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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Gamespot reviews Infinite Undiscovery - 6.5

Cactus on 03 September 2008
Groucho said:
Bingoo said:
pbroy said:
Gearbox said:
hum. so i guess another flopped excluisve? Man we are seeing a lot of these *cough haze too human cough *

 

Don't worry, It'll be better when it comes to PS3

 

 umm?

It was originally published by microsoft and funded by them why would they let it go to ps3??

 

Um...  no.  Square-Enix is the publisher, and owns the material 100%.  They can do whatever the heck they want with it, once any timed-exclusive agreements with MS expire.  Same thing with Tales of Vesperia, etc.  -- not owned/published by MS at all.

Here's a (pretty much exhaustive) list of MS published RPGs that will never see the PS3: Mass Effect series, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, Fable series, Too Human series. 

That's it.  No holds barred for any other RPGs, I'm afraid -- except timed ones, of course.

Of course, were I to list the Sony exclusive RPGs that will never see the 360, it'd be much shorter: Folklore.  That's it.  I can't think of another modern-era RPG Sony even owns the publishing rights to.

Microsoft owns the name though, so wouldn't they have to grant permission to SE if they want to release this on the PS3?

 

http://www.microsoft.com/library/toolbar/3.0/trademarks/en-us.mspx

 



Around the Network
pbroy on 03 September 2008
Groucho said:
Bingoo said:
pbroy said:
Gearbox said:
hum. so i guess another flopped excluisve? Man we are seeing a lot of these *cough haze too human cough *

 

Don't worry, It'll be better when it comes to PS3

 

 umm?

It was originally published by microsoft and funded by them why would they let it go to ps3??

 

Um...  no.  Square-Enix is the publisher, and owns the material 100%.  They can do whatever the heck they want with it, once any timed-exclusive agreements with MS expire.  Same thing with Tales of Vesperia, etc.  -- not owned/published by MS at all.

Here's a (pretty much exhaustive) list of MS published RPGs that will never see the PS3: Mass Effect series, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, Fable series, Too Human series. 

That's it.  No holds barred for any other RPGs, I'm afraid -- except timed ones, of course.

Of course, were I to list the Sony exclusive RPGs that will never see the 360, it'd be much shorter: Folklore.  That's it.  I can't think of another modern-era RPG Sony even owns the publishing rights to.

 

This guy is right though

VGChartz♥♥♥♥♥FOREVER
Xbone... the new "N" word   Apparently I troll MS now | Evidence | Evidence
spdk1 on 03 September 2008

they still hate jrpgs seemingly, they always complain that the turn based stuff is horrible, and that it should be like oblivion.

http://www.gamespot.com/games.html?platform=1029&category=Role-Playing&type=games&mode=top&sort=views&sortdir=asc#

TOV only got that score because it is more action oriented. Its like when they base a bunch of Wii game reviews on the x-box 360 graphics....

 

how the HELL did two worlds get a better score than blue dragon?



VGChartz PS3 Trophy League

The Official Pro Wrestling Thread

  
chasmatic12 on 03 September 2008

bob

bobobologna said:
chasmatic12 said:
pbroy said:
It's a joke guys. I guess my efforts to humor the PS3 crowd backfired on me. But thanks, I've never been called a PS3 fanboy before. n_n

 

My apologies, then.

Edit: To the guy above me. 6.5 isn't 'that bad.' It's mediocre.

 


Um, actually 6.5 using most reviewers scales (including Gamespot) is pretty bad.  It doesn't necessarily indicate a bad game, but it is definitely a bad review score to get.

Uhm, actually bobobologna, 6.5 is "Fair" according to Gamespot. 7 is "Good." I'd love to hear you explain how a game jumps from "Good" to "Pretty Bad" within 1/2  of a point, but you can't.

According to Gamepots scale:

6- Fair

5- Mediocre

4- Poor

3- Bad

Wow... look at "Bad" all the way down there near the 3.

 

Pwn'd...



