By twist, I'm assuming gimmick. I'm also assuming that by twists you mean the N64 having 3D visuals and the gamecube being...a cube?
Besides, I meant that if nintendo can keep pushing out well known and selling franchises, why shouldn't the 360 be free to do so? I mean, if people will consistently buy Zelda and Mario games, the more you make of them, the better. Same thing with 360 titles. People want 4 gears games and 4 halo games, so why not give them what they want? I didn't say they were worse, i just said they were basically doing the same thing. Besides, new gimmicks/hardware "twist" don't mean jack squat. Look at the new zelda game with its fancy schmancy controls. It got great scores but the general concensus i've seen here is that the controls were somewhat unnecessary. GAMERS DO NO TAKE WELL TO INNOVATION. All us fanboys love to play the same shit over and over and over again.

All I'm saying is let's not be so hypocritical. Mario, Zelda, and Metroid (<--sorta) have been winging it pretty hard too.

Alan Wake may not be first party but it was still published by MS. They still saw the game and thought it had enough promise to be a seller on consoles and made sure it came to the 360. So they still brought a new IP to the 360 in that regard. Same as Gears of War and tons of arcade games.

Completely 100% true.

Gears was going to be multiplatform but the president of Epic said LOOOOOONG ago that Microsoft talked them out of going full multiplat and just keeping the game away from Sony. Thats why only PC got it, but Microsoft never convinced them to create it, that was the brain child of Cliff Bleszinski and it's pretty much made his retirement. The amount of money Microsoft moneyhatted Epic to keep the game away from Sony on a three game contract must've been monumental, upwards over a hundred million for the four games.

Everyone knows all of that already.

Again....the reason I am arguing this is because its not first party.

And it still doesn't matter. Bringing a new IP is bringing a new IP, whether they create it themselves or realize its potential and snatch it up via publishing.

Of course, this line of logic makes MS look quite a bit better, so with your "loyalty free gaming" mentality, you will discredit the hell out of it. Or try and fail to, anyway, like you have XBLA games.

No, a new IP should be attributed only to the main creator. Microsoft just funded its exclusivity, it was going to be created regardless of their existence. You're a little too attatched to the company my friend. I didn't discredit Microsoft for their first party, but rather for that which they are not PRIMARILY responsible for. You seem to be very loyal to Microsoft. I am loyal to no one company and will buy and choose and critique as I please.

Nope.

Maybe if you're a bitter/biased person trying to split hairs maybe. I know that when an awesome game like Super Time Force comes out this year, a game that would not exist on any console had MS not decided to put it on 360, I won't think less of the game or feel any less gratitude towards MS just because it wasn't developed entirely in house. Just like last gen when Sony had plenty of 3rd party exclusives they secured, I felt the same way. And somehow I think that when the shoe was on the other foot, you had no problem thinking Sony was doing a great job. You say I am loyal or whatever to MS but that's the best part about my line of logic in this thread... it applies to all the console companies equally. It's all about bringing games to gamers for me. Hope that helps.

Theres nothing bitter about what I am writing, you're just too protective of Microsoft. Even Jay Wood can understand what I am saying, except you since you're so sensitive about Microsofts status as a gaming creator (or lack there of). Hopefully next gen they prove themselves. Anyway, this is my last response to you.