Quantcast
The Fall of Xbox - Video by Videogamedunkey

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - The Fall of Xbox - Video by Videogamedunkey

super_etecoon said:
RJTM1991 said:
Xbox brought the backlash on themselves. The way they handled the XB1's launch caused millions to jump ship to the PS4.

However, Halo 5 was a great game. Sure, the campaign was lacking, but the multiplayer was the series' best. Gears 4 was good, much better than Judgment, and Gears 5 is quite possibly the best entry in the series there too. Sure, they may not be as groundbreaking as they were years ago, but they're still incredible games.

I adore Nintendo, but... For almost thirty years, they stuck to the same blueprint with Zelda and Mario. Pokemon hasn't changed since the 90s as well. Why do those titles get a pass, but others get overly nit-picked?

How is this statement even remotely true?  Nintendo consistently updates and revamps their franchises, often to the chagrin of their most ardent fans.  Certainly they continue to use the same characters, but to suggest they use the same blueprint shows either a lack of knowledge about the history of these titles, or a very expansive view of what the Mario or Zelda blueprints are.  For comparison, check out the COD formula or Final Fantasy.  I'm probably going to regret even getting involved in this conversation, but I for one am tired of this consistent argument made by people that just don't like the Mushroom Kingdom and Hyrule.  I suppose it might be like how I might think a specific genre of music all sounds the same, while other people would be able to cut that genre into 15 different sub-genres and claim that as diversity.

But to suggest that Nintendo ever gets a pass and that people aren't nit-picky about them would be to ignore almost every forum post in the last 15 years.

Mario: Collect some variation of Stars. Get power-ups/animal costumes. Save Peach from Bowser and/or his kids. Same blueprint in almost every game.

Zelda: Collect some variation of Stones. Complete dungeons. Get Master Sword. Save Zelda from Ganon. Same blueprint in almost every game.



Around the Network
RJTM1991 said:
SammyGiireal said:

Don Mattrick set the Xbox brsnd on a downward spiral. That E3 2013 will haunt them for a long time.  Zelda and Mario are not a valid comparison. Breath of the Wild shook up the formula, as did Mario Odyssey. Critically speaking they are amongst the 10 greatest games ever made. 

Microsoft hasn't been as lucky with their IPs. Halo stopped being a great game since Halo Reach. Believe it or not great part of Halo's appeal was it's wonderful single player campaigns, it matters. Gears of War seems to have found its stride again with this last installment.

But Microsoft still lacking quality exclusives in comparison to Sony and Nintendo. Microsoft lacks an open world game that can compete with HZD and BotW for example. They have Fable but they haven't touched that franchise on this gen.  Last Year Sony Had God of War, Microsoft has nothing to compete with that, or with the upcoming Last of Us 2. I haven't even mentioned Death Stranding, and the FF7 Remake. Microsoft lost a lot of ground this gen, they better come out with some new IPs (That Garner critical praise) next gen right out of the gates if they want to catch up.

Which is why I said, "...almost thirty years." Yes, they changed with BOTW and Odyssey, but each game until then had the same blueprint, setting, items and so on, with a couple odd gimmicks thrown in to change things up a tiny little bit. How many times have we rescued Peach and Zelda now? How many times have we pulled out the Master Sword?

Dude. I am not going to go back all they way to the NES. I will start at the N64. Ocarina of Time didn't only made a perfect transition of Zelda classic action RPG gameplay into 3 Dimensions, but it created and revolutionized a few genres in the process. It was different from any other game that had ever been made. It introduced many gameplay elements that would later find their way into GTA, and other action advebture games. 

MM it's direct Sequel couldn't have been more different under the same play style. The 3 day cycle has yet to be replicated since. There was no master Sword pulling or Zelda saving in that game. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Then came Wind Waker, a game that was panned upon reveal because it didn't live up to the realistic looking space world trailer. The game would later be extremely well recieved. Hyrule's land was replaced by a giant Sea, and while the game followed OoTs progression and control system, OoT was (and is) regarded as the greatest game of all time why would Nintendo shake up something that had been commercially and critically successful? 

