-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
- Status
Demon Souls is an 89 on metacritic with 89 reviews....if that's mixed, what's Quantum Break? And I find it amusing how you think journalists were only favourable to it because they wanted to jump on some sort of bandwagon lol. It couldn't and can't have been because they actually just really enjoyed it and thought it was excellent (which it was), nope, they just wanted to ride some sort of positivity train lol.
It's interesting how you seemingly justify outlier opinions or discrepancies compared with wider opinion or critical reception with baseless conspiracy theories. Having an issue with a select few reviews I can appreciate, sure, or even just having different tastes (happens to me on occasion), but instead you're reductively demeaning a majority of gaming journalists to suit your favoured narrative, in a popular genre no less.
The game can't possibly have been recieved less glowingly because it was perhaps not as good as you seem to think it is, it has to be because journalists are mostly all a monolithic bunch with minimal gaming talent (they dislike difficult games, even though QB is actually relatively easy, but let's ignore that for a moment), minimal narrative comprehension (apparently they can't understand or don't like complex stories) and minimal gaming creativity (they can also only play TPS one particular way even if game design and instructions promote otherwise), and things giving logic to or supporting a counter narrative just means they're also weak willed bandwagon lovers with no genuine personal opinions (they review certain difficult games positively only to ride a hype train).
I mean, do you even read some of the stuff you post?
For the record I enjoyed my time with the game. I thought it was really solid, just not exceptional, for some of the reasons discussed earlier and more. I think many reviews did a good job covering many of the pros and cons, including people like Karak, and the meta average isn't too far below what I'd have personally scored it.
Last edited:
Same.
Any size would do, really. XBLA-like title, mid-tier title or big budget. Just give it to me.
Probably to do with what he mentioned the other day when asked about the next Xbox OS, said he was still looking into it, can't imagine it'll be any different to what Jez has said.
I don't need to check anything. I'm just saying general that quality is more important than quantity. Everywhere. Not only in gaming.
You are implying my library has a lot of quantity because I own a lot of games. You are wrong.
I have been buying games for my Steam account for 8 years. Of course I own a lot of games.
I'm not talking about YOUR library. I just said that Steam has a lot of shit little games which shouldn't be even published. That's difference. Don't take it so personally.
Your library looks very good. If you played most of them and finished - congrats.
Sorry, my misunderstand. And yes, I agreed that Steam has a lot of small shit games that shouldn't even be on Steam.
Rare has definitely shown that they can make great games under Microsoft, Kameo and Viva Pinata being examples. Rare should really focus on those styles of games, more family friendly oriented, high quality etc
They don't need to be AAA huge games either. Look how well Insomniac did with the 2016 Ratchet and Clank, game was 40$ but had amazing visuals, gameplay and was commercially very successful.
Rare should really focus on making those games, Ratchet and Clank is the perfect template to follow for Rare. You can also pump them out at faster rates vs Remedy (lol) taking 5 years to deliver a dude like QB
They don't need to be AAA huge games either. Look how well Insomniac did with the 2016 Ratchet and Clank, game was 40$ but had amazing visuals, gameplay and was commercially very successful.
Rare should really focus on making those games, Ratchet and Clank is the perfect template to follow for Rare. You can also pump them out at faster rates vs Remedy (lol) taking 5 years to deliver a dude like QB
I can see your reasoning but like you said RDR2 was trying to tell a specific story and limited our agency in some ways. Fable doesn't have to be that way while allowing us the choice of different voices especially since they've been given a AAA budget.
Coincidently the extra mile R* went in using the VA talent they used helped make RDR2 the masterpiece and game of the generation it is to many, including myself. The same for the Witcher 3.
It's not a deal breaker if there is no voice but it would take away from the experience to some degree imo
More rumor stuff by Jez and Windowscentral about the next Xbox:
https://www.windowscentral.com/what-does-next-gen-look-xbox-here-are-latest-rumors
https://www.windowscentral.com/what-does-next-gen-look-xbox-here-are-latest-rumors
I could see Rares 2nd team doing something similar in scope & along the lines of Medievil remake ect
I can see them doing a base model with 8 TF plus a zen cpu and better ram for next gen 1080p gaming and also making a more powerful console for 4k gaming.
