Just got Tales of Symphonia 2. A rant.

[Lunar Eclipse]

I also see it like this though. First they tried the series on the PS1 where it sold like crap. So they didn't bother porting over the remake of a game that sold so poorly. Namco pretty much only brought the best of the best over here, with 2 exceptions. The first exception would be Dawn, since that was guaranteed to do decently since Symphonia sold so well over here. The second would be Tales of the World. They tried that game since it was a PSP game, and they were testing the waters.

Er, you're kind of looking at this in a skewed way to support your own point. They're not necessarily selecting "the best". They're selecting what they feel most appeals to a western audience, which often has very little to do with the story and characters.

What makes more sense is to look at their decisions as 3-D vs. 2-D. They missed out on bringing Phantasia over because it hit the SFC in Japan at the very end of its life. Then, they tried to start up the franchise with Destiny and Eternia (Destiny II), both of which didn't sell very well. At that point, they probably just figured a 2-D RPG wasn't going to hold up in this market against the likes of Final Fantasy, particularly with Sony pushing developers to go 3-D or go home. Thus, they skipped Destiny 2. When Symphonia cropped up, they probably thought it was worth another shot since the 3-D would be more accepted. Since then, they've continued to pass on 2-D titles (including Rebirth, Destiny R, and Hearts) while delivering pretty much everything 3-D (Legendia, Abyss, Vesperia, Dawn, and even Radiant Mythology). The only mothership exception to this rule has been Innocence, which I find pretty inexplicable, but Namco Bandai of America has ignored portable Tales entirely since RM.

At any rate, I don't really think it has anything to do with the quality of the game itself. It has more to do with buyer perception and how 2-D games are received in the modern western market.

Oh, I agree. I vastly prefer something like Silent Hill 2 to most Tales games. However, Tales escorts are poorly thought out, and something like Dawn is just milking a popular game.

Go on thinking that, but don't pretend it's fact.

I put a lot of faith in review scores.

A great deal too much, honestly. I can't imagine that if you lined up the average review score for every game you'd ever liked that it would really go in precise ascending order according to your opinion. Even if a review represents a "general" opinion (which it really doesn't considering it's usually just one person writing it), it still doesn't take into account what a particular individual looks for in a game and what he or she can easily overlook, nor can it account for personal preferences in general. Reviews are useful, but really only if you use them properly by actually reading them instead of fixating on the numerical scores, finding a favorable one to see what kind of person likes the game, finding a negative one to see if you won't mind the flaws, and finally checking to see the ratio of favorable reviews to unfavorable ones (which is where the scores can finally come into play). I just think it's ridiculous for you to judge someone's predilections as undiscerning and foolish simply because the average numbers differ.

[Alunissage]

I've mainly ignored this thread since I've only played half of one Tales game, but putting faith in review scores while dismissing a more holistic assessment of their context as a pretense to defend "crappy games" is idiotic. Context is everything.

Reviewers have their own metrics which may not have anything to do with what any other individual is looking for. And even the most objective, least personally-biased review will still have a problem with assigning a numeric score. How do you use one number to distinguish between a game which is fairly average in all regards from one which is great in some regards and abysmal in others? They may have the same score. For some people a great story will make up for a lousy battle system, for others it's the other way around. A number is not going to provide enough guidance to make a reasonable decision.

One of the first reviews I read was for Majora's Mask. The reviewer stated explicitly that he subtracted a full point because it did not have the fishing game that Ocarina of Time did. I think there are a lot of gamers who aren't going to find the absence of a minigame to be such a deal-breaker. Whereas I've found the game nearly unplayable (I'm still on my first playthrough, which I started in 2002) because I get motion sick from it. But how many people are going to say that 2D > 3D on that basis? Especially when 3D was the Hot New Thing.

[brightshield]

Yes, Abyss really has amazing battle system. Lets try a different example, I like Star Ocean 1/2's (PSP remakes) battle system more than ToS'.

Because of free run? I hate how you can only equip two special moves at once. The original versions of those games had much worse battle systems than ToS. You had to strike once and then back off in SO2, so there were no combos.


I have only played few hours of ToE (ToD II in US) but I'd say I prefer that one over ToS as well.

Really? It's slower and less smoothe than ToS.


It all comes down to opinions. And I respect yours. But for me, story was nothing special.

Since you liked Abyss, I can't imagine why you wouldn't like the story of Symphonia. Abyss dragged on for the entire last third of the game(even going so far as to reveal that none of the major villains are dead).


Zelos, Lloyd and Colette.

You actually liked Colette? She's my favorite girl in the game as well, but most fans seem to prefer Sheena.


But together with Abyss, only Zelos would be high up on "Favorite Character" kind of list.

I only really liked 3 characters in Abyss. Jade, Asch, and Tear. Of the three, only Jade is truly awesome.

Jade was funny, smart, and badass as hell.

Asch was cool most of the time, but got a little angsty whenever Luke was around.

Tear was great, but the fact that she fell in love with emo Luke made me look down on her.



I can't comment on that yet since I haven't played DotNW yet. But I can say that I've enjoyed watching/listening to skits in Abyss as opposed to Symphonia, where they felt boring(due to being silent and how long they dragged). I've played the undub version of Abyss so the skits were voiced.

The skits were still entertaining though. I would have preferred voice acting as well, but there's nothing wrong with silent scenes.


Every Tales game has it's flaws. Who is to say the ones they brought over are the best?

Apparently Namco themselves are saying this by only bringing over certain games. It's just like before the FF series became insanely popular. 2, 3, and 5 got skipped over since they were considered inferior to 4, 6, and 7. After 7 was released the series became insanely popular so Square released the other three eventually though. Tales hasn't become popular enough to warrant releasing all the games, so Namco only brings over the best ones. Even the 2D vs. 3D argument fails here, since Namco released Phantasia after a while.


What makes more sense is to look at their decisions as 3-D vs. 2-D. They missed out on bringing Phantasia over because it hit the SFC in Japan at the very end of its life. Then, they tried to start up the franchise with Destiny and Eternia (Destiny II), both of which didn't sell very well. At that point, they probably just figured a 2-D RPG wasn't going to hold up in this market against the likes of Final Fantasy, particularly with Sony pushing developers to go 3-D or go home. Thus, they skipped Destiny 2. When Symphonia cropped up, they probably thought it was worth another shot since the 3-D would be more accepted. Since then, they've continued to pass on 2-D titles (including Rebirth, Destiny R, and Hearts) while delivering pretty much everything 3-D (Legendia, Abyss, Vesperia, Dawn, and even Radiant Mythology). The only mothership exception to this rule has been Innocence, which I find pretty inexplicable, but Namco Bandai of America has ignored portable Tales entirely since RM.

