Games you hate, yet everyone else cherishes.

unless they merge Halo and CoD, then that 9000 version might be done...

If you replaced zombies with aliens in the walking dead, it would stop making sense (at least the comic, I haven't watched the show past the first five episodes of the first season, nor played the games).


You seem to be ignoring the point I was even making: Zombies are a good backdrop because zombies are dumb. You don't give them motives, you don't have to make the things they do have some kind of end purpose. They just try to eat and wander. You don't have to put a lot of thought into WHAT they are trying to do or WHY they are trying to do it.


Once you switched it to aliens, these things start having to be looked at. You mentioned Falling Skies. A lot of Falling Skies was: What do they want? Why are they here?


Zombie stories work well for human drama stories because they provide an everpresent danger that can't really be eliminated, only managed. It ratchets up the stress on the survivors in a way that most other style of apocalypses don't (outside of the kind like The Road, where supplies are so scarce as to be absurd (by the way, the film adaptation of that book is absolutely fantastic, if depressing, also The Road would make a terrible video game. Wander in direction for days, slowly starve to death.)). Constant stress causes people to behave in incredibly irrational ways.


You keep saying you don't want "Human Drama" but honestly, with your World War Z comments, it just comes off that you hate humans turning on each other under heavy stress. Because World War Z was about human drama.


I'm not even a fan of zombies on the whole. I like Left 4 Dead 2, the early Romero movies, Resident Evil (though I consistently point out to people that Resident Evil ISN'T a zombie game), 28 Days Later... a few other things like that, but on the whole I just don't care that much about them. But I do understand the genre, and you just don't seem to. Which means instead of understanding why the genre is what it is, you are consistently railing on the fact that Zombie Games aren't REAL Zombie Games unless they fit your specific criteria.

I don't mind "Human Drama".  What I mind is "Here's a Zombie game... sans zombies and 100% Human Drama".  It's somewhat frustrating and misleading.  If you want to have your "Human Drama" game, that's fine, advertise it as such instead of "This is a Zombie Game".  Yes, I know, that seems weird to you as you don't define a Zombie Game the same way I do.

All I'd really like from a Zombie game is LESS human drama and MORE zombies.  As in, instead of a game that's 70% Human Drama and 30% Zombies, you maybe change it to 50% human drama, 50% zombies.  I'd be happy with that.  I can enjoy a good human drama story as much as the next person.  I'd just like the zombies to be as much of a threat and as important to the plot as all the humany stuff is.  World War Z sates my Zombie Lust because it's about 50/50 of Human Drama and Zombie Threat.

Most of my issue with "Human Drama" games is that the zombies are often just tacked on.  They're the excuse for the game to exist and really are extremely interchangeable or even forgotten en masse.  I know you're ragging on me about "Falling Skies", but it actually is "The Walking Dead" except Aliens instead of Zombies.  A large chunk of the episodes are actually dedicated to the Human Drama of a ragtag bunch of humans trying to survive against a threat that could wipe them out at any moment with vastly superior firepower.  The only time it moves away from this "Walking Dead with Aliens Instead of Zombies" likeness is when we get a couple episodes or portions of episodes where they actually go out and attack some of the aliens or try to stop them.  The people who tune into the show are honestly tuning in for the Human Drama because that's what most of that show is.  The alien stuff is interesting, but it's there to hold you to the plot and to keep you coming back each week, even if you've gotten bored of the Human Drama stuff.  The Walking Dead does something similar, except instead of some mystery about "The Zombie Plague", it's mysteries about who is going to die, who is going to snap first, what is The governor going to do, and will they ever find a cure or a safe place to rebuild society?  You tune in for the Human Drama, but other elements keep you coming back each week.  With Falling Skies, it's the mystery of the aliens.  With The Walking Dead, it's usually who is going to get killed off next or what the "badguy" is going to do next.  Honestly, I liked The Walking Dead's first season when the Zombies were an ever present threat.  I tried to watch the third season and was bored out of my mind.  I've heard the second season wasn't much better.  I liked Falling Skies when the Aliens were the ever present threat.  Season 3 of that rolled around and we're on to "Aliens are an afterthought, this all about Humans now".  It's gotten kind of boring, so I quit watching that as well.

I know, it sounds weird.  I kind of like my Human Drama mixed in with that whole "Real World Threat" thing.  I mean, if we're going to be honest here...  It's easy enough to get Human Drama by just loading up Facebook and seeing which of your friends are being jerks to each other.  I kind of prefer some "ever present danger" and "larger obstacle" for characters to overcome instead of just "will whiny jerk be shot for leaving little kid to die?".

