By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Official Xbox July Showcase 2020 thread

Alara317 on 24 July 2020
EpicRandy said:
Alara317 said:
What a colossal disappointment. Halo looked ugly, State of Decay is a sequel to two trash games, Forza is....another Forza, etc.

The thing is, if these exact trailers were shown at a Sony presentation I'd be cautiously optimistic becuase Sony has a history of delivering. Microsoft hasn't really done much of note in a decade or so. I was really hoping that this Xbox Games Showcase would inspire me to care again, but all it did was remind me how little I can trust Microsoft. The same tenuous grasp on exclusivity, the same bullshit 'world premiere' declarations, the same gameplay-free trailers. So many of these games have potential, but nothing in this presentation or Microsoft's past made me think for a second that any potential will be reached.

Like, Everwild? That looks gorgeous! Rare has a tonne of skill behind them....but the last good game they made was Banjo Tooie. Grounded looks fun, but with how little we saw it was basically Honey I Shrunk the Keeds meets fortnite - a cool idea, but not enough when I have my imagination to fill in the gaps. too many of these trailers were cinematic trailers with minimal or no gameplay. And when all I have to fill in the gaps is my memories of all the other Microsoft games that looked or sounded good but ended up trash...well, it doesn't bode well for 'the most powerful console'.

and that Halo demo? Ouch. Not a fan of Halo in the first place, but it looked less like a next gen tentpole release and more like a generic third party rerelease of an Xbox 360 game. I swear Halo 4 and Halo 5 looked better. The only thing good about Halo was the grappling hook....so I get to be batman with guns! Pew Pew!

So if the presentation was hosted by Sony it would have been somewhat good but since it was Microsoft it was a Colossal disappointment??? 
I kind of get your point tough Microsoft need to proove themself again.

But with that kind of reasoning, no matter what would have been shown, it feel like you would still have rated it as a Colossal disappointment because Microsoft.

My issue is that it's Microsoft showing a holding pattern. No real mixups, no revolution, nothing new enough or interesting enough to stand out. Lots of cool ideas, but no gameplay that came across as 'that's new' or 'that hasn't been done to death.'Microsoft going in the same direction and not altering course is disheartening, but Sony or Nintendo staying the course and not altering direction is quite a good thing since both of those consoles have been doing really well. 

What Microsoft needed was something with PIZAZZ! With OOMPH! Some WOW factor. they just gave us more of the same and...eeeeh. That's not enough. that's the difference. If Sony came out and gave us those same trailers it would say to me 'you like what we're doing so here are some cool games, I promise they'll be good' and I'd believe them. Microsoft pulls these trailers out saying the same thing and I got 'but...what about Scalebound? what about Rare? When was the last time you actually delivered on these promises?" 

Again, context is key.



Around the Network
sales2099 on 24 July 2020
Alara317 said:
EpicRandy said:

So if the presentation was hosted by Sony it would have been somewhat good but since it was Microsoft it was a Colossal disappointment??? 
I kind of get your point tough Microsoft need to proove themself again.

But with that kind of reasoning, no matter what would have been shown, it feel like you would still have rated it as a Colossal disappointment because Microsoft.

My issue is that it's Microsoft showing a holding pattern. No real mixups, no revolution, nothing new enough or interesting enough to stand out. Lots of cool ideas, but no gameplay that came across as 'that's new' or 'that hasn't been done to death.'Microsoft going in the same direction and not altering course is disheartening, but Sony or Nintendo staying the course and not altering direction is quite a good thing since both of those consoles have been doing really well. 

What Microsoft needed was something with PIZAZZ! With OOMPH! Some WOW factor. they just gave us more of the same and...eeeeh. That's not enough. that's the difference. If Sony came out and gave us those same trailers it would say to me 'you like what we're doing so here are some cool games, I promise they'll be good' and I'd believe them. Microsoft pulls these trailers out saying the same thing and I got 'but...what about Scalebound? what about Rare? When was the last time you actually delivered on these promises?" 

Again, context is key.

So much wrong in this, really makes me wonder if you’d trash the show regardless of what they offered. If the biggest issue is that there was not enough gameplay, that would be fine if you left it at that. 

You say no mixups...their genre representation in unmatched. Compared to their competition that locks almost all their games in “3rd person story driven single player action adventure” this was a great offering of what they have. 

SoD3 is supposed to be a AAA survival game. Grounded a smaller title but more creative in premise. Avowed is a exclusive Skyrim, Xbox One lacked exclusive RPGs this gen and how they have that and Fable. Halo a ambitious FPS with campaign and multiplayer (how many PS exclusives even have a multiplayer component?). Even though it was in engine, Forza showed a night and day graphics comparison to the competition. 

Please tell me how those things lacked oomph....having a literal LOTR action RPG from the masters of RPGs with Obsidian at the helm. Or thinking Hellblade 2 won’t be anything other then a graphical showcase and narratively pleasing when it’s ready to be shown?

What about Rare? How could you say Everwild looks like more of the same? We don’t even know how it plays but it looks creatively unleashed. After SoT reaching it’s critical success and audience I have full faith in Rare. 

