Support NeoGAF

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Genuine question have I then missed their equivalents of Ico and Shadows of Colossus on Xbox from back then?

These aren't just two random games IMO, but critically acclaimed games that moved game development forward

One thing you'll see consistently missing from Microsoft's library of 1P in comparison to Sony and Nintendo's (and Sega's, when they still made hardware), are games that could be considered industry-leading and setting standards in one or multiple areas of game design & production as well as having some significant influence on other games from 1P and 3P. Microsoft simply doesn't have that many such games in comparison to the other platform holders I just mentioned, historically.

I can only think of the following examples for Microsoft: Flight Simulator (it wasn't the first flight sim but it was a pivotal one), (maybe) Motorcross Madness (I think you can see the inspiration in games like Smuggler's Run, Motorstorm etc.), Halo (was the standard for FPS on console from 1-3, biggest FPS on console with the original trilogy as well), Forza Horizon (Maybe not the first open-world racing game but again, a very pivotal one), Gears of War (even though this is mainly Epic's achievement, MS still published it, and it definitely had an impact on shooters for 7th gen tonally) and...that's it. So from 1982 to 2023, just those games I would say from Microsoft fit the bill of being industry-leading or setting standards in one or multiple areas of game design & production, and having clear influence on future games from 1P & 3P.

OTOH I can name so many when it comes to say Nintendo. Super Mario Bros., Mario Party, Donkey Kong, Zelda, Super Metroid, DKC (well, Rare made it but still), Super Mario 64, Mario Kart, Super Smash Bros, Zelda OoT, Pikmin, GoldenEye 007, Wii Sports, etc. With Sony, quite a lot going from Parappa the Rapper, Gran Turismo, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, God of War, Uncharted, Demon's Souls (FromSoft but Sony co-developed & published), TLOU, Little Big Planet, PS Home, Horizon, Spiderman, Ghosts of Tsushima etc. And with Sega, it's a lot such as Outrun, Virtual Racing, Virtua Fighter, Sonic, Panzer Dragoon, Jet Set Radio, Shenmue, Virtua Fighter 2, Virtua Fighter 3 (no game had graphics as advanced as VF3 in 1996), Sonic Adventure (I think this had a profound influence on a lot of mascot platformers in 6th gen in terms of storytelling, from Jak & Daxter to Beyond Good & Evil to even Super Mario Sunshine in ways), Virtua Cop, Daytona USA etc.

I think another disadvantage for Microsoft in this respect is that with what few games they've had that I would classify as industry-leading or standard-setting, only two of them have any central human or human-like characters, meaning their the only ones with the most potential for forming personal connections with players. Of course I'm referring to Halo and Gears of War. Unfortunately in the past several years they have basically ran Halo into complete irrelevance and Gears has heavily stagnated. But that's another topic in terms of poor IP retention which is beyond the scope of this post.

Personally, I feel having those kinds of industry-leading, standard-setting games come through regularly, especially as a platform holder, is a requirement in order to be a genuinely successful platform holder in this industry, and out of the Big 4 (Sony, Nintendo, Sega, Microsoft), Microsoft definitely comes in last. By "genuinely successful" I don't just mean financially; Xbox as a platform has sold way more consoles than pretty much all Sega consoles combined for example (and generated way more revenue). I mean in terms of critical reception, long-term mindshare among gamers and developers in the industry, in terms of creative feats and production/technical polish of the craft, etc. Games like Halo used to succeed in both areas, now they succeed in neither.

Part of Microsoft's strategy with these big publisher acquisitions is to lock down some really big IP (in terms of revenue and mindshare) to their brand, in hopes of bolstering the perception of their gaming brand among gamers (as well as bolster the revenue by ingesting the earnings of those IP under those acquired publishers into the Xbox division). But that's Microsoft only addressing one part of the equation and unfortunately for them, the other part can't be resolved with just money. Personally, they won't have my full respect in terms of being a platform holder unless they can both maintain the industry-leading relevance of what acquired IP currently have it (such as COD), AND show they can cultivate games from start to finish that can become industry-leading and standard-setting in one or more areas among their peers when it comes to game design and/or production values.

Microsoft need to show they can actually do this with more consistency than they have in the past, and that's the critical thing I strongly doubt they can accomplish. So it makes a lot of these acquisitions rather muted in terms of impact as perceived by myself, because if it just means these acquired assets doing more of the same that they've already done or in some cases appearing to regress (hate to bring it up as an example but RedFall does seem like a step back for Arkane), then what was the point of buying them other than to bolster Xbox gaming revenue?

