It sounds like you're saying grinding is a selling point for Ni No Kuni... I highly doubt that, and I don't think I've ever seen any game advertise *grinding* as a selling point. Sure, you can expect some amount of grind in JRPGs, but being a genre trope doesn't excuse it from criticism or account in review score.Furrama said:That's like having a game who's selling point is " KITTENS!!!" and the reviewer hates kittens. And all they talk about is how bad the kittens are. So... are they ugly kittens or cute ones? Because I came for the kittens.
I'm reminded of the phrase "typical seven", i.e. games which get 7/10 represent a very specific quality level - if you're a fan of a genre, you'll absolutely love it, if not, you're not losing anything by skipping it. Arcanum was like that, WRPG fans still gather for circlejerks about it, everyone else barely remembers the game. And from Susan's review, Ni No Kuni hits that spot perfectly. The message I'm getting from most other reviews is that, despite all the high scores, the game is a seven. Read "10" if you love JRPGs, read "don't bother" if it's not your thing.Kahani said:And this is why it's not possible to take game ratings seriously. If a slow, boring, stupid, un-fun game that the review explicitly says they can't stand gets 70%, what the hell could ever get less than that? The whole system is meaningless because the bottom 2/3 of the scale simply isn't used.
I can't speak personally or give you numbers, but it's safe to assume this title has the same amount of grinding as pretty much every other Level 5 jrpg (White Knight Chronicles, Dragon Qust VIII, Rogue Galaxy), which usually equates to about 30 hours or so throughout the entire course of the game. Rogue Galaxy in particular I could count on 1 hour of grinding before continuing the story. HOWEVER Level 5 has systems in most games to make the grinding more tolerable, by including optional side quest and benefits for doing so.Shakura Jolithion said:OT: For anyone that's played the game, how long have you spent grinding (~# of hours, please) or how much time have you spent period, and about how far through the game are you (20%, 50%, 80%)?. For example, I'm about 90% of the way through Demon's Souls and have spent 30 hours. I ask because I'm debating again whether it's worth picking up now or waiting, and I'd really like to have an idea of how long the game will take/how quickly it will progress.
Except your opinion was that she didn't like it because she didn't have the right background and not because of the game itself.AldUK said:Can we also assume that people are allowed different opinions without being shot down? I wasn't saying you are wrong, I was merely stating my own opinion based on what I have seen of the game.Susan Arendt said:I'm older than 20, appreciate JRPGs and Miyazaki movies and I can't stand the game. I absolutely understand why folks would enjoy it, but let's not assume that those of us who don't are doing something wrong.AldUK said:I haven't played it myself yet, but I have watched quite a few videos. Seems to me that it's more like the older SNES era JRPG and less like the more recent PS2/PS3 offerings, at least in terms of gameplay mechanics. And you know what? I'm totally fine with that, I played those RPGs growing up. Those mechanics, plus Ghibli's amazingly beautiful art? Bring it on.
I think if you have a lot of free time, if you're older than 20 and you appreciate JRPGs and Miyazaki movies, you'll love it. If not... you'll be frustrated. And yes, I get it, that's a lot of ifs.
Interesting, I don't think I've played any Level 5 games, though I usually don't pay attention to publishers and credits anyway >.> For a game with 30 hours of grind, how long did the game take in total to beat, grind included?Eclipse Dragon said:I can't speak personally or give you numbers, but it's safe to assume this title has the same amount of grinding as pretty much every other Level 5 jrpg (White Knight Chronicles, Dragon Qust VIII, Rogue Galaxy), which usually equates to about 30 hours or so throughout the entire course of the game. Rogue Galaxy in particular I could count on 1 hour of grinding before continuing the story. HOWEVER Level 5 has systems in most games to make the grinding more tolerable, by including optional side quest and benefits for doing so.
I believe it's simply a case of the total being more than the sum of it's parts.Katatori-kun said:It's amazing how much negativity towards this game is in the review compared to the final score it earned.
It depends on how much of a completionist you are. If you're just going through the story and that's your only goal, Rogue Galaxy is probably about 40 hours. If you plan on messing around with all the extras, side quest, ext (which Level 5 loves throwing in there) it can add up to over 80 hours.Shakura Jolithion said:Interesting, I don't think I've played any Level 5 games, though I usually don't pay attention to publishers and credits anyway >.> For a game with 30 hours of grind, how long did the game take in total to beat, grind included?Eclipse Dragon said:I can't speak personally or give you numbers, but it's safe to assume this title has the same amount of grinding as pretty much every other Level 5 jrpg (White Knight Chronicles, Dragon Qust VIII, Rogue Galaxy), which usually equates to about 30 hours or so throughout the entire course of the game. Rogue Galaxy in particular I could count on 1 hour of grinding before continuing the story. HOWEVER Level 5 has systems in most games to make the grinding more tolerable, by including optional side quest and benefits for doing so.