“When was the last time they delivered on promises”: Playground, Turn 10, Rares last game, Obsidians track record at the very least should be enough to have high standards for their titles. Don’t act like every dev is unproven. 



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

curl-6 on 24 July 2020

Having slept on it and re-watched the Halo segment, I will say that while the show as a whole missed the mark, Halo Infinite actually exceeded my expectations.

Yeah, it doesn't look next gen graphically, but I quite like the art style and the gameplay looks like a fantastic mix of classic Halo with newer games like Doom 2016/Eternal. While I won't buy a console for just one game, Infinite looks good enough to keep the Series X on my radar as a "wait and see".

sales2099 said:

 

Was I underwhelmed at first by the graphics? Sure. Then again it’s 4K/60 FPS open world Halo. The IP was never known to push graphics (except Halo 4 which was a late gen game that used every drop of 360s hardware) 

That's just not true, Halo 1 and 2 were graphical powerhouses in their day and high end visuals were a big selling point for them.

sales2099 said:
zealen said:

How do you sell a new system if you don't show its capabilities? 

From a sales standpoint I think it was very weak. Didn't make me want to buy a new console, didn't make me wanna play almost anything. Halo showed us some minutes of gameplay which will be available on the current gen.

They marketed Series X as the most powerful console, where did they show that? They could've AT LEAST show some Hellblade 2 gameplay.

"But Halo was never about great graphics" "Halo is about gameplay". Ok, then why you need the so called most powerful console? 

CG or not they are enough to get people excited. Again I don’t see where gamers decided it’s a mandatory requirement to show gameplay for every reveal. Avowed is a Xbox exclusive Skyrim with LOTR elements, that’s huge! But nope it’s trash because it’s CG. That makes no sense to me. 

CG trailers tell us fuck all about how a game is actually going to look and play, hence they are pretty much useless to me as a gamer.

Both this and Sony's show suffered from this, not enough actual gameplay shown and far too much cinematic BS.



sales2099 on 24 July 2020
curl-6 said:

Having slept on it and re-watched the Halo segment, I will say that while the show as a whole missed the mark, Halo Infinite actually exceeded my expectations.

Yeah, it doesn't look next gen graphically, but I quite like the art style and the gameplay looks like a fantastic mix of classic Halo with newer games like Doom 2016/Eternal. While I won't buy a console for just one game, Infinite looks good enough to keep the Series X on my radar as a "wait and see".

sales2099 said:

 

Was I underwhelmed at first by the graphics? Sure. Then again it’s 4K/60 FPS open world Halo. The IP was never known to push graphics (except Halo 4 which was a late gen game that used every drop of 360s hardware) 

That's just not true, Halo 1 and 2 were graphical powerhouses in their day and high end visuals were a big selling point for them.

sales2099 said:

CG or not they are enough to get people excited. Again I don’t see where gamers decided it’s a mandatory requirement to show gameplay for every reveal. Avowed is a Xbox exclusive Skyrim with LOTR elements, that’s huge! But nope it’s trash because it’s CG. That makes no sense to me. 

CG trailers tell us fuck all about how a game is actually going to look and play, hence they are pretty much useless to me as a gamer.

Both this and Sony's show suffered from this, not enough actual gameplay shown and far too much cinematic BS.

Halo 1 and 2 were the result of Xbox simply being a beast of a console compared to PS2 and GameCube. I get your stance, but most Xbox exclusives were by default graphical powerhouses. Halo 3 at release had those poor character models that haven’t aged well at all and weren’t ideal even at release. Reach was prettier but not cutting edge either like Halo 4 was. Halo 5 had its fair share of graphical issues that largely went away only when Xbox X update released. 

And cmon the end of the Avowed trailer pretty much tells you  how the game would look as a first person action rpg. Even as CG the implications of gameplay field of view are more then enough for imaginations to run wild. 



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

curl-6 on 24 July 2020
sales2099 said:
curl-6 said:

Having slept on it and re-watched the Halo segment, I will say that while the show as a whole missed the mark, Halo Infinite actually exceeded my expectations.

Yeah, it doesn't look next gen graphically, but I quite like the art style and the gameplay looks like a fantastic mix of classic Halo with newer games like Doom 2016/Eternal. While I won't buy a console for just one game, Infinite looks good enough to keep the Series X on my radar as a "wait and see".

That's just not true, Halo 1 and 2 were graphical powerhouses in their day and high end visuals were a big selling point for them.

CG trailers tell us fuck all about how a game is actually going to look and play, hence they are pretty much useless to me as a gamer.

Both this and Sony's show suffered from this, not enough actual gameplay shown and far too much cinematic BS.

Halo 1 and 2 were the result of Xbox simply being a beast of a console compared to PS2 and GameCube. I get your stance, but most Xbox exclusives were by default graphical powerhouses. Halo 3 at release had those poor character models that haven’t aged well at all and weren’t ideal even at release. Reach was prettier but not cutting edge either like Halo 4 was. 

And cmon the end of the Avowed trailer pretty much tells you  how the game would look as a first person action rpg. Even as CG the implications of gameplay field of view are more then enough for imaginations to run wild. 