That's where I sit at current in terms of my perception of Microsoft as a platform holder compared to Sony, Nintendo, or Sega. Could it change someday? Maybe. But they have a LONG road to travel, and Sony & Nintendo aren't going to rest of their laurels and stop pushing their 1P to new heights. Right now I'd even go as far as to say anyone expecting an Xbox 1P game this gen to achieve production values or polish similar to HFW Burning Shores, is in for disappointment. It took Guerrilla Games 20+ years to build up their craft to the level of a Burning Shores, you can't simply leapfrog and reach that overnight. Maybe Ninja Theory or The Coalition can come close, but I still have my doubts. And I just mean in terms of something on the level of Burning Shores in terms of production values, visual grandeur, cinematic scope and visual cohesiveness. I don't doubt The Coalition can offer something with gunplay and combat as punchy as a HFW Burning Shores, for example....but I do have major doubts Ninja Theory could, at least in time for Hellblade II.

 

[feynoob]

One thing you'll see consistently missing from Microsoft's library of 1P in comparison to Sony and Nintendo's (and Sega's, when they still made hardware), are games that could be considered industry-leading and setting standards in one or multiple areas of game design & production as well as having some significant influence on other games from 1P and 3P. Microsoft simply doesn't have that many such games in comparison to the other platform holders I just mentioned, historically.

such a stupid statement.

 

[Ozriel]

the weirdest part of this Minecraft talk is that Microsoft actually canned their 'Super Duper Graphics Pack' upgrade because they wanted parity and it wouldn't run seamlessly across all devices.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/12/...ed-4k-technical-difficulties-mojang-microsoft

so committed to parity and similar experience that they binned years of work.

 

[mansoor1980]

 

[feynoob]

That manhore Phil.
He can't keep his pants down man .

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

such a stupid statement.

Disprove it then. Like, with an actual argument backed by some substance. Otherwise it just looks like you're having trouble coping with a truth .

 

[feynoob]

Disprove it then. Like, with an actual argument backed by some substance. Otherwise it just looks like you're having trouble coping with a truth .

It's a trash statement, because each company has their own strengths and weaknesses.

Gaming isn't defined by a high quality games. It's why there are tons of genres out there. From survival, to shooter, to co-op, rpg, narrative stories, etc.

Not everyone has the same taste.

MS is good at shooter games, Sony is good at narrative games, while Nintendo does Nintendo stuff.

While Sony has a high quality narrative games, their games don't have long term gameplay because of narrative genre limitations. While MS on other doesn't produce same quality as Sony, but their games have long term gameplay.

You can't look down on side, while propping up the other side. Even if you dislike that side. That is just a fanboy mentality.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Damn you redactions.

My only comment/thoughts about this subthread

It's funny how it went from Microsoft promising parity of COD between Xbox and PlayStation to the CMA chickening out on their PF and giving the green light for non-parity of COD between Xbox and PlayStation.

Not that it's an outcome Microsoft's upset with; they'd love it. I'm just still rather surprised the CMA themselves said "yeah go ahead!". So any blowback from the community MS would get for a partial exclusivity strategy of COD, MS can just say "hey the CMA told us to do it!".

It's a trash statement, because each company has their own strengths and weaknesses.

Gaming isn't defined by a high quality games. It's why there are tons of genres out there. From survival, to shooter, to co-op, rpg, narrative stories, etc.

Not everyone has the same taste.

MS is good at shooter games, Sony is good at narrative games, while Nintendo does Nintendo stuff.

While Sony has a high quality narrative games, their games don't have long term gameplay because of narrative genre limitations. While MS on other doesn't produce same quality as Sony, but their games have long term gameplay.

You can't look down on side, while propping up the other side. Even if you dislike that side. That is just a fanboy mentality.

So you're saying Microsoft's weakness is that they can't produce a consistent string of industry-leading, standard-setting 1P games in one or more areas when it comes to game design and/or production values?

This has nothing to do with what genres companies specialize in; Gran Turismo isn't a narrative-driven game and "Nintendo stuff" is not even a genre, just a made-up label. The limitation you apply to Sony's games (which isn't true in most instances BTW) can be easily applied to several Nintendo games: I don't need to play Mario Galaxy more than once, I don't even need to 100% it to have my fill. Still an industry-leading, standard-setting 3D platformer for its time (and to this day), though.

Likewise most people who play Forza Horizon or Halo Infinite aren't going to play them for more than a few hours; it's the heavily dedicated players who play them over and over. But you can have a dedicated niche who try mastering something like GOW Ragnarok for speedruns, that's just as valid. We see people do that a lot with Mario games as another example.

I'm not looking down on Microsoft, I don't have to bring them down to elevate Sony, Nintendo, or (when they made consoles) Sega's 1P software as being more consistent in being industry-leading or standard-setting. It's just facts, just look at the history of game releases from the group of them and you can notice it easily. And again, I'm not saying Microsoft hasn't had those types of games, they just have way less of them.