Then came Twilight Princess, The Ocarina successor everyone asked for and finally got. While Zelda and Link make an appearance so does Midna, Links wolf form, Zant and the Twilight realm. Once again introducing a new twist into a proven formula. TP was still the greatest action adventure world of its time. The formula worked everyone loved it, why would it change? TP was different from WW as WW was different from MM as MM was different from OoT.

Then came Skyward Sword, my personal low point in the series thought I still think it is a 9/10 of a game. SS introduced the sky, and motion controls at its maximum expression (at least Wii wise) at the time. I wasn't a fan of it, and truly became more engrossed with Skyrim at the time. But people did complain in forums.

Finally this takes us to BotW, a game that fully dove the series in the the modern open world trend with spectacular results because Nintendo once again innovated with in a genre that was starting to fatigue people. The physics system, the elimination of themed dungeons (some people are still angry about this) replaced by a Shrine system. The ability to randomly tackle the game any way you wanted. The ability to climb, over every surface, temperature affecting character and gameplay, etc.  Every main Zelda game has always brought something new to the table. Just look at the Metacritic ratings .

I won't go into Mario because that is the one series in which Nintendo has truly experimented with each entry and to mostly spectacular results.  Nintendo has always innovated. You are complaining about Story elements. No one plays Mario for story elements. Zelda has a decent story as far as action RPGs go. 



SammyGiireal said:
RJTM1991 said:

Which is why I said, "...almost thirty years." Yes, they changed with BOTW and Odyssey, but each game until then had the same blueprint, setting, items and so on, with a couple odd gimmicks thrown in to change things up a tiny little bit. How many times have we rescued Peach and Zelda now? How many times have we pulled out the Master Sword?

Dude. I am not going to go back all they way to the NES. I will start at the N64. Ocarina of Time didn't only made a perfect transition of Zelda classic action RPG gameplay into 3 Dimensions, but it created and revolutionized a few genres in the process. It was different from any other game that had ever been made. It introduced many gameplay elements that would later find their way into GTA, and other action advebture games. 

MM it's direct Sequel couldn't have been more different under the same play style. The 3 day cycle has yet to be replicated since. There was no master Sword pulling or Zelda saving in that game. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Then came Wind Waker, a game that was panned upon reveal because it didn't live up to the realistic looking space world trailer. The game would later be extremely well recieved. Hyrule's land was replaced by a giant Sea, and while the game followed OoTs progression and control system, OoT was (and is) regarded as the greatest game of all time why would Nintendo shake up something that had been commercially and critically successful? 

Then came Twilight Princess, The Ocarina successor everyone asked for and finally got. While Zelda and Link make an appearance so does Midna, Links wolf form, Zant and the Twilight realm. Once again introducing a new twist into a proven formula. TP was still the greatest action adventure world of its time. The formula worked everyone loved it, why would it change? TP was different from WW as WW was different from MM as MM was different from OoT.

Then came Skyward Sword, my personal low point in the series thought I still think it is a 9/10 of a game. SS introduced the sky, and motion controls at its maximum expression (at least Wii wise) at the time. I wasn't a fan of it, and truly became more engrossed with Skyrim at the time. But people did complain in forums.

Finally this takes us to BotW, a game that fully dove the series in the the modern open world trend with spectacular results because Nintendo once again innovated with in a genre that was starting to fatigue people. The physics system, the elimination of themed dungeons (some people are still angry about this) replaced by a Shrine system. The ability to randomly tackle the game any way you wanted. The ability to climb, over every surface, temperature affecting character and gameplay, etc.  Every main Zelda game has always brought something new to the table. Just look at the Metacritic ratings .

I won't go into Mario because that is the one series in which Nintendo has truly experimented with each entry and to mostly spectacular results.  Nintendo has always innovated. You are complaining about Story elements. No one plays Mario for story elements. Zelda has a decent story as far as action RPGs go. 

