No, it' s pretty much all subjective. There are certain things that are black and white but that' s few and far between. It all depends on the gamers taste. I will straight out say I thought PDO sucked, was trash, and pretty much not even wothy to wipe my butt with. It' s my opinion. this same game is hailed as one of the best games out for the Xbox. For the life of me I just can' t understand that. I really have trouble grasping how a person could enjoy the game. That' s my opinion. Saying a game is the worst game ever, even when to many people it may not be, it still is to the person saying it. So it is infact the worst game ever even if it is only to that one person.

This " to me" stuff is getting out of hand. If it' s 100 degrees out, is it cool " to you" ? If you' re in the water, does it feel dry " to you" ? If you have a McDonald' s hamburger and the finest piece of filet mignon, is the hamburger a higher quality piece of meat because you might like it more? Is the Mona Lisa " trash" simply because you don' t like it?

This could go on forever. There is good, and there is bad. Whether you like it or not is opinion. I don' t like PDO either, and I can' t have fun with it for even 30 seconds. But if I said it was " trash," I' d be WRONG.

You can like Driven more than Gran Turismo 3. This doesn' t mean that GT 3 is trash...not even TO YOU. You can LIKE one more than the other; it doesn' t change the inherent quality.

Enjoyment factor is what determines how good a game is. There is noting to judge when in water, it simply is wet. That' s just plain fact. The level of entertainment you get out of something however does leave area open for arguement. I think the Mona Lisa is trash. It' s a protrait, big woop. It' s not even that well done. Most art I think is crap but is still held in the highest reguard by the artistic community. Because Picasso drew like a kid and made a statement make his art good? To the artistic community it does, to me, I' d spit on it. In entertainment terms everything is open to opinion. A game could be the most complex, most well written and coded game with perfect physics and such yet still be trash even though it is a piece of technical perfection. It' s in the eye of the beholder.

Okay, your last line is hypocritical. Answer me this-

How is it possible for something to be perfect (in your words, " technically perfect" ), and still be trash?

Please explain that. I hate to tell you this, but it can' t be both.

Well im a huge Squaresoft fan, so im going to have to say FFX/X-2. I was going to say shenmue II as im a big fan of the series, but it didnt feel as " involving" as the first game. And i know it isnt in this " Generation" but FFVII really is the finest RPG ever created.

Yojimbo: FF VII the best RPG ever created?

Well...duh.

It can be a programmers masterpiece yet still lack any enjoyment. No bugs, every line of code perfect, no choppy frames, everything from the technical aspect can be perfect but that doesn' t make it a good game. Enjoyment isn' t something tangible like water being wet is, therefore it' s completely based on opinion. Just because you can' t comprehend that(not as an insult) doesn' t mean it isn' t the truth.

Ah, there' s the problem. You' re saying that a game has to be enjoyable to you personally in order to be good. All that means is that you can' t recognize a game for its inherent quality if you don' t like it. You' re saying that only if it' s enjoyable to you can the game have any quality whatsoever, and that doesn' t make any sense.

So, in turn, this means that if you reviewed PDO, you' d give it a low score? I didn' t like MGS 2...doesn' t mean I' m going to give the game a 3. That' s just, like I said before, WRONG.

Whilst there really shouldn' t be any need to debate the definition of " objective" , I would have to argue with the emphasis you' re putting on objectivity, Fathoms.


If you were to take 100 games journalists and ask them to answer the same question you' ve posed in this thread, but answer it objectively, would they reach a consensus? No. They would have to resort to being subjective somewhere down the line.

You can be almost 100% objective with regards to graphics, sound and controls.

But you can' t possibly be 100% objective with regards to gameplay. Face it, if all reviews were 100% objective then they' d read more like press releases and less like informed opinions. Subjective content is what gives game reviews a unique quality. Simple as.

I' m just confused as to where you stand fathoms. Whilst I agree that there is black and white in reviewing, with regards to graphics, sounds, controls etc, you seem to be putting far too much emphasis on the objective. YOU KNOW the subjective is nearly as important. You only need to look at the glut of Gun Valkyrie reviews to see just how many got it completely, utterly wrong because they hadn' t persisted and played it properly. As much as I disagree with their opinions, it' s ultimately their perogative to exercise their right to opinion, informed or not.


