What is the deal with Phil Spencer?

[Sircaw]

i do love thicc's avatar though, Rogue always was drawn a certain way for everyone to notice.

Gambit is extremely happy with that shot.

 

[PropellerEar]

Gambit is extremely happy with that shot.

 

[peter42O]

The bolded is actually not always true. WOM alone can only get a game so far even when the ship has been righted. There is so much traffic and noise on social media since that information is both free and both dispensable and providable by literally everyone, it's the simplest (but also "lowest") form of advertising and marketing.

The games that usually see strong WOM either have accompanying decent traditional advertising methods, or go viral with some big-time streamer or celebrity playing the game and exposing it to a huge new audience who then fuel the new growth via social media WOM. If your game has neither of those things going for it (and the latter of the two is completely uncontrollable and can't really be relied on), then the only perception the vast majority are going to have is what it was like at launch and that could be a false impression based on where the game actually is via post with patches.

I agree with you that due to the nature of click-based traffic, gaming websites more than likely won't re-review a game after it's come out. However that doesn't mean they're making the right decision, and there's probably a market for someone to do that if they're very good at it. Could also be argued that if reviewers actually made a habit of it more, they'd have more actual substantial content to report on and less time to engage in crappy clickbait, crappy rumors and crappy Twitter console war-baiting posts.

I agree with you. All of what you said definitely applies besides just word of mouth.

As for the entire re-reviewing games, my guess is that the few websites that have done this probably didn't get the metrics they wanted and figured, why bother? Whether games should be re-reviewed by gaming sites and magazines, I just don't see any of them wasting their time to do so. Better option would be to find a few YouTubers who are interested in the games that you are and follow them. I have a few that give updates on Division 2, Outriders, etc. No website is going to give me as much info because they don't really care. Besides, I tend to agree more with the YouTubers because after all, their tastes are similar to mine.

A lot of this is just your anecdotal perspective, though. I don't think a style of game that regularly lands 80+ MC means critics/reviewers hate them. Could there be fatigue in it for them, though? Possibly. But if that's the case, why not have some fresher perspectives come in to balance out more jaded reviews. Not everyone has eaten up/gotten overstuffed on open-world AAA games, myself for example, and I think reviews could be balanced a bit to reflect that.

It's definitely from my perspective but when you see their last game to get a 90 being Far Cry 3 and in some cases, a few games were really underrated in my opinion, it just seems like those who review Ubisoft games do so more because they have to as opposed to wanting to. But again, this is just my own personal perspective and opinion.

They could balance them out but it depends on how many people review games at a given site/magazine. I normally see the same 5 to 8 people reviewing all games. And if you don't have an actual Ubisoft fan in that bunch, majority of them are going to rate them lower than if it's someone who's a fan of Ubisoft.

TBF, many of these same criticisms can be had for ANY style of game. Majority of FPS games on the market follow a standard, proven formula. Same with racing games, hero shooters, RTS games etc. You can't just list genre staples as a negative unless, again, you've over-indulged in that content and it's made you more jaded towards it or tired of consuming it. Both of which are at least partially on the gamer, not just the market providing certain types of content.

Your views on those open-world games can even be applied by a Souls fan towards Elden Ring, since that game is essentially the Souls formula but in an open world. You can say that there aren't that many Souls-like games on the market to where it feels saturated and that's 100% true, but what if you're that hardcore Souls player who has played nothing but Souls for 10 years and now you get something in Elden Ring which is basically more of the same with some slight differences? Can't you risk having the same feeling of burnout? I think realistically speaking, you could, so I don't know why it's more applicable to other types of open-world games or Ubisoft-style ones in particular.

I agree in regards to my criticism applying to other style of games. But when it comes to say a FPS or linear game, by the time the player usually reaches that level, the game is basically over where as with open world games, they get bigger and bigger and in turn, a lot more boring, tedious and to the point where it's like, screw it, im just doing the story campaign and that's it.

I think a souls fan could maybe get tired of Elden Ring due to the combat and whatnot but the structure being, you're in this open world, there's no points of interest, no way points and it's just a whole different experience. At least this is my view based on what I have read and see. I could be completely wrong though as I haven't played it.

Compared to other games like HFW or Ubi, I think the main issue is this - you go into the open world, open up the world map and boom, like a billion "?" icons on the map. And it just goes from there.