Groucho on 03 September 2008
Cactus said:
Groucho said:
Bingoo said:
pbroy said:
Gearbox said:
hum. so i guess another flopped excluisve? Man we are seeing a lot of these *cough haze too human cough *

 

Don't worry, It'll be better when it comes to PS3

 

 umm?

It was originally published by microsoft and funded by them why would they let it go to ps3??

 

Um...  no.  Square-Enix is the publisher, and owns the material 100%.  They can do whatever the heck they want with it, once any timed-exclusive agreements with MS expire.  Same thing with Tales of Vesperia, etc.  -- not owned/published by MS at all.

Here's a (pretty much exhaustive) list of MS published RPGs that will never see the PS3: Mass Effect series, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, Fable series, Too Human series. 

That's it.  No holds barred for any other RPGs, I'm afraid -- except timed ones, of course.

Of course, were I to list the Sony exclusive RPGs that will never see the 360, it'd be much shorter: Folklore.  That's it.  I can't think of another modern-era RPG Sony even owns the publishing rights to.

Microsoft owns the name though, so wouldn't they have to grant permission to SE if they want to release this on the PS3?

 

http://www.microsoft.com/library/toolbar/3.0/trademarks/en-us.mspx

 

Hmm, yeah I think you're right... although I notice that the same list also includes BattleTech and MechWarrior, both of which are fully owned by WizKids these days, and not by Microsoft. 

IU is listed as a TM though, which I believe would apply to a full game series, as opposed to an individual video game -- so SE would indeed have to secure rights from MS to publish IU on another platform... I think.

 



Around the Network
LOL MATURE on 03 September 2008
chasmatic12 said:
bob
bobobologna said:
chasmatic12 said:
pbroy said:
It's a joke guys. I guess my efforts to humor the PS3 crowd backfired on me. But thanks, I've never been called a PS3 fanboy before. n_n

 

My apologies, then.

Edit: To the guy above me. 6.5 isn't 'that bad.' It's mediocre.

 


Um, actually 6.5 using most reviewers scales (including Gamespot) is pretty bad.  It doesn't necessarily indicate a bad game, but it is definitely a bad review score to get.

Uhm, actually bobobologna, 6.5 is "Fair" according to Gamespot. 7 is "Good." I'd love to hear you explain how a game jumps from "Good" to "Pretty Bad" within 1/2  of a point, but you can't.

According to Gamepots scale:

6- Fair

5- Mediocre

4- Poor

3- Bad

Wow... look at "Bad" all the way down there near the 3.

 

Pwn'd...

 

 Damage control alert damage control alert



bobobologna on 03 September 2008
chasmatic12 said:
bob
bobobologna said:
chasmatic12 said:
pbroy said:
It's a joke guys. I guess my efforts to humor the PS3 crowd backfired on me. But thanks, I've never been called a PS3 fanboy before. n_n

 

My apologies, then.

Edit: To the guy above me. 6.5 isn't 'that bad.' It's mediocre.

 


Um, actually 6.5 using most reviewers scales (including Gamespot) is pretty bad. It doesn't necessarily indicate a bad game, but it is definitely a bad review score to get.

Uhm, actually bobobologna, 6.5 is "Fair" according to Gamespot. 7 is "Good." I'd love to hear you explain how a game jumps from "Good" to "Pretty Bad" within 1/2 of a point, but you can't.

According to Gamepots scale:

6- Fair

5- Mediocre

4- Poor

3- Bad

Wow... look at "Bad" all the way down there near the 3.

 

Pwn'd...

 

You don't seriously think that they stay true to that scale, do you?

For example, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor got a 3.5. The blurb says that it's slightly less painful than getting your brain removed through your nose. Yet, it's not bad, just between bad and poor according to your blind observance of what they dictate their scale means?

EDIT:  I guess I should add Pwn'd...



chasmatic12 on 03 September 2008
LOL MATURE said:
chasmatic12 said:
bob
bobobologna said:
chasmatic12 said:
pbroy said:
It's a joke guys. I guess my efforts to humor the PS3 crowd backfired on me. But thanks, I've never been called a PS3 fanboy before. n_n

 

My apologies, then.

