people have an issue. I will agree that XIII does not have these things. And I enjoy these things. VIII is one of my favourites because there are so many side-quests, some of which are so minute and unknown (for example, the hot dog ladies son in FH). So I would have liked to see them in the game.

---

Precisely, but it's also that the lack of these things only highlights the fact that the player literally just runs down a straight path. And aside from battle that's the entire game. Giving people things to do may have been partially a distraction from the linearity, but it's one that worked and was fun without ever getting in the way of the story. Literally running down a hall is far more distracting for most people because it's boring. No one enjoys just running from point A to point B with nothing to do in between, which is what everything outside of battle was.

Quote:

---

But I cannot say that this is a flaw against the game either. Up until Chapter 10, there needs to be this run for the goal mentality because of the story arc behind the characters. And for me, it worked. I finished this game a couple of hours ago after starting it on Thursday, and it really did manage to grip me. By removing distractions, I was able to focus on the story.

---

If you actually felt that way then more power to you, but justifying the linearity with the story was just a way for them to pull the wool over the eyes of the player. There's no reason they couldn't have written the story a little differently to allow for visiting town, and less linear dungeons without greatly impacting the overall story. And like I said before, I don't think having these things negatively impacted pacing in any previous FF. So what we got was one of the most boring gameplay ideas ever to solve a problem that didn't exist to begin with and and hoped no one would call them on it if they wrote a justification into the story.

Quote:

---

And the game favours style over substance. I can admit that. But I don't see why that is a flaw either. There are many movies that favour style over substance which are very enjoyable.

---

We're not talking about a movie, we're talking about a game. Games can have some flash to enhance the experience, but if the underlying gameplay isn't engaging then you might as well be watching a 40 hour movie. So you may have enjoyed the gameplay, but anyone who didn't would find the game terribly lacking.

Quote:

---

And I don't see why the AI automatically choosing to do what I was going to do ANYWAY is a bad thing! I would call that progress.

---

Again, we're talking about a game here. I went through pretty much the entire game so far (I'm on Chapter 11) using three paradigms. That would be the equivalent of any other FF having attack, fire, and blizzard spells with pretty much every enemy in the game being weak against one. That wouldn't be a very deep game. Nor would it be very engaging for the player since they'd quickly find the weakness and spam it, perhaps healing on occasion. Having the AI do things for you removed the need for the player to make more than three decisions in any given battle. Hell, you didn't even have to know the enemies weakness to be effective in battle. Just pick a few ravagers and a commando to stagger the enemies and they'll figure it out on their own. Switch to a healing paradigm when you get hurt. You might throw in some buffs and debuffs if you feel like though even those weren't necessary for most of the game. So the game literally came down to run through a hallway, get into a battle and make two or three sweeping decisions and let the AI figure out weaknesses or decide the best tactics to use at any given time. There was no real strategy to it, or need for the player to quickly make decisions or react to the battle on anything but the most basic macro level.

Taking control away from the player, particularly in a turn based battle system, is rarely a way to make the game more interesting. Hell, it didn't even make the battle system feel faster since I spent most of my time sitting there not doing anything and a pretty high number of battles tended to last for several minutes or more.

Quote:

---

Inability to move characters in battles - My number one gripe with the game. There's a story to go with it as well. Hope Estheim against Alexander. I choose someone to be a Sentinel so they can take the hits from old Alex boy. Alex's have some range on them. Hope decides to stand next to my Sentinel to destroy my battle strategy (and this of course is a timed battle, so I can't get around it). Repeatedly. I was unimpressed that I had to spend 15-20 minutes of my life fighting the same Eidolon because I could not move this guy 3 meters. Or the AI couldn't do it. He was healing. Why, oh why, would a healer choose to stand next to the person who's job is to get hit on the head?

---

That's one thing that really bothered me at times as well. Area of effect spells and abilities have absolutely no place in a game where you can't control character position. Either make them hit everything or just a single character or enemy for every attack. I have no idea what they were thinking on that one.

Quote:

---

And to my final point. XIII is it's own experience. It should be judged on what it is attempting. It is not attempting to be this massive, open-ended experience. And if that's what you want, play Oblivion or FallOut.

---

I don't think anyone who doesn't like it is trying to say it should be a massive open-ended experience. What we are saying is that they restricted the gameplay to the point where it stopped being interesting. It took things too far in the direction they chose to go and the result wasn't interesting or fun for a lot of people.