I never asked you to, my man. I'm just stating my take here. The games share the same gameplay. There's usually Fire/Water/Desert areas. Shared items too. The story is almost identical in every entry. Shit, the characters are reincarnated in just about every game as well.

With Mario, take Sunshine as a small example, it's essentially an enhanced Mario 64 remake. With Shine Sprites replacing Stars, and paint blots replacing paintings. Only thing that separates them is FLUDD. Once again Bowser is the Big Bad, but rather than battle him on a giant Star in the sky, you battle him on a giant Shine Sprite instead.

Nintendo are innovators, can't deny that. They're the undisputed GOAT. 



The Fury said:
Hmm, decent watch. I like a Dunkey video every now and then. Although his video and Jim Sterling's together at the same time? Ouch,.

I really enjoyed that Jim Sterling video. Had a bit of a chuckle when he was explaining how the MT's work in Gears 5.



Chinese food for breakfast

 

Is it a coincidence 2 new videos about 'xbox being bad' from this guy and Jim releases shortly after Gears 5 is considered a major success critically and financially? I don't think so. People have there opinions and that's fine. If they would have released their videos several years ago when the Xbox one was more down in the dumps, it would be more understanding. Considering what everything MS has accomplished in the last 2 years with nabbing up more developers, gamepass, play anywhere, PC gaming getting same day releases, BC, Xbox One X, and generally more consumer friendly practices, these sort of videos feel dated.



Around the Network
RJTM1991 said:

SammyGiireal said:

Dude. I am not going to go back all they way to the NES. I will start at the N64. Ocarina of Time didn't only made a perfect transition of Zelda classic action RPG gameplay into 3 Dimensions, but it created and revolutionized a few genres in the process. It was different from any other game that had ever been made. It introduced many gameplay elements that would later find their way into GTA, and other action advebture games. 

MM it's direct Sequel couldn't have been more different under the same play style. The 3 day cycle has yet to be replicated since. There was no master Sword pulling or Zelda saving in that game. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Then came Wind Waker, a game that was panned upon reveal because it didn't live up to the realistic looking space world trailer. The game would later be extremely well recieved. Hyrule's land was replaced by a giant Sea, and while the game followed OoTs progression and control system, OoT was (and is) regarded as the greatest game of all time why would Nintendo shake up something that had been commercially and critically successful? 

Then came Twilight Princess, The Ocarina successor everyone asked for and finally got. While Zelda and Link make an appearance so does Midna, Links wolf form, Zant and the Twilight realm. Once again introducing a new twist into a proven formula. TP was still the greatest action adventure world of its time. The formula worked everyone loved it, why would it change? TP was different from WW as WW was different from MM as MM was different from OoT.

Then came Skyward Sword, my personal low point in the series thought I still think it is a 9/10 of a game. SS introduced the sky, and motion controls at its maximum expression (at least Wii wise) at the time. I wasn't a fan of it, and truly became more engrossed with Skyrim at the time. But people did complain in forums.

Finally this takes us to BotW, a game that fully dove the series in the the modern open world trend with spectacular results because Nintendo once again innovated with in a genre that was starting to fatigue people. The physics system, the elimination of themed dungeons (some people are still angry about this) replaced by a Shrine system. The ability to randomly tackle the game any way you wanted. The ability to climb, over every surface, temperature affecting character and gameplay, etc.  Every main Zelda game has always brought something new to the table. Just look at the Metacritic ratings .

I won't go into Mario because that is the one series in which Nintendo has truly experimented with each entry and to mostly spectacular results.  Nintendo has always innovated. You are complaining about Story elements. No one plays Mario for story elements. Zelda has a decent story as far as action RPGs go. 

I never asked you to, my man. I'm just stating my take here. The games share the same gameplay. There's usually Fire/Water/Desert areas. Shared items too. The story is almost identical in every entry. Shit, the characters are reincarnated in just about every game as well.