I really don't think I'm asking too much when I say that I'd like about a 50/50 (or less human drama and more zombie threat) split when it comes to "Zombie Games".  Without that kind of ever present threat (as in, some designer takes the time to make sure you're reminded that Zombies are the real threat), the human drama portions become somewhat...  Well... silly.  They become pointless caricatures of human beings and their relationships.  They get odd herky jerky dialogue that doesn't have much context beyond "this character is supposed to be stressed by the zombie threat we haven't seen or heard of in 4 hours".

If possible, I'd like a game to actually require you to survive against the zombie outbreak as if it were a global thing and then when you've found "shelter", you spend some time with the human drama elements.  How do you ration out food and water?  Are some people more important than others to keep alive?  Do you treat everyone equally?  How do you solve disputes that will inevitably form amongst your group as the pounding and wailing of zombies becomes ever louder over the months?  How do you manage the sanity of the group?  How do you deal with "before the outbreak" tensions that existed amongst your group (like racism, sexism, bigotry)?  Etcetera.  I think you could tell a really fantastic story if you managed to combine these two elements equally.  That's honestly all I want.

I don't want a "Zombie Game" that is just "a game with zombies tacked on".  I'd like a true zombie experience.  That's all.

Zombies are just hackneyed, that's all.

You tried 7 Days To Die?  It's basically Minecraft with Zombies.  From what I've seen, most of what you described is in there.

I've seen it, but haven't played it.  Right now, I'm too low on funds to really give it a try.  I'm not sure it'd be anything more than "Minecraft without the other enemy types" at this point though.  There doesn't seem to be anything more than 10 zombies on screen at a time either.

It'll probably be something I check out at some point...  But I don't hold high hopes for it atm.

EDIT:  Sorry, I wrote in the wrong word.  It's been a long day and I'm wiped out.  You'll have to excuse the terrible spelling, misused words, and grammatical errors right now.

Cash grab reminds me of FFVII. Square Enix easily made me hate this gem because they released it over and over again without any major improvement, like, at all, while other underrated games like Dragon Quest and Romancing Saga got epic remakes, yet they still "aren't as good as FFVII."

Final Fantasy X... I will admit I didn't give it much of a chance but it's like the rail shooter of RPGs. Coming from playing awesome huge world non linear games FFX was a slap in the face, even by Final Fantasy standards, there's no backtracking, no open world, it's just a series of cutscenes intercut with a few mini-games and battles... it's... GAH!... and yet IT got a sequel... and yet IT got a Remastered HD remake...

Final Fantasy XII is by far what I consider to be the best Final Fantasy out there (of the main series). Oh sure it has it's problems like the infuriating aspect of randomly getting a super epic awesome "I need a license just for this one thing" piece of equipment or... a mote. *throws controller* It was such a bummer to find out that FFXIII was just going back to the RPG-on-a-rail gameplay of FFX... *sigh*

FF VII and X. I loved X-2 maybe just because it's so different from the others - and who doesn't love Charlie's Angels?

Not only was FF X on rails, it was depressing as hell. Maybe there was supposed to be some deep question behind the 'death spiral' theme, but I never 'got' it.

I've still got to finish the 2nd playthrough of TWEWY before I give it my final verdict, but it's at least interesting. Once I figured out I could safely ignore anything happening on the top screen the battle system got a lot easier too ;)

FFX is a terrible game in my opinion. The characters lack depth, the writing is awful (second only to FFXIII) and the voice acting is woefully bad. Also, while I'm at it, I hate it when people tell me I don't like the laughing scene because I "don't get it." I'm always told it's a really deep meaningful scene, and it's supposed to make you feel uncomfortable. BS. It can be as deep and meaningful as it wants, it doesn't make it any less unbearable.

Despite containing some of my most favourite video game themes to date, I dislike the Mother series. Earthbound in particular.

See, whenever I play an RPG, I expect to see either a serious and deep story or a story that really doesn't take itself seriously. However, the Mother series tries to do both of this at the same time. And although I admit that it leads to interesting results, most of said interesting results seem to lead to completely random moments that just happen for no reason at all. It ends up making the story seem forced.

Earthbound is especially guilty in this aspect. The return of Giygas is something that could have been anticipated since because of the ending of the original Mother, but the way he does so is just... weird. Where did the Devil's Machine come from? Why is it the only thing that can seal Giygas? Why did Giygas choose to brainwash Porky out of all people? In fact, Porky himself just feels shoe-horned into the story to me. His only real purpose is to taunt Ness and to become the sequel hook for Mother 3. I will admit that he was turned into a much better villain in that game, but couldn't he have been expanded upon in Earthbound?

And that's just one of the gripes I have with Earthbound's story. But even besides that, I dislike most of the enemies and bosses you get to fight. I guess that HAL and Ape Inc. tried to be creative in their enemy designs, but they took it to such an extreme that I just can't take it seriously as a game.

