Sure. I'd like to see the Bayonetta two-pack on Xbox One--especially since what I've heard suggests the second game addresses a few of my complaints about the first one.
But franchise exclusivity is still a thing. At least Ori wouldn't be hamstrung by technical limitations, it's not Doom or anything. I have to imagine that Kingdom Hearts III would be a huge get for Switch, and it might still be, but like FFXV that doesn't seem likely.
Regarding thread title: is KOF XIII better than XIV?
Yes, it is.
Joking aside, I would strongly argue that it is--and frankly, I think anyone arguing that XIV is the best King of Fighters game in the franchise is probably full of bullshit, or doesn't know better. I'm not even convinced that XIII is the best one, hence the adjective "modern." There's still a strong argument that KOF '98 Ultimate Match is the ultimate interpretation of the 2D KOF formula (and for KOF fans, the ultimate 2D fighting game formula).
XIV's strengths are 1) it's accessible and has a low barrier of entry in terms of skill and 2) it has a strong character roster which isn't the strongest in the game. Considering this is a genre that puts a high value on 2D art assets, and even XIV's defenders had to acknowledge it is not anything particularly special in the visuals departments ("It's a good game despite its graphics."), XIII's visuals, even with a smaller cast, easily outclass it and are some of the best in any 2D sprite fighter. It's skill ceiling is higher, and the barrier of entry is not that unforgiving.
This is entirely subjective, there's no way around that. But frankly arguments that XIV is better than XIII are kind of weak. Arguments that XIV, with its disastrous reveal and own issues (that have gradually been improved upon) is the best in the franchise are outright ignorant, and mostly come from not knowing better.
XIV is still a good game (at least on PC, since I don't have exposure to the PS4 version, but I have no reason to think otherwise). If it came to Xbox One tomorrow, the thread title would be The Best modern KOF Game now on BC! Oh, and KOF XIV now available.
Regarding thread title: is KOF XIII better than XIV?
Yes, it is.
Joking aside, I would strongly argue that it is--and frankly, I think anyone arguing that XIV is the best King of Fighters game in the franchise is probably full of bullshit, or doesn't know better. I'm not even convinced that XIII is the best one, hence the adjective "modern." There's still a strong argument that KOF '98 Ultimate Match is the ultimate interpretation of the 2D KOF formula (and for KOF fans, the ultimate 2D fighting game formula).
XIV's strengths are 1) it's accessible and has a low barrier of entry in terms of skill and 2) it has a strong character roster which isn't the strongest in the game. Considering this is a genre that puts a high value on 2D art assets, and even XIV's defenders had to acknowledge it is not anything particularly special in the visuals departments ("It's a good game despite its graphics."), XIII's visuals, even with a smaller cast, easily outclass it and are some of the best in any 2D sprite fighter. It's skill ceiling is higher, and the barrier of entry is not that unforgiving.
This is entirely subjective, there's no way around that. But frankly arguments that XIV is better than XIII are kind of weak. Arguments that XIV, with its disastrous reveal and own issues (that have gradually been improved upon) is the best in the franchise are outright ignorant, and mostly come from not knowing better.
XIV is still a good game (at least on PC, since I don't have exposure to the PS4 version, but I have no reason to think otherwise). If it came to Xbox One tomorrow, the thread title would be The Best modern KOF Game now on BC! Oh, and KOF XIV now available.
Shit, I was thinking that XIII was the first one with 3D graphics. That's why I was wondering. My mistake!
I have XIV on Steam, and it's fine. It's good, even. Certainly worth having. But it's not a visual standout by any means compared to other 3D fighters, and simultaneously lacks the charm of the exquisite sprite work of the 2D KOFs.
Regarding thread title: is KOF XIII better than XIV?
Yes, it is.
Joking aside, I would strongly argue that it is--and frankly, I think anyone arguing that XIV is the best King of Fighters game in the franchise is probably full of bullshit, or doesn't know better. I'm not even convinced that XIII is the best one, hence the adjective "modern." There's still a strong argument that KOF '98 Ultimate Match is the ultimate interpretation of the 2D KOF formula (and for KOF fans, the ultimate 2D fighting game formula).