It may draw from that template but it's clearly not "exactly" like an Ubisoft open-world game. Just thematically speaking, Ubisoft's never done anything like HFW and probably never will. The story for HFW doesn't beat-for-beat match anything in Ubisoft's games, even if there may be some tropes in common but you can find similarities in tropes for almost all stories in any medium.

Don't misunderstand me. When I say it's exactly like a Ubisoft open world game, I just mean all the icons on the map, bandit camps to clear out, etc. I don't mean it in regards to the story, characters, setting, etc. Basically, before you really get into the story, characters, lore, setting, world, etc. and just open up the map, the first thing that comes to mind is - it's Ubi!! lol.

Of course, everything that matters is different and usually better than Ubisoft open world games. Basically, on the surface, it just looks like every open world game is a Ubisoft game but once you dive further in and get beneath the surface, then HFW, Days Gone, Tsushima and even Ubisoft games are all different in this regard. It's just that first/initial look and reaction that makes me always think that it's a Ubisoft open world game but once you really get into the game, despite some similarities, it's truly not.

Speaking of HFW, im actually going to start a replay this weekend since I don't have a new game release until TLOUP2. I may play on new game + but I know the difficulty is harder and I really just want to enjoy the game more this time especially since the bugs/technical issues I experienced 5 months ago are cleaned up and that shimmering effect in the performance mode is gone, yay!!!

For the record, I actually like and prefer the Ubisoft style. I want "?" icons on the map but I don't want to know what they are until I get there and discover it for myself. I don't mind the checklist and clearing out all those camps and whatnot. It's just that open worlds are too damn big, there's too many of this stuff and I would prefer a longer main story quest line and side quest story lines like in Tsushima where to complete a character side quest, it goes through all three regions.

Reviewers should be held to higher standards though because their job is to influence the purchasing habits of large swathes of the customer base, via recommending (or not) certain games to be purchased. I don't think being a fan of something precludes you from being honest in the work's flaws, and I know some ER reviews did that as well as HFW ones, same with people who like Sony games as per your example (most of them, anyway).

The problem with the reviews process as I see it, though, is that there aren't enough balanced perspectives when it comes to some games, some accreditation for certain review sites/channels etc. seem spotty, and aggregate sites like MC don't do enough to help ensure either of these things. If you have 10 our of 10 superfans reviewing Game A and it gets a 98 MC, but Game B only has 1 out of 10 superfans reviewing it and 5 out of 10 people not even into the genre, and it gets an 80 MC, how can you really say those MC scores are fair? There was very little constant between them and a LOT of wildly differing variables.

If aggregates like MC could ensure that every game had a minimum quota for total review submissions, a balanced mix of hardcore fans/casual fans/non-fans submitting the reviews, have some standards on what mix of objectivity/subjectivity a review should have, etc., then I think you'd have much better reviews across the board and more honest MC averages reflecting the game itself. Now, if said game is something clearly meant for just the hardcore fans, then you can have more "superfans" weigh the review average, if it's a game trying to expand to a new audience, have more non-fans (either of that IP or genre) weigh the review average (just make sure they are willing to give the game a fair shot to impress them), etc.

I agree completely. I do prefer Open Critic simply because it doesn't separate platforms. I know there's a chance of a Cyberpunk launch but even that is extremely rare. I do think that reviews should also rate the game in categories like I do. Some games could have an excellent story but weak combat and gameplay and thus, each category should get scored which in turn would give you the overall score.

While I normally only check reviews for my 50/50 games, I do go based on YouTubers that I follow since their tastes are similar to mine. Going by IGN or GameSpot or another site, a game im interested in could always be reviewed and scored by someone who isn't a fan or has no interest in the game and thus, doesn't have the same tastes in games as me.

Same, haven't gotten around to Elden Ring yet, but I plan to pick it up later in the year. I'm trying to avoid playing it on PS4 so hopefully I'll have a PS5 by the time I'm ready to pick it up.

Good luck and I hope you enjoy the game when you eventually play it.

Well I think in some ways the process could be better and more fair/balanced across the board. Again with getting favored people to do the reviews, I know that's publishers trying to mitigate risk on their part, but you don't just want a Yes Man or, if you get them, minimize their presence in the review pool as much as possible. Same with cutting out any people who have a clear negative bias toward your product (like what Stevivor was displaying with several Sony exclusives the past couple of years, hence them being blacklisted).

