| pokoko said: Doesn't that kind of hurt the narrative the OP is attempting to write, though? He wants to take as much credit as possible from Bungie and apply it back to Microsoft--I think we know why--by saying they haven't been as successful with a game on another publisher. His goal is to leave the impression that being under Microsoft's wing improves the work of a developer. Through osmosis, maybe, or perhaps Don Mattrick came down and showed them how to code. I mean, he never actually gives any reasons for this phenomenon. What does that mean regarding Rare, then? Their output has obviously been worse under Microsoft. Judging by the OP's standards, there is only one logical conclusion: Nintendo > Microsoft > Activision. |
Maybe, but his point was only made for Halo regarding BungiexMicrosoft. I think no one questions the ability of a company to fuck up things they own, and that can be extrapolated to practically every single company out there, not only Microsoft.
I don't think it hurts his point that much, though. It's not like "EHHH BUT THEY RUINED RARE" argument helps any case. If anything, one would be acknowledging that OP is right regarding BungiexMicrosoft and we're using Rare as "look! look! being with MS can also be harmful!" type of argument, which would devolve into a different affair.
