Civ VII kept it out of being an F, but shortly after its reveal I decided I'd seen enough and stopped watching; didn't stay long enough to watch the Indiana Jones feature but I may check it out down the line.
So why did I give the overall show an E rating?? There are only so many ways to depict and carry out brutal, gory violence onscreen, and with such games front-and-center for presentations since way back in the E3 days, it's no wonder why countless "AAA" titles look, feel, and play like stuff we've seen before many times over. None of the other stuff appealed to me, either, for various reasons.
Let's put it another way: do you think this console generation has sufficiently encouraged consumers to invest in the next generation? Unless you're willing to look past stuff like the following:
1) projects that are years in development and typically still manage to launch as glorified betas.
2) being charged more and more for less and less overall content and features (specifically looking at big-name IPs compared to their iterations even two or three generations ago...cough, Halo, cough...like where did offline local splitscreen or varied weather and environments go?).
3) all the ways online functionality is being used to gate, control, and gouge users for more $$$ after the initial point-of-sale.
4) how the subscription models whose express purpose was to make consumers comfortable with the idea of investing hundreds of dollars in hardware they don't actually own anything on are getting even MORE stingy and expensive.
We have the most powerful hardware and the biggest displays the hobby has ever seen, and things like local multiplayer are actively avoided by developers specifically because online is where they make $$$ at. But you know, I've decided I no longer am willing to accept that, especially given all the other ways the industry has lost sight of what made this hobby FUN in the first place because of nothing more than GREED. And has anyone else begun to feel that the more photorealistic developers try to make everything, the more alike so many games seem to look and feel anymore (meaning dark, violent, and generally depressing)? I've been an avid hobbyist since the Atari 2600, and I'm actually feeling comfortable with the idea that this may be my last go-around. I can't speak for anyone else, I realize, but I also suspect I'm not the only one who feels this way.
I honestly don't know what's worse, simply having game franchises you once loved disappear forever or get bastardized to try to appeal to "a wider/modern audience". Shining Force got turned into the bland ARPG Shining series (and Sega tried to do the same thing with Valkyria Chronicles with Azure). Front Mission got turned into a third-person shooter. Fire Emblem became a glorified "life sim" overstuffed with vapid "relationships", conversations, and busywork instead of focusing on the meaty strategy and amazing storylines like that of Path of Radiance/Radiant Dawn.
What made TimeSplitters so incredible when it first released was the sheer value provided by the MapMaker. I'll never forget my cousin blurting out, "You MADE THIS!!!" as we loaded the first hastily-constructed map I'd slapped together. So many hours customizing and tweaking and then enjoying a chaotic four-player splitscreen battle with friends and family around the TV.
And those very things are ironically what killed TimeSplitters, because once online multiplayer went mainstream developers' first priority became how to gate, control, and monitor your entire experience as well as get you to fork out additional $$$ after the initial point-of-sale. Things like local multiplayer, player-created content, and value are pretty much antithetical to every current business model, so it's no wonder they thought they could slap the name "TimeSplitters" on a Fortnite-wannabe (hello, Halo Infinite) and get away with gutting what fans loved about it in the first place and making it yet another disposable online-centric game.
You want to know why so many longtime gamers are beginning to say they're not having as much fun with the hobby anymore? Because the people making the games have completely lost touch with what used to make it fun; the games used to be designed for US, not for their shareholders.
I will NEVER pay for a subscription model as a means of accessing games. If I want to play a game, I BUY it so I can enjoy it on my own schedule and terms. EVERYTHING that publishers have pushed since online went mainstream has been aimed at training consumers to surrender more and more basic rights (EULAs are a direct affront to consumers' rights to the PRODUCTS...NOT "LICENSES"...we legally purchased), and control/gating/exploitation after the initial point-of-sale. Subscription models and online-centric games are the most heinous examples because they've created a throwaway culture with zero care about game preservation; the plug can get pulled at any time from their end and be gone forever whether you are okay with it or not. We are in the midst of the slowest pace of genuine (and genuinely finished and bug-free) "AAA", must-play releases in console history, so naturally M$ and $ony want you to invest in $500 hardware with nothing on it you actually own on top of that.
Stop letting these mega-corporations tell you what you "want" or "what's a good deal" (if you need a reminder, look back at certain remarks made by bigwigs at Square and Ubisoft over the past year or so); they've grown so arrogant and full of avarice that they've already started to destroy the very hobby that made them rich in the first place.
I think Microsoft should better justify their consumers' investment in the current console generation before they even think about announcing any new system. As a longtime hobbyist I've never seen a time when I've been asked to pay more for less: less quality, content, and features especially at point of release compared to previous generations, not to mention the lengthening gaps between major releases I even care about. Yes, that applies to the Playstation 5 as well. It took the XBox Series X/S a full year to even get its "AAA" first-party titles like Halo Infinite, and we know what a dumpster fire that was thanks to half the game's content and features being left on the cutting room floor in favor of prioritizing Fortnite-wannabe skins. And don't get me started on the subscription trend (which I will NEVER support); buying another $500 box to play content you don't even own or have any control over access to is just plain stupid where I'm concerned.
This frankly shouldn't even be a question. Both Microsoft and Sony need to remember what gamers buy these systems to do. Without the GAMES the most powerful piece of hardware is little more than a fancy doorstop. Neither the XBox Series X/S nor the Playstation 5 has any business making way for a successor; they've scarcely even gotten out of the gate, especially in terms of major first-party titles. If they try and push new hardware onto the market I suspect they're going to find a very cold reception.
Corporate greed is why there are so many articles and YouTube videos popping up about why "gaming isn't fun anymore". Mileage varies based on individual tastes and experience, of course, but having been an avid hobbyist since the Atari 2600 days, I personally feel the current Microsoft and Sony console generation has been generally aimless, uninspired, and has done less to justify investment in their respective consoles than any prior one.
The most damning examples regarding Halo Infinite, ranging from leaving large swaths of the single-player campaign (including varied weather and environments) on the cutting room floor to making it as difficult as possible to enjoy local splitscreen multi-player...both of which were accomplished in previous iterations on far less powerful hardware...comes down to deliberate choices and priorities on the part of 343 and Microsoft, particularly microtransactions. Long gone is any pretense of value for the consumer or giving us what we actually want; it's become a routine of telling us what we're getting and expecting us to keep forking out the $$$ for it anyway, even as more and more "AAA" titles are released unfinished, glitchy, and are basically glorified betas. It's not sustainable, and when consumers eventually say, "Enough", the videogame industry is going to experience its biggest implosion since it nearly went under during the mid-1980s.
They both look superb, but there is one place where GT7 shines that Forza hasn't followed yet: VR. It's something you have to experience for yourself in order to appreciate in terms of immersion.
@AlwaysPlaying Developers and publishers absolutely should pay the price for releasing unfinished, buggy games. They couldn't get away with that kind of crap back before internet functionality; that disc or cartridge was a FINISHED product and first impressions were FINAL impressions. The era of EULAs stripping away consumer rights coming alongside digital functionality has enabled greedy publishers to get away with releasing glorified betas to the public at full retail price, often minus much of the content and features that were part of genuinely complete games back in the day (example: Halo Infinite) and/or charge them additionally for it down the line.
No, reviews like this are crucial because only when consumers are made aware of corporate greed and laziness and the consequences in their products can we make informed decisions to vote with our wallets and tell them "NO MORE". And only then can we ever hope to see a positive change in how these companies approach game releases.
Still missing some great games like Afterburner Climax, OutRun 2006: Coast2Coast, and Daisenryaku VII: Modern Military Tactics. I would immediately snatch those up if somehow they ever get added to the BC list.
There are no "technical limitations", just greedy mega-corporations. We have the most powerful consoles and largest displays in the history of the hobby, and yet more and more games of IPs with longtime histories of local splitscreen multi-player are seeing it eliminated. Halo Infinite is another huge example (at best its "workaround" requires each player to enter a separate XBox account to play splitscreen, which isn't that convenient when your friends/family don't own an XBox). That's right, the inferior hardware of previous console generations has been able to readily give us features that all of a sudden we can't have on the "latest and greatest".
The real reason for this is that companies like M$ see any time a player is offline as time their experience can't be gated, controlled, or exploited for every additional $$$ after the initial point of sale, PERIOD. Most players don't care that much if splitscreen shaves a few frame rates or some resolution so they can enjoy a game around the same TV with others. "Technical limitations"? Get real. Shame the Devil and tell the truth, guys; you left the splitscreen out here for the same reason 343 did with Halo Infinite: just pure corporate greed.
@Ep_13 In the end, it's all about having options. It used to be that we had the option to choose to play locally or online; it was the best of both worlds for everyone. If you were having friends over and wanted to have something to play around the TV, it was there, and online was always there whenever you wanted to do that (or your living situation necessitated it).
Options are a positive thing for consumers; when companies deliberately remove them or make them more difficult to enjoy in order to force consumers to go with a specific direction where they can continually control their experiences and/or exploit them for additional money after the initial point of sale, that's not good business practice, it's just pure greed. And that goes for 2023 or any other year.