I agree. I don't believe that any site should be blacklisted unless they're selling the review code or something like that. I don't agree with Sony for blacklisting Stevivor just because they rated a few of their games low. Besides, there's almost always a few lower scored reviews for nearly every high rated game. Not everyone is going to like every game.

It should definitely be balanced but at the same time, that's hard to do because the publisher would have to know every reviewer's tastes, preferences and what their biases are. I agree but I think it's also easier said than done.

Yeah, I also agree that if you're gonna do a review, at least complete the main campaign before doing the review. I know that could get difficult, and publishers need to work better with reviewers so they can get review copies a bit earlier, but it's probably a work-in-progress thing industry-wide.

Agreed.

At the end of the day, the only review and score that should matter to anyone is their own.

You're definitely welcome dude, the more the merrier. Just as long as threads don't break down/devolve into console warring nonsense, I don't see why Xbox & PlayStation (& Nintendo & PC) gamers can't have some respectable debates on facets of gaming. If we all agreed on everything it would get pretty boring.

I'm just more glad "other" stuff (politics, more or less) is absent. I just wanna talk games, none of that other crap.

I know this wasn't directed towards me but I agree and very well said.

 

[Swift_Star]

I’m actually impressed that some of you take your time to write posts.

 

[Darth Vader]

Don't misunderstand me. When I say it's exactly like a Ubisoft open world game, I just mean all the icons on the map, bandit camps to clear out, etc. I don't mean it in regards to the story, characters, setting, etc. Basically, before you really get into the story, characters, lore, setting, world, etc. and just open up the map, the first thing that comes to mind is - it's Ubi!! lol.

Wouldn't that make "Ubisoft style games" essentially "GTA style games"? Because Rockstar kinda set that standard for open world games.

 

[peter42O]

Wouldn't that make "Ubisoft style games" essentially "GTA style games"? Because Rockstar kinda set that standard for open world games.

It's been almost a decade since I played GTA V but if there's all the icons on the world map and whatnot, then well, yeah, I guess you could say that.

 

[peter42O]

I’m actually impressed that some of you take your time to write posts.

That is what a forum is for, isn't it? Besides, if I remember correctly, me and thicc had a few debates a few months ago on GAF so nothing new for us. lol

 

[Darth Vader]

It's been almost a decade since I played GTA V but if there's all the icons on the world map and whatnot, then well, yeah, I guess you could say that.

GTA 3 already had icon galore back in 2001.

 

[Swift_Star]

That is what a forum is for, isn't it? Besides, if I remember correctly, me and thicc had a few debates a few months ago on GAF so nothing new for us. lol

Yes, that’s not a critique. I’m really impressed.

 

[peter42O]

Yes, that’s not a critique. I’m really impressed.

Oh, okay. You're more than welcome to join in on the conversation.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I agree with you. All of what you said definitely applies besides just word of mouth.

As for the entire re-reviewing games, my guess is that the few websites that have done this probably didn't get the metrics they wanted and figured, why bother? Whether games should be re-reviewed by gaming sites and magazines, I just don't see any of them wasting their time to do so. Better option would be to find a few YouTubers who are interested in the games that you are and follow them. I have a few that give updates on Division 2, Outriders, etc. No website is going to give me as much info because they don't really care. Besides, I tend to agree more with the YouTubers because after all, their tastes are similar to mine.

Thing is tho, if you want something to stick, you have to be willing to keep at it. We got conditioned into the current review process model over time; it's gonna take time to ween people off of it, too. If more review sites made more of an effort to do renewed review scores for games that have gotten ample updates, especially live-service games, so that more recent reviews are more accurate to where the game actually is, then that just makes the review process better overall.

The issue with just listening to select reviewers on YT or such that have similar tastes is, eventually it creates an echo chamber. Review aggregates are supposed to be representing a wider industry opinion on the game to the mainstream audiences. In a lot of cases, it can help people find new fresh perspectives on a game, or new reviewers to follow.

It's definitely from my perspective but when you see their last game to get a 90 being Far Cry 3 and in some cases, a few games were really underrated in my opinion, it just seems like those who review Ubisoft games do so more because they have to as opposed to wanting to. But again, this is just my own personal perspective and opinion.