Quote:

---

But I am not going to say Oblivion is a bad game because it doesn't look as good as XIII or has a very weak and dull plot.

---

You know, I seem to be in the minority here, but I didn't find FFXIII to be overly impressive graphicly. It wasn't terrible by any stretch but the art style didn't grab me, and from a purely technical standpoint it didn't do anything really impressive. Recent games like God of War III (anyone not impressed by those Titans is a fool), Uncharted 2, and even stuff that's a little older like Killzone 2 or the Gears of War titles all did things that were visually and technically more impressive. I would even say that aside from the character models and the obvious repetition of textures and different types of areas that I like the graphics in Oblivion more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

Shin Gouken kind of hit on this though I disagree with what he said about VII (or the other games) not being linear. It certainly was linear, but the problem with XIII is that there is nothing to the game other than run, fight, run, fight.

---

This. Exactly this. Most games are linear to some degree as they have a beginning, middle and end. Even X-2, when you look behind all the optional missions and the possibility of a different (or extended) ending the core of it has a specific "linear" set of hotspot missions that you have to go through in order to progress through the game.

Of course, VII was far *less* linear as there were a lot of optional place and things to do. Take Nibelheim for instance, if you wanted to you could actually just walk straight through it IIRC. But most people decide to have a mooch around the mansion, and end up picking up optional character Vincent, check out Tifa's house and pick up her limit break etc. There's the whole optional Yuffie arc as well.

When people complain about linearity I think they mean the complete lack of ability to stroll even slightly off the path even if it's just to listen to NPCs talk a load of irrelevant nonsense. It adds to the feeling of immersion when you can do that, and it's lacking somewhat in XIII.

It's not missing completely - you can auto-talk the people as you're fighting along the path in Cocoon, you can have a good wander around in Nautilus and there's your time on Pulse. I wouldn't say there's enough of it though, and the lack of open towns that you can explore and chat to people and raid their houses for elixirs etc is probably the main key to it feeling "linear".

Nautilus actually gave me a lot of hope for this aspect in the game. You actually could have a good wander around and see what people had to say, pan your camera around and admire the pretties, go and 'talk' to chocobos etc. Unfortunately once you got past it, that was it again until Pulse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

You know, I seem to be in the minority here, but I didn't find FFXIII to be overly impressive graphicly. It wasn't terrible by any stretch but the art style didn't grab me, and from a purely technical standpoint it didn't do anything really impressive. Recent games like God of War III (anyone not impressed by those Titans is a fool), Uncharted 2, and even stuff that's a little older like Killzone 2 or the Gears of War titles all did things that were visually and technically more impressive. I would even say that aside from the character models and the obvious repetition of textures and different types of areas that I like the graphics in Oblivion more.

---

Did you not find the Sunleth Waterscape at times breathtaking? Or some of the areas in Pulse. Even Eden itself (and inside Orphan). The only place I was unimpressed was in the Ark.

I agreed that XIII is extremely linear. But Vivi22 got the point that most FFs have been mostly linear with an illusion of choice. Yes, XIII could have opened up some paths. But I don't think the biting criticism regarding the linearity is warranted and there is some solid rationale (outside of the technical complications) of making it like this.

And progress isn't perfect. But what started out in XII is improving and I have great hopes for Versus XIII (which was always my favourite out of the 2 games - I actually thought XIII was going to be a shocker).

I think Versus XIII might get the balance spot on and become one of the best games ever made. Hopefully.

And Metal Gear Solid 4 was also a lot of style over substance. I would say it is a better game than XIII as well (mainly because there was some diversity which XIII lacked), but it can work very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloudane

When people complain about linearity I think they mean the complete lack of ability to stroll even slightly off the path even if it's just to listen to NPCs talk a load of irrelevant nonsense. It adds to the feeling of immersion when you can do that, and it's lacking somewhat in XIII.

---

Yes, thank you. It seems the entire internet is misunderstanding the meaning and purpose of this word, using it as a vague criticism for... god knows what. Even as a description it's as pointless as saying that FFXIII is 'visual'.