It also doesn't mean those MS games I listed are the only quality games they've released; they have a decent number of those like Crimson Skies, Viva Pinata, the Forza Motorsport games, etc. But being a fun, quality game and being an industry-leading, standard-setting game for your time (and more) are two very different things.

 

[Ozriel]

It's funny how it went from Microsoft promising parity of COD between Xbox and PlayStation to the CMA chickening out on their PF and giving the green light for non-parity of COD between Xbox and PlayStation.

Not that it's an outcome Microsoft's upset with; they'd love it. I'm just still rather surprised the CMA themselves said "yeah go ahead!". So any blowback from the community MS would get for a partial exclusivity strategy of COD, MS can just say "hey the CMA told us to do it!".

 

[adamsapple]

They likes big bucks and they cannot lie.

 

[PaintTinJr]

the weirdest part of this Minecraft talk is that Microsoft actually canned their 'Super Duper Graphics Pack' upgrade because they wanted parity and it wouldn't run seamlessly across all devices.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/12/...ed-4k-technical-difficulties-mojang-microsoft

so committed to parity and similar experience that they binned years of work.

The article repeats whatever narrative Microsoft wants to give via Mojang, and no that work wasn't cancelled because as I mentioned as another issue about Microsoft's ability to partially foreclose via proprietary DirectX, the game did get a slight graphical face lift, even on Java edition, but it was more about pushing up specs, moving to need Opengl 3.1 (or 3.3) capabilities to run the game just around the release of Windows 11, to encourage more new potatoes I suspect. But given the graphics enhancements on the Java version are largely provided by unofficial mods, that looked much better than that, it was hardly the delay for the masses.

The article is misleading also - maybe from lack of research - the low powered devices they mention can not run the official Java version, so parity with them is non-existent. You can run a old fork of Java MC - by another name - on RaspberryPI, or run a java server on a 3B-4 400, but not the official client game AFAIK - from testing it.

 

[feynoob]

It's funny how it went from Microsoft promising parity of COD between Xbox and PlayStation to the CMA chickening out on their PF and giving the green light for non-parity of COD between Xbox and PlayStation.

Not that it's an outcome Microsoft's upset with; they'd love it. I'm just still rather surprised the CMA themselves said "yeah go ahead!". So any blowback from the community MS would get for a partial exclusivity strategy of COD, MS can just say "hey the CMA told us to do it!".



So you're saying Microsoft's weakness is that they can't produce a consistent string of industry-leading, standard-setting 1P games in one or more areas when it comes to game design and/or production values?

This has nothing to do with what genres companies specialize in; Gran Turismo isn't a narrative-driven game and "Nintendo stuff" is not even a genre, just a made-up label. The limitation you apply to Sony's games (which isn't true in most instances BTW) can be easily applied to several Nintendo games: I don't need to play Mario Galaxy more than once, I don't even need to 100% it to have my fill. Still an industry-leading, standard-setting 3D platformer for its time (and to this day), though.

Likewise most people who play Forza Horizon or Halo Infinite aren't going to play them for more than a few hours; it's the heavily dedicated players who play them over and over. But you can have a dedicated niche who try mastering something like GOW Ragnarok for speedruns, that's just as valid. We see people do that a lot with Mario games as another example.

I'm not looking down on Microsoft, I don't have to bring them down to elevate Sony, Nintendo, or (when they made consoles) Sega's 1P software as being more consistent in being industry-leading or standard-setting. It's just facts, just look at the history of game releases from the group of them and you can notice it easily. And again, I'm not saying Microsoft hasn't had those types of games, they just have way less of them.

It also doesn't mean those MS games I listed are the only quality games they've released; they have a decent number of those like Crimson Skies, Viva Pinata, the Forza Motorsport games, etc. But being a fun, quality game and being an industry-leading, standard-setting game for your time (and more) are two very different things.

Guessed it.
You really have no clue about the industry.

For the last time, quality means shit. Gamers go to games where they have fun. No one cares about a game if it's high quality or not.

If the industry cared more about these, then EA, Activitisiom and Ubisoft would have been smaller companies.

 

[BrutalTruth_]

Guessed it.
You really have no clue about the industry.

For the last time, quality means shit. Gamers go to games where they have fun. No one cares about a game if it's high quality or not.

If the industry cared more about these, then EA, Activitisiom and Ubisoft would have been smaller companies.

Yeah a lot of gamers are casual and not sweatlords like some of us on Neo, people need to stop assuming all gamers are like the posters here.

