Fire Above the Battle

So I've been playing Final Fantasy XIII (some people would say obsessing, and I really can't argue the point), but I've noticed recently that several game review sites have taken points away from the game because it's too linear...

Um hello?  This is a Japanese-made RPG.  This isn't Rockstar San Diego.  There is a very big difference between eastern and western RPG philosophies.  Eastern Gaming Philosophy is all about the journey, and the story involved in said journey, while Western Gaming Philosophy is all about choice.  FF13 subscribes to the former, and choice is given a back seat in priority to the story, but this provides the game designers to script a much more in-depth experience.  Here's an example:

Western RPGs use the term 'sandbox' because it is an open environment that lets you do, well, whatever the heck you want.  Eastern RPGs aren't sandbox, instead, I liken them to the slide.  It's one way, but it's a helluvan exciting trip there.  Or a rollercoaster if you prefer the metaphor - you can't choose where your rails go, but that's not the point, it's the ride (journey) that keeps you coming back.

You don't really compare the two, now do you (slides or sandboxes)?  So when these game review sites are nitpicking that the game is 'too linear', I really have to laugh.  That's like saying the slide is no good because you can't build sandcastles with it.  I have no problem with sandcastles, but sometimes, I just want an exciting journey.

So reading those reviewers really disappoints me.  These people are supposed to be video game aficionados, so they should know the difference between the gaming philosophies and know not compare apples to oranges simply because they feel they have to nitpick something.  They should know better.  It's a good game, don't cheapen it.

Which brings me to another point.  Why do video game reviewers have to insist on revolutionary game play?  A new iteration of a tried-n-true franchise does not need to change the control scheme merely to keep things fresh.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  JRPGs are continuously slammed in reviews because they supposedly didn't bring anything new to the genre - but did they really need to?  Like God of War III for example.  It has the same control scheme, and a reviewer said it didn't bring anything new over its older siblings.  Again, I ask, why does it have to?  It's in HD.  It's Kratos beating the living stuffing out of everything.  It has giant female mountains.  What else do you want?!

Maybe this is a core problem of the larger whole.  Why does society need new things over old things just because?  Your cell phone works just fine, and does everything you want it to do, but you still 'upgraded' to the shiny newer one.  Why?  Because it was shiny(ier)?

Riddle me that, Batman.