Edit: To the guy above me. 6.5 isn't 'that bad.' It's mediocre.

 


Um, actually 6.5 using most reviewers scales (including Gamespot) is pretty bad.  It doesn't necessarily indicate a bad game, but it is definitely a bad review score to get.

Uhm, actually bobobologna, 6.5 is "Fair" according to Gamespot. 7 is "Good." I'd love to hear you explain how a game jumps from "Good" to "Pretty Bad" within 1/2  of a point, but you can't.

According to Gamepots scale:

6- Fair

5- Mediocre

4- Poor

3- Bad

Wow... look at "Bad" all the way down there near the 3.

 

Pwn'd...

 

 Damage control alert damage control alert

 

Sorry... I got carried away, but It's still not damage control. I agree, the game is a disappointment. It was supposed to be great, but it's completely average (according to this review). I'm just trying to point out that this review is not saying that this game is bad. That is all.



LOL MATURE on 03 September 2008
bobobologna said:
chasmatic12 said:
bob
bobobologna said:
chasmatic12 said:
pbroy said:
It's a joke guys. I guess my efforts to humor the PS3 crowd backfired on me. But thanks, I've never been called a PS3 fanboy before. n_n

 

My apologies, then.

Edit: To the guy above me. 6.5 isn't 'that bad.' It's mediocre.

 


Um, actually 6.5 using most reviewers scales (including Gamespot) is pretty bad. It doesn't necessarily indicate a bad game, but it is definitely a bad review score to get.

Uhm, actually bobobologna, 6.5 is "Fair" according to Gamespot. 7 is "Good." I'd love to hear you explain how a game jumps from "Good" to "Pretty Bad" within 1/2 of a point, but you can't.

According to Gamepots scale:

6- Fair

5- Mediocre

4- Poor

3- Bad

Wow... look at "Bad" all the way down there near the 3.

 

Pwn'd...

 

You don't seriously think that they stay true to that scale, do you?

For example, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor got a 3.5. The blurb says that it's slightly less painful than getting your brain removed through your nose. Yet, it's not bad, just between bad and poor according to your blind observance of what they dictate their scale means?

EDIT:  I guess I should add Pwn'd...

 

 I guess that makes Haze and Lair decent games then...



chasmatic12 on 03 September 2008
bobobologna said:
chasmatic12 said:
bob
bobobologna said:
chasmatic12 said:
pbroy said:
It's a joke guys. I guess my efforts to humor the PS3 crowd backfired on me. But thanks, I've never been called a PS3 fanboy before. n_n

 

My apologies, then.

Edit: To the guy above me. 6.5 isn't 'that bad.' It's mediocre.

 


Um, actually 6.5 using most reviewers scales (including Gamespot) is pretty bad. It doesn't necessarily indicate a bad game, but it is definitely a bad review score to get.

Uhm, actually bobobologna, 6.5 is "Fair" according to Gamespot. 7 is "Good." I'd love to hear you explain how a game jumps from "Good" to "Pretty Bad" within 1/2 of a point, but you can't.

According to Gamepots scale:

6- Fair

5- Mediocre

4- Poor

3- Bad

Wow... look at "Bad" all the way down there near the 3.

 

Pwn'd...

 

You don't seriously think that they stay true to that scale, do you?

For example, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor got a 3.5. The blurb says that it's slightly less painful than getting your brain removed through your nose. Yet, it's not bad, just between bad and poor according to your blind observance of what they dictate their scale means?

EDIT:  I guess I should add Pwn'd...

You shouldn't.

I observed pretty well the first time. It's bad. The score says so. 

http://www.gamespot.com/ds/action/themummytombofthedragonemperor/index.html?tag=result;title;1

And I do think they use the scale as a guide. Would they give it a number of 6.5 when their final remark ("Bad") is three points away? No. They mean "Fair." The game is OK.