 

[freefornow]

I can only think of the following examples for Microsoft: Flight Simulator (it wasn't the first flight sim but it was a pivotal one), (maybe) Motorcross Madness (I think you can see the inspiration in games like Smuggler's Run, Motorstorm etc.), Halo (was the standard for FPS on console from 1-3, biggest FPS on console with the original trilogy as well), F

Project Gotham Racing says "Hello"

 

[Deleted member 471617]

For me personally, I have zero interest in VR gaming and isn't how I want to play games but for those who like and enjoy it, more power to you.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Project Gotham Racing says "Hello"

In what way? I remember trying it a a friend's at release and him thinking it was amazing because of the car paint rendering - IIRC like ATI's 8xxx series two tone speckled paint tech demo - and as a McRae Rally, Toca, Turismo player and a fan of any sit down arcade cabinet of the time it felt like I was racing a cardboard box. for that hour, and I wasn't impressed.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Disprove it then. Like, with an actual argument backed by some substance. Otherwise it just looks like you're having trouble coping with a truth .

That was why I asked, because despite a general narrative - even by myself - that PlayStation first party only really became a power house in the PS3 gen, those two games are arguably IMO two of the finest games in an all-time greatest games list of even just 20 games, and both were PlayStation 2 games, so I really did want xbox gamers like adamsapple , O Ozriel . etc to inform me of games at that level I'd some how missed if feynoob 's point was/is true.

 

[feynoob]

That was why I asked, because despite a general narrative - even by myself - that PlayStation first party only really became a power house in the PS3 gen, those two games are arguably IMO two of the finest games in an all-time greatest games list of even just 20 games, and both were PlayStation 2 games, so I really did want xbox gamers like adamsapple , O Ozriel . etc to inform me of games at that level I'd some how missed if feynoob 's point was/is true.

What do you consider an influential game?
A game which you yourself like? Because that is your opinion.
Most influential games are 3rd party games, not first party games. And those are the games that defined gaming. Not those exclusives from Sony, MS.

Edit: Nintendo has mario.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

It's funny how it went from Microsoft promising parity of COD between Xbox and PlayStation to the CMA chickening out on their PF and giving the green light for non-parity of COD between Xbox and PlayStation.

Not that it's an outcome Microsoft's upset with; they'd love it. I'm just still rather surprised the CMA themselves said "yeah go ahead!". So any blowback from the community MS would get for a partial exclusivity strategy of COD, MS can just say "hey the CMA told us to do it!".

I can't wait for the next revision of this document where it says "Microsoft should just buy every studio and publisher and foreclose all the content on Playstation and there won't be any noticeable effect so it's perfectly A-OK"

 

[ManaByte]

In what way? I remember trying it a a friend's at release and him thinking it was amazing because of the car paint rendering - IIRC like ATI's 8xxx series two tone speckled paint tech demo - and as a McRae Rally, Toca, Turismo player and a fan of any sit down arcade cabinet of the time it felt like I was racing a cardboard box. for that hour, and I wasn't impressed.

Metropolis Street Racer and then PGR influenced every arcade racer that's come since, like Driveclub and FH.

 

[PaintTinJr]

What do you consider an influential game?
A game which you yourself like? Because that is your opinion.
Most influential games are 3rd party games, not first party games. And those are the games that defined gaming. Not those exclusives from Sony, MS or Nintendo.

I mean games that you think are good from that time on xbox - that I will have missed and not heard of - that hold up today, because my experiences with Xbox at the time weren't good enough to displace my PC gaming at the time, which I viewed it as a P3 800Mhz mini box, and I didn't get word of mouth recommendations of fresh experiences like the two PS2 games I mentioned to justify me buying the console.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Guessed it.
You really have no clue about the industry.

For the last time, quality means shit. Gamers go to games where they have fun. No one cares about a game if it's high quality or not.

If the industry cared more about these, then EA, Activitisiom and Ubisoft would have been smaller companies.

This topic is clearly going over your head. It's not about what games are the most popular or make the most money; I am asking a question from the POV of someone interested in the medium as an art form. And from that perspective, when it comes to platform holders with industry-leading, standard-setting games, Microsoft is dead last.

Believe it or not, those popular games you're alluding to that many people gravitate to just to have fun...those games have built themselves off the foundations of the very titles I'm referring to as being industry-leading and standard-setting. Of course 1P games aren't the only ones that can be such; Capcom has a handful through their history like Street Fighter 2 and Resident Evil, Konami have games like Contra and Metal Gear Solid, etc. But IMHO, platform holders should carry the responsibility of having those types of games as well, and be consistent in how often they can release them. And they should be capable of it at more of a clip than 3P developers, since they benefit from tight vertical integration of hardware, middleware, tech, and software developers.

You're just trying to run away from this particular topic because you know Microsoft has very few examples of industry-leading, standard-setting games compared to Sony, Nintendo, or Sega, that's all. And you're still thinking that in some way I'm saying Microsoft doesn't make good games or fun games, just because they lack a good number of industry-leading, standard-setting games. I've never implied that.