There are two problems with this.

1. Legendia was severely outdated looking. 3D or not, the character models were like 97 quality, and the battles were still fought in 2D. So really it was still outdated looking, and played more like a 2D game.

2. They did eventually port over Phantasia on the GBA. So they didn't fully give up on 2D Tales games.


Go on thinking that, but don't pretend it's fact.

It is a fact that Dawn milked on a popular game. Same as FF7: Advent Children. Take away the previous installments, and both of these would have been severely overlooked(hell Dawn still kind of was in the US).


A great deal too much, honestly. I can't imagine that if you lined up the average review score for every game you'd ever liked that it would really go in precise ascending order according to your opinion.

There's a difference between my personal favorites, and the best games of all time. If I were to make a list of my favorite games, it would vary greatly from my list of best games. Lunar: SSS is one of my favorite games ever, but I'd never put it on my list of best games ever. Only revolutionary genre defining masterpieces such as Super Mario Bros, The Legend of Zelda, Tetris etc. would make my list of best games ever.


Reviewers have their own metrics which may not have anything to do with what any other individual is looking for.

You're talking about an individual's preference. Preference has nothing to do with picking out which game is better than another. Like I said, my list of favorite games is vastly different than my list of best games. Only revolutionary genre defining masterpieces can be considered the best games ever.

[Lunar Eclipse]

There are two problems with this.

1. Legendia was severely outdated looking. 3D or not, the character models were like 97 quality, and the battles were still fought in 2D. So really it was still outdated looking, and played more like a 2D game.

2. They did eventually port over Phantasia on the GBA. So they didn't fully give up on 2D Tales games.

For the first point, it was still 3-D even if you felt it was rough. It doesn't go against the argument that they seem to prefer bringing over the 3-D games, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to bring it up. As for Phantasia, it was localized by Bowne Global Solutions under the supervision of Namco of Japan. It doesn't seem to have been a decision made by Namco Hometek (now Namco Bandai Games of America), which is the branch that's been responsible for making all of the other localization decisions. Thus, it doesn't really reflect one way or the other on Hometek/NBGA's standards and practices.

And again, maybe you should actually play the 2-D games that people really like (Rebirth, Hearts, Destiny R) before sitting there and saying that they're obviously worse because they haven't been localized. It's ridiculous for you to assume such things when you've absolutely no grounds for your claims.

It is a fact that Dawn milked on a popular game. Same as FF7: Advent Children. Take away the previous installments, and both of these would have been severely overlooked(hell Dawn still kind of was in the US).

I wasn't clear here, but I wasn't referring to the "milking" part of your post. I was referring to the insinuation that all escorts are poorly thought out, poorly planned, and poorly executed. That's hardly the case, and seeing as you've only played one or possibly two, you're in no position to make such sweeping generalizations about an entire branch of the series.

There's a difference between my personal favorites, and the best games of all time. If I were to make a list of my favorite games, it would vary greatly from my list of best games. Lunar: SSS is one of my favorite games ever, but I'd never put it on my list of best games ever. Only revolutionary genre defining masterpieces such as Super Mario Bros, The Legend of Zelda, Tetris etc. would make my list of best games ever.

... Then shouldn't you be able to acknowledge that people can enjoy games that aren't necessarily the highest scorers? You haven't even done that much. You've just been insulting anyone who deigns to like Dawn of the New World more than Symphonia this whole time, and yet you've just said that we're entitled to personal favorites.

Also, the idea that reviewers are sitting there placing games along some sliding scale going from worst to best game ever in a completely objective manner is, well, ridiculous. Like you said, that might be the goal for a list of best games ever, but it's certainly not the aim of a review score. I think we'd see a good deal more games falling below the 5 level on a scale of 10 if that were the case. Plus, even the thought of creating a best game list is in itself a product of a horrendous amount of bias since games that would, by today's standards, be considered barebones, lackluster, and boring will inevitably be praised for being groundbreaking at the time, which is what I've been saying all along when I've noted that review scores are very much a product of the time, place, console, etc. Tetris probably wouldn't be looked at twice if it were first developed in today's market, nor would the original Legend of Zelda (which would likely get killed in reviews for being a derivative, top-down hack-and-slash with almost no plot, no character development, etc.), and yet you would have it placed at the high end of a "best game ever" spectrum that you somehow claim is devoid of temporal and console-specific biases.

Riiight.

[brightshield]

It's ridiculous for you to assume such things when you've absolutely no grounds for your claims.

I'm just going by how it always works. If a game in a series doesn't get localized in America then that's because it's not one of the better games in the series. FF was the perfect example yet again. 7, 6, and 4 are considered vastly superior to 5, 3, and 2. Hence why they got localized first.


I wasn't clear here, but I wasn't referring to the "milking" part of your post. I was referring to the insinuation that all escorts are poorly thought out, poorly planned, and poorly executed. That's hardly the case, and seeing as you've only played one or possibly two, you're in no position to make such sweeping generalizations about an entire branch of the series.

I've played Dawn and Radiant Mythology. Which escorts are considered far better? As they'd have to be far far better to be considered great games...


... Then shouldn't you be able to acknowledge that people can enjoy games that aren't necessarily the highest scorers?

Of course. I never said you couldn't like Dawn. Just that Symphonia is obviously the superior game, despite personal preference. This all stems from my debate with Dark Fairy, where she said "Symphonia doesn't compare to the other games in the series". Had she said that it was simply her least favorite, I wouldn't have cared much. However, it's not the worst in the series by any standard.


You've just been insulting anyone who deigns to like Dawn of the New World more than Symphonia this whole time

When did I insult anyone? I've been very civil for the most part. I called the hardcore Tales and FF fans "fanboys", but that's true for pretty much any hardcore fanbase and not really much of an insult.


Tetris probably wouldn't be looked at twice if it were first developed in today's market,

Not true. Lumines is a more recent game that is just as simple as Tetris, but is still one of the highest rated PSP games, and praised as the best puzzle game since Tetris. Tetris is known to be the best puzzle game of all time, and it's extremely worthy of the title. After all these years no puzzle game even comes close to it.


nor would the original Legend of Zelda (which would likely get killed in reviews for being a derivative, top-down hack-and-slash with almost no plot, no character development, etc.),

1. The Legend of Zelda isn't a story based game, so saying that it has no plot or character development is foolish. You might as well flaw Tetris and Mario 1 for the same thing...

2. It basically created it's own genre. It deserves all the credit in the world for that. Clearly the best and most revolutionary game in the series. The sequels may have added more items, bigger dungeons, 3d graphics, more complicated controls etc., but sometimes less is more. They'll never have the same impact on the gaming industry as the original masterpiece. The original blew gamers minds, the sequels were just a lot more of the same.