@Ep_13 It was a standard issue feature of not only Halo but all multiplayer-capable games up until online functionality became a means for "AAA" developers to gate and control players' experiences after the initial point of sale. Way too many modern business models have become dictated by the motto, "Any time players are offline is time we can't control them or gouge them for additional $$$", and over time way too many gamers have become conditioned to just bend over and take it.
Look at the hot, unfinished, bug-laden messes that so many recent "AAA" releases...including Halo Infinite...have been; the reason is as simple as corporate priorities and expectations that consumers will just keep shelling out the money for them anyway. It's not "specific" at all to request local splitscreen; to many of us who played OG Halo and Halo 2 especially, the camaraderie and face-to-face reactions of friends and family around the living room were what MADE the franchise so great to begin with; not everyone prefers to play online, believe it or not.
I just wish they'd finally "unleash" local splitscreen multi-player that doesn't require every person to enter a separate LIVE account. There's no reason other than greed and control why the latest Halo on the most advanced XBox hardware and the biggest displays in the history of the hobby doesn't have basic features that even Combat Evolved on the original XBox managed to excel at.
I don't care. Until Sega gives more of their legacy IPs...particularly their amazing RPGs like Shining Force and Skies of Arcadia...another chance, I'll never invest another penny on a Sonic game.
Still waiting on splitscreen multi-player that doesn't require individual logins. Not that I'm holding my breath for 343 to do anything about it. The lack of splitscreen modes has absolutely nothing to do with technical limitations of the hardware and everything to do with their greedy business models and priorities that force users to buy extra systems and copies of the game.
@TakeItEasy +1 Yeah, I still dip my toes in online multiplayer Halo now and then, but I've always preferred the ability to enjoy matches against family and friends in the same room via splitscreen multiplayer. It's just bad business on Microsoft's part to remove such a practical feature so they can force every consumer to purchase their own console and copy of the game to be able to play "together".
@Stoned_Patrol I personally couldn't care less about splitscreen co-op, but I really do miss local splitscreen multi-player matches with friends and family in the same living room. We're playing on the most powerful hardware and the biggest displays in the history of the hobby, and the reason local multi-player isn't included anymore has nothing to do with technical limitations but rather Microsoft's ability to gate and control user experiences by limiting them to online-only. It ALWAYS comes down to the $$$.
MLB: The Show has fallen into the exact same rut the Madden franchise became infamous for: a developer with a market monopoly who's able to rest on their laurels, never bothering to make any real improvements from year to year. Couple that with the fact that as long as there's a last-gen version to make there's no incentive to truly push the presentation for the newer hardware, and you have an IP that's stuck in increasing mediocrity. And one that I plan to skip yet again this year.
@AverageGamer I'm not saying it has to be constant and in your face, but you have to admit there's a bit of a disconnect when racing through vast environments that are completely devoid of actual life or motion, no matter how photorealistic. And when a developer cuts corners to "fill out" their game with human spectators, such as GT7's literal flat cut-outs of people in the grandstands or on the sides of the track, you can't un-see it once you notice.
Again, I'm not saying it has to be a huge priority, just not so much of an afterthought that it begins to detract from all the effort that's going into the environments themselves. Even 25 year-old Arcade coin-ops like Sega Rally Championship pulled off flocks of birds scattering into the air; surely current hardware can manage similar stuff without breaking a sweat.
The single biggest problem I have with all the major racing/driving franchises (FH, Forza, Gran Turismo) is that no matter how photorealistic their tracks or environments get you're still in an uncanny valley bereft of actual LIFE. Precious few if any human spectators or pedestrians, no genuine congestion in urban areas, no animal life; it's all very pretty and very lifeless. You're driving through ghost towns even in downtown Tokyo in GT7; it kills the immersion because it feels artificial, like those stand-up props made to resemble storefronts in old Westerns. I realize there are technical limitations on hardware and that too much traffic or pedestrians would create impediments to speed if not outright carnage, but nevertheless it's why all these environments feel the same...just sterile and un-lived-in.
I don't think something as radical as changing the formula to feel more like Burnout Paradise or Need For Speed is the answer; perhaps simply an increased focus on more animated NPCs, wildlife, etc.. In any case,, hopefully developers like Playground can better bridge that valley in future games.
You know, I would stop complaining if 343 would just make local splitscreen multiplayer doable without each person having to enter a separate account. There's absolutely no technical reason why we shouldn't be able to play this game on our massive UHD screens with friends sitting in the same room.
Make it happen, 343, and I promise I won't rant about this game ever again. Deal?
This is the consequence of having a console launch with a less expensive...and less powerful...option just to appeal to more consumers. Microsoft split their own market, and that's a cardinal sin in sales and marketing, let alone the issues it inevitably created for developers who now had to accommodate a second, less powerful console with every single release. It's the same thinking that had practically ZERO genuinely worthy first-party games available for the XBox Series X/S within a full year of its launch. And at least part of why Halo Infinite has been such a fiasco with so many basic features and modes (STILL no simple, offline local splitscreen multiplayer) missing.
This whole thing was rushed out the door.
You can only blame COVID for so much; there were a LOT of gross mistakes made. For one thing, Microsoft should have waited at least another year to launch the Series X...and ONLY the Series X. As for Halo Infinite, focusing on making it a F2P title with so much effort put into skins is pretty much singlehandedly responsible for the mess it has been, but let's not forget that, unlike the Series X/S, it actually HAD an extra year and they STILL screwed it up.
Follow the $$$. Local splitscreen multiplayer and co-op is the very antithesis of current online business models. Any time that players are offline, that's time their experience can't be gated, controlled, or exploited for additional $$$ after the initial point-of-sale, PERIOD. It's also seen as a wasted opportunity to force each player to purchase their own hardware, copy of the software, and any DLC involved; if you think this is an exaggeration then I humbly point you to the fact that local multiplayer on the same system/television currently requires each player to sign in with a separate XBox account, which is a headache that absolutely screams it was deliberate on 343's part. 343 and Microsoft simply decided to go all-in with their F2P business model as Halo's "future". They're hoping users will simply give up and forget about all the stuff that's not a priority for THEM.
Even Combat Evolved let players have more freedom and put more genuine effort into the game than Infinite, on every single level; even its campaign had varied weather, something 343 couldn't be bothered to accomplish two decades and three hardware generations later. Ditto local splitscreen; give me Combat Evolved and Halo 2's splitscreen where I can effortlessly enjoy matches with friends on the same TV over what we have now. None of the mess surrounding Halo Infinite is due to technical limitations; it's due to the deliberate choices of 343 and Microsoft and their intent to strong-arm users into accepting...and continuing to fork out $$$ for...a direction none of us ever asked for or wanted.
Only as long as I can purchase it and play it WITHOUT any dependence on some subscription that I must keep pouring money into to be able to access it. Yes, by that I mean GamePass. To each his/her own, but subscription models are just not for me.
@JoakimZ I let my Games With Gold subscription lapse because it frankly wasn't worth the investment. Besides, I want to own my games, not have them tied to paying endlessly for any subscription. I've moved on from that, and if the industry goes in the opposite direction, well, there are other entertainment options.
I wish they'd finally include the likes of Portal 2, Dragon's Lair, and Mickey Mouse and the Castle of Illusion in one of these BC sales. Seems they never get around to some games while endlessly including others.
This is case in point as to why online is one of the WORST things to ever happen to videogames. I know that may sound rash given all the extended content like DLC and online multiplayer that it's provided over the past decade-plus, but from the industry's angle it was always and ONLY about the MONEY, specifically finding every conceivable way to gate. control, and exploit players for more $$$ after the initial point-of-sale. In fact this is precisely why features like local splitscreen (multiplayer or co-op) were cut by 343 in favor of thousands of $$$ worth of Fortnite wannabe skins; the latter makes them more money, end of story. They don't care about any promises they've made and broken, and they'll even blame us the gamers for "unrealistic expectations" and "acting entitled" for rightfully complaining about this dumpster fire.
Truth bomb: these mega-corporations are NOT our friends. If they find a potential revenue stream (say, NFTs) they believe will make them more money than making the games we've come to love, you can bet they'll leave us behind in a cold minute. 343 saw F2P as "the future of Halo", and the rest is history...or perhaps Halo is now history because of it.
Or, who knows, maybe F2P will make 343 and Microsoft more money from Halo Infinite than the traditional model they had before. But not another penny of it will be coming from me, not when they've abandoned the basic features I bought Halo for in the first place.
"Live service" can be thrown straight in the trash where I'm concerned. I as a consumer never asked for it and never wanted it. And yet, like so many other things, corporations are hellbent on removing things I actually AM interested in...including features that have been staples of previous iterations of longtime franchises...to make room for such crap, which is designed to prioritize making them more $$$.
Perhaps they will make more $$$ that way. They just won't be making a penny of it from my wallet.
