Cross-play on PlayStation 4 is now available for all developers to use in their games

[Cerebralbore101]

@LudicrousSpeed I'll get to your post on monday. 

Azzanation said:

There are tons of Indies that crush AAA games in reviews. For an Indie with a small budget to get better reception than a AAA is not uncommon at all. Look at Stardew Valley, Celeste, Hollow Knight, etc. Days Gone was a new IP. SoD2 was not. The gap between 66 and 71 is wider than the grand canyon. Most reviewers prefer not to rate a game below 7/10, because that is usually the point at which consumers stop buying the product. For one, Nintendo and Sony develop majority of there games in house so comparing an Indy game to a AAA studio is differently far fetched. 66 vs a 71 and one game probably costs 6x more to developer is not a good sign for a AAA developer.

Yes, KI was good. No argument there. 

Was Sea of Thieves bad? Have you played it to cast that judgement? The game is incredibly popular just like SoD2 which only got criticized due to its buggy launch. SoTs lacked content at launch which was rightfully criticized for. Today if the game got reviewed again, the results would be different but you wouldn't know that because you most likely have not played it. GTS lacked content at launch so did SF5 and majority of other games this gen with a MP focus. 

No, I haven't played it. I also haven't used a telescope to personally verify the orbit of Jupiter. Guess I can't believe astronomers since I didn't personally verify it myself right? Do you agree that it had little content at launch? If so, then what's the issue? As far as playing it now goes, you have a good argument, when it comes to those early launch reviews not being a good barometer of the game as it is now. The game could have gotten better over time. Or it could have gotten worse. I should play it, and plan on playing it eventually. 2019 is a crazy year for games though, so it might take me until the middle of next year to get around to it. But again, at launch the reviews were accurate and trustworthy. At launch it was a bad game. And that was what I was arguing for. 

Sea of Thieves sales included Game Pass members? What? Fastest selling and most played are two differently things.

"A week after release, the game has hit 2 million players - although it's not clear how much of a proportion of that player base is accessing the game through the Xbox Game Pass, which offers Sea of Thieves as part of a monthly subscription. IGN has contacted Xbox for comment on that." - IGN 

I slightly misread the above, and should have gone to the source article on  Xbox.com. Anyway, fastest selling new IP isn't very impressive because wtf did SoT have to compete with? 

Don't need to make excuses for TLOU MTX, doesn't matter about when it comes out, its the thought behind it that matters more and they thought pay to win was the way to go to make the easy dollar. So if you hate MTX's in games than expect to put TLOU on that list because it has MTX in its MP mode, just like majority of MP modes.

I currently look at TLoU as a game that has had its multiplayer servers shut down. Just like how you can't play Uncharted 2 multiplayer anymore. But does that make Uncharted 2 a game not worth enjoying? No, because Uncharted 2 is still a great single player experience. Same goes for TLoU. Do I hate that they added them in a year and a half after launch? Yes. Am I going to throw away my copy, even though I flat out don't care about multiplayer? No. 

Multiplayer is easy to make? If thats the case than Sony would add it in.. but they don't because majority of games that include MP modes get critized due to it so there goes your point of MP is easy to make. Its a lot easier removing MP from games as it is including it. Sorry but that logic made me chuckle.

No, Sony would not add it in due to it being easy to make. Tacking on Multiplayer to games intended largely as single player experiences is a waste of development time, and a trend that thankfully ended in the PS3/360 era. Look at Metroid Prime 2's multiplayer. Did that add anything of worth to MP2? Nope. The majority of games that include MP get criticized due to it? Care to elaborate? I'm not going to address that point without you explaining what you meant by it in detail. 

Uh no, because if you remove the MP element from a game you have to make the single player even better in order to account for it. So, no taking MP out of a game is not easier than adding it in. 

Good on Nintendo, they are the Disney of the gaming industry and they know how to get there sales and profits. Not sure how that point affects this debate. 

Because you were trying to use MS's gaming division overhaul as an excuse for their lack of good 1st party games. But Nintendo proved that that isn't a valid excuse. 

