@aigis: Thats not what I mean when I say technically. I'm talking about Nintendo's online infrastructure for a game that is pretty much online only. But im fairly certain i've talked about this before on the threads. The gameplay is what I am judging splatoon on cause its an online shooter, not an rpg like xenoblade, get over yourself.

And the problem is what, ¿exactly? Matches start as fast as or even faster than in almost any other online game I've ever played (most times you spend seconds in the waiting room, and I don't think I've ever had to wait for more than a minute) and as long as the connections are good enough there're no problems that affect the gameplay.

It seems that your reasoning behind your claim is "I've read in the internet that Nintendo has bad online infrastructure and this is an online shooter, so there you have it". Well, seeing how you even dared to describe The Witcher 3 as a game with "a more complex gameplay" than Xenoblade X only demonstrates that you have an anti-nintendo agenda. Ridiculous.

¿Splatoon a "techncically flawed game"? LOL.

Splatoon manages to lower the entry barrier of the shooter genre while at the same time adding mechanics that makes it more deep. It's a gameplay and level design masterpiece, and that should be acknowledged regardless of one's enjoyment with the game.

Of course, your stance on the subject is only understandable if one remembers that the gameplay of a game is as important as it's cover according to you LOL

The Playstation generation is by far the worst offender.

I love Total War, but the games aren't that complex. Of the games I've played, Pokémon is the one with the deepest gameplay because of the combination of a really simple complex that makes the games really enjoyable even when starting, and a really complex system for both the battles (tons of different attacks that have a wide range of potential effects plus abilities and objects) and team management (which Pokémon is chosen, EVs, IVs..).

Wow, didn't read this. I understand someone not liking splatoon, but denying it's an excellent game? That's the demonstration you don't even know what a good videogame is made of.

It's only normal that you find a broken game (in terms of gameplay, not bugs) like the Witcher 3 better than Xenoblade X. In the era of "interactive movies" having good gameplay is completely a non factor, what a shame.

It's curious how someone who claims to love nintendo in the end doesn't even have a clue about nintendo's game design philosophy. Nintendo always design their hardware around a gameplay feature they want to exploit, thus saying that Nintendo is limited by the "motion movement" of their control is bullshit. What would limit nintendo creatively speaking is if they were limited to a traditional controller in a traditional console and having to achieve an extremely wide appeal on every game released (so no more metroids nor any riscky experimental games like Pikmin or even Splatoon -now it's a success but I remember a lot of people saying it wouldn't sell more than Wonderful 101 for example).

Hey, wake up, Nintendo is not here to do any bullshit movie-like game and becoming 3rd party would benefit them as much as going 3rd party benefited SEGA.

Well, those 200+ hours are if you go for 100% completion (which is not a 100% like in The Witcher where you have to hunt every single treasure chest out there) and while there's grinding in the game I don't think it's particularly bad in that aspect (although it's more grindy than Witcher 3 for example).

Now, if you prefer linear games and you didn't finish the first Xenoblade, I don't think this game is for you. It has some absolutely great features (one thing I've forgotten to comment is the affinity chart and how it reflects the decisions you take while doing the quests, including some character's deaths) but it's the opposite of a linear game so...

@aigis: Sheep will claim that the battle system (which is hard to get into) and bigger world size make it a better game if not the greatest jrpg ever made (which is not even close), but according to them good story and characters are "non-essential" in a rpg game.

Sheep you say? Look, at this point I even doubt you've played the game (hell, you were trying to defend that Witcher 3 is a more HARDCORE experience, I mean, LOL). Not only it seems that you aren't able to comprehend what you're told (who has said that Xeno X is better because it's bigger? I think that only you have made that claim in an attempt to downplay Xenoblade X's qualities) but you seem to have an anti-Nintendo agenda.

And yes, story and characters will never be comparable to gameplay, no matter the genre or the game.

@aigis: I understand what you are saying, I just think its very simpleminded of you

As simpleminded as not considering the quality of the drawing of a movie poster when analysing the movie itself.

@mesome713: All games have their flaws just as Xenoblade X does, but Xenoblade X has less flaws then any game i know off.

I don't think this is accurate. Xenoblade X has it's own share of flaws (the game doesn't explain some important concepts that should be explained, some QoL problems like the ones I described, etc.) but it's qualities are so over the top (I've never seen a game with so much meaningful content, or with a handcrafted world of that size) that easily put it in my list of best games ever played.

It's even better than "THAT good" in my opinion, but it also has its flaws and since it's so different than most RPGs when it comes to its structure and what intends to do and the game lacks some tutorials it may be a bit hard to get into.

If you didn't finish Xenoblade Chronicles on Wii then you may not like this either (it depends on what made you leave the first Xenoblade unfinished) but if there's an adjective one can't apply to that game that one is "run of the mill JRPG".