They could balance them out but it depends on how many people review games at a given site/magazine. I normally see the same 5 to 8 people reviewing all games. And if you don't have an actual Ubisoft fan in that bunch, majority of them are going to rate them lower than if it's someone who's a fan of Ubisoft.

TBH my issue isn't that there aren't enough people fans of a game reviewing it, it's that there isn't enough of a balance between fans/casual fans/non-fans reviewing the game in the aggregate.

If the game's trying to basically appeal to only hardcore fans, then fine, have most of the reviews in the aggregate be from reviewers who are big fans. If the game's trying to appeal to a new demographic, scale back on how many hardcore fan reviewers there are in the aggregate mix.

I agree in regards to my criticism applying to other style of games. But when it comes to say a FPS or linear game, by the time the player usually reaches that level, the game is basically over where as with open world games, they get bigger and bigger and in turn, a lot more boring, tedious and to the point where it's like, screw it, im just doing the story campaign and that's it.

But the thing is, in those open-world games, you can just ignore the content you don't want to play, when it's optional. You can treat an open-world game as a linear game if you want, the choice is up to the player in how linear or open their experience actually is.

So basically, all the stuff WRT tedium and whatnot can be avoided altogether. The tons of content being there doesn't mean you have to play all of that content, and most open-world games allow you to come back to optional content later on if you wish.

I think a souls fan could maybe get tired of Elden Ring due to the combat and whatnot but the structure being, you're in this open world, there's no points of interest, no way points and it's just a whole different experience. At least this is my view based on what I have read and see. I could be completely wrong though as I haven't played it.

Compared to other games like HFW or Ubi, I think the main issue is this - you go into the open world, open up the world map and boom, like a billion "?" icons on the map. And it just goes from there.

IIRC tho, you can turn off the waypoint markers altogether in HFW. Other stuff like the journals, you don't even need to read the vast majority of them. You don't need to use the guides, either. I haven't turned off waypoints in my own playthrough but I think I remember other people mentioning they have.

Don't misunderstand me. When I say it's exactly like a Ubisoft open world game, I just mean all the icons on the map, bandit camps to clear out, etc. I don't mean it in regards to the story, characters, setting, etc. Basically, before you really get into the story, characters, lore, setting, world, etc. and just open up the map, the first thing that comes to mind is - it's Ubi!! lol.

Of course, everything that matters is different and usually better than Ubisoft open world games. Basically, on the surface, it just looks like every open world game is a Ubisoft game but once you dive further in and get beneath the surface, then HFW, Days Gone, Tsushima and even Ubisoft games are all different in this regard. It's just that first/initial look and reaction that makes me always think that it's a Ubisoft open world game but once you really get into the game, despite some similarities, it's truly not.

Okay, so for you it's more about initial impressions from afar? I can understand where you're coming from on that, though again, even as you said, that can be applied to tons of games in other genres as well, that type of feeling.

So ultimately, the actual legitimate differences and nuances are what should be the focus in discussing open-world games or any game, IMO, not so much if some elements on the surface seem similar to other games. That's just going to happen, anyway. No game goes uninspired by other games in its genre, especially contemporaries.

Speaking of HFW, im actually going to start a replay this weekend since I don't have a new game release until TLOUP2. I may play on new game + but I know the difficulty is harder and I really just want to enjoy the game more this time especially since the bugs/technical issues I experienced 5 months ago are cleaned up and that shimmering effect in the performance mode is gone, yay!!!

You should have a blast then, indeed. They've added a lot of neat QoL stuff, did some class rebalancing, and as you said all bugs/tech issues have been patched out. I still have a ways to go before getting New Game + unlocked, I might be pacing out my playtime waiting for a PS5 so I can finish the game on it.

For the record, I actually like and prefer the Ubisoft style. I want "?" icons on the map but I don't want to know what they are until I get there and discover it for myself. I don't mind the checklist and clearing out all those camps and whatnot. It's just that open worlds are too damn big, there's too many of this stuff and I would prefer a longer main story quest line and side quest story lines like in Tsushima where to complete a character side quest, it goes through all three regions.

That's actually something HFW does, tho. There are quite a few spots on the map, even early on, where they just say "Unknown" and you have to go there before you find out what it actually is. Most of the time, they're optional spots, so I guess if you're asking why they couldn't do that with Story-based events, that's probably a fair question.

