Mention Microsoft as a company that is losing steam quickly in the console race, and you'll be immediately hammered by Xbox 360 owners across the globe. And you won't get much agreement from CGReviews, either. Things look grim, but don't be fooled. Microsoft is preparing to unleash some wicked firepower, and may just stop Sony in its tracks.
Sources have shared with Cam five things that will put your 360 on top of the hype train for 2009. Ready? Read on.
IGN - Assassin's Creed's focus on character-driven storytelling has been buried by its RPG sandbox features, and the series is weaker for it.
A rare W opinion piece from IGN.
IMO, Ubisoft needs to setup two primary AC dev teams. 1 would focus on and release character-driven OG-style AC games for OG fans and the other would continue the current RPG-ified AC style for current fans.
Release by them Bi-annually and alternatively. There'd less fatigue and a boost to quality.
I definitely appreciate 3 more after playing it again in recent years along with the Liberation game. Back when 3 was new I was still riding high on AC2 and Brotherhood so when I played 3 I felt a bit let down. Even the ship battles grew on me.
AC2 - Yes
AC3 - Urm...I don't know
I feel they kind of dropped the ball with AC3 and with the way the story went it just didn't make sense to me at all. I felt it would have made more sense lore wise if they had it so the Red Coats were mostly Assassins and the Templars were mostly the Colonists who wanted this "new world" as a fresh start for their operations, to build a country up they'd have full control of from the start so they manufacture the war as something else while really it's just a front for the Templars vs Assassins.
It just meant that since the Red coats lose the war it explains how the Templars have gained full control of future America and how the Assassins have slowly died out by then. This entire event would have been the turning point of how things went to s**t for the Assassins and how there's not many of them left in the present.
Haythem was a lot more interesting than Connor and he should have been the main Assassin of AC3.
I thought AC2 was the greatest of the series and it is but replaying it recently, I stared to see more flaws in the game. Basically every single mission is an assassination besides a few tailing missions lol. Still, the implementation of all the new mechanics were great. The smoke bombs, disarming guards, story, hidden tombs, swimming, flying machine, multiple locations, etc. it definitely felt a bit more special to me at the time of release though
Dunno about 3, the 1st act was cool, then i couldn't tell you what happens after that. But 2 was so good! The entire acts 1-3 were al memorable, whereas i really couldn't even tell you what happens in any other AC game
Ayi Sanchez: "Old work. I did this 10 years ago now as part of a material test for a remaster of Gears of War 2 that never happened."
Weird, in mean they had no studios to make anything really new so there's a part of me thats kinda glad they scrapped it. If they released this back then it would of gotten ridiculed for remakes and remastering stuff. Now they have new and interesting games so the collection is harmless.
Geez, Xbox, something like that I would’ve bought Day 1. Great business decisions over there.
10 years ago it wasn’t such a big deal. The games were only a few years old by that point
Gears of War: Ultimate Edition came out in 2015 (essentially 10 years ago), having a follow-up to that on the then next-gen console would’ve absolutely been welcomed, in my book.
I can only assume the the Gears of War Remaster flopped so they decided to scrap the other remakes?
Seems short sighted to me as I really enjoyed the 1st remaster. Regardless, I'll snap up some remakes to play on my PS5.
Gears of War's creator has spoken out against the trend of turning established franchises into live services, urging developers to focus on single-player experiences.
Too bad he didn't have this opinion when he chased trends with Lawbreakers. Or when he chased trends with Radical Heights.
He learned from the mistake or he wouldn’t be advocating for more single player experiences. I find this refreshing in a world where we often see people so stubborn that they tend to double down on a mistake which results in making things even worse. Seriously, good for him!
@Popsicle
Oh for sure, better late than never. And better to somewhat own up to your mistakes, rather than just blaming your release window, or advertising partners, or gamers lol.
@Popsicle
Of course we will never know his intentions, but it's hard to believe he is just a naive agent that is learning from his mistakes.
He could have done one himself after Gears of War but he did Lawbreakers…look how that turned out.
Jawbreakers would have been a better name! Heck, I might just go and trademark that right now.
You're missing the point. His studio's short lifespan is what *inspired* him to make this comment in the first place.