And STILL Halo players who prefer local, offline play get shafted. Let's get right to the truth here; the lack of the same offline, local splitscreen multiplayer modes that even Combat Evolved on the original XBox managed to pull off has NOTHING to do with any technical limitations of the hardware and EVERYTHING to do with the industry adage, "Any time a user is offline is time their experience can't be gated, controlled, or exploited for more $$$". Just like all the basic features including huge swaths of the campaign left on the cutting room floor (including varied weather and environments, which AGAIN, even Combat Evolved managed to do) in favor of thousands of $$$ worth of Fortnite wannabe skins; 343's priorities are what this is really about, and by extension Microsoft's.
Supposedly you can sign in with other players to play splitscreen...provided each player does so with a SEPARATE XBox account, which pretty much defeats the purpose and goes out of its way to make it as difficult as possible for players to enjoy sessions together on the couch. This was DELIBERATE, and I'm calling out 343 and Microsoft on it.
Halo was XBox's first and is still their foremost flagship franchise, bar none. How it's been handled and the degree of disrespect to the fans who've supported it for the past two decades is a travesty with Halo Infinite. The debacle that has transpired with this game has been unnecessary, inexcusable, and all about the $$$.
Still no couch co-op or local multiplayer splitscreen without having each player sign in with a separate account (which is absolutely ABSURD). 343 couldn't be more blatant about their $$$ priorities if they tried; the single biggest disconnect between them and a growing segment of the industry and gamers is, there's honestly no desire to offer genuine value anymore. And I'm not even talking about asking for "more"; I'm talking about the same features Halo has had since Combat Evolved on the original XBox hardware. If you're no longer meeting even those criteria, it's not due to "technical limitations", it's because you no longer care to as a developer.
If you're a fan of dark and/or dystopian themes, extreme violence, gore, and profanity/vulgarity, this has been your year as far as these gaming shows are concerned. They remind me of a comment made by a Japanese developer at E3 2010 regarding the glut of FPSes at the show: "You Americans must really enjoy war" (which, by the way, WASN'T a compliment). If you're a gamer who prefers a more rounded selection such as games you can play on the couch with friends in the same room or simply ones that are family friendly, it's as dry as a lakebed in the Western US right now. I own both a Series X and PS5 and frankly neither has come close to justifying the investment for this console generation for me so far. And looking at what's on offer, that won't be improving for the foreseeable future.
I've lost count regarding how many key team members/leads have jumped ship from Halo Infinite. The game (keep in mind this is Microsoft's foremost first-party franchise that launched the entire XBox brand) is currently struggling to maintain 8,000 concurrent players. Entire modes and basic features dating all the way back to Combat Evolved were left out or made to wait while M$ and 343 focused on a F2P business model and a bunch of Fornite wannabe skins, including local splitscreen multiplayer, varied terrain and weather effects in the campaign, online co-op, and Forge. 343 DELIBERATELY forced each player to have to sign in with a separate account in order to play local splitscreen (all governed by the idea that any time players are spending offline is time their experience can't be gated, controlled, or exploited for more $$$), which is inexcusable. New maps and content have been coming at a trickle that makes Switch Online's rate of new releases look absolutely prolific.
Both Microsoft and 343 share responsibility for this fiasco, but by this point it seems clear that 343 should have the IP taken from them and handed to a more stable and competent studio. I doubt that Halo Infinite will ever be salvaged from the effects of its handling up to this point; it's definitely a low point for the franchise.
That's nice and all, but 343 has yet to offer splitscreen multiplayer for those playing in the same room (apart from each player having to sign in with an entirely separate account, which isn't just absurd but smacks of them DELIBERATELY trying to discourage local multiplayer). It's bad enough that it's that way for the rest of the game, but local multiplayer is an absolute MUST for Forge.
Most players don't have a huge abundance of friends/family who own XBoxes and copies of Halo Infinite to play online with, and Forge doesn't lend itself nearly as much to playing with strangers because once thousands of maps get created by users, yours will almost certainly get buried among them. With a game currently struggling to hit 8,000 concurrent players, do you seriously think you'll be able to fill out the Forge map you created with players? This is why I never bothered with Forge in previous Halo releases; you ended up with empty maps with no one to play with online.
Obviously Halo Infinite needs bots to fill out rosters for Forge, but without adding local multiplayer splitscreen support, I highly doubt the mode will have any legs anyway. And just maybe 343 should ask themselves if it might be at least part of the reason that player interest in this game plummeted to begin with. Their priorities were so screwed up that they actually made deliberate design decisions aimed at limiting or gating player freedom. Yeah, I think that might be a valid reason.
Well, to be honest neither the Series X/S nor the PS5 had much of ANYTHING in terms of Frontline first-party titles to offer for their entire first year post-launch. Flight Simulator, Forza Horizon 5, and Halo Infinite finally prompted me to invest in a Series X, but since then I only touch the first two occasionally and Halo Infinite has been a hot mess of missing features (343 apparently can't be bothered to put in the ability to play local splitscreen multiplayer without each person having to sign in with a separate account, which reeks of deliberate intent to discourage users from local vs. online multiplayer).
Right now my Switch gets SEVERAL TIMES the use of either my Series X or my PS5, for the simple reason that it actually has and continues to release games I want to play. If it wasn't for all the backwards compatible titles I own through XBox, the system wouldn't justify keeping it, let alone the cost to "upgrade". And yes, that factors in the largely underwhelming selection from Microsoft's latest showcase.
Pure silliness. A Bonobo is a species of ape similar in appearance to a Chimpanzee. Big deal. If anyone were to make some sort of racial connotation out of the word, that's on them; the world can't revolve around thought-policing and censoring every single word or phrase that might be perceived as offensive to a particular group (although I have to say that the timing of this makes you go, "Hmmm").
At any rate, it's 343's decision (and it's not as if they haven't made some atrocious ones already with Halo Infinite), made out of some Minority Report-style fear of potential future criticism or litigation because people love to find anything they can to get "outraged" over. Such is the hot mess of an insane world we are living in anymore.
I can't speak for anyone else, but personally at this point in their respective life cycles the Series X and PS5 are offering BY FAR the least overall value in terms of investment to games available that I'm interested in playing of any console generation to date. And I can't recall a June whose premier showcases have come and gone with so few games I remotely care about trying. I say this as an avid hobbyist since the Atari 2600 who's owned pretty much every major platform along with thousands of games of every genre.
There are at least a couple of key reasons why I believe this to be the case. First, the industry has been putting too many eggs into too few baskets for years now. At E3 2010 a Japanese developer remarked, "You Americans must really enjoy war," with regard to the glut of FPSes at the show. Shortly afterward most Japanese, foreign, and smaller studios stopped bothering to attend, as the cost wasn't justified being relegated to obscurity on the show floor while the mega-publishers dominated media attention every single year with the latest "Call of Battlefield: Madden's Creed". Ditto zombie apocalypse games, battle royales, and so on; everything increasingly looked and played like everything else. COVID didn't kill E3; it was dying long before that. But as both Sony and Microsoft's showcases, filled with derivative tropes and a hugely disproportionate emphasis on darkness, horror, and ultra-violence demonstrated, the industry hasn't learned much at all about why genuine variety in theme and genre are important.
The other reason is twofold. First-party "AAA" games have become so big, complicated, and expensive to make, often involving hundreds of people or more, that development times have reached absurd proportions. Announcements are made two, three, or more years before actual releases, so from a gamer's standpoint the focus is always next year or sometime in the future rather than having games to enjoy right now. It took both Series X and the PS5 a FULL YEAR to see a true flagship IP release (Halo Infinite and Horizon: Forbidden West); the pace of major, must-have releases has became glacial in comparison to previous system launches. And when some of these "epic" titles finally do reach players' hands, all too often they've still been rushed and/or had huge swaths of features left on the cutting room floor (example: Halo Infinite). Even worse, bugs and glitches have become the norm for most launches, the developers treating $60 and $70 nonrefundable purchases as glorified betas.
Filling out showcases with Indie games is just that: filler probably 97% of the time. There are some very good, high quality Indie games out there, but most simply don't have the production values or content necessary to plug the gaping holes left by the major studios on the release calendar.
Overall I think the industry is in serious need of a thorough re-evaluation of its approach. The most powerful hardware in the world is just a glorified doorstop collecting dust without GAMES that a given user wants to play. Again I can't speak for anyone else, but having read over a lot of comments since these presentations I suspect that there are others out there who are at least beginning to feel similarly about the state of the hobby.
I'll reiterate my statement regarding both Microsoft and Sony's showcases: so far neither has really justified the investment in the hardware upgrade to the Series X and PS5. Dark/horror/ultraviolent themes seem to be like zombie apocalypse games and FPSes have been; simply oversaturated (even Marvel's Midnight Suns is a huge turnoff and missed opportunity given how its theming limited its potential to explore a vast fictional universe). Too many tropes have been seen before (a girl getting pulled into some alternate dimension, side-scrolling Limbo knock-offs, battle royales, etc.).
