Again, are you going to say the game wasn't poorly received? That it critics was lambasting both from critics and users at launch? Myself I found it bland, with poor general graphics, and empty.

I disagree that they being ambitious precudes them from making platforming games, because you were the one that gave this as reason for they to not do it.

I didn't answer your baiting because it was what it was.

What is the player count of a game given for free on GP have to do with anything?

If the game they made this gen wasn't more ambitious than a game they made 2 gens ago )or in the case of Banjo that was well received that would be what 4 gens ago?) then something would be really wrong. 

Again reaching a number because of game played for free is not a metric of it being good (there is a plethora of free games on ios and android that certainly crossed 25M downloads that even you wouldn't claim is good), hell not even if everyone paid for the game it would be a metric of the game being good.

If you want to know why the game isn't good, just give yourself a quick look on the reviews... owww I forgot, you said for this game reviews didn't matter just your personal taste mattered.

Don you understand that no one is disagreeing with the reviews here, however you also understand those reviews were based on launch. Have you actually played the game to deem it not good or are you just claiming that someone else didn't like it at launch so the game is poor to everyone? General Graphics? Empty? Empty in 2018. Visuals DF will disagree with you. Did you like GTSport? I guess you would have issues with that game too based on its reviews.

Numbers don't lie Don, if the game isn't good, why does it continue to grow in popularity and people still play it 4 years after it launched?

Rare simply don't make platformers anymore, how can you debate that fact? They said that SoTs is their most ambitious game ever made. You are arguing against facts. Just because you didnt like it, does not change that fact.

And i will guess that you withdrawn from your claim where you claimed i said MS mishandled their IPs. Cracks are showing in your responses.

And I was talking about the game launch not today, not sure what you missed on it. Yes I like GTSports, but my own taste won't make a game good or bad.

Won't even circle back on the rest as I would be repeating myself.

DonFerrari said: "But yes I can agree with you that even if you claim SoT was an ambitious game it certainly wasn't good."

You literally said the game is not good in the quote above. Are you trolling? Because now the story changes with you. Odd miss to not add in launch in your own quote. I highly doubt you even played SoTs to be entitled to claim the game isn't good. Id be happy if you could prove me wrong here.

You wont go back to your other points because you have no counter argument to what you said. You have made things up to suit your agenda. Why did you come in here in the first place? Just to twist the thread and leave? That's what it looks like to me.

I never said MS mishandled their IPs yet you claimed i did. 

You disagreed on SoTs being an Ambitious game even when Rare came out and admitted it themselves. Who use to make the best platformers in the industry. 

You like GT Sport which had a horrible launch yet claim that's your own opinion that you like it.. great now you are being honest. Guess what, same can be said for the people who play SoTs. You ignored the poor reviews on GTSport and yet you didn't with SoTs what a shocker.

Reviews are nothing more than guidelines. One mans trash can be another mans treasure. An opinion on a game that you haven't played is not your opinion, its someone else's. That's why you get these responses when you throw stones at games you never played.

I may not be native english speaker. But I'm quite confident there is a difference between WASN'T and ISN'T.

Your wording is out of context. "Wasn't" is referring to past tense and in this case, you are talking about an old game and claimed it "wasn't" good. You would need to add more to that statement, otherwise you are just saying the game isn't good. 

Example: Cyberpunk wasn't good / Cyberpunk isn't good. Has the exact same meaning unless you add more to why it wasn't good in past tense like its rushed release etc. 

You could have easily said "SoTs wasn't good at launch" but instead you choose the wording to talk about the entire game before and now. I would have easily agreed with you if you worded it correctly but you didn't, and you still haven't corrected your statement, and are now hiding behind your wording.

Is SoTs a good game today? A lot of those who play it will say it is. Have you said that? No. Because you either haven't played the game or refuse to give credit to where its due and are basing the entire game off its 2018 reviews who have not re-reviewed the game.

2022 SoTs is not 2018 SoTs. And you know that.

Always learnt that was is used for past tense, and in more than one instance talked about reviews (which are done on release), so you decided to assume otherwise on your on end. I know the game is not the same anymore and was talking about it on release, and yet you were also defending it on release as a great game harassed by reviewers and whatnot.

No where in our conversation were we talking about review scores. Review scores are subjective and on service based games mean little to nothing. You know that. You clearly tried to make a statement that the game wasn't good without claiming why is wasn't good. Your wording was out of context. Ill add, that a game can still be good even if reviewers give it average ratings.

Also do you have a link to prove your point on what i said in the past defending SoTs? 

I will say i enjoyed SoTs at launch and so did many others, not everyone liked it, however you can say that with any game. 

The difference between your statement and mine, is i actually played the game at launch and played the game now, you havn't (You pretend you did) and are basing your entire opinion on a game off someone else's opinion, which means it isn't your opinion.

I pointed more at once that the reviews (both critics and users) weren't good.

And on the metacritic thread about SoT you were talking about the reviewers being wrong and the game being great, and if I'm not wrong you entered some metacritic threads of PS games to defend the reviewers that gave low scores.

I haven't pretended I did at any moment, and that is different than you that pretend to have played all PS5 exclusives, which you hated by standard while not having a console or account "I played all of them at a cousin". So don't you user ruler on others.

Anyway, if now you understand I was talking about how the game was poor at launch, that being ambitious doesn't make a game good, and that would be hard for SoT to be less ambitious than their games on SNES I don't have anything else to add. As I said, I'm glad you recognized several of the games were poorly handed by MS and you want external devs to work on them, even if you can't directly recognize it.

No you did not, that is a complete lie. You stated that SoTs wasn't good when i said SoTs is a very ambitious game. No reviews or scores were mentioned. You just flat out said the game wasn't good. 

Show evidence of your claims Don, i am calling you out on it. When did i say reviews are wrong? I also have the right to like SoTs like the other millions who liked it. I even stated in this very thread that i don't disagree with the reviews on release of SoTs. Also Rare made games on the Gamecube and Xbox, have you been living under a rock? SNES? What kind of garbage response is that.

Where did i say MS poorly handled their IPs? Evidence? You have to be trolling with these assumptions Don. You better have evidence to back up your claims.