Oh I know the point...I'm just stating the obvious and how stupid he was in the beginning to jump on a trend he had no real experience in. A first person hero shooter with heavy GaaS elements is a lot different than the multiplayer in Gears of War.
He'd have been better creating something like Gears of War again, a great single player story and a good online mode.
-"A first person hero shooter with heavy GaaS elements is a lot different than the multiplayer in Gears of War."
I mean... you're kinda muddying terms when Gears has always had a strong multiplayer component. Even if I grant you that, Cliffy B started cementing himself at Epic with Unreal Tournament, which was among the earliest shooter series to have "proto-GaaS elements" (downloadable maps, cosmetics, special editions that bundle stuff together). Lawbreakers and Radical Heights (were it finished) weren't major career shifts to him like they would be for, say, Fumito Ueda.
Regardless of that, it's still kinda useless to state the obvious when CliffyB himself made his comments with the benefit of hindsight already.
Look, these a-hole publishers can do this, in fact I want them to, so they can f*ck around and find out and fail hard scaring away everyone else from doing this live service push.
This industry is run by some of the dumbest corporate pieces of sh*t I’ve ever seen. They spend stupid amount of money with literally nothing that stands out from games from the previous generation (look at Arkham Knight to the $200 mill Suicide Squad comparison vids), you’re overpaying devs, and you focus on games as a service to milk consumers that a lot of them grew up off traditional games. We’re not idiots, we sniff this sh*t out and won’t touch it.
So, what’s your answer to not getting a ROI? Raise game prices and double down on GaaS so you can suck your consumers dry. That model only works for some games and even then how in hell do you expect it to work with multiple games!? They’re ruining the damn hobby with this corporate greed.
Cut back on dev budgets, cut back on how much your staff is getting paid, until sales for games bring in a profit. That’s the answer and make some games that feel like there’s passion behind them, not some cookie cut up game that feels like the entire existence behind it is to offer as little as it can with repetitive bullsh*t and selling off all this content throughout its life. It’s gross.
Games do bring in a profit, it's the greed that is killing the industry. Here is a fact, live service games overall make more, significantly more money than single player games
What you should be asking is executives not wanting continuous growth or firing them. Saying devs should be fired when those who are fitting the bills and setting unrealistic expectations would make things worse. What do y9u think would happen if they released say, 30 single player games and over half of them fail? You are going after the wrong crowd.
About time he learned. I guess he finally stopped blaming everyone else and took accountability for his mistakes and realized that people really don't care that much for trends or live service.
I gave this my approve just for the hell of it.
-------------------------
now on topic:
this is not bashing, this is really is my own analysis for the whole article. as I said MY OWN, so please do not think it is bashing :).
1- "Sources revealed" this sources could be anything, it can be speculation and guesses, and it could be a real sources. now when I look at the rest of the sentence ( "as Microsoft has been falling back on the "value of Xbox Live" for too long now." ), make me feel its more of a speculation.
2- "My source" now that bring us back to number 1. add to it "My speculation is that we'll be seeing this before year end." I would like for it be true as its going to make the competition even harder and more interesting, which make us both parties win :D
3- well I only hope for it to have a decent MP, and not broken :). oh yeah I play it in a friend xbox 360 :) so this way I don't miss on anything and he won't miss on any PS3 title ;)
4- "I don't think it's a big deal, but apparently Microsoft is still putting faith in exclusive downloadable content. Word is that they're securing some heavy DLC for Assassin's Creed 2." now why won't they use this money to develop a whole new exclusive game instead of pay more to get more of the game ( which you paid a full price for :S )
5- now number 5 is actually the most exciting part of all of it, I do wanna know what M$ have more to add to xbox live service :D
nice dream. :)
Wow that was pointless, should have just said "Five Ways Microsoft Will Own 2009... number 1. because my mate said so" 2. because ummm..... stuff will happen. 3. ooh a gears of war game (Surprise!) 4. halo (who would have guessed) 5. because i say so".
Aww man Another title thatll make the SDF dudes crazy. Watch the people who support 360 get Disagrees for fun.
get at me
What happened to the Wii? Does the Wii disappear in 2009