The problem with FFXIII isn't that it's conceptually linear - like every other game on the planet that forces the player to get to level 2 by completing level 1 - it's that its gameplay literally takes place as a 70-hour line with very, very few obstacles to make it interesting. Battling takes place outside the line in another facet of gameplay and thus doesn't count as an obstacle because the line remains intact once it's over, and it's back to holding the joystick up. This is like if Super Mario Bros. had no jumping or obstacles, made the player stomp on Koopas in a second gaming ring unrelated to the scrolling area, and then dropped a 10-minute cutscene once Mario reaches the flag. Of course Super Mario Bros. and FFXIII are completely different games and shouldn't be compared like this, but all I'm saying is that, with any genre, levels need to have a purpose. Mario levels exist to give players an excuse to run and jump and whathaveyou and have fun doing it. FFXIII's areas exist to... nothing, except be a bland arena for increasingly challenging fights and, under the guise of being an adventure, to make the player go straight forward for 30 tedious minutes until the next cutscene. There's no other actual practical purpose to them as they don't challenge or functionally involve the player. Most areas in the game are just holding up the poor player from getting to the parts that have actually been designed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by champagne

I agreed that XIII is extremely linear. But Vivi22 got the point that most FFs have been mostly linear with an illusion of choice. Yes, XIII could have opened up some paths. But I don't think the biting criticism regarding the linearity is warranted and there is some solid rationale (outside of the technical complications) of making it like this.

---

I also don't buy this illusion of choice notion, as it seems a way for critics (or apologists) of FFXIII to misrepresent other games in the series in order to puff up XIII's chest (professional reviewers have been doing this and it's disgusting). What makes the other FFs good games (or at least interesting ones) is not this illusion of choice that FFXIII is so honest to do away with, but that they are designed, like any game, to make the player DO stuff. FFVII's world requires players to take a specific path to the end credits, but every stop on that path involves the player in figuring out a puzzle, exploring the level, customizing his team, or learning more about the plot or setting by actively seeking out information (talking to NPCs or looking through nooks and crannies). FFVII may be conceptually 'linear' but it's not actually a featureless line. Debates about its merits as an RPG aside, its mechanics and features actually exist for a reason.

It isn't just the strolling off the path not being allowed, it is the fact you can't even return to these areas. When people compare it to X they fail to mention this and the fact in X there were deviations like Stolen Fayth and Remiem temple....or explorable towns and nice diversions like Cloister of trials, Blitzball....

We all know FF's are linear in a metaphorical sense, but this is in a literal sense for a LOT of the game.

Actually one thing I think FF games could really do with sorting out most is their lack of puzzles. Cloister of trials was a step in right direction. Breath of Fire 3 is a masterpiece of gameplay and FF games should definitely make some good and difficult puzzles more often.

Quote:

---

Wow, big deal. I can't run around everywhere in Metal Gear Solid 4 either. It must also be a bad game!

---

yes it was downright terrible actually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by champagne supernova

Did you not find the Sunleth Waterscape at times breathtaking? Or some of the areas in Pulse. Even Eden itself (and inside Orphan). The only place I was unimpressed was in the Ark.

---

I really wasn't impressed by any of it so far to be honest. And since so far is Part of the way into Chapter 11 I've seen a lot. There was some nice texture work here and there, but most of it was fairly flat and uninteresting. Many of the areas really seemed to be little more than flat ground, walls, etc. with some pretty flat textures over top and all of the somewhat impressive looking stuff rendered off in the distance out of reach of your characters. The actual traversible world had no depth or life to it, and the engine itself seemed to be lacking in areas like lighting, particle effects, etc. I think the best way I could describe the whole thing was that it left me feeling like I was playing a PS2 game with a higher resolution and more polygons.

Compared to games like Uncharted 2 which were filled with gorgeously detailed buildings, jungle filled with grass and trees and all manner of other plant life, great lighting and some of the best animation I've ever seen and FFXIII just seemed wanting by comparison. And there was nothing in the game that could hold a candle to climbing and fighting along the body of a massive, fully rendered and animated titan in God of War III. I'm not trying to say FFXIII looked bad because it didn't, but when compared to the wonderfully rich and detailed worlds in these other games I have to wonder what Square spent the last five years making if not art assets.

Quote:

---

And Metal Gear Solid 4 was also a lot of style over substance. I would say it is a better game than XIII as well (mainly because there was some diversity which XIII lacked), but it can work very well.

---

I won't deny that the MGS series throws a lot of cutscenes at people, so it'd be easy to think that it's got a lot of style without a lot of substance to back it, but I will argue any day that every game in that series had some incredibly deep and rewarding gameplay that lived up to all of the hype the games get. That series is hands down one of the best ever from the perspective of gameplay and game design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seiferalmasy2

We all know FF's are linear in a metaphorical sense, but this is in a literal sense for a LOT of the game.

