I Have No Problem With the Xbox and Xbox 360, the Xbox One is Kind of a Joke Though

For year 2008 era,

Viva Piñata: Trouble in Paradise has 82 MC and 8.5/10 GS.

Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts has 79 MC and 8.5/10 GS.

--------

For Killer Instinct

Killer Instinct Season 3 has 6 million unique players in March 2016.

@ronvalencia: KI is doing quite good.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/141459437?t=44m11s

Sketchy: Uncertain or unreliable, imperfect, rough. Sketchy track record. I think it's you who doesn't know basic english.

You can only make yourself good to a degree by working hard. Talent you're born with. Even a talented unskilled person can have great ideas with poor execution, and people will get what they're trying to do and realise it just needed someone skilled to produce. RARE are people who are just very skilled, work hard. Talent... Not so much. Companies like Sony handpick talent or they hire people with promise and yeah, they give them some time, but they don't get 14 years and project after project like RARE gets. Even Kinect was still an opportunity to show some creativity.

The 'new RARE' has been with MS since 2003, the 'old RARE' were the people who left at that point when they were still with Nintendo. How much of a chance do they get with a big budget? I didn't say they shouldn't make what they want, I said they shouldn't be given the big budget anymore. Nothing backwards about that. Turn 10, $50m, $100m, have it, they're damn good, I'd get a good return on my investment. RARE, they may make a good game at best, it may sell okay, my not break even.

RARE could be given a small Indie budget. If they can do that, then later on I'd let them have a big budget if they proved themselves. If you're talented, you should be able to make great games whatever. If there was any talent there and they didn't like what they were doing, they would have left, they wouldn't have stayed when MS made them do Kinect stuff if it was like you said, if they didn't want to do it. When you have some thing to put on the table, you have options. Usually when a developer is made to do stuff they don't want people start to leave and form other companies or whatever.

Now: "The discussion had nothing to with excitement over what RARE was doing." Then: "Considering how well sea of thieves is coming along" , "As far as I'm concerned Sea of Thieves looks like its going to be the better game". That led to exactly where we are. You believe in RARE, I don't.

You're making excuses for RARE with Kinect, look at what Lionhaed Studios was experimenting with, for example Milo and Kate. Maybe it didn't come to be, but it shows talent and creativity. And that was with the first basic Kinect, RARE had Kinect 2 which was capable of so much more. It doesn't even have to be a released game, just signs of creativity and talent.

There were also fantastic uses of Kinect. Nike+ Training and Dance Central were fantastic examples of great use of Kinect. As I said, Kinect 2 could have enhanced games, but MS dumped it.

You can make excuses for RARE until you're blue in the face. But right now, they're just an average developer who has had far too long. If I was me, I would have disbanded RARE and looked at having new studios work on RAREs ips. They've easily been MSs most useless first party studio. Either that of had them do Indie/XBLA games. Or left them to do platform games and had other work with their ips, like 343 doing a Perfect Dark game.

You mentioned two 'good' games from a long time ago and a current NON RARE game.

Killer Instinct is now a MS Studios game.

You mentioned a single year 2008 game with lower MC score while omitted their second year 2008 game with higher MC score.

Year 2015 Rare Replay includes Viva Piñata (Year 2006 version) re-release for XBO. Viva Piñata has 84 MC score.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_developed_by_Rare

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-11-microsoft-explains-killer-instinct-reboots-free-to-download-pay-for-more-characters-business-model

Rare involved. Ken Lobb "intimately involved".

Builds are sent to Rare periodically, and the UK developer offers its feedback. "At Rare there are not many people who worked on the original game who are there any more," Rettig explained, "but there are some people who worked on it. We send builds to them. We get their feedback, and we factor that in to how we approach the game."

However, Ken Lobb, the veteran Microsoft games executive who worked on the original game as well as Rare classic GoldenEye 007, is "intimately involved".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_Instinct_(2013_video_game)

Killer Instinct is a fighting video game, the third in the Killer Instinct series, developed by Double Helix Games, Iron Galaxy Studios, Rare and Microsoft Studios under supervision of Ken Lobb

Developer(s)	Double Helix Games[a][1][2] Iron Galaxy Studios[b][3] Rare[4] Microsoft Studios[5][6]

In July 2010, Lobb said Rare wants to make Killer Instinct 3.^[34] Rare studio manager Mark Betteridge said that Rare would like to bring Killer Instinct to the Xbox Live Arcade.^[35] In an August 2012 interview, Rare veteran Donnchadh Murphy said, "We all wanted to make KI3.

Both Sea of Thieves and Killer Instinct are published by Microsoft Studio.

Microsoft Studio can cancel game development if the game development milestones and quality benchmarks are not meet.

Sea of Thieves cross between Monkey Islands and World of Ships with strong focus on cooperative gameplay mechanics.

Counting re-releases?

Counting feedback as development? RAREs getting credit for 'help' at most.