3. You're just grasping at straws now. Pretty much any pro review magazine or site lists The Legend of Zelda as one of the best games of all time. It's even topped the chart on a some of the lists.


and yet you would have it placed at the high end of a "best game ever" spectrum that you somehow claim is devoid of temporal and console-specific biases.

Indeed. It's a spectacular game by any standard. Saying that it isn't, is just plain wrong.

Same thing goes for Mario. Mario 1, Mario 3, and Mario World are all considered to be the best platformers ever created, and for good reason.

[Lunar Eclipse]

I'm just going by how it always works. If a game in a series doesn't get localized in America then that's because it's not one of the better games in the series. FF was the perfect example yet again. 7, 6, and 4 are considered vastly superior to 5, 3, and 2. Hence why they got localized first.

Yes, of course. This is clearly why Secret of Evermore was localized instead of Seiken Densetsu 3.

I've played Dawn and Radiant Mythology. Which escorts are considered far better? As they'd have to be far far better to be considered great games...

Narikiri Dungeon has a really interesting plot with cool tie-ins to Phantasia. Radiant Mythology 2 is an amazing little dungeon crawler that improves upon the original Radiant Mythology in almost every conceivable way. Tales of Eternia Online brought LMBS online, which was awesome, though the servers are unfortunately not running any longer. As I've said before, they're smaller in scope (usually because of console limitations since they've tended to be on the various iterations of the Gameboy), but they're still great fun. They probably don't tend to stand out to a casual player because they are very much about fanservice, but that doesn't mean that they're "poorly thought out", as you said.

Of course. I never said you couldn't like Dawn. Just that Symphonia is obviously the superior game, despite personal preference. This all stems from my debate with Dark Fairy, where she said "Symphonia doesn't compare to the other games in the series". Had she said that it was simply her least favorite, I wouldn't have cared much. However, it's not the worst in the series by any standard.

First of all, that's not what you've said at all. You called the game "shameless" and "VASTLY inferior to the original in every possible way". You said denying how horrible it was is "foolish", that the "story and characters are highly flawed", that "most of [the Tales games] aren't so great" (in spite of the fact that we now know you've played very few of them), that it was "funny" to you that anyone would defend "the worst RPG protagonist ever", etc. You've been talking in absolutes, saying that the game has no redeeming qualities and then just pretty much quipping, "Oh, but if you like totally horrible things, that's okay. It's just that your opinion is silly and mine is obviously right because of the review scores that God etched into my stone tablets atop Mt. Sinai." You can say you respect the opinions of others all day, but it means nothing when you just trash their opinions in the same sentence by saying that, ultimately, they're wrong to feel that way because you, as the objective voice of reason, know how it really is.

2. It basically created it's own genre. It deserves all the credit in the world for that. Clearly the best and most revolutionary game in the series. The sequels may have added more items, bigger dungeons, 3d graphics, more complicated controls etc., but sometimes less is more. They'll never have the same impact on the gaming industry as the original masterpiece. The original blew gamers minds, the sequels were just a lot more of the same.

3. You're just grasping at straws now. Pretty much any pro review magazine or site lists The Legend of Zelda as one of the best games of all time. It's even topped the chart on a some of the lists.

Except that there are tons of games that use the exact same formula nowadays that get terrible review scores. It's remembered for what it was in that temporal context. It being listed as a "best game ever" is due to nostalgia, its innovation, and its importance for the genre, as you noted. It's not because it would still hold up against other games in a modern review. Is Link to the Past worse than the original Zelda? No, but The Legend of Zelda is more likely to be brought up in a "best game ever" list only because of how good it was for the time. Is it so difficult for you to grasp the relationship between this and what you've been denying about Symphonia in past posts, that its score might actually be influenced just a bit by when it was released, the console it was released on, and how it was actually an acceptable original RPG for the GameCube? I'm not denying that Zelda was a great game, but its reviews, like those for any game, are not independent of the environment in which they were originally judged, which means that blindly assuming all review scores are the absolute truth is just ridiculous.

Indeed. It's a spectacular game by any standard. Saying that it isn't, is just plain wrong.

Same thing goes for Mario. Mario 1, Mario 3, and Mario World are all considered to be the best platformers ever created, and for good reason.

You really think that if I somehow managed to reskin the original Zelda without having anyone notice the resemblance that I could release it for, say, the DS and that it would be proclaimed one of the best games ever? I don't think so. They'd say, "Incredibly simplistic. Nothing interesting or new. We've seen this tired formula before." Without the nostalgia or the understanding of when it was created, it just becomes the most basic of Zelda-styled hack-and-slash, which is what the original Zelda represents, but it doesn't hold up in today's market without the Zelda title attached or some new and interesting twist to actually keep players interested.

[Sonix]

Oh, he said Emil is the worst main character ever?

I haven't played DotNW yet but I'm almost 100% sure I'll like him more than Luke fon Fabre (Abyss). I can't explain how much I dislike that guy. Its pretty much the only complaint I have with Abyss.

[Monde Luna]

Sonix I prefer Luke to Emil any day. But of course that is just MO.

[brightshield]

Narikiri Dungeon has a really interesting plot with cool tie-ins to Phantasia. Radiant Mythology 2 is an amazing little dungeon crawler that improves upon the original Radiant Mythology in almost every conceivable way. Tales of Eternia Online brought LMBS online, which was awesome, though the servers are unfortunately not running any longer. As I've said before, they're smaller in scope (usually because of console limitations since they've tended to be on the various iterations of the Gameboy), but they're still great fun. They probably don't tend to stand out to a casual player because they are very much about fanservice, but that doesn't mean that they're "poorly thought out", as you said.

Nothing that's mostly dedicated to pure fanservice is ever a great game. You just made my point for me.


First of all, that's not what you've said at all.

That is basically what I said, just not how I phrased it.


You called the game "shameless" and "VASTLY inferior to the original in every possible way". You said denying how horrible it was is "foolish", that the "story and characters are highly flawed",

All true.


that "most of [the Tales games] aren't so great" (in spite of the fact that we now know you've played very few of them),

They brought over most of the best ones, and I wouldn't call any of them genre defining masterpieces. While I do love Symphonia, I'd be lying if I said that any Tales game belonged on a top games of all time list. A list of my favorites sure, but definitely not a list of the best.


that it was "funny" to you that anyone would defend "the worst RPG protagonist ever", etc.

It is funny to see people defend someone without any redeemable qualities. Hence why shows like Jerry Springer are so popular...


