@aigis said:My first console was a Nintendo... Anybody who doesnt see that the video game medium has expanded past mindlessness into being able to craft games that can rival novels and film in terms of artistic vision are really just ignorant.

So in the end you're the one being ignorant about what a game is. You say that a game can rival films in terms of artistic vision? Of course it can, you only need to put 2 hours of cinematic sequences into the game and there you have it. And returning to my book example, you could also say that a book's cover can rival any painting when it comes to artistic vision as well.

But the fact is that even if you put the BEST paint EVER MADE into the cover of a mediocre book the book will still be mediocre, and you'll see nobody saying "books can rival the best paintings when it comes to express feelings so it having the best painting as a cover puts it above better written books with uglier covers". Hell, you could say the same about movie posters and even the greatest poster wouldn't make a bad movie to be considered good in the least.

The problem here is that you seem to have some kind of complex against videogames, do you think that the quality of a videogame can be judged by the cinematic aspects of it? Do you think you can judge a book by its cover or a movie by its poster? And why do you speak about "mindlessness" when Xenoblade X is a game that punishes playing in a mindlessness way infinitely more than The Witcher 3 simply because of its much more complex gameplay design? You're clearly downplaying the medium when you say that videogames are "mindless" if they don't try to be movies (it seems that the Playstation propaganda has left an impression to you).

Videogames are GAMES displayed through a VIDEO signal, and they should be respected for what they are. The difference between videogames and movies is that videogames were stigmatized for being what they were and that didn't change until they tried to be something else.

I'll put you another clear example. Let's do with football what you do with videgoames. Would you say that someone that plays football simply for the sake of playing football is more "mindless" than someone that interprets a role while playing football? Hey, look at Messi, he is good with the ball but he can't act while he plays so he is a mindless player and can't be the best of the world XD

@aigis A game can be perfectly fine without a great story or characters, but praising a game as the greatest or flawless is really just promoting oversight. If you want to keep video games in the dark ages be my guest

The "dark ages"? You mean those "dark ages" where videogames were heavily stigmatized because they weren't trying to be movies? Well, I enjoyed videogames back then because I like TO PLAY, and yes, back then they were something "mindless" or "kiddy" but it's obvious to me that the solution is not to turn a videogame into a movie.

And no, I'm not prompting oversight, I'm just giving importance to what defines videogames as a medium and not trying to turn them into movies. Can a movie be bad because it has bad promotional posters? Can a book be bad because it has a bad cover? My opinion is NO, because that's not what those medium intend, and the same goes for games. Think about it, aren't you the one "promoting oversight" when you try to cover flaws in the most crucial aspect of a game (it's rules, or in videogamy terms, it's gameplay) with things that are tangential to a game's core design like it's graphics or it's writing? Wouldn't you accuse someone saying "hey this movie may have a bad plot and a bad direction but it has a hell of a promotional poster so it's a good movie in the end" of "promoting oversight"? Because I'm sure I would.

So you're saying that the GAMEPLAY of a GAME is like the font of a book XD

Look man, a book is meant to be read, a game is meant to be PLAYED. What's important in a book is the story it explains, in a game what's important is how well designed its gameplay is. Were videogames designed with the aim to explain stories? Only someone whose first console was a Playstation would answer "yes" to that question.

@aigis said: I think its overrated because its a wii u exclusive tbh

Of course, at the end you think that the gameplay is as important as the font used for the text. That's the only way someone could put a broken game like The Witcher above Xenoblade X.

Of course it can. That's like saying "a book can be fine without a good cover, but it can't be 'the best of the generation".

Xenoblade X has its problems (for example, some features lack a bit of polish, like the way you pick your party partners from the map) but it's still a much better designed game than its competition (at this moment, Witcher 3 and Fallout 4).

@KratosYOLOSwag said: It doesn't have the best gameplay in a world where Bloodborne exists.

Since they're so different when it comes to gameplay you can't compare them directly, but I would say that both games are pretty good. None of them is "broken" in the sense that the gameplay can be exploded in your favor, and both of them are pretty good at what they try to achieve.

@khoofia_pika said: Nope, nope, nope. It's definitely among the best, but a) it's nowhere close to being as flat out excellent as Witcher 3

As flat out excellent as a game with a broken gameplay design? The Witcher 3 is good (playable enough, well designed enough) but there are dozens of better games (unless you put the "narrative" aspects of a game at the same level than the playability, but that's like putting a book's cover at the same level than its contents) out there.

Well, I didn't need any good story to want to explore Mario 64's stages. If a world is well designed I don't think that the story or the character's are a comparable factor. In other words, if we were speaking of books instead of games I wouldn't compare the book structure (if it's linear or if it isn't) to the core quality of the writing.

@Epak_said: Broken? How so?

Try to level up the magical barrier ability to it's maximum level and you'll know how it's broken. Not in the sense of bugs (even if TW3 has more bugs than Xenoblade it wasn't about that that I was speaking) but in the sense where the gameplay isn't well designed and fighting becomes a trivial aspect because of lack of complexity/difficulty.

@aigis said:

@freezamite said:

A gimmick is something that brings nothing substantial to the product.

No its not... Some people may use it in a negative way because they are going so far out of the box to be different, but gimmicks dont bring nothing to the table

It is. Look at the definition "a trick intended to attract attention" or in other words, something that doesn't have a finality besides attracting the attention. In other words, a gimmick may end bringing something actually valuable to the product, but only if by a chance the gimmick happens to have an use it's creator didn't think off.

Now, can you say this about the WiiU gamepad when Nintendo has been experimenting with that technology since the GameCube era? I don't think so.

Legit, since it is really different than the one in Xenoblade X. But besides what one can like the most, it's undeniable than TW3 gameplay is simpler than the one in XCX and what's worst, it's broken.

@Aigis_said: I dont know what you find to be essential then (especially in a RPG)... And those are the aspects XCX really tanked in

I don't think you can say XCX tanked in those departments (it has some really interesting sidequests and in terms of the main plot I think it's better than the simple "looking for Ciri" story in TW3), but what defines a game is the gameplay first and foremost, regardless of the genre.

A gimmick is something that brings nothing substantial to the product. You may not like having a screen on your controller because of reasons, but it allows for some gameplay formulas not possible in traditional controllers.

Now if you can name me a single PS4 game not possible in terms of gameplay mechanics on the WiiU I'll be glad to play it.

The only aspect (besides things that are not an essential part of a game like the plot, the characters or the story) where I find the Witcher 3 superior is in the accessibility (it's a much easier game to get into although it's also a much simpler experience).

People should learn the meaning of gimmick. At this point, how can anyone say that a screen that actually bring some neat new functionalities when it comes to gaming is more of a gimmick than a few extra GFLOPS that bring prettier graphics (the same but a bit prettier, which is the definition of a gimmick)?

@MonsieurX: Content?

It's pretty much kill X,gather Y and get some points and cash. Nothing creative here

Let's not pretend that the Witcher 3 or Fallout 4 do anything different here. Every single mission in The Witcher 3 is "go to X, follow the trails using your witcher senses and kill Y once you reach the spot".

What's creative about Xenoblade is the world layout and it's complexity. In various occasions you'll find yourself forced to go through areas with enemies that are 20 or even 30 levels above you with no other option than to sneak past them (it's not a MGS either) and then you also have the absurdly huge number of different mechanics you'll have to deal with (upgrading your character, your character's class, your abilities, your arts, your frontier nav, your skells) that bring you new gameplay elements even after you've sunk dozens and dozens of hours into de game.

It's way better than Witcher 3 in a lot of aspects so....