Sorry Sal, but I think you're the one twisting things to fit your own agenda now. You think Microsoft told Rare to make Kameo? Nuts and Bolts? Viva Pinata? (<3)? These will have been Rare's idea not the publishers.

It's ironic that he blames Microsoft, when he left Rare to join Big Huge Games, which in turn was bought by 38 Studios.  Whoops!  Now hopefully when Epic gets Big Huge Games back up and running he has a job, but as I seem to recall Epic has greatly benefited from its partnership with Microsoft.  Interesting how that works.

There's nothing to twist, the story is there, I'm just following the facts.

Those games are...fine. Ok. nothing like the glory days where they were consistently making the best games in the business across multiple genres. I'm impassioned about this because I loved them so much. 

Rare's problems were twofold

1.Mismanagement by MS

2. All of their idea men and skilled employees abandoned ship after the MS purchase, leaving a huge void that could never be filled. Its hard to say MS ruined Rare (besides chasing all the talent away) because Rare pre and post MS are practically two different companies.

like i said in my other post, i believe i did not only read one explanation what microsoft really did. i read like 1000x that microsoft fucked them up and that we all know that. if everyone knows that, why does no one explain it? please explain me what microsoft did. i don't say microsoft didn't fuck them up if someone can explain me what they did but i want to know what they did.  a joke that this dev didn't explain it. shouldn't be a proble to him to say in few sentence what microsoft did to decrease the quality of the banjo game he was working on

all i know is that rares games like kameo weren't so successful and then in 2009 or 2010, microsoft started to restructure rare. so i would say everything after 2010 is because of micrsoft (btw i believe they do very good since that financially) but all the worse versions of banjo and perfect dark was rares own fault and only because of that microsoft started to restructure them because it was a financially flop.

that's what i know, maybe it was different.

True words. They were never the same and their games had less quality after they left Nintendo.

I don't know exactly what happened to Rare, but if this guy is right, then this would be an example for why I'm beginning to dislike most big publishers. They tend to have quite ambitious goals and will often use their lower selling developers as means of achieving them. I'm not referring to the developers that pump out the big selling games. I mean the devs that pump out modest to low selling games (less than ~3m). Even if the games are profitable, publishers don't feel their big enough and will step in to change things.

Instead of giving them creative freedom, they force developers to implement specific elements or style on particular titles. In some extreme cases, they make them develop games entirely different from what they would have developed otherwise. I would prefer if developers were independent or joined less ambitious, less controlling publishers.

I don't know whose fault it is.... but yeah, the company is f@#$ed beyond recognition.

Nintendo should have bought them when/if they could. Now it's just a dead shell. Thank god for Donkey Kong still honoring the good old days.

BTW, what the hell was this?

  ------->

Gap feelings, anyone?

  -------->

At least one of them went back on the mistake.

Didn't their games decline during the gcn era too? Seems like it could have been a slow fade to mediocrity.

I don't see how MS screwed Rare over. They were allowed to release all their big games but the critics either thought they were good/ok or disappointing but nothing that set the world alight. Unless MS interfered with Rare's creative input, the blame should rest squarely on Rare's shoulders.