I've noticed a strange trend going on when it comes to how we digest media in general, but video games specifically. It's essentially the age-old conflict of analysis vs. synthesis. I've noticed it especially in the XV section, but this type of thinking has been prevalent for longer, as there are threads about XII, VIII, IX, or even other games like Pokemon where people are trying to justify their game as being "objectively" better based on a number of traits that are or are not present. Making a checklist, if you will.

So even back in high school during literature classes we talked about this stuff, about how you can take something as a whole or just dissect every little thing about it. Can a work of art - including games - be better than the sum of its parts? Or do we refuse to allow it touch us in the intimate way they used to touch us in the past simply because they lack a certain trait from our "good" checklist - or have something on our "bad" checklist?

This isn't just a matter relating to various social issues like minority representation, but any aspect of a game really. While I think there are certain things in the discourse surrounding FFXV at this point that prove my point, I can't really confront any of that with my personal point of view because I haven't played it. But I can talk about Pokemon and FFXII.

So Pokemon X had a lot of people incredibly happy because it hit a lot of things on a generally agreed upon checklist - good Pokemon variety, more emphasis on gen1 Pokes, 3D models, etc. etc. Game Freak really wanted to win back the crowd with this so they added everything everybody wanted into this game. And a lot of people were thrilled. As for myself - not so much. And that may as well be because it simply had a big spot on my own bad checklist by including a ridiculously weak villain and the most annoying set of rivals ever, but it also may mean that really just giving me lots of fun stuff was just enough when the overall package didn't do it for me.

Then there's the more specific example I have with FFXII - one of my favorite games of all time, btw - where it was one of Formalhaut's old threads that got revived where some people didn't like the fact that the party didn't interact much. That's one thing not ticked off on the list. But for me, the focus of the game was totally different, and the approach was honestly quite fresh and I was glad we were getting a new type of Final Fantasy with a new focus and the complete experience was, for me, excellent. And yet I know a lot of people called it crap because "it didn't feel Final Fantasy", "it didn't have romance", "it didn't have party members constantly making banter and showing me how much they are the perfect band of friends that I want to be part of", "the battle system was weird".

In the end, for me personally, the general impression I have of the game by the end usually has little to do on what things were checked off on a "checklist" of things I want in a game, because I really think it's hard to predict what the overall package will be judging just from the raw data of what's in it. Which is why it's kind of hard for me to come up with an "ideal FF things" list because I honestly don't really think there is one right way to make a game and that there is no tired recipe that will work every time. That's why it's so important that games are handled with vision and focus, rather than aiming to please everyone.

Alas, games make money and cost money, so of course you're gonna want to have your developers tick things off of a list that fans are saying they want and will be looking for entries on that list when deciding to make a purchase So I guess I'm kind of disappointed by the fact that gaming budgets have become too bloated for their own good.