Overall I just haven't been feeling what's typically on offer for the "latest and greatest" game consoles. Less powerful or not, my Switch looks to be continuing to get substantially more use than either my Series X or my PS5 in the coming months. It simply offers better variety and value for me in terms of games I actually want to play.
1) Why "leak" a Goldeneye Achievement in the week leading up to the showcase and then not show anything? If it's true the Extended Showcase won't have any new reveals, it doesn't make any sense.
2) I personally can't stand "deep dives", even with regard to games I would be interested in (specifically referring to watching someone else run around playing the game). I don't mind knowing about features, maps, and other practical stuff, but in my personal experience watching gameplay often tends to be a turnoff to the entire package.
I do wish to clarify that I can't stand trailers that are all CGI, either. Give me just enough snippets of various gameplay to determine a game's overall mechanics and feel; just don't drown me with a 10-15 minute slog of someone walking you through a level talking as if they're a car salesman in a showroom.
Haven't heard anything on that TimeSplitters project that THQ Nordic was supposedly working on in several months. Personally I'd be thrilled to see an announcement on that as well.
@MiGke I don't subscribe to GamePass and never will. I buy the games I'm interested in, period. The industry has more than enough means of gating and controlling access to content as it is without me throwing away what's left of my rights as a consumer. But to each their own.
@Lavalera I understand your point about "value", but if the industry's catering to "everyone else" and your own tastes are not being catered to any longer, what good is the hobby anymore? Your money is as good as anyone else's. Don't be afraid to rate a given show not based on how well you think it met other gamers' needs and wants, but how it met YOURS.
Me personally, I'd have to give this showcase a solid "D", and only because of Starfield. I won't be giving any of the other stuff a second look, so why score it higher? At the end of the day, it's about the utility I personally get from what is on offer.
I'm wondering where the new TimeSplitters game is; the dev team said it was several months away from being ready to show last year, but it's been several months now and not a peep from them. I figured if it was going to make an appearance it would have done so here or at Sony's showcase.
Beyond Starfield and maybe one or two others, every game felt derivative. The overwhelming majority of games anymore seem to have dark and violent motifs. We've seen the "girl gets pulled into some dark dimension" trope before. Ditto cartoony first-person shooters, side-scrolling Limbo rip-offs, battle royales, etc., etc..
Microsoft can hype the number of games they showed all they want, but way too many of them look, feel, or play alike (especially THEMATICALLY) to matter anymore. It's like the damning remark made by a Japanese developer at E3 2010 with regard to the glut of first-person shooters at the show: "You Americans must really enjoy war". E3's developer representation (especially foreign and smaller studios) imploded shortly afterward, and it began the decline that's culminated in the current situation. True creativity and originality look, feel, and play DIFFERENTLY; there's VARIETY that the hobby is sorely lacking anymore, at least certainly where the industry's focus with these showcases is concerned.
I guess if there's a silver lining between this and Sony's showcase, it's that my wallet won't be getting too much lighter in the coming year. Then again, I didn't invest in a Series X or PS5 to still be playing last-gen games, either.
All your remarks are valid and insightful. Believe me, my intention is NOT in any way to be toxic or to attack you or anyone at 343, Microsoft, or any other developer on a personal level. I respect your viewpoint as a developer, and I understand (at least the basics of) the corporate angle. As someone who's an aspiring creator (writer) myself, I know all too well how being intimately close to something can make you bristle when it comes under criticism, even of a constructive nature.
That said, going as far as to say the fans are wrong is a bit unfair. They see the priorities of developers pushing more and more into directions that are in direct conflict with their own interests (example: NFTs), and that pattern predates COVID by a LONG TIME. Yes, Halo Infinite's multiplayer is technically free, but would the game have benefited more from it simply being included as a package deal with the campaign, as with previous iterations? Might we have gotten at least one or two more maps and perhaps local splitscreen multiplayer had 343 not gone the route of focusing so much energy around skins? I guess what's still rubbing fans like myself the wrong way is that, even with the year's delay and learning so much had been cut or delayed to make the launch date, we found that so much time, effort, and emphasis had gone into something nobody (at least certainly not me or anyone else I personally know) even asked for.
Anyway. I've said all I can on the matter here. I do respect your viewpoint and you absolutely make some great points (I have no intention of dismissing the effects of the difficulties that working from isolation have had on development teams, either); the disconnect between fans and the industry over the direction of the hobby and what's best for the games they love will probably always be there, sadly.
Thanks for your responses, by the way, as well as your patience. No hard feelings, I hope.
@d0x3601 Thanks for the insightful comments. I will say that, based upon everything you said, Halo Infinite frankly should have been delayed until the studio had time to get it RIGHT AND COMPLETE as opposed to having to leave the majority of the campaign and so many features on the cutting room floor in order to make a holiday release window. It also seems obvious that it should have been released as a NEXT-GEN-ONLY title (either that or toss out cross-gen online play). This sort of thing isn't just an issue with 343; it's become disturbingly common among a LOT of manufacturers. The end consumer keeps getting less content (and less overall quality) at launch and end up playing glorified betas simply because online functionality allows developers to "cheat", and in some cases even end up having to pay additional money to access basic features that should have been in the game to begin with.
I won't argue that what's there in Halo Infinite is excellent, but COVID or no, the game was handled the WRONG WAY, with priorities that didn't match up with the expectations of fans. Case in point: thousands of $$$ worth of Fortnite wannabe skins that could have gone toward further refining the campaign, implementing co-op and local multiplayer, etc.. I get it; 343 and Microsoft wanted another revenue stream for Halo Infinite (another SERIOUS issue with too many modern games and publishers anymore, from loot crates and NFTs to anything else they can come up with), but it came at the cost of what mattered to the end consumer: THE PRODUCT ITSELF. I'd happily trade the ability to buy cat ears for my Spartan for the ability to play around the living room with friends on the same screen.
As it stands, Halo Infinite may one day become the game that fans hoped to see, but that day seems to be a long way off. And sadly, some things, like those seamless biomes you mentioned, will likely never get implemented. It's pretty bad when Halo: Combat Evolved on the original XBox was able to implement varied weather, environments, and local multiplayer and the current-gen iteration of the series can't even manage that. As I said, what's there may be excellent, but Halo Infinite simply WASN'T DONE at release. Not even close.
And be assured, the fans will remember this. 343/Microsoft would have been immensely better off had they taken Nintendo's approach with BotW 2; nobody was happy about that delay, but fans are far more understanding when they know the extra time is being taken to make a game the absolute best it can be.
Comments 151
Re: Poll: How Would You Grade Gamescom Opening Night Live 2024?
Civ VII kept it out of being an F, but shortly after its reveal I decided I'd seen enough and stopped watching; didn't stay long enough to watch the Indiana Jones feature but I may check it out down the line.
So why did I give the overall show an E rating??
There are only so many ways to depict and carry out brutal, gory violence onscreen, and with such games front-and-center for presentations since way back in the E3 days, it's no wonder why countless "AAA" titles look, feel, and play like stuff we've seen before many times over. None of the other stuff appealed to me, either, for various reasons.
Re: Talking Point: Do You Think This Generation Will Be A Short One?
Let's put it another way: do you think this console generation has sufficiently encouraged consumers to invest in the next generation? Unless you're willing to look past stuff like the following:
1) projects that are years in development and typically still manage to launch as glorified betas.
2) being charged more and more for less and less overall content and features (specifically looking at big-name IPs compared to their iterations even two or three generations ago...cough, Halo, cough...like where did offline local splitscreen or varied weather and environments go?).
3) all the ways online functionality is being used to gate, control, and gouge users for more $$$ after the initial point-of-sale.
4) how the subscription models whose express purpose was to make consumers comfortable with the idea of investing hundreds of dollars in hardware they don't actually own anything on are getting even MORE stingy and expensive.
We have the most powerful hardware and the biggest displays the hobby has ever seen, and things like local multiplayer are actively avoided by developers specifically because online is where they make $$$ at. But you know, I've decided I no longer am willing to accept that, especially given all the other ways the industry has lost sight of what made this hobby FUN in the first place because of nothing more than GREED. And has anyone else begun to feel that the more photorealistic developers try to make everything, the more alike so many games seem to look and feel anymore (meaning dark, violent, and generally depressing)? I've been an avid hobbyist since the Atari 2600, and I'm actually feeling comfortable with the idea that this may be my last go-around. I can't speak for anyone else, I realize, but I also suspect I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Re: Reaction: 'TimeSplitters: Next' Gameplay Leak Makes Us Crave A More Traditional Sequel
I honestly don't know what's worse, simply having game franchises you once loved disappear forever or get bastardized to try to appeal to "a wider/modern audience". Shining Force got turned into the bland ARPG Shining series (and Sega tried to do the same thing with Valkyria Chronicles with Azure). Front Mission got turned into a third-person shooter. Fire Emblem became a glorified "life sim" overstuffed with vapid "relationships", conversations, and busywork instead of focusing on the meaty strategy and amazing storylines like that of Path of Radiance/Radiant Dawn.
