Quote Originally Posted by Rocket Edge View Post
Likewise, point taken. But the way I see it is why should I have to wait until near the end of the game for it to get good? Why can't it be good from the beginning?
You know, I just have to call bull on the idea of having to beat a game to really judge it. Yes, some games may have a bit of a slow start but turn out to be awesome (Heavy Rain) while others don't have their worst flaws really shine through until late game (Gran Turismo 5), but if you play for well over several hours and can't dig the underlying game mechanics, characters or world, then no amount of awesome at the end will make up for it.

And in the case of FFXIII, if you weren't into it by Chapter 7, you weren't going to be. Gran Pulse did not in any way make up for the linearity of the game, because even though it gave a pretty vast expanse to explore, there was no reason to aside from level grinding and hunts. There was absolutely no compelling reason to explore unless you actually liked the battle system. And by Chapter 7, you've got a good enough idea of whether you'll like the battle system.

Quote Originally Posted by nirojan
but it was trying something new (which i guess old school guys just couldn't live with/adapt to)
I don't think anyone who has been a fan of the series for a long time and loved multiple entries across the series span has any problem with change. Change is good. Change was the driving force behind the series for the better part of its run. It is one of the few series that really experimented a lot with the underlying game mechanics for a long time and I have a lot of respect for that. But trying something new isn't a defense for making a crappy game. An explanation certainly, and I'll applaud any developer who has the balls to try something new and fail miserably so long as they learn from it and move on. Doesn't mean I'm going to turn a blind eye to the fact that their game was a steaming pile of turd though.