It's the final nail in the coffin FF XIII built for itself. Between this series and FF XIV, Square Enix has managed to kill off a lot of the good will towards the series. Final Fantasy fans are quickly becoming divided into two groups: the faithful and the group that only really likes the games up through the PS2 generation.

They're not unlike the Simpsons fans who proclaim that the series died 12 years ago and has been a shadow of its former glory since, or the Star Wars fans who pretend the prequel trilogy never happened.

For what it's worth, the JRPG is far from dead -- Square Enix has just lost its ability to be at the forefront of the genre (*with the exception of one recent release). Most of the best recent JRPGs are on handhelds now:

-Persona 4 Golden (Vita, 2011)

-Bravely Default (3DS, 2014)*

-Ys: Memories of Celceta (Vita, 2013)

-Etrian Odyssey IV (3DS, 2013)

-Shin Megami Tensei IV (3DS, 2013)

A handful of console recent JRPGs have also been worthwhile:

-Xenoblade Chronicles (Wii, 2012)

-The Last Story (Wii, 2012)

-Tales of Xillia (PS3, 2013)

-Ni No Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch (PS3, 2013)

My advice if you're a fan of the genre is to stick to those titles. Or, get a Vita and replay the first ten Final Fantasy games (plus X-2) and other great games from Square Enix's backcatalog, like Chrono Cross, Vagrant Story and Legend of Mana. You'll be better off.

@swimbearuk It's really different from other games in the "collect and build" genre because it's incredibly non-linear and is loaded with puzzles that require you to think creatively. For example, early on in the game. you'll find yourself drowning a lot and avoiding underground water. But once you upgrade your equipment to allow yourself to dig more quickly, you have new solutions to that problem that will not only keep you from fearing large pools of water, but which will actually lead you to seek them out since they tend to lead to treasure.

The first time I dug my way down to the underworld, I died from the fall, and it took me awhile to figure out how I could get down there effectively. I looked to see what I could craft and I realized that a grappling hook might be useful (since, like in Just Cause 2, you can shoot it at the ground to break your fall.) So, I collected the necessary items (itself a quest since you have to slay skeletons and piranhas to get the necessary hook) and then crafted a hookshot and made my descent... only to get killed by the hot rocks and nasty beasts that populate that area. My solution to one problem led me to have to consider a new solution to a different one.

That's what makes Terraria so awesome. The puzzles and quests aren't usually spelled out for you, but they're built into the DNA of the game so that you'll eventually have to solve them. Your solutions to these problems can be personal and unique, and discussing the game with other people will lead you to new ideas.

It's a lot more fun than Minecraft because much more of the game is built around combat and exploration than mining and building. The enemies are a lot more interesting, and the bosses are a real joy to fight.

The next big game in the genre, Starbound, shares a lot with Terraria in its approach. It'll be on the Vita this year if we're lucky.

A game so great even Tom McShea couldn't find fault with it. For once, I agree with every word!

And I hope 505 Games issues a patch to turn off the back touchpad. Aside from the tech demos Sony has released, the only game that I've seen use that functionality well is Tearaway. Many of the other games that have tried have forgotten that gamers have to hold this device and be able to see the screen while they're touching it. (If you have big hands, too, it's hard not to accidentally hit that touchpad with a stray finger.)

For Terraria, where precision is really important, it's difficult to use your fingers on a touchpad you can't see. It'd make much more sense to allow you to turn that feature off.

But considering that I've put a good work week's worth of hours into this game already and I'm still on my first world, I'm not complaining. It is AMAZING.

Umm... when you introduce the Last of Us, there's some footage from a game with a similar female protagonist, but less accurate science: Beyond: Two Souls.

@OHGFawx What, you don't think they're worth $5 apiece? Nintendo sure does.

/In this day and age of Steam sales, Humble Bundles and Playstation Plus, only Nintendo can hang on to nearly 30-year-old software and insist it's still worth more than 99 cents per download.

I played during the beta and thought, "I don't need to waste any time or money here." The game felt soulless and lifeless even then (a year ago), and from the review, it sounds like not much has changed.

It's a novel concept for the PS3, but there's no need to port it to the PS4, which has Planetside 2 on the way to scratch the F2P sci-fi shooter itch. Honestly, Dust would probably do better if it were ported to the PC since there would be more opportunity for EVE crossover audience there.

As for the PS3, there are already other, better free to play options available, like Uncharted 3 F2P and DC Universe Online. Dust 514 doesn't stack up to either.

@meatz666 @SecularSage Nobody made me read it, true, but I DID read it, and I had a response to it. The article sounded interesting, but it fell flat.

I've been reading GameSpot since 1998. I'm pretty familiar with what they're about. And there's nothing wrong with providing them honest feedback if they're offering a forum to do so.

There's no need to resort to name-calling if you disagree.