You've been talking in absolutes, saying that the game has no redeeming qualities and then just pretty much quipping, "Oh, but if you like totally horrible things, that's okay.

You act as if you've never been into something crappy. I like plenty of horror movies, and horror is a genre that most of the time fails miserably. I wouldn't call them good movies, but I do enjoy watching them from time to time.


It's just that your opinion is silly and mine is obviously right because of the review scores that God etched into my stone tablets atop Mt. Sinai."

lol, Mt. Sinai


Is Link to the Past worse than the original Zelda?

Yes, but I do prefer Link to the Past myself.


I'm not denying that Zelda was a great game

Let's see... you called it incredibly simplistic, uninteresting, and tired. Yeah you're not denying that it's a great game all right...

Granted I won't deny that it's simplistic, however being simple =/= bad. Many of the best games ever are simple as hell.


You really think that if I somehow managed to reskin the original Zelda without having anyone notice the resemblance that I could release it for, say, the DS and that it would be proclaimed one of the best games ever?

Yes. Think of it as New Super Mario Bros DS. It's known to be one of the best DS games ever. However, it's an extremely basic 2d platformer. Well done old school games can easily score as well as more advanced games.


I don't think so. They'd say, "Incredibly simplistic. Nothing interesting or new. We've seen this tired formula before." Without the nostalgia or the understanding of when it was created, it just becomes the most basic of Zelda-styled hack-and-slash, which is what the original Zelda represents, but it doesn't hold up in today's market without the Zelda title attached or some new and interesting twist to actually keep players interested.

By your logic, games are getting progressively better and that's total bull. This is probably the worst gen to be a gamer...


I haven't played DotNW yet but I'm almost 100% sure I'll like him more than Luke fon Fabre (Abyss). I can't explain how much I dislike that guy. Its pretty much the only complaint I have with Abyss.

I don't think very highly of either of them. Emil was a cowardly whiny little *****. Luke was a bratty snob, who suddenly became a polite emo. I'd say Luke is better, but only slightly.

[Sonix]

Bah, I pre-ordered from a UK store and today is the release date but they didn't even ship it yet.
Looks like I'll be playing it late next week.

[Lunar Eclipse]

Nothing that's mostly dedicated to pure fanservice is ever a great game. You just made my point for me.

a) You're generalizing again. Is every gaiden really so awful that you think no one can enjoy them? What of little titles like Magic School Lunar!, Shining Force Gaiden, etc.? They're still perfectly fine games that provide players with a good bit of fun. Even if they're smaller in scope (which I've said time and again), it doesn't instantly make them inferior in every other respect. It's true that the audience is somewhat limited because the games are geared toward a fanbase that already understands the game world and its characters, but that doesn't make it bad, per se.

b) I was objecting to your "poorly thought out" comment (which you'd notice if you'd finished bolding the sentence), not suggesting that the overall product was necessarily "great". The only argument I've been making is that the escort games are entirely enjoyable and often have standalone content that some players might like more than the content they find in a given mothership. Your constant attacks on those who liked Dawn (and now apparently all escorts in spite of you having only played two or so) are just ridiculous.

You called the game "shameless" and "VASTLY inferior to the original in every possible way". You said denying how horrible it was is "foolish", that the "story and characters are highly flawed",

All true.

I'm not sure why I'm even trying anymore. You clearly can't distinguish between opinion and fact.

They brought over most of the best ones, and I wouldn't call any of them genre defining masterpieces. While I do love Symphonia, I'd be lying if I said that any Tales game belonged on a top games of all time list. A list of my favorites sure, but definitely not a list of the best.

No one said they were genre-defining. I just said that they've passed over some of the better titles in the series, which you just choose to ignore with no real proof on your side aside from you simply declaring it to be so without even knowing anything about the other titles in the series.

that it was "funny" to you that anyone would defend "the worst RPG protagonist ever", etc.

It is funny to see people defend someone without any redeemable qualities. Hence why shows like Jerry Springer are so popular...

But thinking that a character has no redeeming qualities is an opinion unless there's just so little character development that he doesn't have a character to begin with. I could just as easily say the same thing about Lloyd since I felt he was incredibly boring and the ultimate incarnation of the tired "justice and goodness always prevail" hero stereotype. It's all about what you like, and news flash -- your likes and dislikes aren't the end all and be all of characterization.

You act as if you've never been into something crappy. I like plenty of horror movies, and horror is a genre that most of the time fails miserably. I wouldn't call them good movies, but I do enjoy watching them from time to time.

Your example isn't a relevant comparison. If you like watching "bad" movies, it's because the "redeeming qualities" of the film that you're enjoying were outside the intent of the creator (i.e. the horror has become humor). With Emil's character, many people enjoy him as he was written and intended to be perceived. The fact that you don't like him is irrelevant. I probably hate many characters you liked and vice versa. Doesn't have anything to do with him being unredeemable.

I'm not denying that Zelda was a great game

Let's see... you called it incredibly simplistic, uninteresting, and tired. Yeah you're not denying that it's a great game all right...

No, I'm saying that anything that skinned directly over the original would be called that by today's standards without the namesake. I never insulted the original.

I'm not saying simplicity is bad (particularly with some puzzle games, as you've pointed out), but what I'm trying to say is that there's a new standard when it comes to top-down games like Zelda, and players expect more than they got with the original. Releasing something with the exact same or very similar content isn't going to cut it. Do you think Mario Galaxy 2 will get scores as good as the original Mario Galaxy? Why might it not? Probably because it's using a formula we've seen before. Now apply this to review scores for Tales. Might not Symphonia's be slightly inflated simply because it was the first Tales foray into 3-D and thus impressed everyone with a system that's technically inferior by today's standards? Might not the system for Vesperia improve on much of what Symphonia missed out on and still score somewhat lower just because the overall formula is the same and everyone's seen it already? Again, I just think your willful ignorance of the possibility that time and place affect review scores is beyond comprehension.

[Sonix]

Well I got the game yesterday and (already) played like 13hours of it, lol.

First of all, while Emil is a pretty bad character, hes still a lot better than Luke (and Asch).

I don't like how they added the ToS characters, most of them are very weak when they join. My monster are twice as strong as they are, but I still use them since well, its more fun and I prefer having characters in my party.

The battle system is also quite improved, although the unison/MA is pretty weird. The skill system is a little better (ex skills sucked ass) but they feel empty. They just come every now and then and you can't even use all. I want the Abyss AD Skills, or at least Vesperia's. Since I'm at it, I'd love FoF changes or something similar

Story and the new characters are mediocre so far. Alice, Decus and Hawk are all annoying, I do like Richter though. Emil is like I said pretty bad and I like Marta. Tenebrea is pretty fun, but not Jades level

Overall, I like it more than ToS. There, I said it.