What made TimeSplitters so incredible when it first released was the sheer value provided by the MapMaker. I'll never forget my cousin blurting out, "You MADE THIS!!!" as we loaded the first hastily-constructed map I'd slapped together. So many hours customizing and tweaking and then enjoying a chaotic four-player splitscreen battle with friends and family around the TV.
And those very things are ironically what killed TimeSplitters, because once online multiplayer went mainstream developers' first priority became how to gate, control, and monitor your entire experience as well as get you to fork out additional $$$ after the initial point-of-sale. Things like local multiplayer, player-created content, and value are pretty much antithetical to every current business model, so it's no wonder they thought they could slap the name "TimeSplitters" on a Fortnite-wannabe (hello, Halo Infinite) and get away with gutting what fans loved about it in the first place and making it yet another disposable online-centric game.
You want to know why so many longtime gamers are beginning to say they're not having as much fun with the hobby anymore? Because the people making the games have completely lost touch with what used to make it fun; the games used to be designed for US, not for their shareholders.
Re: Talking Point: Would You Be Interested In A New 'Multi-Subscription' Tier On Xbox?
I will NEVER pay for a subscription model as a means of accessing games. If I want to play a game, I BUY it so I can enjoy it on my own schedule and terms. EVERYTHING that publishers have pushed since online went mainstream has been aimed at training consumers to surrender more and more basic rights (EULAs are a direct affront to consumers' rights to the PRODUCTS...NOT "LICENSES"...we legally purchased), and control/gating/exploitation after the initial point-of-sale. Subscription models and online-centric games are the most heinous examples because they've created a throwaway culture with zero care about game preservation; the plug can get pulled at any time from their end and be gone forever whether you are okay with it or not. We are in the midst of the slowest pace of genuine (and genuinely finished and bug-free) "AAA", must-play releases in console history, so naturally M$ and $ony want you to invest in $500 hardware with nothing on it you actually own on top of that.
Stop letting these mega-corporations tell you what you "want" or "what's a good deal" (if you need a reminder, look back at certain remarks made by bigwigs at Square and Ubisoft over the past year or so); they've grown so arrogant and full of avarice that they've already started to destroy the very hobby that made them rich in the first place.
Re: Poll: When Do You Think Xbox Will Release Its Next-Generation Console?
I think Microsoft should better justify their consumers' investment in the current console generation before they even think about announcing any new system. As a longtime hobbyist I've never seen a time when I've been asked to pay more for less: less quality, content, and features especially at point of release compared to previous generations, not to mention the lengthening gaps between major releases I even care about. Yes, that applies to the Playstation 5 as well. It took the XBox Series X/S a full year to even get its "AAA" first-party titles like Halo Infinite, and we know what a dumpster fire that was thanks to half the game's content and features being left on the cutting room floor in favor of prioritizing Fortnite-wannabe skins.
And don't get me started on the subscription trend (which I will NEVER support); buying another $500 box to play content you don't even own or have any control over access to is just plain stupid where I'm concerned.
This frankly shouldn't even be a question. Both Microsoft and Sony need to remember what gamers buy these systems to do. Without the GAMES the most powerful piece of hardware is little more than a fancy doorstop. Neither the XBox Series X/S nor the Playstation 5 has any business making way for a successor; they've scarcely even gotten out of the gate, especially in terms of major first-party titles. If they try and push new hardware onto the market I suspect they're going to find a very cold reception.
Re: Halo Infinite Dev Posts Lengthy Response To 'Increased' Bundle Prices
Corporate greed is why there are so many articles and YouTube videos popping up about why "gaming isn't fun anymore". Mileage varies based on individual tastes and experience, of course, but having been an avid hobbyist since the Atari 2600 days, I personally feel the current Microsoft and Sony console generation has been generally aimless, uninspired, and has done less to justify investment in their respective consoles than any prior one.
The most damning examples regarding Halo Infinite, ranging from leaving large swaths of the single-player campaign (including varied weather and environments) on the cutting room floor to making it as difficult as possible to enjoy local splitscreen multi-player...both of which were accomplished in previous iterations on far less powerful hardware...comes down to deliberate choices and priorities on the part of 343 and Microsoft, particularly microtransactions. Long gone is any pretense of value for the consumer or giving us what we actually want; it's become a routine of telling us what we're getting and expecting us to keep forking out the $$$ for it anyway, even as more and more "AAA" titles are released unfinished, glitchy, and are basically glorified betas. It's not sustainable, and when consumers eventually say, "Enough", the videogame industry is going to experience its biggest implosion since it nearly went under during the mid-1980s.
Re: Well, The Forza Motorsport Vs. Gran Turismo 7 Comparisons Are Already Rolling In
They both look superb, but there is one place where GT7 shines that Forza hasn't followed yet: VR. It's something you have to experience for yourself in order to appreciate in terms of immersion.
Re: Review: The Lamplighters League - A Solid Slice Of Turn-Based Strategy That's In Need Of Some Patching ASAP
@AlwaysPlaying Developers and publishers absolutely should pay the price for releasing unfinished, buggy games. They couldn't get away with that kind of crap back before internet functionality; that disc or cartridge was a FINISHED product and first impressions were FINAL impressions. The era of EULAs stripping away consumer rights coming alongside digital functionality has enabled greedy publishers to get away with releasing glorified betas to the public at full retail price, often minus much of the content and features that were part of genuinely complete games back in the day (example: Halo Infinite) and/or charge them additionally for it down the line.
No, reviews like this are crucial because only when consumers are made aware of corporate greed and laziness and the consequences in their products can we make informed decisions to vote with our wallets and tell them "NO MORE". And only then can we ever hope to see a positive change in how these companies approach game releases.
Re: Backwards Compatible Games Will Remain Purchasable After Xbox 360 Store Closure
Still missing some great games like Afterburner Climax, OutRun 2006: Coast2Coast, and Daisenryaku VII: Modern Military Tactics. I would immediately snatch those up if somehow they ever get added to the BC list.
Re: Forza Motorsport's Multiplayer Looks Awesome, But Split-Screen Didn't Make The Cut
There are no "technical limitations", just greedy mega-corporations. We have the most powerful consoles and largest displays in the history of the hobby, and yet more and more games of IPs with longtime histories of local splitscreen multi-player are seeing it eliminated. Halo Infinite is another huge example (at best its "workaround" requires each player to enter a separate XBox account to play splitscreen, which isn't that convenient when your friends/family don't own an XBox). That's right, the inferior hardware of previous console generations has been able to readily give us features that all of a sudden we can't have on the "latest and greatest".
The real reason for this is that companies like M$ see any time a player is offline as time their experience can't be gated, controlled, or exploited for every additional $$$ after the initial point of sale, PERIOD. Most players don't care that much if splitscreen shaves a few frame rates or some resolution so they can enjoy a game around the same TV with others. "Technical limitations"? Get real. Shame the Devil and tell the truth, guys; you left the splitscreen out here for the same reason 343 did with Halo Infinite: just pure corporate greed.
Re: Halo Infinite Promises To 'Unleash Mayhem' Next Week In New Season 4 Trailer
@Ep_13 In the end, it's all about having options. It used to be that we had the option to choose to play locally or online; it was the best of both worlds for everyone. If you were having friends over and wanted to have something to play around the TV, it was there, and online was always there whenever you wanted to do that (or your living situation necessitated it).
Options are a positive thing for consumers; when companies deliberately remove them or make them more difficult to enjoy in order to force consumers to go with a specific direction where they can continually control their experiences and/or exploit them for additional money after the initial point of sale, that's not good business practice, it's just pure greed. And that goes for 2023 or any other year.
Re: Halo Infinite Promises To 'Unleash Mayhem' Next Week In New Season 4 Trailer
@Ep_13 It was a standard issue feature of not only Halo but all multiplayer-capable games up until online functionality became a means for "AAA" developers to gate and control players' experiences after the initial point of sale. Way too many modern business models have become dictated by the motto, "Any time players are offline is time we can't control them or gouge them for additional $$$", and over time way too many gamers have become conditioned to just bend over and take it.
Look at the hot, unfinished, bug-laden messes that so many recent "AAA" releases...including Halo Infinite...have been; the reason is as simple as corporate priorities and expectations that consumers will just keep shelling out the money for them anyway. It's not "specific" at all to request local splitscreen; to many of us who played OG Halo and Halo 2 especially, the camaraderie and face-to-face reactions of friends and family around the living room were what MADE the franchise so great to begin with; not everyone prefers to play online, believe it or not.
Re: Halo Infinite Promises To 'Unleash Mayhem' Next Week In New Season 4 Trailer
I just wish they'd finally "unleash" local splitscreen multi-player that doesn't require every person to enter a separate LIVE account. There's no reason other than greed and control why the latest Halo on the most advanced XBox hardware and the biggest displays in the history of the hobby doesn't have basic features that even Combat Evolved on the original XBox managed to excel at.