I see people praising the series the entire time, saying how great the story and the gameplay is... And although I can kind of see why people think that about Mother 3, I really don't understand why people are saying the same things about Earthbound.

Yeah... bringing back memories of the 'laughing scene' - it was uncomfortable, but for all the wrong reasons.

The only 'meaningful' scene I remember is the opening/pre-climax where they're all sitting around outside Zanarkand.

That and when Tidus bangs Yuna.

Radiant Historia. I don't know if it's because I haven't played that much, but it's confusing and I don't like the characters at all. 

People who tell you that the laughing scene is meant to make you feel uncomfortable are, admittedly, also people who don't get it.  :D

The point of the laughing scene is that Tidus tells Yuna to just fake laugh as loud as she can because it will make her feel better.  So, they do their really terrible laughter (which is the entire point).  It doesn't take long for both of them to realize how stupid, silly, and out-of-place their really fake laughter is, so they begin to REAL LAUGH about it.  The really fake and terrible sounding laughter is meant to sound fake and terrible.  The point is that the characters are doing it to feel less sad and stressed out.  It's sort of like screaming into a pillow.  However, if you do it long enough (yes, even in real life), it sounds really freakin' bad and you can't help but laugh for real at how bad it is.

Personally, I love Final Fantasy X.  However, I do understand many of the major complaints with it (such as very little characterization).  However, I think a lot of people are confusing "bad characters" with "bad voice actors" or even "no character arc".  These things do not make bad characters or shallow characters in and of themselves.  They can contribute to that, sure, but generally it's just bad writing that does that.

I think the major issue people tend to have with the story of FFX is simply that Tidus exists and they're not sure why.  He's not "the chosen one".  He's not "special" in any real way.  He's just there.  Well, he's a "audience avatar".  He's the guy you want around so that you can explain things in the world to him in order for the audience to get it.  You see, FFXII had two of these characters who didn't do a very good job (or any job) at all with it.  As a result, the story of Final Fantasy 12 makes very little sense, the motivations are almost non-existent, and the characters seem like shallow human beings.  FFXII explains absolutely nothing to the player, or the player avatars.  Meanwhile, in FFX, they explain every painful detail of absolutely everything to you.

So, many people don't like Tidus because he's the guy everyone spews exposition to.  They also tend to hate him because he's "whiny".  These same players forget that these traits also make up a large part of his character arc (which is quite substantial if you played the game up until at least Zanarkand).  He goes from a whiny selfish spoiled superstar with daddy issues into a genuinely nice and caring human being willing to sacrifice himself to keep his friends safe as well as to save all of Spira.

However, if you want to talk about how much of a Mary Sue Yuna is...  I'd be more than willing to agree with you on that terrible character, ha ha.

My biggest issue with "bad story" and "bad character" arguments is that they often seem to stem from people's inability to separated a character or a story they don't like on a personal level because it doesn't appeal to them, and an actually poorly written story and character.

There are many FF games I don't like, but I don't agree that any of them(post ff3 - not as in ff6 btw, I mean the third installment) have definitely bad stories or characters. There's a varying degree of depth and quality, but nowhere near the bottom of the spectrum.

A character being whiny, or one dimensional doesn't necessarily make it a bad character. Many people in real life are whiny and one dimensional.

A bad story or character is one that is inconsistent, and doesn't make sense in the way it interacts with its environment, and or is riddled with cheap plot-devices where one wouldn't expect them to be if the author had spent more time thinking about his or her writing.

I can't honestly say that's the case for most FF games. There are instances of course, like the FF8 memoryloss scene, and some others, but they are minority instances compared to the overall presentation.

Another factor here is perspective. When I hear people sum up FF characters with a few sentences and lamenting the lack of depth, I am more concerned by those people's lack of ability to reflect around the material, than the so-called lack of depth in the writing.

You can sum up any character in any story ever written with a couple of sentences if you want to, but you can also write a 10 page critical analysis if you have the mind to.

FF characters are no different.

With the huge amount of dialogue afforded to most central FF characters, and the multitude of scenarios they go through, I find it hard to see how anyone but those completely unwilling to engage with the story would walk away from it all truly feeling like these characters are generally poorly written.

What are these people comparing them to?

I will agree that the terms "bad characters" or "bad story" are entirely subjective. FFX is an incredibly divisive game in the franchise, nearly as much as VIII. 

"Another factor here is perspective. When I hear people sum up FF characters with a few sentences and lamenting the lack of depth, I am more concerned by those people's lack of ability to reflect around the material, than the so-called lack of depth in the writing."

This, however, I can't agree with. It seems to me what you are essentially saying is that because people complain about certain elements of a game's story or characters, that must mean they don't get it.