Project Gotham Racing says "Hello"

Eh, PGR was basically a continuation of Metropolis Street Racer which started on Dreamcast. They were some pretty great arcade racers; I remember PGR3 having some great visuals for at the time of 360's launch, but I think it was still stuck at 30 FPS so it was kind of hard going from a great-looking 60 FPS arcade racer like Burnout 3 or Outrun 2, to 30 FPS PGR3.

I guess arguably, both PGR and MSR have some DNA in common with Midtown Madness, and that was a Microsoft series on PC. Well, Microsoft published anyway; Angel Studios developed the first one, Rockstar San Diego the 2nd, etc. I think MM was actually a pretty notable step up for racing games on PC, but it only predates MSR by a year.

Metropolis Street Racer and then PGR influenced every arcade racer that's come since, like Driveclub and FH.

I guess in terms of incorporating a tricks system, you can say they did. An explicitly integrated tricks system, anyway. I know the Burnout games were influenced by them in that regard but a much more outlandish element inspired by the Destruction Derby series.

 

[feynoob]

I mean games that you think are good from that time on xbox - that I will have missed and not heard of - that hold up today, because my experiences with Xbox at the time weren't good enough to displace my PC gaming at the time, which I viewed it as a P3 800Mhz mini box, and I didn't get word of mouth recommendations of fresh experiences like the two PS2 games I mentioned to justify me buying the console.

Dude that is your opinion.
Just because you are interested on your pc more than xbox, doesnt mean others dont.
The real world doesnt revolve around you.

As for good games, here is the wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_considered_the_best

Games radar.
https://www.gamesradar.com/50-most-important-games-all-time/

Ign
https://www.ign.com/articles/the-best-100-video-games-of-all-time

times magazine
https://time.com/4458554/best-video-games-all-time/

The only winner here is nintendo, which has the most impressive list of all the 3.

 

[feynoob]

This topic is clearly going over your head. It's not about what games are the most popular or make the most money; I am asking a question from the POV of someone interested in the medium as an art form. And from that perspective, when it comes to platform holders with industry-leading, standard-setting games, Microsoft is dead last.

Believe it or not, those popular games you're alluding to that many people gravitate to just to have fun...those games have built themselves off the foundations of the very titles I'm referring to as being industry-leading and standard-setting. Of course 1P games aren't the only ones that can be such; Capcom has a handful through their history like Street Fighter 2 and Resident Evil, Konami have games like Contra and Metal Gear Solid, etc. But IMHO, platform holders should carry the responsibility of having those types of games as well, and be consistent in how often they can release them. And they should be capable of it at more of a clip than 3P developers, since they benefit from tight vertical integration of hardware, middleware, tech, and software developers.

You're just trying to run away from this particular topic because you know Microsoft has very few examples of industry-leading, standard-setting games compared to Sony, Nintendo, or Sega, that's all. And you're still thinking that in some way I'm saying Microsoft doesn't make good games or fun games, just because they lack a good number of industry-leading, standard-setting games. I've never implied that.



Eh, PGR was basically a continuation of Metropolis Street Racer which started on Dreamcast. They were some pretty great arcade racers; I remember PGR3 having some great visuals for at the time of 360's launch, but I think it was still stuck at 30 FPS so it was kind of hard going from a great-looking 60 FPS arcade racer like Burnout 3 or Outrun 2, to 30 FPS PGR3.

I guess arguably, both PGR and MSR have some DNA in common with Midtown Madness, and that was a Microsoft series on PC. Well, Microsoft published anyway; Angel Studios developed the first one, Rockstar San Diego the 2nd, etc. I think MM was actually a pretty notable step up for racing games on PC, but it only predates MSR by a year.

Ignorance is a bliss.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Ignorance is a bliss.

You have nothing to rebuttal with. Amazing.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Dude that is your opinion.
Just because you are interested on your pc more than xbox, doesnt mean others dont.
The real world doesnt revolve around you.

As for good games, here is the wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_considered_the_best

Games radar.
https://www.gamesradar.com/50-most-important-games-all-time/

Ign
https://www.ign.com/articles/the-best-100-video-games-of-all-time

times magazine
https://time.com/4458554/best-video-games-all-time/

The only winner here is nintendo, which has the most impressive list of all the 3.

I think you got the wrong end of the stick, I was asking for your recommendations you would hold equal merit to Ico/SotC on Xbox at the time to reassert your point I quoted. No big deal if it was just an overall feeling you had about first party output compared to PS2, with no precise recommendations. to put against the two games I cherry picked,

 

[feynoob]

You have nothing to rebuttal with. Amazing.

I dont have to. Because you are bringing insane statement that makes no sense with the industry.

This topic is clearly going over your head. It's not about what games are the most popular or make the most money; I am asking a question from the POV of someone interested in the medium as an art form. And from that perspective, when it comes to platform holders with industry-leading, standard-setting games, Microsoft is dead last.