" If you' re in the water, does it feel dry " to you" ?"


Is the glass half-full or half-empty?


I' d also have to argue with your less-than comprehensive view of FFX.

How can a game be near-perfect if you require a guide book or some sort of written companion to complete it? There are segments of FFX that require these, and no amount of exploration or trial and error will unlock these things.

This is not a conventional RPG trait, by any means, nor is it one that should be encouraged. It completely negates the foundations on which gaming is built on: interactivity. Why could none of this information be included in the game?



FFX is not a difficult game, it' s just time consuming - and yes, there is a difference. The only difficult parts are where you' re required to step away from the game and read a stupid FAQ to find out how to get obscure and ultra-hidden items (what an absorbing trait!). Is this for the benefit of gameplay, or rather a crude and blatantly obvious attempt to suck poor naive fools into paying an extra amount for a crappy book? Why hide some items and areas so well that nobody, regardless of how long they took looking for them, would be able to find without the help of a guide?


Frankly, the use (and in FF' s case, enforcement) of game guides is appalling. Any game that requires you to stop playing and start reading defies its own interactive elements.

You could make the argument that the game guide is there to compliment what is essentially a thoroughly rich game world, but simply put, no game of this generation, last generation or the next generation is compelling enough to make you want to search out these secrets by yourself. Any good games developer knows this, so why ask the games player to remove themselves from the game in order to progress? to Quote Homer Simpson whilst reading a MAD magazine fold-in joke:

" the almighty ollar? Oh, I get it" .



If that doesn' t smack of a game designed to coax extra money out of the player, I don' t know what does. And before you say gamefaqs offer a free alternative, ask yourself where these alternatives derived their source: mmmm yeah, the very same suckers who bought the book.


I can' t imagine anyone playing through any FF without having to consult a " guide" . Prima (or whoever writes the damn things) get the majority of the info contained within guides straight from the publisher/developer, which is pretty much a testament to how many people besides the developers, would actually bother to go through the game in this kind of boring, banal and utterly tedious detail.

What an awful, awful precedent the FF series has set. It taints what is otherwise a good but all the same flawed game.

And fathoms, be thankful that I' m no questioning your logic, only your opinion

Nicely put Preacher. Oh, and yes, I would have given PDO a low score if I had reviewed it. I don' t think it deserves nearly any of the acclaim it recieved. The graphics were nice and artistic but aside from that it lacked everything. Just seeing what the next level looked like was the only driving force behind my playing of the game. Well that and the hope that I might actually find some sort of a story out of it. What was provided as far as story sucked. I would have indeed ranked it low.

You can be almost 100% objective with regards to graphics, sound and controls.

But you can' t possibly be 100% objective with regards to gameplay. Face it, if all reviews were 100% objective then they' d read more like press releases and less like informed opinions. Subjective content is what gives game reviews a unique quality. Simple as.

I' m just confused as to where you stand fathoms. Whilst I agree that there is black and white in reviewing, with regards to graphics, sounds, controls etc, you seem to be putting far too much emphasis on the objective. YOU KNOW the subjective is nearly as important.

Um...I know. I never said gameplay was completely objective; I only said there were certain elements that ARE objective, and you just listed them all here. That' s why I gave the analogies I did. Gameplay is both subjective and objective; the enjoyment factor is subjective while the mechanics is objective. Nobody could possibly argue that the gameplay physics and mechanics of Pulse Racer are better than Gran Turismo' s, because it' s simply not true. You can LIKE one more than the other, and that' s the enjoyment/subjective part.

And you don' t need any guide to beat FF X, I' m sorry. I know three people who beat that game and didn' t buy the guide or use a FAQ. I really have no idea where you' re getting this from. It' s so straightforward that it' s almost scary. You might need it for some of the side-quests, but I think we' ve already established that they aren' t essential for beating the game. Personally, I found everything I could ever need to beat the game before ever turning to the guide to jack my party through the roof...which, as I already stated, is unnecessary.