[brightshield]

a) You're generalizing again. Is every gaiden really so awful that you think no one can enjoy them? What of little titles like Magic School Lunar!, Shining Force Gaiden, etc.? They're still perfectly fine games that provide players with a good bit of fun. Even if they're smaller in scope (which I've said time and again), it doesn't instantly make them inferior in every other respect. It's true that the audience is somewhat limited because the games are geared toward a fanbase that already understands the game world and its characters, but that doesn't make it bad, per se.

I'm not saying that all Gaidens are necessarily bad games. Just that they're not great either, and always inferior to a mothership title.


b) I was objecting to your "poorly thought out" comment (which you'd notice if you'd finished bolding the sentence), not suggesting that the overall product was necessarily "great". The only argument I've been making is that the escort games are entirely enjoyable and often have standalone content that some players might like more than the content they find in a given mothership.

If they're into fanboy garbage then possibly. Hell, some people love the piece of **** known as Advent Children, but I'm talking about actual quality content...


Your constant attacks on those who liked Dawn (and now apparently all escorts in spite of you having only played two or so) are just ridiculous.

lol, I didn't attack anyone. I just refuse to back down, and am a persistent little bastard. The same thing could be applied to you though. Your persistence matches my own.


I'm not sure why I'm even trying anymore. You clearly can't distinguish between opinion and fact.

That'd be you my friend. You seem to use opinions as a crutch to justify people liking crap. Crap is still crap whether you love it or hate it. You may love cheeseburgers, but steak is the superior cut of meat. You may prefer silver to gold, but gold is the superior metal. You may prefer your run down 10 year old Honda, but a brand new Corvette is still the superior vehicle. You may prefer R.L. Stine to William Shakespeare, but Shakespeare is the superior writer. You may prefer the Mets, but the Yankees are the better team. You'll probably dismiss all these things as merely my opinion, but whatever. I tried.


No one said they were genre-defining.

Let me stop you right here. In order for a game to be considered "one of the best ever" it has to be a genre defining masterpiece. Not only must the actual game be great, but it has to actually do something for the gaming community. Again, this much should be obvious.


But thinking that a character has no redeeming qualities is an opinion unless there's just so little character development that he doesn't have a character to begin with.

Same thing could be said about the Springer show then. We all know that 99% of the people who go on the show, are terrible people with no real redeeming qualities. You can petend that it's just my opinion if it makes you feel better though. =)


I could just as easily say the same thing about Lloyd since I felt he was incredibly boring and the ultimate incarnation of the tired "justice and goodness always prevail" hero stereotype.

You forget that Lloyd has more to him than that though. Lloyd literally forces his beliefs on people, and refuses to listen to any of Yggdrasil's arguments. Lloyd is also very quick to resort to violence when people anger him, and he's quite the smart ass at times. In fact, some people actually consider Lloyd to be the true "evil" one in the game, due to him literally forcing people to see things his way. Yggdrasil at least tries to intelligently debate, when his motives are questioned. So yeah, Lloyd is definitely "interesting" to say the least...


Your example isn't a relevant comparison. If you like watching "bad" movies, it's because the "redeeming qualities" of the film that you're enjoying were outside the intent of the creator (i.e. the horror has become humor).

1. If a movie fails at it's intended purpose, then it's a bad movie. Me liking it, doesn't change this.

2. I like some of them due to pure nostalgia, and nothing more.


I'm not saying simplicity is bad (particularly with some puzzle games, as you've pointed out), but what I'm trying to say is that there's a new standard when it comes to top-down games like Zelda, and players expect more than they got with the original. Releasing something with the exact same or very similar content isn't going to cut it.

1. The whole "new standard" thing is total bull. Games aren't getting progressively better, this is a terrible generation to be a gamer.

2. Mario 1 - World all used the same formula, and they all got amazing scores. 1, 3, and 4 are considered some of the best 2d platformers of all time. Even New Super Mario Bros. DS is one of the highest rated DS games, and all it did was recycle a 20 year old formula, without adding anything. So yeah, the actually quality of the game is a much bigger factor.


Do you think Mario Galaxy 2 will get scores as good as the original Mario Galaxy? Why might it not?

Probably not, considering that the first one is very highly rated. This is Miyamoto we're talking about though, if anyone can pull it off it's him.


Now apply this to review scores for Tales. Might not Symphonia's be slightly inflated simply because it was the first Tales foray into 3-D and thus impressed everyone with a system that's technically inferior by today's standards? Might not the system for Vesperia improve on much of what Symphonia missed out on and still score somewhat lower just because the overall formula is the same and everyone's seen it already? Again, I just think your willful ignorance of the possibility that time and place affect review scores is beyond comprehension.

My Mario example disproves all this. Another example is GTA. GTA Vice City and San Andreas made very minor improvements to the groundbreaking GTA3, however they all have similar scores. Now granted only 3 ever makes best game of all time lists due to being so insanely groundbreaking, but score-wise they're all considered to be about equal with San Andreas having a slight edge. So yeah, review scores mostly judge the quality of a game.


I don't like how they added the ToS characters, most of them are very weak when they join.

Not to mention that they serve no purpose other than nostalgia...


Overall, I like it more than ToS. There, I said it.

I have a hard time understanding why considering that this game ruined 2 of your 3 favorite ToS characters. Lloyd and Zelos don't even act slightly similar to how they were in the previous game...

[Lunar Eclipse]

I'm not saying that all Gaidens are necessarily bad games. Just that they're not great either, and always inferior to a mothership title.

The point is that your assessment of "inferior" seems to always rest on scope of gameplay, game length, etc., which isn't necessarily the focus of any RPG but may obviously come up in review scores. Yes, gaidens tend to be subordinated to their mainline counterparts in terms of budget, system, length, world breadth, etc. But if someone's playing the games for the characters and story, does most of that objective data even matter? Is every RPG with a sprawling world map better than every RPG with a point and click map? Is every game with nine main characters better than every game with four? Is every RPG that's 80 hours long better than every RPG that's 40? As long as the game still has an enjoyable system, it's more than possible for someone to like it better than a main entry, and that shouldn't be "funny" or seem "foolish" to you, as you'd noted earlier in the Dawn discussion.

But, as always, you seem to have missed the boat when it comes to the point of my argument. I'm not trying to sit here and chat about how we should all be able to like whatever we want. That much is obvious, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up as though we're arguing about it. All I'm trying to say is that review scores are not devoid of opinions. They encapsulate the opinion of the author and also take cues from what's expected at the time for the console in question. Anyway, feel free to ignore this again, but that's all I'm saying.