Your average joe doesnt care about those. They go to the store, see the game on the shelf and buy it so they can play it.
And the people you are talking about this are very small minorty.

 

[feynoob]

I think you got the wrong end of the stick, I was asking for your recommendations you would hold equal merit to Ico/SotC on Xbox at the time to reassert your point I quoted. No big deal if it was just an overall feeling you had about first party output compared to PS2, with no precise recommendations. to put against the two games I cherry picked,

Because I dont want to make this a console war topic.
You know the games which xbox had during the ps2. You are ignoring those games. So there is no reason for me to bring them to you, since you are completely ignoring them.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Because I dont want to make this a console war topic.
You know the games which xbox had during the ps2. You are ignoring those games. So there is no reason for me to bring them to you, since you are completely ignoring them.

Actually I was being sincere because I only played Ico after someone I gamed with - that worked in gaming - had a work colleague insist he borrow and play it, otherwise we both might have missed it, and missed SotC too. The different friend that I played PGR with - and still game with - only played Ico/SotC in the PS4 gen with Bluepoint's reworks, despite him being a huge gamer. We all have holes in our gaming experiences, and my knowledge of lesser known niche titles on Xbox will be very weak

 

[feynoob]

Actually I was being sincere because I only played Ico after someone I gamed with - that worked in gaming - had a work colleague insist he borrow and play it, otherwise we both might have missed it, and missed SotC too. The different friend that I played PGR with - and still game with - only played Ico/SotC in the PS4 gen with Bluepoint's reworks, despite him being a huge gamer. We all have holes in our gaming experiences, and my knowledge of lesser known niche titles on Xbox will be very weak

As I said, that is only your experience.
What you liked, and what your friend likes doesnt translate to the industry.
Everyone has their own taste. Just because you dont like something, doesnt mean its nichie.

I myself dont like halo franchise, because the gameplay isnt my cup of tea. But doesnt mean its a bad franchise. Same with cuphead and Ori. They arent with the range of my taste and that is fine.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I dont have to. Because you are bringing insane statement that makes no sense with the industry.

It makes perfect sense with the industry. You can take a random no-name game out today, and if you can analyze its design, trace its influence back to a line of pivotal games that were industry-leading or standard-setting for their time in one or more ways relating to game design and/or production values, and if any games in that lineage are 1P, there's a much stronger chance of it being a Sony, Nintendo, or Sega game having been an influence than a Microsoft one.

It's that simple.

Your average joe doesnt care about those. They go to the store, see the game on the shelf and buy it so they can play it.
And the people you are talking about this are very small minorty.

I'm not talking about the average joe, because most average joes cannot quantify what it is about a game's design that draws them to it. They might subconsciously "gel" with aspects of a game but if you asked them to trace its historical influences, they wouldn't be able to tell you.

But that doesn't make this type of knowledge any less valuable.

 

[Three]

the weirdest part of this Minecraft talk is that Microsoft actually canned their 'Super Duper Graphics Pack' upgrade because they wanted parity and it wouldn't run seamlessly across all devices.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/12/...ed-4k-technical-difficulties-mojang-microsoft

so committed to parity and similar experience that they binned years of work.

Where did you get the idea they binned the work or the reason was PS? The super duper graphics pack was announced for xbox and PC only:

"The pack will be released on Xbox One and Windows 10, performing best on high-end PCs and Project Scorpio."

They were planning an update for Xbox One X that was better, cancelled it (probably ditching xbox one s) then they pushed it to next gen Series X and said they will share more soon regarding their plans to make the most of 'platform architectures'

"We'll be able to share more on that subject very soon," meaning that all hope of graphical updates might not be lost.

Some months after they had the Xbox Series announcement with a Minecraft raytracing demo. Whether that too is canned is something else but I feel it will come soon enough, especially if hardware revisions are happening.

 

[feynoob]

It makes perfect sense with the industry. You can take a random no-name game out today, and if you can analyze its design, trace its influence back to a line of pivotal games that were industry-leading or standard-setting for their time in one or more ways relating to game design and/or production values, and if any games in that lineage are 1P, there's a much stronger chance of it being a Sony, Nintendo, or Sega game having been an influence than a Microsoft one.

It's that simple.

Let's ignore halo impact on shooter games.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Let's ignore halo impact on shooter games.

let's ignore that was 20+ years ago

 

[DarkMage619]

let's ignore that was 20+ years ago

Let's ignore games like Mario, Zelda, and Gran Tourismo were mentioned.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Let's ignore games like Mario, Zelda, and Gran Tourismo were mentioned.

you ruin it..i was talking to feynoob and I had a strategy.

 

[Warablo]

Xbox had Xbox Live, Halo, and Gears. They tried their hand with Kinect which started off good trying to chase the Wii fad.