Could've probably been used for storytelling purposes, maybe they do more of it with Horizon 3.

I agree. I don't believe that any site should be blacklisted unless they're selling the review code or something like that. I don't agree with Sony for blacklisting Stevivor just because they rated a few of their games low. Besides, there's almost always a few lower scored reviews for nearly every high rated game. Not everyone is going to like every game.

That's not the reason Stevivor got called out, though. There was a noticeable pattern showing some type of foul play, at the very least. People noticed this with their review of Souls games; they normally gave all Souls games scores in line with or slightly above the MC average in fact, EXCEPT for Bloodborne and Demon's Souls Remake...both of which coincidentally were PlayStation exclusives.

Conversely, they gave a few Xbox exclusives notably higher scores than the trending MC average, so you take coincidences like those and of course a few eyebrows are going to be raised. I agree with you, you're going to get some reviews that are a bit on the lower side for any game. But when a specific review outlet can have a certain pattern traced to a string of their reviews that could be interpreted as a type of bias, that is going to become a problem.

At the end of the day, the only review and score that should matter to anyone is their own.

Definitely, always! BUT it's also fun hearing other well thought-out perspectives, that is going to always be awesome

That is what a forum is for, isn't it? Besides, if I remember correctly, me and thicc had a few debates a few months ago on GAF so nothing new for us. lol

TBH I think you and @Yurinka could beat me in sheer post sizes. One too many times I got hit with character limits, still scarred from all the edits

 

[peter42O]

Thing is tho, if you want something to stick, you have to be willing to keep at it. We got conditioned into the current review process model over time; it's gonna take time to ween people off of it, too. If more review sites made more of an effort to do renewed review scores for games that have gotten ample updates, especially live-service games, so that more recent reviews are more accurate to where the game actually is, then that just makes the review process better overall.

The issue with just listening to select reviewers on YT or such that have similar tastes is, eventually it creates an echo chamber. Review aggregates are supposed to be representing a wider industry opinion on the game to the mainstream audiences. In a lot of cases, it can help people find new fresh perspectives on a game, or new reviewers to follow.

Again, I agree with you. I just don't see gaming sites and whatnot putting any time into re-reviewing games.

As for YouTubers, it depends. I follow OniZombies and a few others who really enjoyed Dying Light 2 but not as much as I did and they've had complaints since launch but majority of those issues don't affect me like co-op not working properly or not having meaningful post launch content because im just waiting for their first expansion as im someone who doesn't play the same game for weeks, months and years on end. I only go back when there's new content for me to play that im actually interested in playing.

Someone like SkillUp who normally dislikes every Ubisoft game still has good reviews even though I do disagree with him more than I agree but still watch him because I want a varying opinion. In short, I don't see this changing in general. It should but im not expecting it to.

TBH my issue isn't that there aren't enough people fans of a game reviewing it, it's that there isn't enough of a balance between fans/casual fans/non-fans reviewing the game in the aggregate.

If the game's trying to basically appeal to only hardcore fans, then fine, have most of the reviews in the aggregate be from reviewers who are big fans. If the game's trying to appeal to a new demographic, scale back on how many hardcore fan reviewers there are in the aggregate mix.

I don't think you'll ever get that balance because most review sites want good ratings because it drives traffic. The game simply has to be bad or broken for the score to be low. I do agree with you though. Again, I just don't see anything changing.

But the thing is, in those open-world games, you can just ignore the content you don't want to play, when it's optional. You can treat an open-world game as a linear game if you want, the choice is up to the player in how linear or open their experience actually is.

So basically, all the stuff WRT tedium and whatnot can be avoided altogether. The tons of content being there doesn't mean you have to play all of that content, and most open-world games allow you to come back to optional content later on if you wish.

I know. The only problem for me is two fold - first, I want to level up, max out my skill tree, etc. and just completing the main story isn't going to accomplish that and second, once I complete the main story campaign, I don't go back to "wrap up stuff". For example, I try to clear out every area before moving on to the next area because unless a main or side quest takes me there, I don't want to go back.