Sea of Thieves is a game directly BY RARE for MS Studios, there's a difference.

Mangy this bad boy has the filthy MS/Xbox anti-fans in full meltdown freak-out mode...

Great stuff !!! :P

None of that is sketchy though, they were pretty reliable at delivering good games. Also the definition you gave is wrong. It's not about being uncertain specifically, its about having incomplete information. Or being dishonest due ot mis information.

sketch·yˈskeCHē/adjective

1.not thorough or detailed."the information they had was sketchy"

synonyms:

incomplete, patchy, fragmentary, cursory, perfunctory, scanty, vague, imprecise, imperfect; More

2.NORTH AMERICANinformaldishonest or disreputable."once the story does come out, the fact that you tried to hide it will seem sketchy"

You can only make yourself good to a degree by working hard. Talent you're born with. Even a talented unskilled person can have great ideas with poor execution, and people will get what they're trying to do and realise it just needed someone skilled to produce. RARE are people who are just very skilled, work hard. Talent... Not so much. Companies like Sony handpick talent or they hire people with promise and yeah, they give them some time, but they don't get 14 years and project after project like RARE gets. Even Kinect was still an opportunity to show some creativity.

Thats rubbish. Consistency is what brings greatness. If sony had given up on team ico after shadow of the colossus and ico were basically critical successes but by your measure commercial flops... then we wouldn't have the last guardian. Also in order for team ico to succeed sony basically had to give them unlimited resources and help finishing the game. Rare has been consistent in quality after the nintendo era. They weren't bad by any stretch of the imagination.

Kinect was a failure, and industry wide failure and as far as software goes it was a failure. Stop using it to attack a developers creativiety since any reasonable persona will be able to see its far more likely a design of the kinect that lead to EVERYONE failing at it. Again this is a clear sign that the design wasn't accomadating.

The 'new RARE' has been with MS since 2003, the 'old RARE' were the people who left at that point when they were still with Nintendo. How much of a chance do they get with a big budget? I didn't say they shouldn't make what they want, I said they shouldn't be given the big budget anymore. Nothing backwards about that. Turn 10, $50m, $100m, have it, they're damn good, I'd get a good return on my investment. RARE, they may make a good game at best, it may sell okay, my not break even.

Ok shouldn't be given a big budget has nothing to do with being allowed to create the game they. So why are you arguing it?

RARE could be given a small Indie budget. If they can do that, then later on I'd let them have a big budget if they proved themselves. If you're talented, you should be able to make great games whatever. If there was any talent there and they didn't like what they were doing, they would have left, they wouldn't have stayed when MS made them do Kinect stuff if it was like you said, if they didn't want to do it. When you have some thing to put on the table, you have options. Usually when a developer is made to do stuff they don't want people start to leave and form other companies or whatever.

That's not how first party developers work. M$ has to pay them any way. If you look at the game they are making its actually not that 'big' apart from world size. They are actually following what a lot of indie developers are doing making a MP only game.

Now: "The discussion had nothing to with excitement over what RARE was doing." Then: "Considering how well sea of thieves is coming along" , "As far as I'm concerned Sea of Thieves looks like its going to be the better game". That led to exactly where we are. You believe in RARE, I don't.

That was pointing out how wrong you were when you said rare was rubbish. Again you started attacking rare when I said its good they aren't forced to make kinect games. Sea of Thieves is just an example of that freedom.

ME:

Ballmer running the show and Spencer has dramatically improved on the xbox one, pulled rare out of the kinect hell hole, attempting to unify with PC to some extent. Play anywhere is brilliant when we live in an age where many people may have more than one dedicated machine... and steam link is rubbish...

YOU:

Spencer I suppose has done the best with what he's got after they ejected practically all their first party developers. And wasn't in a 'kinect hell hole', they were relegated to it because it's all they're good for. Rare is just a name, like 95% of the talent is gone.

YOUR the one that tried to bring rare's value into the conversation. Again you missed the point of it being a good thing they were more free to make what they want. Any potential they had is lost on kinect. When you failed at attacking the quality of their games you moved to sales... because they have been consistent at making 'great' 80ish games.

You're making excuses for RARE with Kinect, look at what Lionhaed Studios was experimenting with, for example Milo and Kate. Maybe it didn't come to be, but it shows talent and creativity. And that was with the first basic Kinect, RARE had Kinect 2 which was capable of so much more. It doesn't even have to be a released game, just signs of creativity and talent.

And how did that pan out for them? Oh right it never materialized and they made fable on rails.

There were also fantastic uses of Kinect. Nike+ Training and Dance Central were fantastic examples of great use of Kinect. As I said, Kinect 2 could have enhanced games, but MS dumped it.

Neither of which were compelling or complex experiences like mario galaxy. Again look at ALL of the games made for kinect. Your were either standing being instructed to do something, or faced with something you could interact with. Take a look at half of the kinect 2 games... are just dance.

