GP:
"While Crystal Bearers is definitely a mixed bag, the good still outweighs the bad, and you're left with an easier, more accessible Final Fantasy adventure that's heavy on the action and light on the RPG. If you're like me, and can't wait for Final Fantasy XIII, this is a good way to pass the time until that game arrives, and it should prove to be an enjoyable experience for younger gamers who are new to Final Fantasy."
The forgotten adventures.
Bitmob: A game reviewer ponders the ups and downs of being completely honest with your audience, and wonders 'Should you have to finish a game to review it?'
A reviewer should finish the game and relay what seetings were used. I don't want to pay 60 bucks for a game and find out that it rules for 50% and uscks for the last 50%.
it just adds a bit more credibility to the review given if the person has beaten (or came really close) the game.
You wouldnt want to read a review of a movie if the reviewer only watched the first half hour or worse...just the trailer.
We all know that in the end however, reviews =/= opinions and those can differ with everyone.
I do like it if a reviewer tries not to give away so much of the plot of the game/movie within the review itself. That can be hard when you know they want to tell everyone that it was col mustard in the library with the lead pipe but they can't.
The reviewer should play the game to completion or state otherwise.
If the game is more focused on multiplayer, IE MW2, Reach, MAG, etc. The game shouldn't have a multiplayer review until the reviewer has had a chance to play with the actual community instead of other reviewers.
Yahtzee writes critiques, not reviews. The difference is not a question of quality or class, but one of goal.
The goal of a review is to help a reader decide whether or not he wants to buy/rent/borrow a game.
The goal of a critique is to ask in what areas did this fail, and why; and it what areas did it succeed, and why.
A review talks directly to consumers, whereas a critique talks to the realm of game development as a whole.
Now, whether or not any mainstream "reviewers" succeed as reviewers or whether Yahtzee succeeds as a critic is an entirely different question. But to analyze Yahtzee's efforts as you would analyze a review is a mistake.
This is why I like Kotaku's review SYSTEM, if not always their reviews.
Likes
Dislikes
What was played
Perfect system. No stupid scores or guessing games. A review is an opinion, but I expect it to be at least ACCURATE. Efficient? Well then, its just an impression if the entire experience is incomplete, no?
These recent Gaming sites today are made up of a bunch of fanboy and nonprofessional journalists Kotaku and Gizmodo for example. Gaming journalism and game reviews were only respectable back in the days when it was just Gamespot and a few other sites.
Brandon Thompson writes: "Gamers have seen few franchises with histories as impressively deep and memorable as the Final Fantasy series. Besides being known for great story lines lovable heroes, Square/Enix's uber-popular franchise is also known for having some of the meanest and most evil baddies in the history of video games.
What does it take to make a successful bad guy who makes a real impact on gamers? The character's costume certainly plays a part. Maybe it's how dramatic of an introduction the character has? Maybe it's all about how insanely crazy, strong, and determined the antagonist is. We still think the costume plays some part. You be the judge."
Kefka been there before and surpassed him. As I love Sephiroth, he's my favourite villain, Kefka is much more than him. Makes Sephy look like a wannabe.
Sephiroth is more bad ass than Kefka, but no one will be crazier than Kefka. The guy is a definition of 'evil'. He should be tops in that list, not Sephiroth.
from the article - "While we’re not allowed to number our top five lists anymore, there’s little doubt that Sephiroth would top the list if it were titled "popular" bad guys. Even though he's not the most evil, his hatred puts him in the top five."
Why can't you number a top 5?
lol, Sephiroths a little mommas boy always crying for mother. Kefka actually destroyed the world unlike the rest of them.
Sephiroth is a big wet p(an)sy. I'd rate Kuja over him, and Kuja is basically a schoolgirl.
Hands down: Sephiroth. What other villian has a symphony orchestra perform his theme song to live audiences? huh huh? That's right, Sephiroth PWNS!!!
was that a chick dressed as him in the pic. I would have to say the one I hated the most was seymor from FFX. Turned his mom into a summons and kept her in the basement all chained up.
Sephiroth has more rich character development, and a more obvious motivation for destruction. While Kefka is insane, Sephiroth was once psychology (seemly) normal, and even a great hero at one point.
He also didn't think what he was doing was wrong at all. Sephiroth honestly thought he was saving the world by becoming it's God.
"Sephiroth is more bad ass than Kefka, but no one will be crazier than Kefka. The guy is a definition of 'evil'. He should be tops in that list, not Sephiroth."
I kinda agree with that, though they did say they aren't allowed to number them. :p
Granted Sephiroth is another likeable villian from the FF series, I'd have to give the Bat**** crazy overall title to Kefka. The amount of stuff Sephiroth did in FF7 is kinda pale in comparison to the amount of grief, death, and overall things Kefka did in FF6.
However Sephiroth did make it seem more personal to what he did, which still makes him on the top lists.
why would sefi top the list the list said most evil bad guys technically speaking compared to what some of the other FF have done and what some of them actually are like the embodiment of malice itself sefi isn't really all that evil just someone who went insane
its just a popularity thing in the end anyways
I define evil as someone for no remorse or compassion for no living being on this planet. A pure malicious conscious from beggining to end. Someone that not even his/her mother would love. For this, Kefka takes the specifications perfectly. A pathetic weakling from the start of the game, towards becoming something like the devil itself. But regardless of his power, he was always an evil twat.
Barthandelus in XIII was pretty lame, even if it wasn't hermaphrodite lame like almost all other FF villains, he was pretty lame.
Most evil had to be Kefka... sorry Sephiroth fans, he was just a lonely kid who missed mommy.
dear god, main villain of ff13 was probably the worst villian in any game since xenosaga 2....probably cuz they r both popes.....but UGhhh, i think ff13 wuda been better if guy cid, or guy with silver hair or even jihl (chick with huge rack) was the main villain.
i loved the whole cast except for main villain. uggh i hate him so boring
