I don't see any reason why I should be polite. It would be one thing if you genuinely wanted to understand the mechanics but you don't. If you did, you'd be asking questions, not making declarations that the mechanics are poorly thought out.
Seriously, what in the world gives anyone the right to call a developer's game and its mechanics poorly thought out, garbage, etc. but doesn't give someone else the right to point out that those people are garbage at playing it?
Many of your "criticisms" only show your own failures at the game (e.g. you most definitely can smoothly transition between sliding and aerial moves and I stated how). And I have no problem pointing that out given your past posts.
I already knew beforehand that there are plenty of people who are bad at the game.
Yeah, I'm not trying to sway you on anything. And I'm attacking your arguments by pointing out that it's not the game that plays poorly, it's you who's playing poorly (I'm also giving explicit reasons why).
You can't disagree on how to transition from gravity slides to aerial movements without stopping. That's something anyone who has the game or access to the GR demos can easily verify by trying for themselves. You were dead wrong on that point.
Feel free to disagree with me on the Yunica and Raven boss fights. Then again, anyone with the game can go to those fights and see for themselves how the bosses react to gravity kicks and how they react to having things thrown at them on the ground.
As for disagreeing about the writing, aside from your claim that it's bad, you don't seem to actually have anything worthwhile to say. But still, others can verify what I said about the game's storytelling for themselves (e.g. prior to the Alias boss fight, they can see for themselves that he makes projections).
Whether they think that how story elements are told is good or bad is up to them. I really don't care if they think that how the game conveyed that Alias is
or that Dusty is a
is clever. Chances are, though, that you never even picked up on how the game did that or how the game built up its world. And that's not something to ignore when you're calling the writing bad.
It's a shame that anyone would need to tell you why it benefits you to be polite, I was not rude to you, yet you did not show me the same kindness. If as you say, that you 'attacked my arguments' why did you need to call the games detractors (myself included) unintelligible and bad at the game? While you did address the arguments I presented, you obviously did not feel your line of argument was strong enough to support your own views, and felt a childish ad hominem would help strengthen your perspective. It does not, quite the opposite in fact, calling to question your ability to coherently, critically analyse and present your information.
I'll entertain your perspective anyway; if being bad at the game is a valid counter argument then perhaps it's you that's playing the game badly. Watch any speedrun of the game, almost every boss, every enemy, is beaten merely by hitting gravity kick over and over, hitting the enemy as quickly as possible, and in most instances you manage to evade their attack patterns with your own relentless attack. Maybe then, it's you that is playing the game badly, making fights more complicated than they otherwise need to be. Generally speaking I don't believe a players ability reduces the value of their opinion on a game, if someone is bad, or better at it, their thoughts come from a different perspective but they're no less valid. With that said, I think rebutting someone's opinion with that line of argument is very odd with regard to this particular game. There are few games as easy to play as Gravity Rush, it's incredibly forgiving, and frankly, very difficult to be 'bad at'.
I do admit that there are a handful of instances where the games combat asks more of you, but the unfortunate issue is that these instances are these are few and far between. There is very little variety required of the core gameplay, and even most boss fights are beaten very easily, in the same way. Why spawn a group of visually different enemies if they can all be defeated in the same way? In many instances the game does this, and it calls its design into question. I also do not think that placing the enemies weak spot onto its rear is enough variation to make combat interesting, yet this is something the game often does.
You said before that I 'probably beat the bosses with special attacks' because I was bad, but is beating them efficiently, not better? First I am not good at the game therefore I am wrong, then I am using the wrong abilities and completing the boss fights too easily, therefore I am wrong. This line of argument is absurd.
Before I cited issues with the camera, and you somehow suggested that was seperate from the games gameplay. A camera, the item that controls your perspective is indeed, directly tied to its gameplay on a mechanical level, for the most part the camera in gravity rush is perfectly fine, but there are instances where it's a little unwieldy, and obviously, that does directly affect the gameplay during those segments.
As far as transitioning between gravity alteration and sliding, while you can drop out of gravity manipulation into a near immediate slide, it feels as though you lose most of your momentum, this reduces any sense of fluidity between the two. I know I would enjoy the game more if it felt a more fluid, playing something like Titanfall and seeing your momentum transition between wall runs, and grounded slides provides a remarkable feeling, incredible control and fluid movement, something that I feel, Gravity Rush 2 doesn't quite achieve.
As for the narrative, I actually enjoy the overarching plot, just not the writing, I could have made that clearer, but the dialogue and between characters comes across as very cliched and dull much of the time. Additionally, very little reason is given to care about any of the supporting cast members or world for most of the game, because the game isn't written in a way in which any interesting or personal information develops out of Kat's interactions. One of Kat's most frequent and closest relationships is with Syd, but you really learn very little about him, very little reason to care about his narrative arc.
That's just an example, but narrative is a much more subjective thing that other elements of a game, if you like it then I can understand that. I enjoyed many of the games major plot points, but not the typical dialogue between story missions and character development, which is a big component of the game.
I'll also repeat, that I don't dislike the game. I enjoyed it on the Vita, but felt that it didn't really hold up on the PS4 remaster. I was not disappointed with the first game as the first effort, but seeing the sequel has made little improvement in many areas where I took issue is very disappointing. I wouldn't personally recommend the series.