With Mario, take Sunshine as a small example, it's essentially an enhanced Mario 64 remake. With Shine Sprites replacing Stars, and paint blots replacing paintings. Only thing that separates them is FLUDD. Once again Bowser is the Big Bad, but rather than battle him on a giant Star in the sky, you battle him on a giant Shine Sprite instead.

Nintendo are innovators, can't deny that. They're the undisputed GOAT. 

I understand where you are coming from, but some of the conventions you are complaining about are what make an action RPG an Action RPG. Play the original Alundra ( the greatest 2-D action RPG ever IMO) it is a ALttP clone practically. The difference is Nintendo always brings a new twist into the fray. Story wise it is what it is, Zelda and Link reincarnate over and over along with Ganondorf. It is what drives the series forward people will either like it or they won't . 

Platformers for the most part have always been collect a tons since Mario 64. I disagree on Sunshine, to me it was inferior to 64, but even then rellied on the water pack and challenges tailored around that. What makes Mario different from others is the diversity of challenges one has to accomplish in order to earn the Star, sunshine, power moon, etc.

Should I complain that in every Halo I have to shoot my way through the main story? Or that I have to cover and shoot my way through every Gears entry? Because those are general gameplay mainstays in their respective genres.

Last edited by SammyGiireal - on 19 September 2019

smroadkill15 said:
Is it a coincidence 2 new videos about 'xbox being bad' from this guy and Jim releases shortly after Gears 5 is considered a major success critically and financially? I don't think so. People have there opinions and that's fine. If they would have released their videos several years ago when the Xbox one was more down in the dumps, it would be more understanding. Considering what everything MS has accomplished in the last 2 years with nabbing up more developers, gamepass, play anywhere, PC gaming getting same day releases, BC, Xbox One X, and generally more consumer friendly practices, these sort of videos feel dated.

The Sterling video criticizing Xbox for it's use of MT's and loots boxes isn't dated at all. It's as relevant a topic now as it has been this entire gen. In fact, doing this  vid after yet another Xbox first party game launches with ludicrous prices for cosmetic purchases, as well as selling microtransaction XP boosts, makes it quite topical. Good timing if anything. And yes, these two vids being made around the Gears 5 release is a coincidence. Sterling had been talking about making this particular video since before Gears 5 launched.



Chinese food for breakfast

 

RJTM1991 said:
pikashoe said:

The Zelda and Mario series are known for drastically changing things up with almost every entry. Go from oot to MM to WW, to TP to BOTW. Mario went from 64 to sunshine to galaxy 1/2 to 3d world/land to odyssey. These series have never done the same thing for more than two games in a row. Your right about Pokemon

Drastically changing? I wouldn't say that. OOT, MM, WW, TP, SS, and the handheld games all build on each other, similar to Gears and Halo. They changed certain things but kept the core gameplay, setting, story and so on. I remember some in the Zelda community complaining about how stale and repetitive the Zelda series had become when Skyward Sword released as well.

There's nothing wrong with sticking to what works, I'm just surprised that one company can spend decades re-doing the same thing over and over again, but get a pass while others get buried.

The only thing particularly similar in Zelda is structure and progression. But tone, artsyle, control, music, setting etc changes dramatically from game to game. It's one of the few franchises that tends to scrap everything and start from scratch with new releases.  Most Zelda games have a new engine and radically different  control schemes, physics, etc. 

Mario has so little focus on story so that's a non point. In terms of gameplay it's very hard to say that galaxy and 64 have much in common. Mario 64 has open sandbox levels while galaxy is more linear and course based.

The main issue with gears is that the gameplay changes are much more slight than Mario or Zelda along with the gears series getting many more releases in a short period of time. We have 7 3d Mario games since 96 and 6 gears of war games since 06. The main issue with halo is that bungle left,



pikashoe said:
RJTM1991 said:

Drastically changing? I wouldn't say that. OOT, MM, WW, TP, SS, and the handheld games all build on each other, similar to Gears and Halo. They changed certain things but kept the core gameplay, setting, story and so on. I remember some in the Zelda community complaining about how stale and repetitive the Zelda series had become when Skyward Sword released as well.