Your constant attacks on those who liked Dawn (and now apparently all escorts in spite of you having only played two or so) are just ridiculous.

lol, I didn't attack anyone. I just refuse to back down, and am a persistent little bastard. The same thing could be applied to you though. Your persistence matches my own.

As I've already said, your language uses a diction of attack. I already pulled examples, so I'll just quote myself:

You said denying how horrible it was is "foolish" [...] that it was "funny" to you that anyone would defend "the worst RPG protagonist ever", etc. You've been talking in absolutes, saying that the game has no redeeming qualities and then just pretty much quipping, "Oh, but if you like totally horrible things, that's okay. It's just that your opinion is silly and mine is obviously right because of the review scores [...]"

You're insulting people who like the game and telling them that they're wrong to like it and that their ignorance is laughable to you. That's a bit ruder than simple persistence.

I'm not sure why I'm even trying anymore. You clearly can't distinguish between opinion and fact.

That'd be you my friend. You seem to use opinions as a crutch to justify people liking crap. Crap is still crap whether you love it or hate it. You may love cheeseburgers, but steak is the superior cut of meat. You may prefer silver to gold, but gold is the superior metal. You may prefer your run down 10 year old Honda, but a brand new Corvette is still the superior vehicle. You may prefer R.L. Stine to William Shakespeare, but Shakespeare is the superior writer. You may prefer the Mets, but the Yankees are the better team. You'll probably dismiss all these things as merely my opinion, but whatever. I tried.

This is so the opposite of what I've been saying that it's utterly ridiculous. You're just throwing out these straw men to try to make a point that no one can disagree with. Yes, we understand that certain products are "superior" to others or that they can have certain objectively more entertaining, interesting, or useful features. But that's not the point. The point is that even if we can see things in a somewhat objective sense, our assessment of those items is always colored by a certain level of opinion no matter what we do to remove ourselves from it. Reviewers aren't magically exempted from opinion, and in many reviews, opinions are all we see. Add to that the fact that games are meant to be quite a bit more experiential than gold or a sports car and there's a much wider opening for opinion to play a part in assessment, particularly with the rapidly shifting expectations we see in anything digital nowadays.

No one said they were genre-defining.

Let me stop you right here. In order for a game to be considered "one of the best ever" it has to be a genre defining masterpiece. Not only must the actual game be great, but it has to actually do something for the gaming community. Again, this much should be obvious.

Again, why does this matter? Was the sentence even about this at all? No. It was just me saying that Tales isn't genre-defining. I've never tried to argue that Tales is the best series ever or anything of the sort. Why are we diverting the conversation in this fashion by pulling out irrelevant sentence fragments?

But thinking that a character has no redeeming qualities is an opinion unless there's just so little character development that he doesn't have a character to begin with.

Same thing could be said about the Springer show then. We all know that 99% of the people who go on the show, are terrible people with no real redeeming qualities. You can petend that it's just my opinion if it makes you feel better though. =)

This is such a ludicrous comparison that I don't even know what to say. The people on that show aren't "characters" nor is there any sort of goal of development. They're paid to act like idiots and to pretend to do atrocious things. Again, how does this have anything to do with RPG protagonists?

You forget that Lloyd has more to him than that though. Lloyd literally forces his beliefs on people, and refuses to listen to any of Yggdrasil's arguments. Lloyd is also very quick to resort to violence when people anger him, and he's quite the smart ass at times. In fact, some people actually consider Lloyd to be the true "evil" one in the game, due to him literally forcing people to see things his way. Yggdrasil at least tries to intelligently debate, when his motives are questioned. So yeah, Lloyd is definitely "interesting" to say the least...

Does it matter that Lloyd refuses to listen to Yggdrasil when the writers make him so obviously insane? The writing favors Lloyd and doesn't do a very good job of making you say, "Hm, maybe there really was another way." It makes you understand how Yggdrasil got to that point, but he's too nutty when it comes to the way that he's warped the worlds and tried to keep his sister alive for anyone to actually expect Lloyd to listen to Yggdrasil at that point. It's the same in Phantasia. You can understand how Dhaos got to that point, but the whole antihero thing falls flat because, ultimately, Dhaos is insane in the future timeline and employed monsters to slaughter entirely villages in the past even when he wasn't totally insane from the ages of entombment in the mausoleum. That doesn't make Cless any less of a generic hero. There's not an "Aha! He should have followed what the villain said!" moment in either game. Thus, Morrison's indictment "Truly, if there is evil in this world, it lies within the heart of mankind" is ultimately lost on us because what Cless does isn't written as being equally evil. We just get a last second antihero realization for Dhaos and then, well, nothing. The story doesn't question Cless, nor does the story question Lloyd. It just humanizes the villains, which really doesn't have any direct connection to making Lloyd or Cless any more evil or wrong. The villains are still ultimately crazies that we know have to die.

1. The whole "new standard" thing is total bull. Games aren't getting progressively better, this is a terrible generation to be a gamer.

As I've said before, I mean that there are constantly new standards in some of the only aspects of games you can truly gauge in an objective sense, i.e. graphics, music, voice acting, etc. Even though one Tales game might be better in all those aspects, it might be judged more harshly based on console or time of release. If you can't even admit that, then I don't know what to say.

My Mario example disproves all this. Another example is GTA. GTA Vice City and San Andreas made very minor improvements to the groundbreaking GTA3, however they all have similar scores.

Oh yes, your two examples within franchises that almost always score well based solely on namesake and/or nostalgia certainly disprove everything. If anything, you've proved my point and disproved your own considering I suggested that the namesake often pads scores (which seems to be the case here) and you suggested that titles needed to be groundbreaking to be truly great (which seems to not be the case here, as implied by gameplay clones getting similar/equal scores when compared to the titles that actually broke that ground).

... But again, beside the point. I'll just stop here since I've already made my original point again and I've probably already said so much that you'll pull out every other quote except for the ones about reviews including opinion and time-dependent factors.

[Shiva Indis]

You seem to use opinions as a crutch to justify people liking crap. Crap is still crap whether you love it or hate it. You may love cheeseburgers, but steak is the superior cut of meat. You may prefer silver to gold, but gold is the superior metal. You may prefer your run down 10 year old Honda, but a brand new Corvette is still the superior vehicle. You may prefer R.L. Stine to William Shakespeare, but Shakespeare is the superior writer. You may prefer the Mets, but the Yankees are the better team. You'll probably dismiss all these things as merely my opinion, but whatever. I tried.

They are all your opinion. What are the terms for superiority? Popular preference? Popular preference is a collection of opinions. That's why you're not seeing eye to eye with other posters in this thread.

[brightshield]

But if someone's playing the games for the characters and story, does most of that objective data even matter?