XIV's strengths are 1) it's accessible and has a low barrier of entry in terms of skill and 2) it has a strong character roster which isn't the strongest in the game. Considering this is a genre that puts a high value on 2D art assets, and even XIV's defenders had to acknowledge it is not anything particularly special in the visuals departments ("It's a good game despite its graphics."), XIII's visuals, even with a smaller cast, easily outclass it and are some of the best in any 2D sprite fighter. It's skill ceiling is higher, and the barrier of entry is not that unforgiving.
This is entirely subjective, there's no way around that. But frankly arguments that XIV is better than XIII are kind of weak. Arguments that XIV, with its disastrous reveal and own issues (that have gradually been improved upon) is the best in the franchise are outright ignorant, and mostly come from not knowing better.
XIV is still a good game (at least on PC, since I don't have exposure to the PS4 version, but I have no reason to think otherwise). If it came to Xbox One tomorrow, the thread title would be The Best modern KOF Game now on BC! Oh, and KOF XIV now available.
Shit, I was thinking that XIII was the first one with 3D graphics. That's why I was wondering. My mistake!
I have XIV on Steam, and it's fine. It's good, even. Certainly worth having. But it's not a visual standout by any means compared to other 3D fighters, and simultaneously lacks the charm of the exquisite sprite work of the 2D KOFs.
KOFXII was the first to adopt the new sprite artwork (with a rather limited character roster--obvious mainstays like Mai and Yuri were missing) after more than a decade of the sprites introduced in KOF'94 and gradually modified up to the release of the Neo Wave arcade hardware. However, the console release was somewhat flawed (not a good job of 2D asset transfer, among other things), and it was missing a story mode.
I sometimes think that KOFXIV might be the KOFXII of the new 3D model system, which would be followed by a sequel superior in basically every way, though thanks to common use of patching and DLC, KOFXIV is ultimately a much more polished product, even if it is still more simplistic from a gameplay standpoint.
XIV also was a franchise first (rather dubiously in my mind) for being completely absent from arcades at launch and being exclusive to one console (followed by a PC release), as a Playstation 4 exclusive. It was completely contrary to the franchise's decade-long practice of 1) zero console exclusivity and 2) always leading with an arcade release. Particularly from people who treat KOF as a black sheep to Street Fighter, the response to my skepticism was generally, "Why the fuck do you care? No one plays in arcades anymore, you should already own a PS4."
Inevitably, since the arcade release XIV hasn't come anywhere near the sort of presence that XIII had in arcades in East Asia or South America, much less the huge presence of KOF'98, etc. I assume it was worth it from the financial support from Sony for the exclusivity though. It's a perfectly fine game, not exactly a looker (it's telling when Mai Shiranui's 3D model in Dead or Alive 5 is hilariously better than in KOFXIV), but with a strong fighter roster when you factor in DLC. If it came to Xbox One, I'd probably buy it.
Regarding thread title: is KOF XIII better than XIV?
Yes, it is.
Joking aside, I would strongly argue that it is--and frankly, I think anyone arguing that XIV is the best King of Fighters game in the franchise is probably full of bullshit, or doesn't know better. I'm not even convinced that XIII is the best one, hence the adjective "modern." There's still a strong argument that KOF '98 Ultimate Match is the ultimate interpretation of the 2D KOF formula (and for KOF fans, the ultimate 2D fighting game formula).
XIV's strengths are 1) it's accessible and has a low barrier of entry in terms of skill and 2) it has a strong character roster which isn't the strongest in the game. Considering this is a genre that puts a high value on 2D art assets, and even XIV's defenders had to acknowledge it is not anything particularly special in the visuals departments ("It's a good game despite its graphics."), XIII's visuals, even with a smaller cast, easily outclass it and are some of the best in any 2D sprite fighter. It's skill ceiling is higher, and the barrier of entry is not that unforgiving.
This is entirely subjective, there's no way around that. But frankly arguments that XIV is better than XIII are kind of weak. Arguments that XIV, with its disastrous reveal and own issues (that have gradually been improved upon) is the best in the franchise are outright ignorant, and mostly come from not knowing better.
XIV is still a good game (at least on PC, since I don't have exposure to the PS4 version, but I have no reason to think otherwise). If it came to Xbox One tomorrow, the thread title would be The Best modern KOF Game now on BC! Oh, and KOF XIV now available.
Shit, I was thinking that XIII was the first one with 3D graphics. That's why I was wondering. My mistake!
I have XIV on Steam, and it's fine. It's good, even. Certainly worth having. But it's not a visual standout by any means compared to other 3D fighters, and simultaneously lacks the charm of the exquisite sprite work of the 2D KOFs.