Not true once again. Graphics are left open to opinion aswell. While some hailed JSRF for it' s artistic flare, others didn' t like it. Graphics are an artistic style and are left to opinion. I know you also like to engrave GT3 as the best racer ever, but it isn' t to everyone. People may think the gameplay mechanics are better in games like PGR, Sega GT, Rallisport, and others. GT3 might be held in the highest reguard by reviewers and such, but that' s based on their opinion and how they like the mechanics of a game. There is no doubt in my mind that GT3 is one of the best racers of all time, but certain people may not like it. It doesn' t deprive it from being a technical masterpeice, but that doesn' t necassarily make it a good game to everyone.

Once again, you' re putting words in my mouth. I simply was using GT as an example; if you want, I' ll use something else. STOP being so goddamn sensitive.

Okay, fine. Graphics are all subjective. I, and I' m guessing Preacher, disagree with you. I suppose that Kabuki Warriors' graphics are " better" than PGR 2' s because someone likes them better? Even though one is obviously technically superior in every possible aspect (programming, coding, etc.) I' m sure the developers of PGR 2 will find it VERY funny that the graphics in Pulse Racer are better than in their product just because SOMEONE THINKS THEY ARE.

In other words, what you' re saying is that a reviewer could give Ninja Gaiden a 1 for graphics and be perfectly entitled to that opinion? Besides the obvious fact that the score is just incorrect? Heh...can I ask you a question? Is ANYTHING black and white to you? Anything at all? Even outside of games? Because, obviously, there' s no such thing as better graphics or sound or anything that is NORMALLY scored with an extremely high level of objectivity.

Who is the sensitive one? I' m also not putting words in your mouth about GT3, that statement was made from the numerous threads you have had through out the years since it was released, putting down every other game saying GT3 was the best and anyone who disagreed was wrong. I won' t get into it though because Doree doesn' t want heated debates. I said there was some black and white but very little. I did not say all graphics were subjective I just said they were. I agree Kabuki Warriors is far less inferior to almost all the games out this generation. Yes they are bad. Certain things are bad and certain things are good, BUT most(note I said most) are left to opinion. Since you brought up Ninja Gaiden, I' ll straight out say they are some of the best out on any console but I have to disagree with many reviewers who said it had the best graphics ever on a console. That was even before it released. I' ll straight out say I like SC: PT' s graphics much better. I think they are the best we' ve seen yet but I garentee people will disagree.

When it comes to reviewing, it' s not subjective. You aren' t supposed to have anything influence you from the outside. Just because there is a massive agreement by the reviewers of the world, that doesn' t meant that one reviewer that disliked the game has to give it a good score. Hell we see this all the time at Gamespot. People all over will give a game a high rating for an xbox game BUT the site is biased on many games and will score a good game low just because the guy wanted to pick at it. Do I agree with their review? No, is it their opinion and do they have the right to express it? Yep. No matter how much I may dislike it, they said it and that' s tough luck.

I find many things black and white, kind of like how that was a very dicky comment to ask me that. I also think very firmly that your sig is ironic. Wit that said I' ll jump to that last part about graphics and sound. Graphics can be put down quite often just because someone doesn' t like how they look as I mentioned with JSRF. Sound is also subjective. While certain sites praised SC: PT for it' s sound quality due to sound effects and DD5.1, others took points off because they didn' t like the music. It' s what the reviewer is looking for and is based on personal opinion. This is why there are numerous review sites with numerous different scores. Everyone has their own opinion and reviews don' t state fact, they are a tool to help buyers make a choice.

It' s not like you' re going to listen to any of this so I' ll just back out of the conversation now so that Doree doesn' t get frustrated.

You were the first to state even one word about GT 3' s game quality. YOU. I never said anything about it, besides to use it as a graphics example.

You also just told me that graphics were subjective, then you turned around and said that they were " part" subjective. You bounce around so much, I don' t have any idea what you' re saying. Make up your mind.

Here' s a concept for you to chew on-

When the two comparisons include two games where one is clearly superior (i.e., DoA: XBV vs. Smugglers Run), the objectivity is greater. Anyone in their right mind can figure this out.

When the two comparisons include games that are closer (i.e, NG vs. SC: PT), the comparison moves to the other end of the scale and gets closer to subjectivity.

This moving scale goes back and forth, but it is never 100% subjective or 100% objective. In some cases, when it' s closer to objective, then it' s essentially incorrect to rate the games " as you see them." You cannot say that Fantavision' s graphics are better than SC: PT' s. You just can' t. There is almost zero opinion here. On the other hand, there will be heated arguments around NG vs. SC: PT.