I'm saying that all the motherships beat the gaidens in these areas as well. The Gaiden's are nothing more than fanservice in every way.


As long as the game still has an enjoyable system, it's more than possible for someone to like it better than a main entry, and that shouldn't be "funny" or seem "foolish" to you, as you'd noted earlier in the Dawn discussion.

It's "funny" to me since the gaiden's are obvious fanboy games, and devoid of any actual quality...


All I'm trying to say is that review scores are not devoid of opinions.

And I'm saying that opinions factor in only very slightly, and don't affect the overall score that much.


Anyway, feel free to ignore this again, but that's all I'm saying.

I never ignored it. I just never agreed to it.


As I've already said, your language uses a diction of attack. I already pulled examples, so I'll just quote myself:

Well then, know that it's not meant to be taken as an attack. I'm just being completely honest, without sugar coating anything.


You're insulting people who like the game and telling them that they're wrong to like it and that their ignorance is laughable to you. That's a bit ruder than simple persistence.

I'm saying that calling it a "good game" is laughable since it's wrong. Saying that it's their favorite game, wouldn't bother me.


You're just throwing out these straw men to try to make a point that no one can disagree with.

You'd be surprised at how many people have tried... Shiva denies it right below you...


The point is that even if we can see things in a somewhat objective sense, our assessment of those items is always colored by a certain level of opinion no matter what we do to remove ourselves from it.

Yes, but saying that game A is superior to game B merely because you like it more, is wrong. That's what I find laughable, and what most of my points have been getting at. If I said that Zelda was a great game, tons of people would claim that this was merely my opinion. They'd be wrong. Whether or not I like Zelda, doesn't change the fact that it is a great game.


This is such a ludicrous comparison that I don't even know what to say. The people on that show aren't "characters" nor is there any sort of goal of development. They're paid to act like idiots and to pretend to do atrocious things.

Ah, but it's only your opinion that they're acting like idiots, right? Also your opinion of what an atrocious "thing" is, might be different than mine. So therefore, I'd be justified in calling them good people. See what I'm getting at? This goes beyond opinion. Those people DO act like idiots, and DO pretend to do atrocious things...


Again, how does this have anything to do with RPG protagonists?

How good or bad an RPG protagonist is, isn't merely an opinion. That's what I'm getting at here.


Does it matter that Lloyd refuses to listen to Yggdrasil when the writers make him so obviously insane? The writing favors Lloyd and doesn't do a very good job of making you say, "Hm, maybe there really was another way." It makes you understand how Yggdrasil got to that point, but he's too nutty when it comes to the way that he's warped the worlds and tried to keep his sister alive for anyone to actually expect Lloyd to listen to Yggdrasil at that point.

lol, and you claim that I've been ignoring your points? This doesn't disprove anything that I said about Lloyd.


As I've said before, I mean that there are constantly new standards in some of the only aspects of games you can truly gauge in an objective sense, i.e. graphics, music, voice acting, etc.

That's where we disagree. I say that story, characters, gameplay, and music can also be judged objectively.


Oh yes, your two examples within franchises that almost always score well based solely on namesake and/or nostalgia certainly disprove everything. If anything, you've proved my point and disproved your own considering I suggested that the namesake often pads scores (which seems to be the case here)

lol, when people say this all I hear is "Mario and GTA games score higher than my favorites, so I'm going to try and discredit their high scores".


and you suggested that titles needed to be groundbreaking to be truly great (which seems to not be the case here, as implied by gameplay clones getting similar/equal scores when compared to the titles that actually broke that ground).

You don't need to be groudbreaking to be great, but you have to be groundbreaking to be one of the best of all time.


I'll just stop here since I've already made my original point again

Um... okay. Bye, it was fun.


They are all your opinion.

lol, sure...

All of these things can be proven, and even Eclipse agreed with me here. The easiest one to prove is the Yankees vs. the Mets. Simple numbers show what the better team is.


That's why you're not seeing eye to eye with other posters in this thread.

That's fine by me.

[Sonix]

I have a hard time understanding why considering that this game ruined 2 of your 3 favorite ToS characters. Lloyd and Zelos don't even act slightly similar to how they were in the previous game...

They never were favorite in the first place.
I said they were the only ones I cared for, and that was in the first game. Zelos is the only one I related to "favorite".
And some of the new cast isn't really that bad. Emil/Ratatosk kinda grew on me and I liked Marta and Richter. Alice, Decus and Hawk were pretty annoying, though.

Soundtrack is the same with few songs removed and added. I don't like the fact that theres no Fighting of the Spirit (and Fatalize to some extent) but I liked the new second battle theme (colliseum and final dungeon).

But like I said countless times already, the battle system itself is already so much better to make the game better in my eyes. And rather than ToS: DotNW having a amazing battle system (its still great, but no where near Vesperia or Abyss), ToS just had a sucky one.

To sum it up:
Characters: ToS2 > ToS (see above)
Story: ToS2 = ToS (both are mediocre)
Sound: ToS2 = ToS (both have advantages, the first one has Fighting of the Spirit and Fatalize, the second one has Second Battle Theme and voiced skits)
Graphics: I don't care about them
Gameplay: ToS2 > ToS (from the battle system to skill system)

Having said all that, ToS2 isn't really one of my favorite RPGs. Games like ToV, TotA, Grandia 1/2, Lunar 1/2, Phantasy Star IV are still much better.

I do love those kinds of (happy) endings.

[Dark_Fairy]

I have a hard time understanding why considering that this game ruined 2 of your 3 favorite ToS characters. Lloyd and Zelos don't even act slightly similar to how they were in the previous game...

They never were favorite in the first place.
I said they were the only ones I cared for, and that was in the first game. Zelos is the only one I related to "favorite".
And some of the new cast isn't really that bad. Emil/Ratatosk kinda grew on me and I liked Marta and Richter. Alice, Decus and Hawk were pretty annoying, though.

Soundtrack is the same with few songs removed and added. I don't like the fact that theres no Fighting of the Spirit (and Fatalize to some extent) but I liked the new second battle theme (colliseum and final dungeon).

But like I said countless times already, the battle system itself is already so much better to make the game better in my eyes. And rather than ToS: DotNW having a amazing battle system (its still great, but no where near Vesperia or Abyss), ToS just had a sucky one.

To sum it up:
Characters: ToS2 > ToS (see above)
Story: ToS2 = ToS (both are mediocre)
Sound: ToS2 = ToS (both have advantages, the first one has Fighting of the Spirit and Fatalize, the second one has Second Battle Theme and voiced skits)
Graphics: I don't care about them
Gameplay: ToS2 > ToS (from the battle system to skill system)

Having said all that, ToS2 isn't really one of my favorite RPGs. Games like ToV, TotA, Grandia 1/2, Lunar 1/2, Phantasy Star IV are still much better.

