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

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. 

 

Around the Network
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.



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

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. 

 

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

Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

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.




Around the Network
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.



mjk45 said:
CGI-Quality said:

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.

He basically did just that:

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



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.



curl-6 said:
sales2099 said:

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.

Ok let me amend, cutting edge graphics was never mandatory. Halo 3 lacked in areas, character models especially, but people largely overlooked it for the whole package being solid. Same goes for ODST and Reach. Halo 4 was cutting edge for the hardware but was criticized due to AI taking a back seat to allow for visual fidelity. Halo 5 had bad pop in and textures. Sorry but graphics in the last decade is simply not the top priority for Halo gamers. 

Last edited by sales2099 - on 25 July 2020

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

 

sales2099 said:
Alara317 said:

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. 

You accuse me of bias then bend over backwards to make everything sound so much better than it actually is. And yes, unless they showed something new and original, different from what they've shown in the past, with a different approach, I likely would have bashed it for the exact reasons I Stated: Microsoft has no goodwill built up in their tank. They have absolutely failed since 2013 and earlier (Let's be honest, the last few years of the Xbox 360 were also devoid of anything significant, allowing Sony to somehow beat them that generation), and they're doing the same things in this presentation that got them nowhere the past decade. the same gameplay free trailers, the same "WORLD PREMIERE" declarations in front of every trailer to make it sound and look more important than it is, the tenuous grasp on the concept of exclusivity to make their games sound like they're more bound to Xbox than they actually are. 

All they had to do was show more gameplay and not be disingenuous with their language and I'd have given this a better score or been kinder to them. However, what they did was the exact same thing they've been doing for the past generation, and that exact same thing didn't work and instilled absolutely no confidence in them. I made that remarkably clear: This presentation does NOT exist in a vacuum, there are outside factors involved that paint one's perception of the event. 

And what are you even talking about, trying to compare Xbox's exclusives to PS4's? "Oh, all sony's games are singleplayer story-based action adventure games'....when that's the broadest and most all-encompassing of genres. And not true at all. Yeah, they do better with their singleplayer story-based games, but they also do shooters and racers and platformers and many other genres and styles. And even within 'singleplayer story-driven action-adventure', they have a tonne of variety. Try to tell me that The LAst of US, God of War, Bloodborne, Horizon zero Dawn, Spider-Man, and Ghost of Tsushima are in any way similar outside of that very, VERY broad title. Survival horror, epic fantasy, victorian gothic, post-apocalyptic dino-robot hunting, superhero, samurai. If you're deliberately trying to be reductive to prove a point, all you proved is that you cherry-pick to support your cause and ignore data that doesn't help you out. 

I Really don't feel the need to talk about 'oompf' because, as I stated, these games lacked any real depth. Nothing really felt new or original. Halo was just another Halo. Forza was just another Forza. State of Decay looked like just another State of Decay (And pretty much everything else lacked enough gameplay to really tell if it was more of the same or something unique.) I'm not the only one to say it, but almost all of these games have a tonne of potential. A lot of these games COULD be unique and interesting, but without enough information it's hard to tell if it'll be good, and even with information you can't really know if a game will be good until it comes out. 

You speak of Rare and Everwild. I think that game has a gorgeous art style and I think Rare has a hell of a legacy to live up to....but the last truly great game they made was Banjo Tooie, like 20 years ago (And most of the team that made that game went onto make Playtonic). After that, and after Microsoft bought them up, they made shitty banjo games, a terrible perfect dark game, the mediocre Viva Pinata series, a bunch of lame Kinect games, and the famously disappointing Sea of Thieves. and no, do NOT try to spin sea of Thieves as some monumental success. It was a game that looked wonderful, sounded great, and launched with nothing. IT was a boring, empty game that took years to reach any sort of potential and by now the legacy has long since been tarnished. It's not a bad game now, but try finding anyone that isn't a diehard Xbox stan that cares about it. You'll have a hell of a hard time. The point is, the rare of today is not the rare that made Donkey Kong Country and Perfect Dark and Banjo Kazooie. Your argument is invalid. 

And again, none of this exists in a vacuum. None of this is without context. The trailers themselves were fine, but all it did is reassure me that Microsoft isn't changing things up or trying anything new or going in a different direction, and given how unimpressive their brand has been for the past ten years, that paints mine and most other people's opinion on the presentation. 

I fully admit I went into this presentation with a critical eye. Given their history and their lack of originality or success over the past decade, I fully expected to not like what was shown while still being cautiously optimistic. I want them to succeed because the industry is better with more competition. The presentation itself was neutral, so with the reality of Microsoft's failures over the past generation it was disappointing. You, on the other hand, refuse to admit that you're biased. You seem to not be willing to accept that you will bend over backwards to be impressed by this unimpressive garbage. It was not a good presentation but here you are acting like it was some sort of technical marvel or that they knocked it out of the park. I reiterate, Microsoft could piss in your breakfast cereal and you'd eat it up. Then you'd argue with anyone telling you that you're eating piss.