Another example is for AC Origins/Odyssey. I went region by region based on the level until I completed the game. I basically cleared out everything and then wrap up the story because for me, once the story is done, I simply lose all interest in going back to wrap up stuff I missed or didn't do. After combat/gameplay, the main story is my primary driver that will get me to complete the game but once I do this, I would say my interest in returning to the world is minimal to non-existent.

IIRC tho, you can turn off the waypoint markers altogether in HFW. Other stuff like the journals, you don't even need to read the vast majority of them. You don't need to use the guides, either. I haven't turned off waypoints in my own playthrough but I think I remember other people mentioning they have.

I know. HZD also added this option in a patch later on. Basically, you can turn off everything and play it as if it was BOTW/ER. Not going to lie, I don't do that because having to look for everything would drive me nuts. Hehe. I think waypoints are only mandatory for the story quests if I remember correctly.

Funny thing is that I do turn off several gameplay HUD options including the compass which I hate in every open world game. I prefer a mini-map which rarely exists nowadays.

Okay, so for you it's more about initial impressions from afar? I can understand where you're coming from on that, though again, even as you said, that can be applied to tons of games in other genres as well, that type of feeling.

So ultimately, the actual legitimate differences and nuances are what should be the focus in discussing open-world games or any game, IMO, not so much if some elements on the surface seem similar to other games. That's just going to happen, anyway. No game goes uninspired by other games in its genre, especially contemporaries.

Yes, exactly. The next open world game I will be playing is most likely going to be Gotham Knights and I already know when I open up the world map, im going to see a shit ton of stuff littered across the map so in my mind, im like, why? lol

Agreed.

You should have a blast then, indeed. They've added a lot of neat QoL stuff, did some class rebalancing, and as you said all bugs/tech issues have been patched out. I still have a ways to go before getting New Game + unlocked, I might be pacing out my playtime waiting for a PS5 so I can finish the game on it.

The only negative I have with the post launch patches and whatnot is that Guerrilla nerfed a lot of stuff, including my bombs which I love using and the tripwires are nowhere near as effective as they were in Zero Dawn which is disappointing. This honestly pisses me off because it's a single player game. What's the point in nerfing shit? UGH.

With that said, I am looking forward to replaying it. Plus, im honestly just trying to waste time until all my new games start releasing in September. lol

That's actually something HFW does, tho. There are quite a few spots on the map, even early on, where they just say "Unknown" and you have to go there before you find out what it actually is. Most of the time, they're optional spots, so I guess if you're asking why they couldn't do that with Story-based events, that's probably a fair question.

Could've probably been used for storytelling purposes, maybe they do more of it with Horizon 3.

Yep. HFW does do that which I do like. I don't want to know what's there, just that something is there. lol

Yeah, we'll see what they do with Horizon 3 even though im expecting at least one expansion before then.

That's not the reason Stevivor got called out, though. There was a noticeable pattern showing some type of foul play, at the very least. People noticed this with their review of Souls games; they normally gave all Souls games scores in line with or slightly above the MC average in fact, EXCEPT for Bloodborne and Demon's Souls Remake...both of which coincidentally were PlayStation exclusives.

Conversely, they gave a few Xbox exclusives notably higher scores than the trending MC average, so you take coincidences like those and of course a few eyebrows are going to be raised. I agree with you, you're going to get some reviews that are a bit on the lower side for any game. But when a specific review outlet can have a certain pattern traced to a string of their reviews that could be interpreted as a type of bias, that is going to become a problem.

Looking it up, HFW received a 6.5/10 which yeah, is very low but the reviewer Joab Gilroy is basically a journeyman. Only has 11 reviewed games in 6 years on Open Critic. 5 different sites over those 11 games with the most being for Fandom.

GT 7 scored a 7.5/10 by Hamish Lindsay but he also gave Sea of Thieves a 4.0/10. The only game he seems favored to is F1 which he rated the last two games high.

Matt Gosper rated Ratchet a 9.0/10. They didn't review Returnal as far as I can see.

For Demon's Souls Remake, Luke Lawrie rated it a 7.5/10 but he rated Elden Ring, Dark Souls 3 and Sekiro higher. However, he does mention Bloodborne as the better game compared to Demon's Souls Remake. He rated Crackdown 3 a 4.0/10.