I do love those kinds of (happy) endings.

This is pretty much how I feel too.

I'll just stop here since I've already made my original point again

Um... okay. Bye, it was fun.


They are all your opinion.

lol, sure...

All of these things can be proven, and even Eclipse agreed with me here. The easiest one to prove is the Yankees vs. the Mets. Simple numbers show what the better team is.


That's why you're not seeing eye to eye with other posters in this thread.

That's fine by me.

And this is why the argument keeps going in circles and why Eclipse and other people are a bit frustrated. Eclipse made an excellent point that most things you've pointed out are opinions. Review scores are opinions. Your views on games are opinions. That's how this whole argument started in the first place, by a disagreement on OPINIONS. It has nothing to do with facts, in the end. >_>

It is sort of amusing how this has turned into a nearly 4 page argument though. I give it that much.

[Lunar Eclipse]

I'm saying that all the motherships beat the gaidens in these areas as well. The Gaiden's are nothing more than fanservice in every way.

No, they're really not all about fanservice. You might be able to argue that to an extent with the Tales series since so much of what they do entails crossovers (which is somewhat expected of a series that focuses on characters), but it's definitely not the case with every gaiden, so please stop generalizing. Just look at Seiken Densetsu: Final Fantasy Gaiden, or Final Fantasy Adventure, which required no knowledge of previous Final Fantasy games (and thus wasn't playing to fanservice with anything except perhaps the one chocobo cameo). It also ended up being such a good standalone title that it spawned the Mana series (Secret of Mana, Seiken Densetsu 3, Legend of Mana, etc.). And even in Tales, not every escort is a crossover in the spirit of Narikiri Dungeon and Radiant Mythology. Look at Tales of the Tempest, which, like Final Fantasy Adventure, has no story connections to previous titles and no shared characters. To say that the exclusive purpose of every gaiden is to play upon the notion of fanservice is an outright lie. They often only seek to have some vague nominal association with a previously established series to boost initial sales.

All I'm trying to say is that review scores are not devoid of opinions.

And I'm saying that opinions factor in only very slightly, and don't affect the overall score that much.

And yet you were arguing that a slight difference of about 0.3/10 points made Symphonia the definitive king of all Tales, not to mention that you ignore anything unlocalized and just say, "Eh, wasn't good. Haven't played it, but I just know."

Well then, know that it's not meant to be taken as an attack. I'm just being completely honest, without sugar coating anything.

Being honest doesn't require you to call people fools or to mock their opinions.

You're just throwing out these straw men to try to make a point that no one can disagree with.

You'd be surprised at how many people have tried... Shiva denies it right below you...

But in truth, Shiva's ultimately right. I'm just allowing for a certain level of societal norms to play into what I'd define as "objective". I mean, just look at your examples. Take silver and gold. All you say is that gold is better than silver when I assume what you really mean is that gold is more valuable than silver, which even in itself is something of a social construct (think of the Incas here and the relative abundance and commonplace nature of gold). Regardless, even if we consider the value, that doesn't necessarily make gold better in every application. Silver has lower solid and liquid density and thus is better for applications that require something more lightweight. Also, silver is a better conductor. On the other hand, gold has better corrosion resistance and a higher melting point. So yes, when you say something as vague as "better", there's always room for us to question what you're saying even if it is objective in some sense, and to ever rank one thing as "objectively" better than something else, you're at least relying on some level of opinion. And, as I said, with something like an RPG that relies somewhat less on the concrete, definable aspects of game system, personal experience comes into play a lot more in assessment.

Yes, but saying that game A is superior to game B merely because you like it more, is wrong. That's what I find laughable, and what most of my points have been getting at.

But I don't think anyone's said that. People have said, "I thought game x was better than game y," or "I preferred game a to game b." You're really the only one claiming to know what games are the "objective" best, which is really the most preposterous thing going on in this thread.

Does it matter that Lloyd refuses to listen to Yggdrasil when the writers make him so obviously insane? The writing favors Lloyd and doesn't do a very good job of making you say, "Hm, maybe there really was another way." It makes you understand how Yggdrasil got to that point, but he's too nutty when it comes to the way that he's warped the worlds and tried to keep his sister alive for anyone to actually expect Lloyd to listen to Yggdrasil at that point.

lol, and you claim that I've been ignoring your points? This doesn't disprove anything that I said about Lloyd.

You said that Lloyd refused to listen to Yggdrasil's arguments, which I pointed out was made fairly irrelevant by the fact that Yggdrasil was insane and thus we don't expect Lloyd to listen to him. How does that not respond to that part of your character analysis? Even if Yggdrasil seems to debate calmly, the story isn't written in such a way that we think for an instant that Lloyd should follow what he says. There's not more to Lloyd just because there's more behind Yggdrasil's motives. Lloyd still always does what he thinks is right. If you want me to address the rest of what you said, the only thing I find moderately unique is that he's portrayed as something of a dolt. Using force against the wicked is kind of par for the course in high fantasy, so I'm not really sure why that's special for a hero. Plus, Lloyd never really even has to deal with any negative consequences of his actions. If anyone does, it's Colette considering she gets blamed for everything when she fails to sacrifice her own life to tip the hourglass of mana in Sylvarant's direction.

But again, this is all my opinion and perception of the characters and story, so it's somewhat irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Um... okay. Bye, it was fun.

Er, I meant I was stopping that post right there. =(

[Shiva Indis]

So yes, when you say something as vague as "better", there's always room for us to question what you're saying even if it is objective in some sense, and to ever rank one thing as "objectively" better than something else, you're at least relying on some level of opinion. And, as I said, with something like an RPG that relies somewhat less on the concrete, definable aspects of game system, personal experience comes into play a lot more in assessment.

Gold vs. silver was the example I was planning to run with, but I wouldn't have done it as thoroughly. ^_^

Anyway, brightshield, that stuff about gold and hamburgers starts to fall apart when you hold it against an objective standard. 'Gold is more valuable than silver' is true, you can go look up the value; 'gold is better than silver' is only true in certain situations. You decided that 'gold is better than silver' for yourself - it's your opinion and ultimately it's meaningful only to you. (Assuming that's really how you feel on the subject.) To apply this to video games, your assesment of any work of fiction is a non-objective opinion that's no more or less valid than anyone else's.

People have said, "I thought game x was better than game y," or "I preferred game a to game b." You're really the only one claiming to know what games are the "objective" best, which is really the most preposterous thing going on in this thread.

The preposterousness is the only reason this thread is still going, I think.