KOFXII was the first to adopt the new sprite artwork (with a rather limited character roster--obvious mainstays like Mai and Yuri were missing) after more than a decade of the sprites introduced in KOF'94 and gradually modified up to the release of the Neo Wave arcade hardware. However, the console release was somewhat flawed (not a good job of 2D asset transfer, among other things), and it was missing a story mode.
I sometimes think that KOFXIV might be the KOFXII of the new 3D model system, which would be followed by a sequel superior in basically every way, though thanks to common use of patching and DLC, KOFXIV is ultimately a much more polished product, even if it is still more simplistic from a gameplay standpoint.
XIV also was a franchise first (rather dubiously in my mind) for being completely absent from arcades at launch and being exclusive to one console (followed by a PC release), as a Playstation 4 exclusive. It was completely contrary to the franchise's decade-long practice of 1) zero console exclusivity and 2) always leading with an arcade release. Particularly from people who treat KOF as a black sheep to Street Fighter, the response to my skepticism was generally, "Why the fuck do you care? No one plays in arcades anymore, you should already own a PS4."
Inevitably, since the arcade release XIV hasn't come anywhere near the sort of presence that XIII had in arcades in East Asia or South America, much less the huge presence of KOF'98, etc. I assume it was worth it from the financial support from Sony for the exclusivity though. It's a perfectly fine game, not exactly a looker (it's telling when Mai Shiranui's 3D model in Dead or Alive 5 is hilariously better than in KOFXIV), but with a strong fighter roster when you factor in DLC. If it came to Xbox One, I'd probably buy it.
Some critics are saying the missions in Crackdown 3 are too repetitive, like you're just doing the same things over and over. If only Microsoft marketed it as a roguelike, it'd be 20-25 points higher on Metacritic.
More or less. I don't actually like the original Crackdown, as I've said many times in the past, and I doubt really expect this to change my mind.
I also don't like many urban open-city action games, which is probably why Spiderman is a whole bunch of "Meh, it's pretty, so?" to me.
Crackdown was simply 'okay'. The demo basically gave you all you needed to know about what was going on. The full game only meant you could level up past level two and could defeat an entirely different selection of enemy types who are not just more cannon fodder with slightly different appearances and weapons. The weapon aiming function certainly was not janky as hell. And doing literally the same things over and over did not get old.
The fact that I played the demo for C2 for five minutes, quit out, deleted it, and never bothered to try again was entirely unrelated.
I'm probably more into 'urban, open-city action games' than you are. But Crackdown never came close to filling that desire.
Some critics are saying the missions in Crackdown 3 are too repetitive, like you're just doing the same things over and over. If only Microsoft marketed it as a roguelike, it'd be 20-25 points higher on Metacritic.
The trick is to have Marvel characters amid your repetitive ass missions. 20 points right there.
Crackdown 3 won't win any awards or high marks but I'm having fun running around a future city as terry crews super man punching people. Quack quack motherfuckers.
Obviously without gamepass I wouldn't have bothered but that's the point of game pass!
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Some critics are saying the missions in Crackdown 3 are too repetitive, like you're just doing the same things over and over. If only Microsoft marketed it as a roguelike, it'd be 20-25 points higher on Metacritic.
An open-world game with repetitive content? Surely, the world has gone mad.
Did they also include the words "uninspired" too?
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
No, but if you watched Terry Crews' interview last week, you are a bad person and should feel bad.
Kotaku told me so.
0
Options
Zilla36021st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered Userregular
MS are doing a valentines day special offer. £2 for two months of Gamepass? I almost feel like I'm stealing Crackdown 3 at that price. I can probably finish it in under two weeks.
Going to cancel it as soon as I'm done, since every other game on the list that I even have a vague interest in I already own outright anyway.
No, but if you watched Terry Crews' interview last week, you are a bad person and should feel bad.
Kotaku told me so.
What is your gudge against Kotaku? Inside Xbox kinda sucks, and has since they brought it back.
I'd much rather Microsoft follow Nintendo's lead on presentations -- can most of the blather and focus on the games. If that means moving Inside Xbox to quarterly rather than monthly, that works for me.
No, but if you watched Terry Crews' interview last week, you are a bad person and should feel bad.
Kotaku told me so.
What is your gudge against Kotaku? Inside Xbox kinda sucks, and has since they brought it back.