Get it?

I can' t imagine FFX being particularly easy for newcomers to the genre, can you? Those 3 people you mentioned have probably played past incarnations and therefore have a much better idea of how to proceed through the game (hardly a ringing endorsement with regards to Squaresofts " progression" of the series).

And these 3 people aren' t exactly representative of the gameplaying public and neither are you, so that example can be tossed out the window right away.

The fact remains that knowledge of the genre and past FF incarnations allows for a far more rapid progression through FFX.

Would you concede that there is a large chunk of gameplay in FFX that requires you to use the guide, or a guide? Whether or not you can play through the game and win without using a guide or not, there' s still the niggling issue of the huge chunk of game that is essentially locked away until you consult a guide. Lazy, lazy, lazy.

Again, I stress that FFX is a good game. What prevents it from being the best game ever is that by facilitating the use of a guide or walkthrough, FFX is in fact the least interactive RPG of this generation.


Not sure where you' re getting the idea that Skies of Arcadia is simplistic, either. I enjoyed Skies a hell of a lot more than FFX because it actually dared to be a little different. The ship battles, for instance, were a fantastic change of pace and a feature that should be applauded.

But because it originated on a Sega machine, much like the hideously underrated Panzer Dragoon Saga (another of my favourite RPG' s), it never got the attention it deserved.

FFX simply isn' t worthy of the hype surrounding it. As good a game as it is, it feels less like an evolution and more like the previous games tarted up and redressed.

my list of favoured RPG' s of this generation are as follows:

Skies of Arcadia Legends

Grandia 2

FFX

KOTOR - despite the fact the frame rate dips well below 25 fps quite frequently on xbox - very annoying.

I see. So every new FF has to be entirely and fully accessible in every aspect of the game for all newcomers, and veterans of the series can never be rewarded in the least for following the series closely. Actually, you don' t even need to be a FF veteran; just an RPG veteran. No, I do not agree that there is this massive chunk of game in FF X that requires a guide, because I know that game inside and out, and the guide was only required for maybe 5% of it. If you simply read most of the hints that the game gives you, you can figure out the other 95% on your own, so long as you' ve played some RPGs before.

I also heavily disagree with your statement that it' s just another FF only " redressed." In fact, that statement makes no sense at all. It is similar to no other installment before it; everything about it was changed. Hell, even the normal foundation of levels disappeared, and the typical brand new system (Sphere Grid) was implemented. Battles were restructured, in that summoned Guardians showed up to stay until you dismissed them or were killed. This added an ENTIRELY new dimension to the strategy you would use. For the first time ever, you could bring in every character in your party, and freely switch them in and out of battle. For the first time, the player had almost complete control of a character' s destiny; it all depended on the Sphere Grid. This level of freedom had never even been approached before in any FF; only FF VII came close with the customizable Materia system, and FF VIII, with the Junction. The world map disappeared (which is fine by me; " magically" appearing out onto a map generally makes no sense, when you think about it), and you followed the paths that were given, just like a true adventure. In order to go back, you actually had to BACKTRACK, and you actually got an idea of how the world was created before you got the airship.

FF X changed everything from previous installments, and kept just about nothing. Even the turn-based combat was tweaked still further from the implementation of the ATB bar in FF IX. Playing FF X felt like no other FF, or any other RPG, for that matter. So I will take SERIOUS issue with that " redressed" comment. Love or hate the changes, but no one can deny that there WERE changes. The entire game was a change.

And Skies was fine. It just didn' t have the same depth or inspiration behind it, IMO. And besides the ship battles, I can' t see how it' s any more unique than FF X. I really can' t.

You said they were completely objective before. I believe you' re jumping around as much as I supposedly am. I also stated that graphics did have some obvious areas, but like I said at the end of the post, yoiu probably wouldn' t even bother reading. I' m done with these debates. All it does is lower my IQ by listening to other peoples dribble and so called " facts" .

Yeah, I know. No such thing as facts, anymore. It' s all gray area. Everything is subjective because, God forbid, someone' s feelings might get hurt. It' s an extension of political correctness that is just retarded.

Okay... I' m all for political correctness, you really have me nailed down... riiiiiiiiiight. Political correctness can kiss my butt. That doesn' t mean what you think is fact is fact.