There's nothing wrong with sticking to what works, I'm just surprised that one company can spend decades re-doing the same thing over and over again, but get a pass while others get buried.

The only thing particularly similar in Zelda is structure and progression. But tone, artsyle, control, music, setting etc changes dramatically from game to game. It's one of the few franchises that tends to scrap everything and start from scratch with new releases.  Most Zelda games have a new engine and radically different  control schemes, physics, etc. 

Mario has so little focus on story so that's a non point. In terms of gameplay it's very hard to say that galaxy and 64 have much in common. Mario 64 has open sandbox levels while galaxy is more linear and course based.

The main issue with gears is that the gameplay changes are much more slight than Mario or Zelda along with the gears series getting many more releases in a short period of time. We have 7 3d Mario games since 96 and 6 gears of war games since 06. The main issue with halo is that bungle left,

Yeah Reach was the last great Halo. 343 has done a stellar job in Multiplayer, but the series hasn't reached the heights it previously did campaign wise.



Ganoncrotch said:
thismeintiel said:

I think a lot of Xbox guys have jumped ship or are jumping ship. One channel I watch is MBG. Not a big channel, but he has about 33K subs. I came across him this year. I decided to look at his old videos, and it surprised me because they were all positive Xbox vids. Apparently, he jumped ship earlier this year. I think a lot are following.

And there's a reason their PR for Gears 5 rings hollow. They gave the game away for a month for $1. Of course, people are going to jump at that. I'm surprised it wasn't more than 3M honestly, as it's on PC, too. I mean GOW and Spider-Man sold over 3M in it first days at $60 a pop. That's $180M+ in revenue compared to probably just $17M from retail/digital* and the rest from Game Pass promotions. It's obvious that MS is taking a hit on this game in order to push Game Pass. I just don't think it's going to work when the promotion is up and their aren't more huge titles on there.

* Gears 3 sold 3M in its first week. In the UK, it did 20x the amount Gears 5 sold. If we say that averages out to 15x, with other regions probably doing better, that's just 200K units sold. If we are being generous and make the digital ratio a high 42%, that makes 284K units sold, $17M in revenue at full price.

It's not even about game news and info from Dunkey that I love, it's the comedy as a personality I find him hilarious, I think a lot of people look at what he does in terms of "that's not a good argument" and miss the fact that the majority of his viewers watch Dunkeys content because of his messed up sense of humour, it's the same as Red Letter Media for me, "are they the best movie critics in the world?" no absolutely not, "are they funny as all hell and a joy to watch regardless of what they're talking about" absolutely.

Personality = popularity on youtube, not those videos where they do the nitty gritty to make sure everything is 100% fact checked, most people just want to watch someone with a good sense of humour or a sense of humour that is as messed up as their own, for me that's all sorts of jokes that would get me banned from here after a single posting of one... possibly permanently

Oh, I definitely agree. Even though I like Knack, I can't help but laugh my ass off at "Knack, baby!"

RLM is equally as great. Science Man for MVP.

gergroy said:
Video was just a list wars of a brief snapshot in time. Xbox has fallen from their peak, but every console maker has gone through dark periods of time. Sony and Nintendo have both experienced prolonged periods of time with they faltered as well. This has been a terrible generation for Xbox, that is definitely true, but I wouldn’t throw the towel in on them yet. They appear to building towards something great. They seem poised to come out swinging next gen and are probably the best positioned console maker to capitalize on the inevitable digital future in games.

The big difference is that Nintendo still had the very popular DS and 3DS going for them while the Wii U was flopping, and still tried to provide the Wii U with quality SW. Sony worked it's ass off to gain gamers back throughout last gen with a steady flow of quality exclusives.

MS, on the other hand, has lowered its output of exclusives to a trickle and many of them have been mediocre. Without really giving a reason to stay with them, they're still telling Xbox gamers to please be excited for next gen. Sure they bought some good studios, but many are developing multiplats, so who knows how long till we see MS exclusives from them. Or if they will be of high quality.