It was a bad article, and I'll mock it for being bad. If that's a "grudge", sure, but it's still a bad article. It's not really a secret that large portions of games "journalism"--enthusiast media--isn't particularly well written particularly if we genuinely try to consider it written journalism, and Kotaku's not exceptional in this area.
Frankly, I enjoyed that Inside Xbox. If you think it sucks, go ahead--I bet you can do a lot better of a job explaining it than the Kotaku article did. I'm not not going to claim it was remarkable, and I can easily think of criticism, but I don't need to resort to the kind of hyperbole that Kotaku used in that article.
EDIT: I may as well add, I'm not all that confident in my ability to give an overall appraisal of Nintendo Direct because literally the only announcement I was personally interested in came in the very last one, and for the last two years of watching them I don't find them that interesting. "Thanks, I'd forgotten Metroid isn't being made."
The Kotaku article explained it just fine. There's zero reason they needed to blather on for three minutes about changing it from "Microsoft Game Studios" to "Xbox Game Studios." Ideally they would have spent a maximum of 30 seconds on it, followed by a strong reason of why you should care (i.e. a game or service). The Halo fan experience is interesting, just not 10 minutes of interesting. And 80 minutes total is far, FAR too long for any type of presentation that isn't an E3 presentation.
It's not just Kotaku -- I'd say there's a strong reason why Nintendo Directs get wide press coverage while Inside Xbox is pretty much ignored. It's purely the blather/actual game announcement ratio. If Inside Xbox transformed into a much tighter show that's mostly game announcements, it would get much better coverage.
Edit: Seriously, what's wrong with the article? This is spot-on, constructive criticism.
There have been a few exceptions, most notably when Hello Games’ Sean Murray went on the show last May to announce No Man’s Sky: Next, a massive update adding multiplayer and other long-sought-after features to the game. His exchange was fascinating in part because he was passionate and didn’t sound scripted, like when he said “[Next] is like the potential that everyone’s always seen in No Man’s Sky,” acknowledging the two years of work that had been required to make it the game everyone had expected at launch. It also benefited from him having new information about what was essentially the game’s 2.0 launch.
During the segment involving the name change to Microsoft’s game development studios, Xbox executive Matt Booty was asked by longtime Xbox hypeman Larry Hryb when players would get a glimpse of what the company’s new studios have been working on. If only, Booty had said “now.” Instead, he said: “We’ll be excited to share some news about what we’re up to coming up in the next few months and at E3.” It’s nice to know that Microsoft has more Xbox news coming, but for Inside Xbox to really work, and to make it worth everyone’s viewing time, the show needs to make more of Xbox’s biggest news worth announcing right there on Inside Xbox. Maybe next time?
So, a maximum of 30 seconds, followed by a strong reason (which is...ten seconds?).
I have trouble imaging this without it being a rushed, soundbite-sounding announcement followed by Kotaku asking, "Why did Microsoft speedrun the announcement of a major studio rebranding? Were they embarrassed by it?" So cut down the amount of information shared on this, and other announcements, to a fraction. Microsoft's made a practice of trying to share as much information as possible, and much more than their competitors. I'm not going to claim it's perfect at all, but I like that compared to feeding the internet's appetite for rumors and speculation. Frankly, there are things I wish Microsoft would come out and talk about more, and there are things that can be dropped too, that are done out of their own pride as much as anything else--but chopping the time down so massively is a great way to guarantee we won't hear them. As though 3 minutes--180 seconds--is some crippling length of time.
In the end, I prefer too much information, which I can comfortably ignore at my leisure, over barely any information at all. The claim that interviews are great...except when they're stifled chit chat...really isn't helped by the solution, "Also, they need to be way shorter, wrap it up already." I don't like Crackdown but I like Terry Crews' sharing his story, which...I guess they didn't like, because they didn't mention it, despite being the most memorable thing in the video. It's hard to see how that survives the format they want though.
It's kind of hard to take the article at it's word when it claims a red controller was one of the more exciting reveals. We get that you hated it. It's one thing to dislike what I think is a much more relaxed format that gets to be be more experimental because it's not rushed for time--it's another to set up a format that would have Microsoft share a lot less information in what's supposed to be an information-delivering event. It's video games, not the weather.
(Also, the forum is hanging for me, so hopefully this isn't posted twice.)
0
Options
HardtargetThere Are Four LightsVancouverRegistered Userregular
No, but if you watched Terry Crews' interview last week, you are a bad person and should feel bad.