---

How are they linear in a metaphorical sense? I think the main game is perfectly linear with distractions (some of which are fun and enjoyable) attached to the side. Again, illusion of choice, and again, a game should firstly and mostly be judged by the main game and not the diversions. If you want a non-linear game, Bethesda and Bioware have you covered.

I am not arguing that FFXIII is not linear. It is. And I would have liked more parts of the game to be like Nautilus. To slow it all down, let the characters grow more organically. Maybe have some mini-games here and there. That would have been nice. But they needed to sacrifice it for technical reasons (and possibly because of the vision of the project), and that is a sacrifice which I think was worthwhile. The linearity doesn't hamper the game in my opinion. There's another game which was also fairly linear which I loved. Vagrant Story. And I just realised why XIII reminds me so much of it. Structurally it is actually quite similar. Probably why I might like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seiferalmasy2

Quote:

---

Wow, big deal. I can't run around everywhere in Metal Gear Solid 4 either. It must also be a bad game!

---

yes it was downright terrible actually.

---

Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots (ps3) reviews at Metacritic.com

I like the green 94 sitting on the left of the green "Universal acclaim". I also liked doing some counting of the reviews. 31 100's, 18 others above 95, and 16 more above 90. Out of 82 reviews. Doing some quick maths: 37.8% of reviewers gave it 100, 59.76% gave it 95 or higher, and 79.27% gave it 90 or higher.

Clearly awful. And a little bit off the topic, did you play this one?

EDIT:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying Arrow

it's that its gameplay literally takes place as a 70-hour line with very, very few obstacles to make it interesting.

---

I did it in under 50 hours. Including when I left it on when I was cooking. And messing around on Pulse. After 70 hours, you must have been horrendously over-powered, possibly making the game seem very easy.

You can argue that every game is just a movement from cutscene to cutscene. MGS4 is one of them and judging by Metacritic, it is still a very good game. VII (or was it Resident Evil or something like that that VII took its inspiration from) created this sort of game: you solve a challenge, after which you progress to a cut-scene to advance the story. There are games that build the story in play (such as Bethesda and BioWares stuff), but most games do not.

@Vivi - I agree with you that MGS4 is a better game than XIII (I said it in there). And we are arguing the same point. The gameplay in MGS is more diverse and interesting than XIII. But it follows a very similar structure. Get through an area, watch a cut-scene. No real distractions. There are different ways to get through an area, but this is a stealth game, so you could argue that it is synonymous with different ways of fighting battles in XIII.

Yes, yet another game which gets by on fanbase, graphics, name and magazines clearly in the pocket of big business, my how they must all laugh at you as they cash their cheques. I could sit here another hour and list 100 things wrong with MGS4 but that would be offtopic. However when you have a story as BAD as MGS4 and cutscenes lasting well over 30 minutes, no more evidence of suck is required. Someone should have told Hideo this is a game, same way they should have told FFXIII team same thing.

MGS4 won't be played in 10 years time, it will be looked back on as a joke. MGS1,2 and 3 will however, survive the test of time. MGS1 already has. The thing is,the more intelligent you are, the more you suss out MGS4 as the joke it really is. They should use MGS4 as a test of intelligence in schools, those that come out liking the game should not be allowed into university or even a dole queue haha ;)

-----

and yes I did play it, it was another game I was duped with. After that, X-2, XII I wasn't about to make another mistake and as soon as I saw the same mindless drones hyping XIII up with crap reviews I knew what it was about. Then I had a goooood hard look into XIII, and that's when I finally realised the 'game was up' for PS3 and FF, possibly also MGS.

Certainly, Resident Evil, Command and Conquer, Final Fantasy, MGS, have all gone the same way, all flash, tons of flaws, great graphics and a lovely fanbase.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seiferalmasy2

The thing is,the more intelligent you are, the more you suss out MGS4 as the joke it really is. They should use MGS4 as a test of intelligence in schools, those that come out liking the game should not be allowed into university or even a dole queue haha ;)

---

Well I enjoyed MGS4. I also did honours in Economics and Finance in the same year and am currently doing a Masters that will be used to time the market. Clearly intelligence and enjoyment of an over-the-top video game are mutually exclusive characteristics in human beings.