It was announced last week that the CEO of Splash Damage resigned at the end of October (http://www.files.services/files/359/2018/1216/20181216181501_94495156_en.pdf). He earned millions from the purchase of the company by Leyou and is now running a company (novacap.uk) that looks like it invested in Polish studio Flying Wild Hog (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/11420362). I guess that Gears Tactics shouldn't be affected too much, considering Splash Damage is a multi team studio so SD's CEO probably wasn't that involved with it anyway.
Did you even read?
Demon souls launched in Oct 2019 in the US, most of the reviews are from 2010. They only bothered to review after word of mouth had spread. And at least going by MCs dates on review most of the 8's the game received were in 2009. The 9+'s started popping more in 2010.
I doubt the scores would be the same if not for the staggered release and it being a low key release at the time. Not because I'm saying the game isn't good, I actually think a 89 score is underratting it, but because reviewers would not know how to review it and there would be a huge gap about their scores and public perception.
My steam library is at 1343, and I would rather hook them to my Xbox One. Streaming to my Shield TV is trash, the app crashes often.
And what else? PlayStation and Nintendo libraries too? What would be then unique for Xbox if everything what they got would be available outside? That's not make any sense. For me.
I can somehow understand and accept that their games are on Windows 10 with losing true exclusive status. Because of one Microsoft ecosystem, etc. But they are still FIRST PARTY publisher. Which means that they shouldn't and they wouldn't have to share with their properties with another competition one, like Steam or whatever other platform. Same for second party games. They also should be available only on Xbox/Microsoft platforms. Not elsewhere else.
What would be point of using their console or services (like Game Pass or future's xCloud) if everything what they did, whatever IPs they have would be somewhere else? Zero!
Gaming for everyone is now a main mantra for Microsoft with whole Xbox? Ok, I got it. But it should be only around Microsoft ecosystem and their products.
I can somehow understand and accept that their games are on Windows 10 with losing true exclusive status. Because of one Microsoft ecosystem, etc. But they are still FIRST PARTY publisher. Which means that they shouldn't and they wouldn't have to share with their properties with another competition one, like Steam or whatever other platform. Same for second party games. They also should be available only on Xbox/Microsoft platforms. Not elsewhere else.
What would be point of using their console or services (like Game Pass or future's xCloud) if everything what they did, whatever IPs they have would be somewhere else? Zero!
Gaming for everyone is now a main mantra for Microsoft with whole Xbox? Ok, I got it. But it should be only around Microsoft ecosystem and their products.
As they announced. Today is 17 December, so it's available :)
I'm baffled that you think being able to play more games on your Xbox is a bad thing.
Last edited:
Maybe instead of Banjo remake, Rare or someone should do a reimagining like Ratchet and Clank 2016. That game was a commercial and critical success.
BTW What's going on with Gears 5's development? I haven't been paying too much attention except for the Gears reddit which are always talking about MP for Gears 4
What are Coalition doing to address the issues with Gears 4? I really hope the campaign is longer, at least a good 10 hours would suffice.
BTW What's going on with Gears 5's development? I haven't been paying too much attention except for the Gears reddit which are always talking about MP for Gears 4
What are Coalition doing to address the issues with Gears 4? I really hope the campaign is longer, at least a good 10 hours would suffice.
Damn, Sony has such a bias amongst reviewers they praised their game a full decade before release!
He thinks that they should focus on improving their store efforts, rather than basically promoting Steam. And I honestly agree. To me it just says "We give up on trying to be a competitor in the PC Market, Steam is too powerful". It would be like them saying a decade ago "Playstation is too powerful, we'll be releasing Halo and Gears on the PS3". It's pro-consumer, but anti-competition.
Blanket statements like yours are easy to make, and annoying to read.
10 hours? thats short by today's standards, keep in mind that the campaign will be splitted, in one team we will have Marcus, JD and Fauz; Kait, Del and Jack will take the lead in the other, at least thats what i understood.
And for the development, i believe that Rod say something about coming back to Mexico on February 2019, multiplayer beta and campaign trailer? Maybe.
Gears will probably have some new info in March-April, I'm pretty sure there's some artbook coming around that time too.
They can improve their store while also giving consumers more options. Being against this makes absolutely no sense.