Kotaku told me so.
you gotta let it go dude, did you actually read the complaints that kotaku had about the last inside xbox briefing? they were fairly on the mark. It was too damn long and there was barely anything announced in it.
No, but if you watched Terry Crews' interview last week, you are a bad person and should feel bad.
Kotaku told me so.
you gotta let it go dude, did you actually read the complaints that kotaku had about the last inside xbox briefing? they were fairly on the mark. It was too damn long and there was barely anything announced in it.
Yes I did, back when we first discussed it. I don't think it's that well written, though Inside Xbox definitely has it flaws. If you (not you specifically) think "It sucks now," go ahead. I'm hardly in any position to disagree or tell you to let it go.
As I mentioned in the strikeout when I mentioned their article, accessibility and "information" (fluff) are essentially the lifeblood of blogs like Kotaku. Inside Xbox offers accessibility and "information" (fluff), direct from the source. The same inane "information" that has filled Inside Xbox would have otherwise been written about or shown in other media... y'know... like on Kotaku. One of their bloggers ragging on it didn't surprise me at all.
I mean, the majority of the stuff that gets pushed out these days is barely newsworthy and just feeds the largely unchecked addiction people have to information coupled with a crippling fear of "not knowing." This is why we have teasers of teasers of trailers...
Major announcements tend to happen during convention season or the lead up to the holiday seasons. There's no dearth of spigots of inanity out there... the same scraps of details are filtered through whatever persona mostly appeals or is somehow relatable which somehow makes it not "run long" or whatever. Just trying to grasp how, given people waste hours watching other people play games, the Inside Xbox show is too long or they talked about a thing that I'm not interested in for 20 minutes or just pointless is a thing.
Inside Xbox is pretty much a monthly show. Nintendo Direct is an irregular show. That key difference is why one gets more coverage than the other, and the "weight" of the content in the latter is greater.
All that said, Inside Xbox and that article dropped February 6th, so maybe it's time to give "Kotaku told me to dislike Inside xbox" a rest, Synthy. At least until next month's Inside Xbox. It's so not fetch right now.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
Posts
they're just putting them out one by one. FF7 is out in March.
but does it actually mean play anywhere or play anywhere (provided you have a controller)?
Or a Halo: Spartan Assault/Strike 2-pack.
Like Mega Man Legends? Then check out my story, Legends of the Halcyon Era - An Adventure in the World of Mega Man Legends on TMMN and AO3!
But franchise exclusivity is still a thing. At least Ori wouldn't be hamstrung by technical limitations, it's not Doom or anything. I have to imagine that Kingdom Hearts III would be a huge get for Switch, and it might still be, but like FFXV that doesn't seem likely.
Steam | XBL
Clearly they don't care about the business of hardcore Trepies, like myself.
All I want is my glasses wearing, mid-riff showing, whip-wielding teacher in Hi-def, is that too much to ask?
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Because other then tactics it’s the best one.
Haha. No.
Yes, it is.
Joking aside, I would strongly argue that it is--and frankly, I think anyone arguing that XIV is the best King of Fighters game in the franchise is probably full of bullshit, or doesn't know better. I'm not even convinced that XIII is the best one, hence the adjective "modern." There's still a strong argument that KOF '98 Ultimate Match is the ultimate interpretation of the 2D KOF formula (and for KOF fans, the ultimate 2D fighting game formula).
XIV's strengths are 1) it's accessible and has a low barrier of entry in terms of skill and 2) it has a strong character roster which isn't the strongest in the game. Considering this is a genre that puts a high value on 2D art assets, and even XIV's defenders had to acknowledge it is not anything particularly special in the visuals departments ("It's a good game despite its graphics."), XIII's visuals, even with a smaller cast, easily outclass it and are some of the best in any 2D sprite fighter. It's skill ceiling is higher, and the barrier of entry is not that unforgiving.
This is entirely subjective, there's no way around that. But frankly arguments that XIV is better than XIII are kind of weak. Arguments that XIV, with its disastrous reveal and own issues (that have gradually been improved upon) is the best in the franchise are outright ignorant, and mostly come from not knowing better.
XIV is still a good game (at least on PC, since I don't have exposure to the PS4 version, but I have no reason to think otherwise). If it came to Xbox One tomorrow, the thread title would be The Best modern KOF Game now on BC! Oh, and KOF XIV now available.
edit: Or some other weird ropes dangling from both legs. maybe it wasn't suspenders... either way it was weird.
