A little more conversation, please?

I finally got my copy of Final Fantasy XIII and as I'm writing this I've only had about three hours with the game. Honestly, I'm blown away - the graphics are great, I already adore some of the characters and the story seems to be as messed up as I hoped. I've already had a taste of how linear the game can be, but I try to push away any disappointment and just focus on how epic it is. So many explosions, gigantic structures collapsing, monsters and impressive stunts; the game is almost a parody of itself.

When asked about it as a game, I find myself stumbling on why I love it. I know that things will be very different as the game progresses, but so far I haven't had to finish a fight by doing anything except hammering away on a single button. Sure, I've used special abilities from time to time, but that is only to mix it up a bit - it's not like I have to, since the regular auto attack will choose special attacks when it's the best situation to do that in. So if I have to start analyzing it at a greater depth, there is no way that I can't call the first few hours of Final Fantasy XIII lacking gameplay wise.

I don't want to, because it makes me look pretty silly. "It's a great game! You only push one button!" won't really help selling the game to my Japanese roleplaying game sceptical friends, even if I try to explain that "it's supposed to get a lot better! Soon!". Despite this, I really love Final Fantasy XIII. Just don't ask me to explain exactly why.

Thinking about this conundrum, and seeing God of War III-reviews making their way across the Internet, it's not a far leap to see where rabid fanboys come from when they tear the Internet apart in search for opinions differing from their own. Not that the games they support necessarily have to be bad, that's not what I'm getting at at all, but that the games they support so furiously might really be pretty standard experiences when analyzed at greater depths and they are just completely unable to see that or make a difference between the game and the world it exists in. That the conversation about games, the discourse surrounding certain titles, are shot to death even before it can even start.

Take Uncharted 2: Among Thieves for example. It's an amazing game, I loved every minute of it and me and my girlfriend were both blown away by Nathan Drake's latest adventure. While we ended up giving it a 8/10, that score was up to the reviewer. If I had written the review, I would probably have landed on a 9/10 (my girlfriend still thinks it deserved a perfect 10). But taking a step back, I can see where the whole 9/10 experience comes from, because if we take away the great storytelling and the amazing graphics, Uncharted 2 really is nothing more than a polished action game. The shooting is nothing spectacular, the AI is pretty stupid at times, the platform parts of the game are fun but not stellar in any way. Take away the impressive technological landmarks, such as the train scene, and Uncharted 2 isn't really the game we would make it out to be.

I don't see the problem in doing that, though. For me, the whole experience comes together and shoots up the grade to the higher echelons of the scale. The scene where Nathan Drake is walking through a Tibetan village is hardly amazing gameplay but the narrative is so wonderfully made that it is still one of last year's most profound gaming moments. What I must admit though, as an adult individual, is that if I had not been so touched by parts like that, Uncharted 2 could have been pretty forgettable.

There's the crux that faces us that enjoy discussing video games on the Internet, that even the conversation about a certain video game can be shot to hell and back before it even has time to start. That a site or publication that sees a certain game differently than me risks coming under fire because of a differing opinion. When lower scores are not seen as just another opinion, or as valid points that I can internalize and then decide to either reject or make a part of my own views, but as biased journalism only because a grade or article might be more critical of a game than another. How does one possibly explain one's standpoint to a bunch of raving mad dogs, whose entire ideas of self seems to be tied in with their favorite game developer's Metacritic-scores?

While biased reviewers will always exist in places, the knee-jerk reaction that every writer that doesn't like the same game as you or I do has an agenda is getting both old and far fetched. Perhaps I shouldn't go as far to say that it threatens gaming journalism, but I do fear that the roaming packs of fanboys do risk scaring away people that would be able to make great a contribution to our field of work. Either way, your "the 360/PS3/Wii/Magnavox has no game lol suck it" isn't helping anyone, now is it?

I could explain, in a piece at least as long as this one, why I believe Uncharted 2: Among Thieves is an amazing piece of work. Just don't force me to explain why the gameplay is spectacular, because it really isn't. The same goes for the first Mass Effect, which suffers from a bunch of flaws (here's looking at you, Mako). I know that, I can see that, because I can take that important step back. In the case of Final Fantasy XIII I can do the same. From a gameplay-perspective, those three initial hours are more or less worthless. Pressing a single button over and over again? It's not really that much fun.

But, man. I love that game to bits already.