@thetourist25 @SecularSage I don't know why people feel the need to say this. Perhaps it makes them feel smart to argue semantics and ignore the point being made.

But the reality is, there's a difference between an OBJECTIVE review and a SUBJECTIVE opinion. Game reviewers who offer the former are providing a useful service; reviewers who deliver the latter are only of much use if they have some credentials that make their opinions qualified. (Most reviewers are enthusiasts, not developers; their opinions are only qualified by their level of experience with the products they're looking at. Sadly, in game "journalism," it doesn't take much to get a review gig.)

An OBJECTIVE review takes different perspectives into account and then offers a qualified point of view. This is good and useful when you're looking at an entertainment product that may not appeal to everyone. For example, most gamers aren't that fond of the constant repetition found in the Dynasty Warriors games, but there is a dedicated niche that loves it. An objective review takes that into account -- is this game for fans, or a broad audience? -- and doesn't attempt to infuse the reviewer's personal bias into that equation. OBJECTIVE reviews are about trying to understand the question of, "who will enjoy this, and who should avoid it?"

A SUBJECTIVE opinion, on the other hand, is based on the reviewer's personal view of the question, "did I like this or didn't I?" And that is of very little value in situations where the reviewer's credentials aren't based on anything more than their enthusiasm. The review is only useful to people who want that reviewer's specific opinions. For example, many people enjoy Yahtzee's "Zero Punctuation Reviews" not because they like his reviews, but because they enjoy the unique perspective he brings to provide needed criticism to games that all too often receive high ratings from popular sources. His views are entirely SUBJECTIVE, but interesting.

I have no problem with SUBJECTIVE reviews if they have a point. This review would fall into that bucket if the conceit weren't "SimCity isn't realistic; I should know, because I'm a real-life mayor." The idea of having a mayor review the game is interesting, much like when Boing Boing asked some real former Yakuza to play one of Sega's Yakuza games and then recorded their reactions, or when other sources have asked real active duty military to provide commentary on Call of Duty. And in this case, the question could be, "has SimCity gotten better since release with all the patches and add-ons? Let's take a look, and by the way, the person who will answer the question knows a thing or two about running towns."

But the execution here is silly. We already know SimCity is a botched game with too many limitations due to the insistence on online play, and that it isn't realistic doesn't bring anything new to the table. The SUBJECTIVE opinion Brett is expressing doesn't teach us anything new.

Hence my conclusion -- all of these "second take" reviews have been a waste of time for GameSpot. At best, they've been benign; at worst, they've been troll-tastic. It would be better to devote their resources towards re-reviewing games that have changed since their original review (such as games like DC Universe Online that have changed drastically since they went F2P or games like Sound Shapes or LittleBigPlanet 2 that have morphed into different games since their release due to the strong user communities) because those are situations where a review, whether SUBJECTIVE or OBJECTIVE, is better warranted and potentially more interesting.

Once again, these "second take" reviews prove to not only be inessential, but based on personal bias rather than a useful attempt to take a second look at a game. The idea of a real-world mayor reviewing the game is great, but is it really news to anyone that SimCity doesn't begin to approximate what it's like to sit in public office? Has ANY SimCity game even come close to that in the series' 25 years of existence? (More to the point -- does any of that matter if the game is actually fun, as SimCIty 1-4 were? Are other simulation sub-genres held to a similar standard of realism?)

My suggestion for "second take" reviews is to focus on games that GameSpot reviewed previously to see how they have held up down the road IF those games have some sort of updated content that has changed the games for the better or worse. For example, a "second take" on an MMO that's gone F2P or on a console game where the multiplayer has been patched and improved would be good and useful.

But this nonsense about letting GameSpot writers grind their personal axes is just pointless self-stimulation. It doesn't add anything of value and it makes GameSpot look less credible as a source. Every one of these "second take" reviews has been wasted effort at best, and in the case of Tom McShea's Bioshock Infinite second take, a reminder of what happens when picky reviewers are paired badly with genre games.

Also, as a side note... why is the box art being shown here the art from the original SimCity from original DOS release instead of the box art from the 2013 edition?

My question is, "how will someone who hated Lords of Shadow" enjoy this game?

Because I really, really disliked that one's take on Castlevania. It was grafted into the continuity much in the way DmC has been grafted into that series's continuity, and in both cases, the reboot isn't nearly as good as the originals.

Rondo of Blood and Symphony of the Night are the bookends to the two great styles of the series; everything else (64, Legacy of Darkness, Lament of Innocence, Curse of Darkness, Judgment) has been a mediocre or outright terrible experiment with 3D. Some might argue that Simon's Quest / Order of Ecclesia mark the third great style; I can go along with that, though I think Simon's Quest is a hard game to love or Order of Ecclesia was more of a Castlevania-themed sidestory than a core game.

Mirror of Fate looked like garbage to me on the 3DS. Is it going to be a game I'll love or hate if I can't stand LoS?