Comparing Days Gone, made by one of Sonys AAA devs team with a massive AAA budget behind it, to a game that was made by a small indy team with alot less budget behind it is not a fair comparison. Its like comparing Mario Odessey to Knack or Luckys Tails. Also 71 to 66 to me is only 5 points off and since most of the poor reviews with SOD2 was its bugs, now the game has been iron out over the years, those scores look alot closer. Look at the Zombie market, majority of Zombie games this gen havnt scored well. But credit to where credit is due, SOD2 offers both SP and MP modes and the game has a ton of replay value.

I agree Indy games can outpreform AAA games in many cases, Ori is one of my favourite games this gen. Except when you look at those Indy games, they follow a similar trend like Metroid Vania or Minecraft styled games that dont require tons of money or people to make. SOD2 is not a Metroid Vania or Minecraft game, its an open world Sandbox game that does require a big budget and team to get right. From my personal experience i will tell you SOD2 is a superior game to SOD1 even though the review scores are light years different. If you are going to play a SOD game many will say play SOD2.

SOTs lacked content at launch like most big ambishest titles this gen. Thats how service games work. If you base your review on someone else's than you are only assuming its bad because you might actually like it. Iv played games that didnt score well and actually enjoyed them. Everyone has different tastes. As they say, One mans trash is another mans treasure.

Adding MP in games is not easy. If you tack it on than expect critics to criticize the games. Metroid Prime 2 copped criticism for its tacked on MP and lost overall points in its total review score. So if companies tack it on with little to no effort they lose points, so Sony removing it,  avoids that extra critisizm. Thats playing it safe. MP requires alot of balancing, modes and they need to be good just like the SP mode. 

Uh, Nintendo rebuilt its brand during the WiiU era and came out firing with the Switch, MS rebuilt there brand during the X1 era and expect something similar with the Scarlett. These things can take years to plan out not at launch day on a console release. Thank the WiiUs failures for the Switches success.

I'd say those 5 points are a large gap considering that most reviewers don't want to issue a score below 70/100. Every point below 70/100 is like two points. But I guess I said that already. 

Sure SoD2 could be a good game now. Could be worse. But on release it was bad. 

Eh, just because the rest of the Zombie market is bad is no excuse. A bad game is a bad game regardless of how the rest of the genre is bad. 

its an open world Sandbox game that does require a big budget and team to get right.

That just backs up my original point that MS doesn't care enough, because their games are meant to be filler for Gamepass, and then put on as many platforms as they can get them on. If they cared why didn't they put a bigger team or more money into it? 

We agree that SoT lacked content at launch, and that SOD2 was extremely buggy at launch. Then why didn't MS give those games more time to reach a completed state at launch? Real question here. Not wholly hypothetical. Please answer. 


SOTs lacked content at launch like most big ambishest titles this gen. Thats how service games work. If you base your review on someone else's than you are only assuming its bad because you might actually like it. Iv played games that didnt score well and actually enjoyed them. Everyone has different tastes. As they say, One mans trash is another mans treasure.

I see a common theme here of trying to say that its okay for MS to do these bad things with their games because other games do them. That just doesn't work. Just because some bad players in the industry are doing things a certain way, is no excuse for another company to copy them. 

Should I just personally verify everything for myself? Do I need to whip out a telescope and do some math before I take Nasa's word for it on the orbital path of Jupiter? If I read a review by somebody that shares similar tastes to my own, then that is good enough for me. And if there's an overall consensus of reviewers saying that game X is bad, then that is good enough for me. 

Adding MP in games is not easy. If you tack it on than expect critics to criticize the games. Metroid Prime 2 copped criticism for its tacked on MP and lost overall points in its total review score. So if companies tack it on with little to no effort they lose points, so Sony removing it,  avoids that extra critisizm. Thats playing it safe. MP requires alot of balancing, modes and they need to be good just like the SP mode. 

By that logic avoiding extra single player levels in games is playing it safe. And since extra single player levels require vastly more work than extra multiplayer levels it is not Sony that is playing it safe overall. Single player games require balancing too. So that point is moot. Single player has way more levels than multiplayer has modes. Another moot point. 

 

Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 18 October 2019