 

[Yoboman]

Let's ignore games like Mario, Zelda, and Gran Tourismo were mentioned.

Let's ignore that Halo was made by a Sony first party team

 

[feynoob]

let's ignore that was 20+ years ago

Look at his post.

 

[feynoob]

Let's ignore that Halo was made by a Sony first party team

Good one.
This timeline has been hilarious.
MLB dropping on Xbox and Sony buying Bungie.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Look at his post.

I'm looking...he is smart and hot.

 

[DarkMage619]

Let's ignore that Halo was made by a Sony first party team

In a discussion about the influence of games from certain companies we get a statement about Sony making Halo?

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

In a discussion about the influence of games from certain companies we get a statement about Sony making Halo?

you are correct...he is ignoring Halo was made by Steve Jobs.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

One thing you'll see consistently missing from Microsoft's library of 1P in comparison to Sony and Nintendo's (and Sega's, when they still made hardware), are games that could be considered industry-leading and setting standards in one or multiple areas of game design & production as well as having some significant influence on other games from 1P and 3P. Microsoft simply doesn't have that many such games in comparison to the other platform holders I just mentioned, historically.

I can only think of the following examples for Microsoft: Flight Simulator (it wasn't the first flight sim but it was a pivotal one), (maybe) Motorcross Madness (I think you can see the inspiration in games like Smuggler's Run, Motorstorm etc.), Halo (was the standard for FPS on console from 1-3, biggest FPS on console with the original trilogy as well), Forza Horizon (Maybe not the first open-world racing game but again, a very pivotal one), Gears of War (even though this is mainly Epic's achievement, MS still published it, and it definitely had an impact on shooters for 7th gen tonally) and...that's it. So from 1982 to 2023, just those games I would say from Microsoft fit the bill of being industry-leading or setting standards in one or multiple areas of game design & production, and having clear influence on future games from 1P & 3P.

OTOH I can name so many when it comes to say Nintendo. Super Mario Bros., Mario Party, Donkey Kong, Zelda, Super Metroid, DKC (well, Rare made it but still), Super Mario 64, Mario Kart, Super Smash Bros, Zelda OoT, Pikmin, GoldenEye 007, Wii Sports, etc. With Sony, quite a lot going from Parappa the Rapper, Gran Turismo, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, God of War, Uncharted, Demon's Souls (FromSoft but Sony co-developed & published), TLOU, Little Big Planet, PS Home, Horizon, Spiderman, Ghosts of Tsushima etc. And with Sega, it's a lot such as Outrun, Virtual Racing, Virtua Fighter, Sonic, Panzer Dragoon, Jet Set Radio, Shenmue, Virtua Fighter 2, Virtua Fighter 3 (no game had graphics as advanced as VF3 in 1996), Sonic Adventure (I think this had a profound influence on a lot of mascot platformers in 6th gen in terms of storytelling, from Jak & Daxter to Beyond Good & Evil to even Super Mario Sunshine in ways), Virtua Cop, Daytona USA etc.

I think another disadvantage for Microsoft in this respect is that with what few games they've had that I would classify as industry-leading or standard-setting, only two of them have any central human or human-like characters, meaning their the only ones with the most potential for forming personal connections with players. Of course I'm referring to Halo and Gears of War. Unfortunately in the past several years they have basically ran Halo into complete irrelevance and Gears has heavily stagnated. But that's another topic in terms of poor IP retention which is beyond the scope of this post.

Personally, I feel having those kinds of industry-leading, standard-setting games come through regularly, especially as a platform holder, is a requirement in order to be a genuinely successful platform holder in this industry, and out of the Big 4 (Sony, Nintendo, Sega, Microsoft), Microsoft definitely comes in last. By "genuinely successful" I don't just mean financially; Xbox as a platform has sold way more consoles than pretty much all Sega consoles combined for example (and generated way more revenue). I mean in terms of critical reception, long-term mindshare among gamers and developers in the industry, in terms of creative feats and production/technical polish of the craft, etc. Games like Halo used to succeed in both areas, now they succeed in neither.

Part of Microsoft's strategy with these big publisher acquisitions is to lock down some really big IP (in terms of revenue and mindshare) to their brand, in hopes of bolstering the perception of their gaming brand among gamers (as well as bolster the revenue by ingesting the earnings of those IP under those acquired publishers into the Xbox division). But that's Microsoft only addressing one part of the equation and unfortunately for them, the other part can't be resolved with just money. Personally, they won't have my full respect in terms of being a platform holder unless they can both maintain the industry-leading relevance of what acquired IP currently have it (such as COD), AND show they can cultivate games from start to finish that can become industry-leading and standard-setting in one or more areas among their peers when it comes to game design and/or production values.