I really want to help you, donut, but you're going to have to be more specific.
It sounds like you're describing Iori. Except he's wearing trousers. And they're not suspenders. And you could be describing half the cast of Devil May Cry.
Nah, Haggar actually wore them, and would be topless suspenders guy.
And nah, he's wearing pants. I'm too busy for vernacular warfare.
Shit, I was thinking that XIII was the first one with 3D graphics. That's why I was wondering. My mistake!
I have XIV on Steam, and it's fine. It's good, even. Certainly worth having. But it's not a visual standout by any means compared to other 3D fighters, and simultaneously lacks the charm of the exquisite sprite work of the 2D KOFs.
Steam | XBL
He might mean Cody's alternate costume. Or Alex.
KoF also has Seth but he hasn't shown up in a while.
"We have years of struggle ahead, mostly within ourselves." - Made in USA
KOFXII was the first to adopt the new sprite artwork (with a rather limited character roster--obvious mainstays like Mai and Yuri were missing) after more than a decade of the sprites introduced in KOF'94 and gradually modified up to the release of the Neo Wave arcade hardware. However, the console release was somewhat flawed (not a good job of 2D asset transfer, among other things), and it was missing a story mode.
I sometimes think that KOFXIV might be the KOFXII of the new 3D model system, which would be followed by a sequel superior in basically every way, though thanks to common use of patching and DLC, KOFXIV is ultimately a much more polished product, even if it is still more simplistic from a gameplay standpoint.
XIV also was a franchise first (rather dubiously in my mind) for being completely absent from arcades at launch and being exclusive to one console (followed by a PC release), as a Playstation 4 exclusive. It was completely contrary to the franchise's decade-long practice of 1) zero console exclusivity and 2) always leading with an arcade release. Particularly from people who treat KOF as a black sheep to Street Fighter, the response to my skepticism was generally, "Why the fuck do you care? No one plays in arcades anymore, you should already own a PS4."
Inevitably, since the arcade release XIV hasn't come anywhere near the sort of presence that XIII had in arcades in East Asia or South America, much less the huge presence of KOF'98, etc. I assume it was worth it from the financial support from Sony for the exclusivity though. It's a perfectly fine game, not exactly a looker (it's telling when Mai Shiranui's 3D model in Dead or Alive 5 is hilariously better than in KOFXIV), but with a strong fighter roster when you factor in DLC. If it came to Xbox One, I'd probably buy it.
It's a good thing fh4 is on game pass, I'll get to take these boys for a spin
Oh yeah. Mai is a sight to behold in DOA5!
Steam | XBL
It's kind of telling that the plot of X is, to me personally, bad enough that it needs to be saved by Charlie's Angels.
In other news, Crackdown 3 is out. Without being delayed! Cash in your bets! Will I post a DF technical examination? Hell yes I will.
The consensus seems to be "yep, it's more Crackdown, but it hasn't really improved with the times and the map is too big."
I also don't like many urban open-city action games, which is probably why Spiderman is a whole bunch of "Meh, it's pretty, so?" to me.
How has this not come to Forza Motorsport 7? What, "too serious" for you? We have limousines in that game.
Crackdown was simply 'okay'. The demo basically gave you all you needed to know about what was going on. The full game only meant you could level up past level two and could defeat an entirely different selection of enemy types who are not just more cannon fodder with slightly different appearances and weapons. The weapon aiming function certainly was not janky as hell. And doing literally the same things over and over did not get old.
The fact that I played the demo for C2 for five minutes, quit out, deleted it, and never bothered to try again was entirely unrelated.
I'm probably more into 'urban, open-city action games' than you are. But Crackdown never came close to filling that desire.
The trick is to have Marvel characters amid your repetitive ass missions. 20 points right there.
I'm only half-joking.
Obviously without gamepass I wouldn't have bothered but that's the point of game pass!
pleasepaypreacher.net
An open-world game with repetitive content? Surely, the world has gone mad.
Did they also include the words "uninspired" too?
Kotaku told me so.
Going to cancel it as soon as I'm done, since every other game on the list that I even have a vague interest in I already own outright anyway.
I have metaphorically never paid a full month for Gamepass. I did once, but I cancelled the day after and Microsoft cheerfully refunded me the cost.