Re: 'Sonic Superstars' Is A Brand-New 2D Sonic Title Sprinting Onto Xbox This Year
I don't care. Until Sega gives more of their legacy IPs...particularly their amazing RPGs like Shining Force and Skies of Arcadia...another chance, I'll never invest another penny on a Sonic game.
Re: Talking Point: Is There An Xbox Classic You Wish Was Backwards Compatible?
Three titles immediately come to mind:
1) Daisenryaku VII: Modern Military Tactics
2) Afterburner Climax
3) Outrun 2006: Coast2Coast
Re: The Lord Of The Rings: Gollum Dev Apologises For Issues & Is 'Committed' To Patching The Game On Xbox
You can patch out bugs, glitches, or bad mechanics. You can't patch a bad game or concept.
Re: Halo Infinite Season 4 Adds Infection Mode This June
Still waiting on splitscreen multi-player that doesn't require individual logins. Not that I'm holding my breath for 343 to do anything about it. The lack of splitscreen modes has absolutely nothing to do with technical limitations of the hardware and everything to do with their greedy business models and priorities that force users to buy extra systems and copies of the game.
Re: Halo Infinite's May Update Is Adding An FPS Counter On Xbox Consoles
@TakeItEasy +1 Yeah, I still dip my toes in online multiplayer Halo now and then, but I've always preferred the ability to enjoy matches against family and friends in the same room via splitscreen multiplayer. It's just bad business on Microsoft's part to remove such a practical feature so they can force every consumer to purchase their own console and copy of the game to be able to play "together".
Re: Halo Infinite's May Update Is Adding An FPS Counter On Xbox Consoles
@Stoned_Patrol I personally couldn't care less about splitscreen co-op, but I really do miss local splitscreen multi-player matches with friends and family in the same living room. We're playing on the most powerful hardware and the biggest displays in the history of the hobby, and the reason local multi-player isn't included anymore has nothing to do with technical limitations but rather Microsoft's ability to gate and control user experiences by limiting them to online-only. It ALWAYS comes down to the $$$.
Re: 'Chrono Odyssey' Is A Jaw-Dropping Fantasy RPG Launching On Xbox Series X And S
Very pretty. Lost me at MMORPG, though.
Re: Ex-Halo Lead Announces New Project After Leaving Team Xbox
It speaks volumes that more prominent people involved with Halo have left the company than we've seen actual updates since Halo Infinite launched.
Re: Review: MLB The Show 23 - Another Solid Outing With A Standout Storylines Addition
MLB: The Show has fallen into the exact same rut the Madden franchise became infamous for: a developer with a market monopoly who's able to rest on their laurels, never bothering to make any real improvements from year to year. Couple that with the fact that as long as there's a last-gen version to make there's no incentive to truly push the presentation for the newer hardware, and you have an IP that's stuck in increasing mediocrity. And one that I plan to skip yet again this year.
Re: Soapbox: I Hope Forza Horizon 6 Goes In A Different Direction For The Series
@AverageGamer I'm not saying it has to be constant and in your face, but you have to admit there's a bit of a disconnect when racing through vast environments that are completely devoid of actual life or motion, no matter how photorealistic. And when a developer cuts corners to "fill out" their game with human spectators, such as GT7's literal flat cut-outs of people in the grandstands or on the sides of the track, you can't un-see it once you notice.
Again, I'm not saying it has to be a huge priority, just not so much of an afterthought that it begins to detract from all the effort that's going into the environments themselves. Even 25 year-old Arcade coin-ops like Sega Rally Championship pulled off flocks of birds scattering into the air; surely current hardware can manage similar stuff without breaking a sweat.
Re: Soapbox: I Hope Forza Horizon 6 Goes In A Different Direction For The Series
The single biggest problem I have with all the major racing/driving franchises (FH, Forza, Gran Turismo) is that no matter how photorealistic their tracks or environments get you're still in an uncanny valley bereft of actual LIFE. Precious few if any human spectators or pedestrians, no genuine congestion in urban areas, no animal life; it's all very pretty and very lifeless. You're driving through ghost towns even in downtown Tokyo in GT7; it kills the immersion because it feels artificial, like those stand-up props made to resemble storefronts in old Westerns. I realize there are technical limitations on hardware and that too much traffic or pedestrians would create impediments to speed if not outright carnage, but nevertheless it's why all these environments feel the same...just sterile and un-lived-in.
I don't think something as radical as changing the formula to feel more like Burnout Paradise or Need For Speed is the answer; perhaps simply an increased focus on more animated NPCs, wildlife, etc.. In any case,, hopefully developers like Playground can better bridge that valley in future games.
Re: Halo Infinite Details Sandbox Balance Changes Coming In Winter Update
You know, I would stop complaining if 343 would just make local splitscreen multiplayer doable without each person having to enter a separate account. There's absolutely no technical reason why we shouldn't be able to play this game on our massive UHD screens with friends sitting in the same room.
Make it happen, 343, and I promise I won't rant about this game ever again. Deal?
Re: Many Studios Are Struggling With Xbox Series S Requirements, Claims Developer
This is the consequence of having a console launch with a less expensive...and less powerful...option just to appeal to more consumers. Microsoft split their own market, and that's a cardinal sin in sales and marketing, let alone the issues it inevitably created for developers who now had to accommodate a second, less powerful console with every single release. It's the same thinking that had practically ZERO genuinely worthy first-party games available for the XBox Series X/S within a full year of its launch. And at least part of why Halo Infinite has been such a fiasco with so many basic features and modes (STILL no simple, offline local splitscreen multiplayer) missing.
This whole thing was rushed out the door.
You can only blame COVID for so much; there were a LOT of gross mistakes made. For one thing, Microsoft should have waited at least another year to launch the Series X...and ONLY the Series X. As for Halo Infinite, focusing on making it a F2P title with so much effort put into skins is pretty much singlehandedly responsible for the mess it has been, but let's not forget that, unlike the Series X/S, it actually HAD an extra year and they STILL screwed it up.
Re: Digital Foundry Says Halo Infinite Split-Screen Is 'Excellent', 343 Declines To Comment
Follow the $$$. Local splitscreen multiplayer and co-op is the very antithesis of current online business models. Any time that players are offline, that's time their experience can't be gated, controlled, or exploited for additional $$$ after the initial point-of-sale, PERIOD. It's also seen as a wasted opportunity to force each player to purchase their own hardware, copy of the software, and any DLC involved; if you think this is an exaggeration then I humbly point you to the fact that local multiplayer on the same system/television currently requires each player to sign in with a separate XBox account, which is a headache that absolutely screams it was deliberate on 343's part. 343 and Microsoft simply decided to go all-in with their F2P business model as Halo's "future". They're hoping users will simply give up and forget about all the stuff that's not a priority for THEM.
Even Combat Evolved let players have more freedom and put more genuine effort into the game than Infinite, on every single level; even its campaign had varied weather, something 343 couldn't be bothered to accomplish two decades and three hardware generations later. Ditto local splitscreen; give me Combat Evolved and Halo 2's splitscreen where I can effortlessly enjoy matches with friends on the same TV over what we have now. None of the mess surrounding Halo Infinite is due to technical limitations; it's due to the deliberate choices of 343 and Microsoft and their intent to strong-arm users into accepting...and continuing to fork out $$$ for...a direction none of us ever asked for or wanted.
Re: GoldenEye 007 Officially Announced For Xbox Game Pass
Only as long as I can purchase it and play it WITHOUT any dependence on some subscription that I must keep pouring money into to be able to access it. Yes, by that I mean GamePass. To each his/her own, but subscription models are just not for me.
Re: Deals: All 70+ Backwards Compatible Games In This Week's Xbox Sales (September 13-20)
@JoakimZ I let my Games With Gold subscription lapse because it frankly wasn't worth the investment. Besides, I want to own my games, not have them tied to paying endlessly for any subscription. I've moved on from that, and if the industry goes in the opposite direction, well, there are other entertainment options.
Re: Deals: All 70+ Backwards Compatible Games In This Week's Xbox Sales (September 13-20)
I wish they'd finally include the likes of Portal 2, Dragon's Lair, and Mickey Mouse and the Castle of Illusion in one of these BC sales. Seems they never get around to some games while endlessly including others.
Re: Reaction: Can 343 Industries Deliver On What's Right For Halo?
This is case in point as to why online is one of the WORST things to ever happen to videogames. I know that may sound rash given all the extended content like DLC and online multiplayer that it's provided over the past decade-plus, but from the industry's angle it was always and ONLY about the MONEY, specifically finding every conceivable way to gate. control, and exploit players for more $$$ after the initial point-of-sale. In fact this is precisely why features like local splitscreen (multiplayer or co-op) were cut by 343 in favor of thousands of $$$ worth of Fortnite wannabe skins; the latter makes them more money, end of story. They don't care about any promises they've made and broken, and they'll even blame us the gamers for "unrealistic expectations" and "acting entitled" for rightfully complaining about this dumpster fire.