Microsoft need to show they can actually do this with more consistency than they have in the past, and that's the critical thing I strongly doubt they can accomplish. So it makes a lot of these acquisitions rather muted in terms of impact as perceived by myself, because if it just means these acquired assets doing more of the same that they've already done or in some cases appearing to regress (hate to bring it up as an example but RedFall does seem like a step back for Arkane), then what was the point of buying them other than to bolster Xbox gaming revenue?

That's where I sit at current in terms of my perception of Microsoft as a platform holder compared to Sony, Nintendo, or Sega. Could it change someday? Maybe. But they have a LONG road to travel, and Sony & Nintendo aren't going to rest of their laurels and stop pushing their 1P to new heights. Right now I'd even go as far as to say anyone expecting an Xbox 1P game this gen to achieve production values or polish similar to HFW Burning Shores, is in for disappointment. It took Guerrilla Games 20+ years to build up their craft to the level of a Burning Shores, you can't simply leapfrog and reach that overnight. Maybe Ninja Theory or The Coalition can come close, but I still have my doubts. And I just mean in terms of something on the level of Burning Shores in terms of production values, visual grandeur, cinematic scope and visual cohesiveness. I don't doubt The Coalition can offer something with gunplay and combat as punchy as a HFW Burning Shores, for example....but I do have major doubts Ninja Theory could, at least in time for Hellblade II.

use chat GPT to make it shorter

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Let's ignore halo impact on shooter games.

Lol what? I mentioned Halo as one of those industry-leading, standard-setting games

Xbox had Xbox Live, Halo, and Gears. They tried their hand with Kinect which started off good trying to chase the Wii fad.

XBL is a service, not a game. I already mentioned Halo & Gears, I consider them (at least, Halo 1-3 and Gears 1-2) industry-leading games that set some standards going forward. Kinect was a trash peripheral because Microsoft cheapened out on an extra processor just to make more money, and none of the Kinect games I would say really had any impact or set standards, even at the time.

A lot of the Kinect games were just better-looking Wii fodder. Carnival Games in 720p, stuff like that.

 

[feynoob]

use chat GPT to make it shorter

I tried your suggestion, and it made more sense than that.

Microsoft lacks industry-leading games compared to Sony, Nintendo, and Sega. Only a few of their games have set standards in game design and production and had an impact on other games from 1P and 3P. These include Flight Simulator, Motorcross Madness, Halo, Forza Horizon, and Gears of War. In contrast, Sony, Nintendo, and Sega have many games that have set industry standards and influenced future games. Microsoft's few games that fit this bill are limited to only two with central human or human-like characters, Halo and Gears of War. Microsoft's strategy to acquire big publishers and their IP to bolster their gaming brand is one part of the equation. However, they need to cultivate games that are industry-leading and standard-setting in game design and/or production values to earn respect as a platform holder. Microsoft has a long way to go to compete with Sony and Nintendo, who are continuously pushing their 1P to new heights.

 

[feynoob]

Lol what? I mentioned Halo as one of those industry-leading, standard-setting games

That post tells another story.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

That post tells another story.

No it doesn't . I said Microsoft doesn't have as many of those sorts of industry-defining, standard-setting games as Sony or Nintendo, or Sega when they were a platform holder. Not that Microsoft didn't have any.

Never discredited or downplayed the classic Halo and Gears games in that respect. But still doesn't mean MS have made as many contributions in that respect as the other three. Both things can be true.

 

[poppabk]

MS's problem in my mind is that they haven't managed to generate a consistent image and that they expend a lot of energy on great but marginal mindshare games like Flight Sim and AoE.

 

[feynoob]

No it doesn't . I said Microsoft doesn't have as many of those sorts of industry-defining, standard-setting games as Sony or Nintendo, or Sega when they were a platform holder. Not that Microsoft didn't have any.

Never discredited or downplayed the classic Halo and Gears games in that respect. But still doesn't mean MS have made as many contributions in that respect as the other three. Both things can be true.

Which brings us to our main point that started this.

It's a trash statement, because each company has their own strengths and weaknesses.

Gaming isn't defined by a high quality games. It's why there are tons of genres out there. From survival, to shooter, to co-op, rpg, narrative stories, etc.

Not everyone has the same taste.

MS is good at shooter games, Sony is good at narrative games, while Nintendo does Nintendo stuff.

While Sony has a high quality narrative games, their games don't have long term gameplay because of narrative genre limitations. While MS on other doesn't produce same quality as Sony, but their games have long term gameplay.

You can't look down on side, while propping up the other side. Even if you dislike that side. That is just a fanboy mentality.

Each company has what they specialize and what they dont.

I dont see Sony dishing out those epic shooter games, I dont see nintendo doing impressive graphic games like Sony or shooter like MS. Same with MS who cant match nintendo and Sony in certain department.

You have to aknowledge what each company is good at, instead of only focusing on certain parts.