Steve Wright which seems to be their main reviewer by far gave Halo Infinite a 9.5/10 but he also rated Miles Morales a 9.5/10. He rated Psychonauts 2 which is multi-plat a 9.0/10. He did rate Tsushima a 7.0/10 as well as HZD even though this may have been the PC version which did have issues at launch. He rated TLOUP2 an 8.0/10. He rated Death Stranding a 3.5/10 which may also have been on PC but he gave Dreams a 9.0/10. He rated Concrete Genie an 8.5/10.

To be perfectly honest, I don't believe that there's any pattern or anything because even if you believe there is, it goes the other way to balance things out. Looking at the Steve guy, I simply believe he prefers smaller games instead of massive open worlds and he definitely likes weird quirky games which applies to Genie, Dreams and Psychonauts 2.

If anything, I think it's PlayStation fans who are looking into this way too deeply and going based on just the score and site as opposed to who reviewed the game(s) and what their preferences are. Because if anything, this shit is all over the place and when you look at other games like RE 8 or Monster Hunter World and many others, it seems like they're more critical than not.

Definitely, always! BUT it's also fun hearing other well thought-out perspectives, that is going to always be awesome

Agreed.

TBH I think you and @Yurinka could beat me in sheer post sizes. One too many times I got hit with character limits, still scarred from all the edits

Oh wow. I haven't hit the character limit here thus far. lol

 

[Sircaw]

I am beginning to think @peter42O and @thicc_girls_are_teh_best would make brilliant pen pals.

A+ for effort in your posts dudes/dudettes

 

[Bodycount611]

He heard the tweets, guys. 5 years later you get ninja gaiden sigma cloud streamed to a 3" mobile screen with touch controls.

Another ten Xbox Game Pass titles get touch controls

Microsoft has announced that another ten games included with Xbox Game Pass Ultimate are now playable with Xbox Touch Controls, including Life is Strange: True Colors, Ninja Gaiden, Bugsnax, and more.

www.trueachievements.com

 

[Remember_Spinal]

He heard the tweets, guys. 5 years later you get ninja gaiden sigma cloud streamed to a 3" mobile screen with touch controls.

Another ten Xbox Game Pass titles get touch controls

Microsoft has announced that another ten games included with Xbox Game Pass Ultimate are now playable with Xbox Touch Controls, including Life is Strange: True Colors, Ninja Gaiden, Bugsnax, and more.

www.trueachievements.com

to be fair they (we) are getting a Team Ninja game soon lol

 

[Swolf712]

MS is way too concerned with finding way for people to easily play games they are not interested in, instead of just making games people want to play.

 

[Bodycount611]

to be fair they (we) are getting a Team Ninja game soon lol

that just came off as sad and desperate, they're literally celebrating getting multiplatform games now. That's how bleak it's gotten, like exclusives aren't even a possibility, they're just excited Team Ninja didn't skip them entirely this time.

And this is one of the developers they consider integral to Xbox's history, lmao.

 

[DonFerrari]

that just came off as sad and desperate, they're literally celebrating getting multiplatform games now. That's how bleak it's gotten, like exclusives aren't even a possibility, they're just excited Team Ninja didn't skip them entirely this time.

And this is one of the developers they consider integral to Xbox's history, lmao.

You don't seem to have an issue hyping Sony games even though they are now multiplatform

 

[Alabtrosmyster]

Also, you cant help yourself but insult people. Just stop.

He's the cop! Not you!

 

[Bodycount611]

You don't seem to have an issue hyping Sony games even though they are now multiplatform

i'm disappointed a lot of the games I liked on PS4 went multiplatform. I'll be the first to say that, because if given the choice i'll buy on switch every time, the performance difference means nothing to me.

PS4 destroyed Xbox One in Japanese games with games like Nioh, Yakuza, Persona, and the like. Xbox has now gotten those games, which is a start, but it does very little for those of us who expereinced and supported those games day one. They've also just lost Final Fantasy, which is a red flag.

it's one step forward, two steps back.

Without Final Fantasy day and date, no serious JRPG fan or japanese gamer will ever take them seriously.

point is, getting multiplatforms isn't enough, they need exclusives. When you celebrate also getting WuLong, or getting Persona 5 five years late you expose the quality gap between the two platforms.

It's utterly pathetic and needs to stop. Xbox needs exclusives.

Xbox is begging for PlayStation scraps and celebrating like mad when they get a taste. It's a beggars platform, through and through. I won't support that behavior.