Its flaws are mostly related with the entry barrier of the game. There are some aspects of the game that are not explained even in the digital manual and there are some quality of life problems as well (for example, selecting your party members can be a bit frustrating because they're spread all over New LA and they're not highlighted on the map, and even when the most important members are all in the barracks or the comercial district it's usual to waste minutes searching for the character you seek).

But once you get a grip on the game it delivers unlike any other single player RPG I've ever played.

One good QoL feature is that you end having fast-travel points spread all over the world. You may perfectly end with near 100 fast travel points in the end fo the game and the game loads really fast (it never takes more than 10-15 seconds and if you aren't fast-travelling through different continents in 4-5 seconds the job is done) so you'll never waste time travelling unnecessarily.

Then, to compare it to Witcher 3 since you asked for it, what in my opinion puts Xenoblade X much above it is the gameplay. Not only the battle system but the gameplay in general. While in Witcher 3 you may need 70 hours to maximize your character to a point where nothing can defeat you, in Xenoblade I'm still far from being able to defeat the strongest enemies even after spending more than 160 hours in it. In W3 you power up Geralt until nothing can defeat him, in Xeno X you start powering up your character, then you start to upgrade the Frontier Nav system that's your main source of resources and after that you'll get the skells which is another layer that adds to the gameplay.

Your main character can't level up past level 60, and if you want to 100% the game you'll have to fight against 90+ level monsters, so managing your habilities/arts/equipment/skells/frontier nav becomes a must.

Then there's the world design, which is also a huge part of the gameplay. Xenoblade X's world is so good not because of its size but because of it's design. This is not your usual "let's put a big plain terrain with some enemies here and there" but a much more tightly designed package which allows for a much more rewarding exploration.

And finally, the game has much more meaningful content than Witcher 3. In W3 I spent hours and hours doing shit for the sake of completion, while in Xenoblade X rare are the ocasions where there isn't a worthwhile reward to compensate for your efforts. In fact, in TW3 I was progressing purely to see how the story advanced and what new stories would be explained in the new sidequests, while in Xenoblade X even if that may also apply the main motivation is to upgrade something (there's a **** ton of upgradeable things) to become stronger.

@aigis: Apples and Oranges in the fact that your whole second paragraph before has no meaning, try being concise in your writing... You sir a probably just a troll cause your arguments make 0 sense and now I feeling like im am just banging my head against a brick wall. Agree to disagree

No meaning? I'm just saying that a videogame script is as important for a game as the movie poster for a movie. It's not that hard to grasp, don't you think?

Apples and oranges what? So a game has to have an "emotional payoff" to be great but not an "intellectual payoff" for example? Story and Character will never be essential in any kind of game. Have you even tried to play a role game with your friends (not a videogame)? The story is the least important and it's shit 100% of the times, what matters is the character's abilities and the overall rules we apply to the game.

Now, that being said, I even doubt you've played Xenoblade X. I mean, not only you speak as if every single character was Tatsu or if the game had the usual tropes found in a JRPG but you also seem to insist in that the overall story is not good while defending The Witcher 3 and it's even more bland overall plot (even a fanboy like you should admit that the strength of The Witcher 3 lies in secondary missions like the Bloody Robert Baratheon and not the main quest per se).

Yes, that's why Xeno X has like twice the content of Witcher 3 (if we talk about meaningful content, then multiply that by 5), in a world at least 3 times bigger and with a battle system that not only is much more complex but it's also not broken like the one in Witcher 3. Oh, and also 0 bugs from day one.

And even devoting so many lines trying to explain it to you, you still haven't understood it XD

The fact that a game can now "give emotional payoff" doesn't mean that this is something a game has to even try to do. Do you know a game can be educational and thus "give intellectual payoff" to the ones playing? And are you going to say that a game can't be the best thing ever if it isn't educational?

Games are games, movies are movies, books are books and paints are paints. You won't judge a movie based on how well the official summary is written, you won't judge books based on how beautiful it's cover is and you won't judge paints based on the amount of text included in the painting or its interactiveness (do you know that some paints change a bit depending on from where you look at them? And are you going to say that a paint can't be considered the best if it doesn't have this effect on the viewer? LOL). So it's obvious that a game's quality can't be judged based on aspects that don't define gaming like the script or if it has good voice acting.

And lastly, you repeating one time and another that XCX doesn't have any interesting characters or an interesting world (LOL) won't make it true. It may not have a Robert Baratheon clone like The Witcher 3 (even if better written than any Xenoblade X character, let's not pretend that the blood baron is anything more than a bad copy of this character) but it still have lots of interesting conflicts (deaths in Xenoblade X have more impact than the ones in Witcher 3) and good enough characters as well. I mean, not only are you trying to judge videogames based in cinema criteria, but you're also trying to downplay Xenoblade X as much as you can in that aspect to try to compensate the immense difference between it and The Witcher 3 when it comes to playability and world design.