Going back to your thoughts on inconsistencies, I have to say the Final Fantasy series is full of them, more so than many other RPG series. In Final Fantasy VIII (spoilers, by the way) Squall is seemingly fatally wounded by Ultimecia. He gets stabbed through his freaking chest. Next scene, he's fine. Not a scratch on him. Never explained. Later on in the game, when Squall and Ranoa are floating through space, a giant ship which we've never seen before just so happens to find its way to them. Again, never explained. My point is, the writing in Final Fantasy often leaves a lot to be desired, sometimes they'll throw in deus-ex machina and inconsistencies purely because they write themselves into a corner. FFXIII is testament to this.

As for what people are comparing this to, they really don't need to. Sometimes Final Fantasy just spells the argument out. But I suppose if you really needed to know, I'd say it was other games that have a higher quality of writing. Tales of Symphonia, for example, is something I'd compare. The story has some inconsistencies I'll admit, but it's very well written and the characters are endearing. Final Fantasy X (again, entirely subjective) is neither of these. It's a poorly written game, and people who agree with me shouldn't have to feel like "they don't get it" just because they think that.

You don't even have to go that far. FF IV (2 in initial US release) has arguably the best story of any Final Fantasy - and this was the first or second Final Fantasy a lot of people played. I think every character has some good development in that one, even some of the minor ones.

FF X I get the story of - it's just depressing. It's the 'on rails' part of the game I don't like. It's replay value lies in racing through the game to get the monster arena open so you can sphere grid max and go mighty monster slaying, or play Blitzball if you liked that. Yuna a Mary Sue? Depends on what you mean by the term, I guess (although if it was so important for summoners to "send" dead people, wouldn't every village want one to stick around?)

VIII I've got a playthrough about 3/4 through I guess I never finished. The whole time warp thing never really clicked with me. That and your characters are pretty much useless in combat (the one command I wished I could change in the menu is <attack> since I NEVER used it) with your espers or whatever they were called doing all of the heavy lifting, and the best use of magic was to not use it...

I liked XII - you said there was no motivation, but there was - it was just different for each character. Sky Pirate dude even calls him out on it at one point asking "Why are you here?" It was nice not being the frickin "Chosen One" Crystal Bearing Big Ass Sword Wielding Spiky Hair Wearing Hero. He just got swept up in something and let himself get carried along for the ride for the most part. You could also go waaaay ahead of the script if you wanted to - even without cheap powerlevelling tricks.

X-2 was fun. It was a nice switch after X. Didn't take itself too seriously, but still had some nice moments in there. Wish they had done a X-3 for Rikku's story.

Switching back to games I don't like that people rave about - Beyond Atlantis. I have tried to play that game three times. I just cannot get very far in it without giving up out of boredom, or something or other... (I'm absolutely loving Syberia though).

Mary Sue isn't really a term that's "up for debate".  Yuna has basically zero character flaws.  She's Spira's version of the "Perfect Human Being".  She stops to help everyone, she does her job so well that everyone loves her, she's so popular that the villain wants to marry her to ensure his plans go off without a hitch, and she never once balks at anything going on.  Nothing ever inconveniences her or even makes her lash out at others.  Sure, she's a bit "depressed" as it's implied, but it's never really "dealt with" as she says she's pretending she's not sad in order to make everyone else be happy.  The biggest and toughest decision she ever has to make is when she's told she has to sacrifice someone to be "The Final Summon".  The problem with that?  It's TIDUS who makes the decision for her, and she just goes along with it.

She's a huge Mary Sue and it's kind of annoying.  Especially since the plot with her having to "put Seymore to rest" was basically shoe-horned into rest of the plot in order to try to give her depth beyond being a Mary Sue that she just doesn't have.  It only gets worse when all her attempts at "sending" him end up with him coming back from the dead later on... AGAIN... even though he'd been sent!

In Final Fantasy 10, she's the worst character.

I'll just clarify that I totally get the scene. I understand what it's trying to do (or what people SAY it's trying to do to make them feel better about themselves). I've watched the scene lots of times (which will probably contribute to insanity when I grow old) and I've had people lecture me on why I don't get it because I think it's an awful scene.

Here's the thing: what is there to "get?" I know you just did a nice job of explaining this down to a very minute detail, which is great, but even with all that context, does it make the scene any better? No, of course it doesn't. I get that there are children starving in Africa but it doesn't make me feel any better about it. In fact, it makes me feel worse knowing that.

Same deal with the laughing scene. The fact Square even attempted to make sense out of such a stupid point in the game (or rather, the fans tried to make sense out of it) is ridiculous. I've said it so many times, but once more won't hurt: you can have the most meaningful scene in the history of interactive entertainment, but if it makes you want to throw your copy of the game to a pack of dire wolves, none of that matters.

If people think otherwise, that's fine. I was done after that scene, though.

So then... you're saying Final Fantasy 7 needs to be thrown to Dire Wolves as well? :D