Truth bomb: these mega-corporations are NOT our friends. If they find a potential revenue stream (say, NFTs) they believe will make them more money than making the games we've come to love, you can bet they'll leave us behind in a cold minute. 343 saw F2P as "the future of Halo", and the rest is history...or perhaps Halo is now history because of it.
Or, who knows, maybe F2P will make 343 and Microsoft more money from Halo Infinite than the traditional model they had before. But not another penny of it will be coming from me, not when they've abandoned the basic features I bought Halo for in the first place.
Re: Halo Infinite Local Campaign Co-Op Has Been Cancelled
"Live service" can be thrown straight in the trash where I'm concerned. I as a consumer never asked for it and never wanted it. And yet, like so many other things, corporations are hellbent on removing things I actually AM interested in...including features that have been staples of previous iterations of longtime franchises...to make room for such crap, which is designed to prioritize making them more $$$.
Perhaps they will make more $$$ that way. They just won't be making a penny of it from my wallet.
Re: 343 Reveals What's Coming To Halo Infinite In Late 2022 & Early 2023
And STILL Halo players who prefer local, offline play get shafted. Let's get right to the truth here; the lack of the same offline, local splitscreen multiplayer modes that even Combat Evolved on the original XBox managed to pull off has NOTHING to do with any technical limitations of the hardware and EVERYTHING to do with the industry adage, "Any time a user is offline is time their experience can't be gated, controlled, or exploited for more $$$". Just like all the basic features including huge swaths of the campaign left on the cutting room floor (including varied weather and environments, which AGAIN, even Combat Evolved managed to do) in favor of thousands of $$$ worth of Fortnite wannabe skins; 343's priorities are what this is really about, and by extension Microsoft's.
Supposedly you can sign in with other players to play splitscreen...provided each player does so with a SEPARATE XBox account, which pretty much defeats the purpose and goes out of its way to make it as difficult as possible for players to enjoy sessions together on the couch. This was DELIBERATE, and I'm calling out 343 and Microsoft on it.
Halo was XBox's first and is still their foremost flagship franchise, bar none. How it's been handled and the degree of disrespect to the fans who've supported it for the past two decades is a travesty with Halo Infinite. The debacle that has transpired with this game has been unnecessary, inexcusable, and all about the $$$.
Re: 343 To Provide Update Next Week About The Future Of Halo Infinite
Still no couch co-op or local multiplayer splitscreen without having each player sign in with a separate account (which is absolutely ABSURD). 343 couldn't be more blatant about their $$$ priorities if they tried; the single biggest disconnect between them and a growing segment of the industry and gamers is, there's honestly no desire to offer genuine value anymore. And I'm not even talking about asking for "more"; I'm talking about the same features Halo has had since Combat Evolved on the original XBox hardware. If you're no longer meeting even those criteria, it's not due to "technical limitations", it's because you no longer care to as a developer.
Re: Poll: How Would You Grade Gamescom Opening Night Live 2022?
If you're a fan of dark and/or dystopian themes, extreme violence, gore, and profanity/vulgarity, this has been your year as far as these gaming shows are concerned. They remind me of a comment made by a Japanese developer at E3 2010 regarding the glut of FPSes at the show: "You Americans must really enjoy war" (which, by the way, WASN'T a compliment). If you're a gamer who prefers a more rounded selection such as games you can play on the couch with friends in the same room or simply ones that are family friendly, it's as dry as a lakebed in the Western US right now. I own both a Series X and PS5 and frankly neither has come close to justifying the investment for this console generation for me so far. And looking at what's on offer, that won't be improving for the foreseeable future.
Re: Halo Infinite Art Director Leaves 343 After Near 15-Year Career At Xbox
I've lost count regarding how many key team members/leads have jumped ship from Halo Infinite. The game (keep in mind this is Microsoft's foremost first-party franchise that launched the entire XBox brand) is currently struggling to maintain 8,000 concurrent players. Entire modes and basic features dating all the way back to Combat Evolved were left out or made to wait while M$ and 343 focused on a F2P business model and a bunch of Fornite wannabe skins, including local splitscreen multiplayer, varied terrain and weather effects in the campaign, online co-op, and Forge. 343 DELIBERATELY forced each player to have to sign in with a separate account in order to play local splitscreen (all governed by the idea that any time players are spending offline is time their experience can't be gated, controlled, or exploited for more $$$), which is inexcusable. New maps and content have been coming at a trickle that makes Switch Online's rate of new releases look absolutely prolific.
Both Microsoft and 343 share responsibility for this fiasco, but by this point it seems clear that 343 should have the IP taken from them and handed to a more stable and competent studio. I doubt that Halo Infinite will ever be salvaged from the effects of its handling up to this point; it's definitely a low point for the franchise.
Re: Halo Infinite Forge Mode Leaks Show Flashy Weather & Day/Night Effects
That's nice and all, but 343 has yet to offer splitscreen multiplayer for those playing in the same room (apart from each player having to sign in with an entirely separate account, which isn't just absurd but smacks of them DELIBERATELY trying to discourage local multiplayer). It's bad enough that it's that way for the rest of the game, but local multiplayer is an absolute MUST for Forge.
Most players don't have a huge abundance of friends/family who own XBoxes and copies of Halo Infinite to play online with, and Forge doesn't lend itself nearly as much to playing with strangers because once thousands of maps get created by users, yours will almost certainly get buried among them. With a game currently struggling to hit 8,000 concurrent players, do you seriously think you'll be able to fill out the Forge map you created with players? This is why I never bothered with Forge in previous Halo releases; you ended up with empty maps with no one to play with online.
Obviously Halo Infinite needs bots to fill out rosters for Forge, but without adding local multiplayer splitscreen support, I highly doubt the mode will have any legs anyway. And just maybe 343 should ask themselves if it might be at least part of the reason that player interest in this game plummeted to begin with. Their priorities were so screwed up that they actually made deliberate design decisions aimed at limiting or gating player freedom. Yeah, I think that might be a valid reason.
Re: Talking Point: What Were Your Favourite Xbox Live Arcade Games On 360?
We need Sega to bring back titles like Afterburner Climax and Outrun 2006: Coast2Coast for the XBOX BC program. Please make it happen, guys!
Re: Talking Point: Did The Series X|S Bring You Back To Xbox? If So, How Come?
Well, to be honest neither the Series X/S nor the PS5 had much of ANYTHING in terms of Frontline first-party titles to offer for their entire first year post-launch. Flight Simulator, Forza Horizon 5, and Halo Infinite finally prompted me to invest in a Series X, but since then I only touch the first two occasionally and Halo Infinite has been a hot mess of missing features (343 apparently can't be bothered to put in the ability to play local splitscreen multiplayer without each person having to sign in with a separate account, which reeks of deliberate intent to discourage users from local vs. online multiplayer).
Right now my Switch gets SEVERAL TIMES the use of either my Series X or my PS5, for the simple reason that it actually has and continues to release games I want to play. If it wasn't for all the backwards compatible titles I own through XBox, the system wouldn't justify keeping it, let alone the cost to "upgrade". And yes, that factors in the largely underwhelming selection from Microsoft's latest showcase.
Re: Halo Infinite Nameplate Changed Due To 'Offensive And Hurtful' Term
Pure silliness. A Bonobo is a species of ape similar in appearance to a Chimpanzee. Big deal. If anyone were to make some sort of racial connotation out of the word, that's on them; the world can't revolve around thought-policing and censoring every single word or phrase that might be perceived as offensive to a particular group (although I have to say that the timing of this makes you go, "Hmmm").
At any rate, it's 343's decision (and it's not as if they haven't made some atrocious ones already with Halo Infinite), made out of some Minority Report-style fear of potential future criticism or litigation because people love to find anything they can to get "outraged" over. Such is the hot mess of an insane world we are living in anymore.
Re: Poll: How Would You Grade The Xbox Games Showcase Extended 2022?
I can't speak for anyone else, but personally at this point in their respective life cycles the Series X and PS5 are offering BY FAR the least overall value in terms of investment to games available that I'm interested in playing of any console generation to date. And I can't recall a June whose premier showcases have come and gone with so few games I remotely care about trying. I say this as an avid hobbyist since the Atari 2600 who's owned pretty much every major platform along with thousands of games of every genre.
There are at least a couple of key reasons why I believe this to be the case. First, the industry has been putting too many eggs into too few baskets for years now. At E3 2010 a Japanese developer remarked, "You Americans must really enjoy war," with regard to the glut of FPSes at the show. Shortly afterward most Japanese, foreign, and smaller studios stopped bothering to attend, as the cost wasn't justified being relegated to obscurity on the show floor while the mega-publishers dominated media attention every single year with the latest "Call of Battlefield: Madden's Creed". Ditto zombie apocalypse games, battle royales, and so on; everything increasingly looked and played like everything else. COVID didn't kill E3; it was dying long before that. But as both Sony and Microsoft's showcases, filled with derivative tropes and a hugely disproportionate emphasis on darkness, horror, and ultra-violence demonstrated, the industry hasn't learned much at all about why genuine variety in theme and genre are important.