Because obviously Final Fantasy VII-X and Metal Gear Solid 1-3 have these vastly complex stories that rival the great classics. I can see how Squall's moping around because of his abandonment issues rivals with the mass absurdity of war explored in Catch-22 and The Good Soldier Schweik. How the treatment of Cloud and Tifa and Aeris' relationship is a striking metaphor for the complexities of love in the real world, clearly surpassing the portrayal by Tolstoy in Anna Karenina. How Cloud's dealing with his past shows the idiosyncrasies of human nature and conscience even better than Dostoevsky did in Crime & Punishment. Clearly videogames are the new intelligent art form of the future, where highly educated academics will write essays about the artistic beauty of games, detailing how every tiny minute placement of pixels adds to its greatness.

If you want an intelligent story, read a novel or watch a good movie. They can be fun, but they can also be difficult.

If you want to have fun, play a game or watch a Hollywood blockbuster. They are most likely to be fun, but they're not going to add much thought to your life.

No thanks, I will just stick to decent games like VII-X ,Lost Odyssey, Breath of Fire III whilst maintaining that those who liked XII, XIII, X-2 or MGS4 need their heads testing :jess: and seriously I do actually wonder how it is possible anyone could rate them any more than 6/10.

Anyway I have done on this you will be glad to hear, although I will be making 1 megapost somewhere and linking to it from time to time, that should save us all the endless circles.

ok....you just mentioned LOST ODYSSEY, in which the gameplay throughout most of the game is incredibly linear. the world map is certainly not explorable, and sure, you can explore some towns and talk to people, but the dungeons are exactly the same as FFXs or XIIIs....walk down pretty much a straightforward path, stray and little bit and find an item maybe, keep going, cut scene, fight a boss, enter a town, more cut scenes,etc....not to mention that lost odyssey is not really true HD gaming at all. XIII is.

i'm not saying in any way that i dislike lost odyssey i think it's great, but really using it as a true "this is what it should be like" comparison is going too far. sure...there are towns and mini games and whatnot, but like i said it's a lot easier and more practical to do when you're not working in FULL HD.

also that was Sakaguchi's middle finger to SE at the time and saying he could start over and do pretty much the same thing elsewhere while guess what....the FF series has been there done that. like i said in the other thread they wanted to do something different, not make it exactly like the prior entries in the franchise. these are seperate entities, not direct sequels that are supposed to share systems and formulas

I named other games, and obviously I didn't use just 1 to claim that that one was perfect. You chose that as the one you would attack...

Any case, again, FFXIII is being attacked for far more than its linear nature. Far more and yet....we keep coming back to this linear question. Linear is 1 flaw with this game, but I have listed around 15 or more serious issues from an RPG point of view, even more serious than XII on the whole.

true i did pick that one title as the one to make my argument because it retains many of the qualities that the game your bashing does as well. whether those are flaws are up to PERSONAL PREFERENCE, not fact. and to say we need our heads tested because of our personal preference? dang man, that's just ignorance right there. over 90% of the world believes in some sort of religion or higher power to guide them though their lives, and i personally don't believe in religion, but does that mean i'm going out telling that 90% of the world to get their heads tested?! god no. to each their own.

meh, some see linearity as a flaw, while others quite enjoy that quality. and that doesn't make us lesser people for that fact. i personally don't really enjoy total openness throughout a game where the pacing of the story is completely thrown off a lot of the time. i like my stories, and i like story driven games.

this'll be the last time i post in this thread, because you said you would stick to the threads you enjoy and i should do the same. i was only trying to clarify my point. however, it's been made many times but you don't seem to understand the personal preference part of that point so shrug...guess that's how it'll be.

I loved Lost Odyssey precisely because it *was* a "been there done that" game. The past couple of Final Fantasies, whilst hailed by some as brave bold new directions to make it more 'interesting', have (in my opinion) been pretty supportive of the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". I like this one a fair bit, but I loved "Final Fantasy" for what it was and would ideally have preferred it not to change (apart from ditching random battles, even that is just a personal preference). FFX proved that it didn't *need* a fully explorable world map you could get lost on to be a truly awesome game - though it'd have been icing on the cake.

Again, linearity is probably the wrong way of describing the issue. It's more that there's nothing to do other than fight or gaze at the scenery. L.O. had a lot to do... talking to people, watching those very moving dreams, solving puzzles, treasure hunting, completing mini quests, or just enjoying flying around in the Nautilus later on (even though it wasn't proper oldschool airship exploration, it was a step in the right direction).