Live Blogs You're only reading this because I rated the game 3/10! Let's read horrible GameFAQs reviews!

Ephraim2252011-04-19 00:10:18

But then, later:

Isn't that a little hypocritical?

And that's why this is installment number 13. You have a point, though.

Yeah, you can tell this review was written by someone who either 1)drank Spoony's Kool-aid or 2)refuses to accept that any game past VII can be any good.

Or 3) Both

Ulti's review here may have been awful, but I completely agree with D'Hoost's review, although I probably would have given the game a bit more than a 3 out of 10. He seems to be one of those rare good reviewers out there.

Far be it from me to defend idiots, but he makes a good point. Gameplay And Story Segregation may be forgivable, but it's hardly necessary. FF 7 had Materia, which was both part of the plot and gave similar levels of customizability.

Square could have come up with a similar idea that would add strategic depth without making no sense from a story/world perspective. Not doing so may be forgivable, but it's also unquestionably lazy. And a reviewer certainly should have the right to call them out on it.

I've never played FFX-2, so I have no idea if the guy is right or not. However, this does not constitute a counter-argument to his claim. If he is indeed correct about every returning female character from the previous game dressing in skimpier attire for little to no adequately explored reason, then I'd say that his point is at least potentially valid.

It's all well and good to snark at idiots; I endorse this wholeheartedly. But while you're snarking, you should at least put forth some evidence for your dismissal of their claims. Here's how it's done:

This is errant nonsense. FFIV, the very first ATB game, had spells and abilities that had different casting times. It may not have shown bars to know how long it would take, but different spells certainly did take longer to cast. Later FF games would go back and forth on casting times, and FFX-2 appears to be no different.

In short: he's an idiot.

Right. Because a review written in 2003 certainly was due to Spoony's review of the prequel to this game in 2010. Totally.

If you're going to dump random hate on Spoony for not liking the things you like, could you at least attempt to make it relevant?

Alrighty. Confession Time. I am guilty of the same kind of thing D'Hoost did. I actually have done a review of Modern Warfare 2 on Gamefaqs, giving it a 6/10. I gave it that score for the same reason as the aforementioned review. I don't think it's a bad game. I think that the gameplay is very solidly put together. I think the set pieces and level design is suberb. I think that the Multiplayer is okay, but there are just too many cheap Gamebreakers and Killstreak overload. Plus I glossed over it, simply not being a fan of online multiplayer FPS' in general.

No, I hated Modern Warfare 2 for it's story, and what it meant for the series. I don't have the time to get into it here, but I loathed it with a passion for what it represented for the series and how it took a steaming dump all over the first game. I don't think my words came out well in that review.

You can see it under this very username. I do have plans to so more reviews to practise my writing abilities. Yeah, the GF Review is Shit. But I do want to have some outlet. I might do Mother 3 or the Castlevania DS games next.

Searching my own name in Google once in awhile leads to some funny results. I mean yeah that isn't one of my best reviews, but an entire page dedicated to bashing it is hilarious. Some people are just destined to die virgins, I guess.