The other reason is twofold. First-party "AAA" games have become so big, complicated, and expensive to make, often involving hundreds of people or more, that development times have reached absurd proportions. Announcements are made two, three, or more years before actual releases, so from a gamer's standpoint the focus is always next year or sometime in the future rather than having games to enjoy right now. It took both Series X and the PS5 a FULL YEAR to see a true flagship IP release (Halo Infinite and Horizon: Forbidden West); the pace of major, must-have releases has became glacial in comparison to previous system launches. And when some of these "epic" titles finally do reach players' hands, all too often they've still been rushed and/or had huge swaths of features left on the cutting room floor (example: Halo Infinite). Even worse, bugs and glitches have become the norm for most launches, the developers treating $60 and $70 nonrefundable purchases as glorified betas.
Filling out showcases with Indie games is just that: filler probably 97% of the time. There are some very good, high quality Indie games out there, but most simply don't have the production values or content necessary to plug the gaping holes left by the major studios on the release calendar.
Overall I think the industry is in serious need of a thorough re-evaluation of its approach. The most powerful hardware in the world is just a glorified doorstop collecting dust without GAMES that a given user wants to play. Again I can't speak for anyone else, but having read over a lot of comments since these presentations I suspect that there are others out there who are at least beginning to feel similarly about the state of the hobby.
Re: When Is The Xbox Games Showcase Extended 2022?
I'll reiterate my statement regarding both Microsoft and Sony's showcases: so far neither has really justified the investment in the hardware upgrade to the Series X and PS5. Dark/horror/ultraviolent themes seem to be like zombie apocalypse games and FPSes have been; simply oversaturated (even Marvel's Midnight Suns is a huge turnoff and missed opportunity given how its theming limited its potential to explore a vast fictional universe). Too many tropes have been seen before (a girl getting pulled into some alternate dimension, side-scrolling Limbo knock-offs, battle royales, etc.).
Overall I just haven't been feeling what's typically on offer for the "latest and greatest" game consoles. Less powerful or not, my Switch looks to be continuing to get substantially more use than either my Series X or my PS5 in the coming months. It simply offers better variety and value for me in terms of games I actually want to play.
Re: When Is The Xbox Games Showcase Extended 2022?
1) Why "leak" a Goldeneye Achievement in the week leading up to the showcase and then not show anything? If it's true the Extended Showcase won't have any new reveals, it doesn't make any sense.
2) I personally can't stand "deep dives", even with regard to games I would be interested in (specifically referring to watching someone else run around playing the game). I don't mind knowing about features, maps, and other practical stuff, but in my personal experience watching gameplay often tends to be a turnoff to the entire package.
I do wish to clarify that I can't stand trailers that are all CGI, either. Give me just enough snippets of various gameplay to determine a game's overall mechanics and feel; just don't drown me with a 10-15 minute slog of someone walking you through a level talking as if they're a car salesman in a showroom.
Re: Talking Point: When Are We Going To Hear About GoldenEye 007 For Xbox?
Haven't heard anything on that TimeSplitters project that THQ Nordic was supposedly working on in several months. Personally I'd be thrilled to see an announcement on that as well.
Re: Poll: How Would You Grade The Xbox Games Showcase 2022?
@MiGke I don't subscribe to GamePass and never will. I buy the games I'm interested in, period. The industry has more than enough means of gating and controlling access to content as it is without me throwing away what's left of my rights as a consumer. But to each their own.
Re: Poll: How Would You Grade The Xbox Games Showcase 2022?
@Lavalera I understand your point about "value", but if the industry's catering to "everyone else" and your own tastes are not being catered to any longer, what good is the hobby anymore? Your money is as good as anyone else's. Don't be afraid to rate a given show not based on how well you think it met other gamers' needs and wants, but how it met YOURS.
Me personally, I'd have to give this showcase a solid "D", and only because of Starfield. I won't be giving any of the other stuff a second look, so why score it higher? At the end of the day, it's about the utility I personally get from what is on offer.
Re: Poll: How Would You Grade The Xbox Games Showcase 2022?
I'm wondering where the new TimeSplitters game is; the dev team said it was several months away from being ready to show last year, but it's been several months now and not a peep from them. I figured if it was going to make an appearance it would have done so here or at Sony's showcase.
Re: Poll: How Would You Grade The Xbox Games Showcase 2022?
Beyond Starfield and maybe one or two others, every game felt derivative. The overwhelming majority of games anymore seem to have dark and violent motifs. We've seen the "girl gets pulled into some dark dimension" trope before. Ditto cartoony first-person shooters, side-scrolling Limbo rip-offs, battle royales, etc., etc..
Microsoft can hype the number of games they showed all they want, but way too many of them look, feel, or play alike (especially THEMATICALLY) to matter anymore. It's like the damning remark made by a Japanese developer at E3 2010 with regard to the glut of first-person shooters at the show: "You Americans must really enjoy war". E3's developer representation (especially foreign and smaller studios) imploded shortly afterward, and it began the decline that's culminated in the current situation. True creativity and originality look, feel, and play DIFFERENTLY; there's VARIETY that the hobby is sorely lacking anymore, at least certainly where the industry's focus with these showcases is concerned.
I guess if there's a silver lining between this and Sony's showcase, it's that my wallet won't be getting too much lighter in the coming year. Then again, I didn't invest in a Series X or PS5 to still be playing last-gen games, either.
Re: 343: Halo Infinite's First Drop Pod Is Arriving Next Week
All your remarks are valid and insightful. Believe me, my intention is NOT in any way to be toxic or to attack you or anyone at 343, Microsoft, or any other developer on a personal level. I respect your viewpoint as a developer, and I understand (at least the basics of) the corporate angle. As someone who's an aspiring creator (writer) myself, I know all too well how being intimately close to something can make you bristle when it comes under criticism, even of a constructive nature.
That said, going as far as to say the fans are wrong is a bit unfair. They see the priorities of developers pushing more and more into directions that are in direct conflict with their own interests (example: NFTs), and that pattern predates COVID by a LONG TIME. Yes, Halo Infinite's multiplayer is technically free, but would the game have benefited more from it simply being included as a package deal with the campaign, as with previous iterations? Might we have gotten at least one or two more maps and perhaps local splitscreen multiplayer had 343 not gone the route of focusing so much energy around skins? I guess what's still rubbing fans like myself the wrong way is that, even with the year's delay and learning so much had been cut or delayed to make the launch date, we found that so much time, effort, and emphasis had gone into something nobody (at least certainly not me or anyone else I personally know) even asked for.
Anyway. I've said all I can on the matter here. I do respect your viewpoint and you absolutely make some great points (I have no intention of dismissing the effects of the difficulties that working from isolation have had on development teams, either); the disconnect between fans and the industry over the direction of the hobby and what's best for the games they love will probably always be there, sadly.
Thanks for your responses, by the way, as well as your patience. No hard feelings, I hope.
Re: 343: Halo Infinite's First Drop Pod Is Arriving Next Week
@d0x3601 Thanks for the insightful comments. I will say that, based upon everything you said, Halo Infinite frankly should have been delayed until the studio had time to get it RIGHT AND COMPLETE as opposed to having to leave the majority of the campaign and so many features on the cutting room floor in order to make a holiday release window. It also seems obvious that it should have been released as a NEXT-GEN-ONLY title (either that or toss out cross-gen online play). This sort of thing isn't just an issue with 343; it's become disturbingly common among a LOT of manufacturers. The end consumer keeps getting less content (and less overall quality) at launch and end up playing glorified betas simply because online functionality allows developers to "cheat", and in some cases even end up having to pay additional money to access basic features that should have been in the game to begin with.
I won't argue that what's there in Halo Infinite is excellent, but COVID or no, the game was handled the WRONG WAY, with priorities that didn't match up with the expectations of fans. Case in point: thousands of $$$ worth of Fortnite wannabe skins that could have gone toward further refining the campaign, implementing co-op and local multiplayer, etc.. I get it; 343 and Microsoft wanted another revenue stream for Halo Infinite (another SERIOUS issue with too many modern games and publishers anymore, from loot crates and NFTs to anything else they can come up with), but it came at the cost of what mattered to the end consumer: THE PRODUCT ITSELF. I'd happily trade the ability to buy cat ears for my Spartan for the ability to play around the living room with friends on the same screen.
As it stands, Halo Infinite may one day become the game that fans hoped to see, but that day seems to be a long way off. And sadly, some things, like those seamless biomes you mentioned, will likely never get implemented. It's pretty bad when Halo: Combat Evolved on the original XBox was able to implement varied weather, environments, and local multiplayer and the current-gen iteration of the series can't even manage that. As I said, what's there may be excellent, but Halo Infinite simply WASN'T DONE at release. Not even close.
And be assured, the fans will remember this. 343/Microsoft would have been immensely better off had they taken Nintendo's approach with BotW 2; nobody was happy about that delay, but fans are far more understanding when they know the extra time is being taken to make a game the absolute best it can be.