The Xbox being powerful didn't mean games on it would necessarily leverage all that power. Halo 1 and 2 though put a great emphasis on graphical fidelity and were up there as some of the most advanced games on console at their time of release, so it's simply incorrect to say "the IP has never been about pushing graphics" because that was indeed a big part of their DNA from the very beginning.

And choreographed CG doesn't cut it. As a gamer I want to see actual gameplay.



Around the Network
sales2099 on 24 July 2020
curl-6 said:
sales2099 said:

Halo 1 and 2 were the result of Xbox simply being a beast of a console compared to PS2 and GameCube. I get your stance, but most Xbox exclusives were by default graphical powerhouses. Halo 3 at release had those poor character models that haven’t aged well at all and weren’t ideal even at release. Reach was prettier but not cutting edge either like Halo 4 was. 

And cmon the end of the Avowed trailer pretty much tells you  how the game would look as a first person action rpg. Even as CG the implications of gameplay field of view are more then enough for imaginations to run wild. 

The Xbox being powerful didn't mean games on it would necessarily leverage all that power. Halo 1 and 2 though put a great emphasis on graphical fidelity and were up there as some of the most advanced games on console at their time of release, so it's simply incorrect to say "the IP has never been about pushing graphics" because that was indeed a big part of their DNA from the very beginning.

And choreographed CG doesn't cut it. As a gamer I want to see actual gameplay.

Your point with Halo was from 2001-2004. From 2007-2012 graphics took a back seat. Halo 4 happened but Halo 5 set the narrative again. Only 3 Halos pushed graphics, 2 out of the 3 were again in the early 2000s. Halo Infinite takes great inspiration from the original but by no means does modern Halo have a cutting edge graphics reputation attached. If we get it, then all the better. But it’s not a requirement. 

I get your point about the CG....where were all the people like you when Nintendo fans were going crazy over a Metroid Prime 4 title screen? ;)



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

curl-6 on 24 July 2020
sales2099 said:
curl-6 said:

The Xbox being powerful didn't mean games on it would necessarily leverage all that power. Halo 1 and 2 though put a great emphasis on graphical fidelity and were up there as some of the most advanced games on console at their time of release, so it's simply incorrect to say "the IP has never been about pushing graphics" because that was indeed a big part of their DNA from the very beginning.

And choreographed CG doesn't cut it. As a gamer I want to see actual gameplay.

Your point with Halo was from 2001-2004. From 2007-2012 graphics took a back seat. Halo 4 happened but Halo 5 set the narrative again. Only 3 Halos pushed graphics, 2 out of the 3 were again in the early 2000s. Halo Infinite takes great inspiration from the original but by no means does modern Halo have a cutting edge graphics reputation attached. If we get it, then all the better. But it’s not a requirement. 

I get your point about the CG....where were all the people like you when Nintendo fans were going crazy over a Metroid Prime 4 title screen? ;)

You said "it has never been about graphics". "Never" includes 2001-2004 and 2012. So you were wrong, graphics have indeed been a central pillar for Halo before, including the games that provided its very foundation.

And I was one of those who was criticizing in 2017 that Nintendo only showed a logo for MP4, actually. Games should never be revealed with only logos or CG teasers. I'm not picking on MS here, it's bad no matter who does it.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 25 July 2020

src on 25 July 2020

MS's biggest missteps due to how early their dev pipeline is. Its truly a colossal issue.

Halo - 2020 (5 years in dev) (gameplay)
Crossfire - 2020 (???) (gameplay)
Medium - 2020 (???) (gameplay)
FM7 - early in dev (3 years in dev) (in engine)
Everwild - ??? (2 years in dev) (in engine)
Fable - ??? (1-2 years in dev) (CGI)
SoD3 - ??? (2 years in dev) (CGI)
Avowed - ??? (2 years in dev) (CGI)
Hellblade - ??? (3 years in dev) (CGI)
STALKER 2 - ??? (???) (CGI)

Only 3 games showed gameplay and the lead was underwhelming. Apart from that, MS has shown games that are very early in dev, despite said studios actually having a supposed decent amount of time in dev. They've effectively laid bare their entire software pipeline till like 2023/4, which begs to question how will their shows for the next few years be.




mjk45 on 25 July 2020
CGI-Quality said:
Random_Matt said:
Wow, you get banned for saying Halo looked average, incredible.

Not a single person has been formally banned and the couple that have been Thread Banned certainly weren't for calling Halo average. 

Maybe you should have stated that this thread is to stay xbox focused and no comparisons between either shows will be allowed.

With the addition that if you wish to do a comparison you can make another thread.



Research shows Video games  help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot

mjk45 on 25 July 2020
shikamaru317 said:
mjk45 said:

Maybe you should have stated that this thread is to stay xbox focused and no comparisons between either shows will be allowed.

With the addition that if you wish to do a comparison you can make another thread.

He basically did just that:

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9186983

Yes I know I read it. my thinking was  the clearer you can make something be the better, anyway it's just advice that can be used or ignored  anyway as long as its consistent with the Sony show thread and knowing CGI I'd bet my house on it alls well.



Research shows Video games  help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot