I enjoyed Days when I played through it myself. I wanted to add another thing to this, though, if you don't mind.
So Days is the story of Roxas's time in the Organization. The game proceeds in a day-to-day manner (except when it skips chunks of them, but there was always a story-related reason for that) as such. Just because this is Kingdom Hearts doesn't mean that CRAZY INSANE ACTION HAPPENS EVERY SINGLE DAY! It's like life, and as a.a said above, life is a thematic element of the story (referencing the first part of the counter-argument).
Consider this. If you were to look at how long it takes Sora on any of his adventures compared to Roxas's time, you'd see it is far far shorter. Sora finishes his quests in a matter of days. 358/2 Days takes place over the course of a year. If life is the thematic element of the game, then why should there be insane events every day in the game if life, the central focus, isn't like that at all. Life is rather uneventful at most times, and Roxas's missions are akin to jobs in real life (they can be fun, but they can also get rather repetitive). You're playing as Roxas as he is in the employ of the Organization to gather hearts. He befriends one of his superiors and they hang out. It's rather normal, and when you keep in mind that the game takes place over a year, it starts to make sense why everything is as it is in Days. I find it to be rather compelling, seeing one character develop from a lifeless shell into one with loads of personality, and then see how they deal with everything around them.
Also, in reference to your line about the sunrise and sunset, that's probably why they made Twilight Town in the first place. To reference the circle of life that everyone goes through, and how birth is like a sunrise and death, the sunset. Twilight Town captures the moments in-between, which works for Nobodies as they kinda live an in-between existence (by which I mean that though they technically don't exist, the fact that they have a physical form gives them some semblance of existence, and as such are neither one nor the other; they are in-between). Watching the sunset in Twilight Town with his friends after each mission reflects that fact rather well.
If you stop looking at how you may think that Days is a horrible abomination and Xion is horrible, and instead study the nuances of the story progression and character development while also factoring in the relatively lengthy timespan that the game takes place over... Days is actually a very good game.
Very good points. The span of time the game takes place over when compared to the other installments is hardly ever referenced when players evaluate the format of storytelling utilized in Days.
The thing is, both Xion and Roxas begin as empty people; no memories, no feelings, no opinions. Their experience is coincidental-- up to a point. When it diverges, we find Roxas developing a sense of self and Xion developing a reflective notion of her environment; Roxas humanizes himself where Xion insists on objectifying her persona. I think it's fascinating to watch the dichotomy function between the two of them as the closer they become, so the more imperative their fates. Also, it provides an intriguing scenario for Axel as the involuntary mainstay of their friendship, making most of the difficult decisions; he's a bit of a patriarch, shouldering the guilt and blame of tough choices for the greater good. I'd like to see him find redemption.
Twilight is also the period of time leading into the evening and nightfall, where sleep (i.e. death) occurs. Roxas, Xion and Axel, in Days, are living on the brink of nightfall. You're absolutely right; in the image of the three of them sitting at the clock tower in the glow of the sun, we are reminded of both the warmth and the precariousness of their human connections. In the end, Xion dies, Roxas is reborn and Axel is left haunted by their time together.
You've made a good statement on another, less precise but still relevant, matter: the call for instant gratification. It's interesting to see the contrast between
358/2 Days and
Birth By Sleep, to me. BBS was a sequence of events, an unending influx of plot material and context which felt very short despite playing as three different characters.
358/2 Days was unhurried and relied far more heavily on subtext to tell its story, with the actual presentation of the plot coming off as rather simple and momentary, rather than momentous. BBS was constantly climactic and Days was deliberately unaffected, and I thought both worked for the stories they were telling. However, Days is the anomaly in the sequence as the KH games tend to pattern themselves closer to the heroic drama, so I can see the warmer affiliation with BBS: in Days, there were no heroes, freeing it to explore a greater catharsis than the other stories. Days was a classic tragedy that was always about where the journey lead and not how the journey manifested. I think a lot of audiences, especially in video games, take issue with that as they expect a steady reinforcement of what they are experiencing in the form of essential cruxes within the plot and direct indications of their significance. Instead, Days offered implications of its characters' mentalities, conflicts and developments, which is of less immediate interest to many, and it isn't until the final moments that you're meant to accept the full thematic scope of the story. It's very Shakespearean, or perhaps just thespian, in its execution.
This is basically proof that it is a poor narrative and portrayal of that, since this wouldn't be as obvious to people who don't get the subtlety, that is that tiny.
It's not "tiny", as that indicates immateriality; it's subtle and indirect. Some of the greatest narratives invest heavily in the virtues of incident and subtext.
Not to sound crass, but your lack of comprehension does not constitute a poor narrative; it constitutes a lack of comprehension. I am only interpreting what is present and prevalent within the narrative itself. If some relate to that perspective, then we've found common ground. If others disagree with it, they are free to subscribe to their own rationalizations. However, your argument amounts to stating that a person's work is a fallacy because its viewership is fallible.