So far from what I gathered popular opinion is that: 10 and 12 were absolutely wretched horrible games that embodies everything that is supposedly wrong with Final Fantasy now a days, and opinions on FF 7 are like Nicolas Cage in that they don't do middle ground, it is either the greatest thing ever made or it is the single most over rated game in existence and is actually pretty bad.
Am I the only one who thinks every one of those people are talking out their asses? I mean I actually like JRPGs but I think the games range from "yea its pretty good I guess" to "I enjoyed it quite a bit".
I mean take for example number 12. Many criticisms aimed were incredibly over-blow when you get right down to it. Like the art style, I liked the it. It was different, lively, and brought a good deal of character to the world (and ummm yea, Viera, O_O ........ *droool*). People were going on and on that it didn't look like Final Fantasy. Wait what? Name one FF that looks like another (not including squeals). There was also a big uproar that "The game plays itself". Bull, the game ONLY did that if you abused the living crap out of the gambit system and ONLY to a Minor extent. I can think of far worse jrpgs than this (including #8, sorry but that game was pretty damn bad.)
Then you have the big huge debate over #7. Ok so when exactly did this even start? I dont even remember reading any discussions till far into the ps2 lifetime. Yea the game is above average (Others like Legend of Dragoon and Xenoblade did it better in the same console life-span) but I dont see where all the hate/idolisism is coming from.I tell ya the game is a bit nostalgic to me, I mean come on, I grew up playing it how can I not be? To my mind the game did the style more than competently but didn't break barriers.
Seriously where is this coming from? Or is it just because Squenix is just the punching bag of Rpgs? To me I consider each game to be a separate game unto itself with cross over themes, thus I judge each by the game its sel, and taken by themselves they are pretty good, not Fantastic, not Horrible, but just pretty good.
Am I the only one who thinks every one of those people are talking out their asses? I mean I actually like JRPGs but I think the games range from "yea its pretty good I guess" to "I enjoyed it quite a bit".
I mean take for example number 12. Many criticisms aimed were incredibly over-blow when you get right down to it. Like the art style, I liked the it. It was different, lively, and brought a good deal of character to the world (and ummm yea, Viera, O_O ........ *droool*). People were going on and on that it didn't look like Final Fantasy. Wait what? Name one FF that looks like another (not including squeals). There was also a big uproar that "The game plays itself". Bull, the game ONLY did that if you abused the living crap out of the gambit system and ONLY to a Minor extent. I can think of far worse jrpgs than this (including #8, sorry but that game was pretty damn bad.)
Then you have the big huge debate over #7. Ok so when exactly did this even start? I dont even remember reading any discussions till far into the ps2 lifetime. Yea the game is above average (Others like Legend of Dragoon and Xenoblade did it better in the same console life-span) but I dont see where all the hate/idolisism is coming from.I tell ya the game is a bit nostalgic to me, I mean come on, I grew up playing it how can I not be? To my mind the game did the style more than competently but didn't break barriers.
Seriously where is this coming from? Or is it just because Squenix is just the punching bag of Rpgs? To me I consider each game to be a separate game unto itself with cross over themes, thus I judge each by the game its sel, and taken by themselves they are pretty good, not Fantastic, not Horrible, but just pretty good.