Final Fantasy XIII was planed as a project called Fabula Nova Crystallis trilogy. The second entry is really different to the first one. The first FFXIII was really linear, a hallway simulator as many said. The problem with that is that with the second entry a lot of people and youtubers told this game was terrible without almost even playing it, since many of them told it was another hallway simulator. Saying that is to not having even played it, you can think FFXIII-2 is really bad for whatever reason and it can be considered a valid opinion, but to call this a linear game (like the first one was) is a lie, it hasn't anything to do with the reality.

FFXIII-2 changes the dinamics of the first one a lot, it's a really diferent approach, it's as if Fabula Nova Crystallis was a single game instead of three, with each game being an act in a three act structure. That's why the first FFXIII was the introduction, very delimited and restringed since it has to create a story, present the characters and so, and doing in it in a predetermined way was easier (but not necesarily better). The FFXIII-2 arrived with what could be the knot or development. There the game changes a lot, you can go wherever you want and choose the path or the thing to do as you want, nothing to do with the first game; that's why hearing so many influencing people repeating those things only demonstrates this is full of bandwagons, of og creators of opinion who create the opinion that everyone else is going to repeat after him, because they haven't any critical opinion by themselves at all.

As an example I'm old enough to remember how Metal Gear Solid 2 was seen as an absolute disaster, a terrible game, a disgrace blahbla, now it's looked as one of the best games ever made. It was seen as that because they told it was terrible, and now people say it's a masterpiece because new "creators of opinion" who are younger and don't know what the previous ones told said MGS2 was a masterpiece.

After all this talk about being different to the first one that doesn't make it necesarily much better, I prefer it, since it's a bit different and campy. It almost seems like a good spinoff in the Final Fantasy saga, with a mix of good things and moments and bad ones that at the end create just a good game, just as Tetsuya Nomura who is a mix of good and bad things and his hand in this game is very clear.

If you like the first one continue with this one. If you haven't played this trilogy, this second part is not good enough to make you play the trilogy itself.

It still shines in what must be mandatory in a Devil May Cry game, the gameplay and combat mechanics.

The story and characters are stupid, written by hipster british guys on their 30’s who still think like a rebellious edgy teenager.

But as I said before who cares; if the story and characters were better DmC could be even better, but it’s not something that breaks this kind of game since at the end what you do after completing it for the first time is replay it in other difficulties skipping all the cutscenes and staying for the gameplay itself.

This doesn’t mean there are not things that could be done much better, just that the most important aspect in this saga is still on point so you don’t focus that much in that bland story or other issues.

Good game, but as any GTA game at the end it feels as a hollow experience that gives you nothing or changes anything for you.

A better story than other games of this kind that mistake a great story with creating a complex convoluted puzzle script instead of making a smaller and more straightforward script but with powerful moments as Sleeping Dogs.

The two DLC's are terrible.