What is your gudge against Kotaku? Inside Xbox kinda sucks, and has since they brought it back.
I'd much rather Microsoft follow Nintendo's lead on presentations -- can most of the blather and focus on the games. If that means moving Inside Xbox to quarterly rather than monthly, that works for me.
It was a bad article, and I'll mock it for being bad. If that's a "grudge", sure, but it's still a bad article. It's not really a secret that large portions of games "journalism"--enthusiast media--isn't particularly well written particularly if we genuinely try to consider it written journalism, and Kotaku's not exceptional in this area.
Frankly, I enjoyed that Inside Xbox. If you think it sucks, go ahead--I bet you can do a lot better of a job explaining it than the Kotaku article did. I'm not not going to claim it was remarkable, and I can easily think of criticism, but I don't need to resort to the kind of hyperbole that Kotaku used in that article.
EDIT: I may as well add, I'm not all that confident in my ability to give an overall appraisal of Nintendo Direct because literally the only announcement I was personally interested in came in the very last one, and for the last two years of watching them I don't find them that interesting. "Thanks, I'd forgotten Metroid isn't being made."
It's not just Kotaku -- I'd say there's a strong reason why Nintendo Directs get wide press coverage while Inside Xbox is pretty much ignored. It's purely the blather/actual game announcement ratio. If Inside Xbox transformed into a much tighter show that's mostly game announcements, it would get much better coverage.
Edit: Seriously, what's wrong with the article? This is spot-on, constructive criticism.
I have trouble imaging this without it being a rushed, soundbite-sounding announcement followed by Kotaku asking, "Why did Microsoft speedrun the announcement of a major studio rebranding? Were they embarrassed by it?" So cut down the amount of information shared on this, and other announcements, to a fraction. Microsoft's made a practice of trying to share as much information as possible, and much more than their competitors. I'm not going to claim it's perfect at all, but I like that compared to feeding the internet's appetite for rumors and speculation. Frankly, there are things I wish Microsoft would come out and talk about more, and there are things that can be dropped too, that are done out of their own pride as much as anything else--but chopping the time down so massively is a great way to guarantee we won't hear them. As though 3 minutes--180 seconds--is some crippling length of time.
In the end, I prefer too much information, which I can comfortably ignore at my leisure, over barely any information at all. The claim that interviews are great...except when they're stifled chit chat...really isn't helped by the solution, "Also, they need to be way shorter, wrap it up already." I don't like Crackdown but I like Terry Crews' sharing his story, which...I guess they didn't like, because they didn't mention it, despite being the most memorable thing in the video. It's hard to see how that survives the format they want though.
It's kind of hard to take the article at it's word when it claims a red controller was one of the more exciting reveals. We get that you hated it. It's one thing to dislike what I think is a much more relaxed format that gets to be be more experimental because it's not rushed for time--it's another to set up a format that would have Microsoft share a lot less information in what's supposed to be an information-delivering event. It's video games, not the weather.
(Also, the forum is hanging for me, so hopefully this isn't posted twice.)
you gotta let it go dude, did you actually read the complaints that kotaku had about the last inside xbox briefing? they were fairly on the mark. It was too damn long and there was barely anything announced in it.
edit - i see this has already been discussed lol
Yes I did, back when we first discussed it. I don't think it's that well written, though Inside Xbox definitely has it flaws. If you (not you specifically) think "It sucks now," go ahead. I'm hardly in any position to disagree or tell you to let it go.
I mean, the majority of the stuff that gets pushed out these days is barely newsworthy and just feeds the largely unchecked addiction people have to information coupled with a crippling fear of "not knowing." This is why we have teasers of teasers of trailers...
Major announcements tend to happen during convention season or the lead up to the holiday seasons. There's no dearth of spigots of inanity out there... the same scraps of details are filtered through whatever persona mostly appeals or is somehow relatable which somehow makes it not "run long" or whatever. Just trying to grasp how, given people waste hours watching other people play games, the Inside Xbox show is too long or they talked about a thing that I'm not interested in for 20 minutes or just pointless is a thing.
Inside Xbox is pretty much a monthly show. Nintendo Direct is an irregular show. That key difference is why one gets more coverage than the other, and the "weight" of the content in the latter is greater.
All that said, Inside Xbox and that article dropped February 6th, so maybe it's time to give "Kotaku told me to dislike Inside xbox" a rest, Synthy. At least until next month's Inside Xbox. It's so not fetch right now.