Not exactly the same, but I'd rather Xbox be a legitimate player in the PC Market through improving their store and attracting developers, rather than taking the easy way and conceding to Steam. Satya's platform-agnostic vision can still be maintained through the programs already avaliable.
Think of it like this, if all Steam games can be played on Xbox through xCloud, what incentive is there for Microsoft to improve the Windows Store to attract other developers over/in addition to Steam? Focusing on supporting other platforms over your own killed the Windows Phone, for example.
Plus this way those games likely won't have achievement support, which is a real shame to me.
He typed 2019 instead of 2009. So yeah.
lol
He was saying, 10 MORE hours to the campaign in addition to the likely 15-20 hours it will be.
Also, that would be cool if they split the campaign that way. I figured it'd be Kait specific.
Last edited:
With Windows phone. MS chose to focus on supporting other platforms because they figured it would be far more lucrative than trying to compete against insurmountable odds.
What killed windows phone was coming late to market with a modern product that was, in many ways, woefully inferior to the competition.
This sounds eerily similar to MS current situation with its gaming storefront. Any way they can get more PC users into their Xbox ecosystem would be a win for them -their own store isn't the only path to profit.
This type of move wouldn't prevent MS from making the Win10 store attractive to players and devs. The should start by not having a terrible download experience. Then they need to offer a Steam-quality feature set. Also, they can offer better splits.
Last edited:
Aww man I pissed myself off. I tried the free trial of Shadow of the Tomb Raider. I finished the first chapter and that's the end of the demo. I want to continue the game right now but it's $60 bucks on the Xbox. If I buy it physically it's $30 right now. I can't justify purchasing it digitally knowing that right. I wish I could find a digital code for that price. Guess I'll have to wait until I get a chance to pick up the physical copy tomorrow.
Does Game Pass and Xcloud value diminish if it's on other platforms?
Microsoft will continue to offer Xbox hardware because it's still profitable but they aren't worried if you jump ship and subscribe to Game Pass some place else. You'll still buy DLC through Game Pass and stay engaged so they can charge developers to use their data centers when everyone is streaming in the future.
Traditional console model is profitable today but the writing is on the wall. Once real 5G goes mainstream, traditional console business will shrink in an industry that will be exploding everywhere else.
The fact they expect it to explode everywhere else is why they're investing in studios and content and why Game Pass value will continue to increase. Xbox gamers lose nothing. How many great 1st party games did you get since 2008 in the traditional model?
Bottom line is plastic will be offered but plastic Xbox is a legacy business. They'll keep serving it until it dies. If you subscribe to GamePass anywhere, you'll still be an Xbox gamer.
If Microsoft doesn't have a silver bullet up their sleeve for their traditional Windows Store that's going to turn the heads of gamers who've been loyal to Steam for well over a decade, best thing to do would be partner up with Steam...or everyone. Nadella has said he doesn't want to go chasing mature markets which they aren't leaders in. That's why he dumped Windows phone even though Ballmer just bought Nokia. They will not be chasing Steam.
They might keep a store so they don't have to share Game Pass profits but I don't think they have this dream of cutting in on Steam. Especially now with Epic and Discord offering such aggressive splits while major publishers are also cutting out middle men and starting their own launchers. There isn't the margin or growth in owning a digital gaming store/launcher like there used to be.
If Valve offers them an aggressive split, Microsoft should take it. Steam could help them establish critical mass with Game Pass and be leaders. Getting to 30 million GP subscribers quickly is more important than getting to 30 million GP subscribers slowly but with better margins. Growth corporations are more concerned with mindshare and expanding reach quickly than going slow and steady with strong margins.
I agree. I see the point, Sexyphobe is making as well but working with Steam sounds like the far smarter option to me.
Microsoft doesn't need a 'silver bullet' or secret weapon to compete with Steam. They need to offer a competent ecosystem, storefront and client that is as painless, unobtrusive and efficient as possible such that people don't mind using another service in addition to Steam. They don't need to convince people to leave Steam. They just need to convince Steam users that they the Windows Store is a reliable and accessible way to browse, buy and play (quality) games as well.
Indeed. The more platforms Game Pass comes to, the better the service will become. By increasing the number of subscribers, it increases the potential budget and allows for more investment in to original content. People really need to get away from the plastic box wars mentality, service wars are the future not hardware wars. Exciting times ahead.
- Status