You must have missed the parts where she complemented its charm, aesthetics, music, and fun characters. Sometimes, the negatives take more explaining than the positives, especially when you are explaining the details of game mechanics as opposed to whether it looks pretty. Quoting the criticisms out of the context of the specific things they were describing won't not produce an accurate impression.Kahani said:Susan Arendt said:a thankless slog that kills your momentum.
every worn-out JRPG trope
excessive grinding, slow pace, idiotic heroes
insurmountable frustration
a giant middle finger thrust in your direction
there's a lot of "eventually" in this game
finger-twistingly complicated and unfun.
AI is just as dumb
never becomes satisfying enough to make you look forward to it.
story is pretty thin
crushingly slow pace
positively glacial
lacks in finesse
extremely frustrating
extraneous grinding, slow pacing, and shockingly stupid heroes3.5/5I can't stand the game
And this is why it's not possible to take game ratings seriously. If a slow, boring, stupid, un-fun game that the review explicitly says they can't stand gets 70%, what the hell could ever get less than that? The whole system is meaningless because the bottom 2/3 of the scale simply isn't used.
...I am intrigued by this post and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Hell, you said everything I textually vomited out and quite a lot better too! I particularly liked the last line. NOTHING IS EVER GOOD ENOUGH. Apparently.Torrasque said:I understood this review as a "QQ I want to play FFXIII" because every single complaint in this review can be solved by just playing FFXIII. Yes it also opens up other complaints, but it certainly "solves" the "problems" with Ni No Kuni.
Yes Oliver is pretty slow, but he's a fucking kid, not some genius that has been training for eons to save the world.
Yes you do have to grind, but the overworld music is so delightful and the landscape so beautiful, that grinding ain't no thang. Besides that, its so random to recruit new familiars that you end up killing 10-20 mobs before you finally get one to join you. And when you finally do get to the point of, "ok, combat is easy now" it is because you are finally familiar with enemies and how to clean them up efficiently, more than your party is OP enough.
Yes you can't access the item bag or certain parts of your menu, but why would you ever want to access them before you get to that part of the game? Wanna look in your bag and sort the 0 items you have? Well too bad, you have no items, so there is nothing to sort.
Grinding is a part of the wallpaper. I expect it to a point, and can enjoy it if implemented well.Shakura Jolithion said:It sounds like you're saying grinding is a selling point for Ni No Kuni... I highly doubt that, and I don't think I've ever seen any game advertise *grinding* as a selling point. Sure, you can expect some amount of grind in JRPGs, but being a genre trope doesn't excuse it from criticism or account in review score.Furrama said:That's like having a game who's selling point is " KITTENS!!!" and the reviewer hates kittens. And all they talk about is how bad the kittens are. So... are they ugly kittens or cute ones? Because I came for the kittens.
For everyone complaining about the review score/scoring system, here's my interpretation:
In a lot of schools, a 70% is a bare minimum C, which is mediocre work that fulfills its purpose but doesn't have many good qualities. Or it basically meets requirements but either doesn't have a lot of good or outstanding features or is held back by various problems (in this case, grind/pacing, for example). A 60% (3 stars or below) would be barely passing, meeting requirements of, for example, being a functional game with all features and some issues, but still fully functional.
Anything less indicates varying degrees of failure: A 0 would be where the game won't even play, various things between 0 and 60 indicate the game's unplayable, etc. In a lot of schools (on a 10 point scale), a 60 is passing by the skin of your teeth, and anything less is some amount of failure.
70~79 would be average, like an English paper that covers its topic but doesn't do a great job arguing its point but doesn't have a lot of problems. Similarly, a game would be functional and work but not do anything particularly well- alternatively, it could do a few things well, but have plenty of bugs or other drawbacks counterbalancing them.
80~89 would represent a pretty well written paper that argues its point to a good degree and doesn't have too many errors, like a video game that plays fairly well and has several good qualities (great sound, graphics, gameplay, whatever), but isn't exceptional in all of its qualities (think: breaking a game review down into sound, graphics, gameplay, story, etc., and not doing excellent in all, but good/great in most), or is exceptional in a few but has a few shortcomings/bugs.
90+ would mean a paper that argues its point well and is almost free of spelling/grammatical errors; a game that excels in most departments and has few flaws/shortcomings.
Most games, I think, would at least be functional (thus worthy of a "D", or 3 stars-ish) in most departments without too many glitches/flaws/shortcomings. Probably too many games wind up with 80+~90+ based on what I've seen on metacritic and other places, but if most publishers are putting out *functional* games with at least a moderate grasp on gameplay and storytelling, you can expect most reviews to be at least a 3, thus why you don't see too many things on the trash end of the spectrum (would you really consider buying a game if you believed it was only worth a 0, 1, or 2 stars? What about 3?)
Anyway, that's my take on review scores... Hope that helps make the ratings make more sense.
OT: For anyone that's played the game, how long have you spent grinding (~# of hours, please) or how much time have you spent period, and about how far through the game are you (20%, 50%, 80%)?. For example, I'm about 90% of the way through Demon's Souls and have spent 30 hours. I ask because I'm debating again whether it's worth picking up now or waiting, and I'd really like to have an idea of how long the game will take/how quickly it will progress.