You can make excuses for RARE until you're blue in the face. But right now, they're just an average developer who has had far too long. If I was me, I would have disbanded RARE and looked at having new studios work on RAREs ips. They've easily been MSs most useless first party studio. Either that of had them do Indie/XBLA games. Or left them to do platform games and had other work with their ips, like 343 doing a Perfect Dark game.

I'm not making excuses. You are. My argument has always been it's good that rare isn't making kinect games any more. Your trying to attack rare in every way possible, sales, critics, lack of creativity with kinect, to try to down play this.

3. informal uncertain or unreliable

Don't be a dick, you know EXACTLY what I mean, this isn't formal.

'Consistency brings out greatness', GTFO. Consistency brings nothing of the sort. What you don't think shit developers don't work hard? Talent can not be made out of nothing. We wouldn't have thoughsands of shit developers with tens of toughsands of shit games if that was the case.

You're annoying, you split the points you want for you and condense all mine into one leaving out the context of each individual sentence. It's a tiresome tactic of yours.

RARE is a shit, talentless developer and MS should just shut them down to be honest at this point.

And as far as unreliable goes your actually wrong about rare's track record. Since the n64 era they have been slightly less critically received...

And no I didn't know what you meant because sketchy generally means dishonest, or lack of information, you know the first definitions. And when they are reliably producing quality games nothing is "unreliable" about it.

'Consistency brings out greatness', GTFO. Consistency brings nothing of the sort. What you don't think shit developers don't work hard? Talent can not be made out of nothing. We wouldn't have thoughsands of shit developers with tens of toughsands of shit games if that was the case.

Some people are failures, but RARE is not one of them. They have consistently made quality and inventive games. Sea of Thieves isn't deviating from that so your attacks against rare or based on fanboy delusions.

Like I said, you can dislike the types of games they make, but that doesn't mean quality isn't there...

You're annoying, you split the points you want for you and condense all mine into one leaving out the context of each individual sentence. It's a tiresome tactic of yours.

The context of an individual sentence happens to part of a whole, thats the point of context is that 1 statement doesn't stand on its own when your making MANY statements against the value of rare. Otherwise there would only be a sentance with a point. I'm addressing your argument that rare is of no value which was specifically posed against my argument that M$ did a good thing by letting them off their leash.

RARE is a shit, talentless developer and MS should just shut them down to be honest at this point.

Yup, double down on the fanboy.

The Xbox One is better than the Xbox 1 in everyway, they message was better, the games partnerships were not a disaster rate of 70:1 like the original Xbox, they had the features ready out the gate without waiting, they had better contracts for the chips in the actual machine.

The original Xbox (Xbox 1) was a diaster from every angle with a few ok and eh sega games that somehow made people believe it had decent japanese supportwhen technically the Xbox One has had more japanese support. The only thing that the Xbox 1 got over the Xbox One uis japanese exclusives that all flopped worse than Screamride by sometimes 2x.

You omitted their second year 2008 game with higher MC score.

Feedback is important within the development cycle which helps with the quality of work done by the outsource team.

So? Feedback doesn't give you development credit.

"Slightly less critically received" Elaborate.

In the context of the sentence it's clear. Why would I use sketchy to say they have a dishonest record? Why would I say 'dishonest record'? I would have straight said they have done some dishonest things or something to that effect and been more specific about it. 'A sketchy record' should have been fairly clear to anyone.

Since 2003, 14 years, elaborate on "They have consistently made quality and inventive games.". Most of their games were hitting around a 90 on Metacritic before Mickeys Speedway. And we know that considering the way reviewers abuse the scoring scale except for a few of them, that 80 is good and less is above average.

Going with the Xbox period:

Grabbed by the Ghoulies: Metacritic 66/100

Not counting Conker Live and Reloaded, because that is just a graphical remake of an earlier game.

I will credit them with Kameo, Viva and Banjo. Banjo the last one was in 2010. That was in the first seven years. So what I originally said was that was a long time ago, I'll wait for the game to come out. You are the one who took that as a negative.

You're going to have to explain what I'm a fanboy of. Because it just sounds like a cop out way to end a sentence.

That's not how context works. You don't pick and choose how to use it. When an entity is made up of many parts and sometimes the individual parts are addressed with a point, the point then doesn't automatically get joined around, until it's concluded to be part of a larger point by the person making it. I shouldn't have to digress far off the subject to have contexts be respected.

I mentioned Mario Galaxy for the innovation and creativeness, but just as a starting example of what Nintendo were able to do with the Wiimote, they made many interesting Wii games. I mentioned Milo and Kate for the interesting research developments in creativeness and ai, despite it never being released or turning into an end product. The point here was that a good developer can do amazing things and be creative with what they have. RARE haven't shown that ability. Even if it was just experimental ideas. You discarded my point and took the cheap way of saying it never came out and they made an on rails shooter. But that's moot since I was never talking about any end products with my point.

I mentioned Nike+ and Dance Central as good examples of where it really worked in practice, when you belittled it to hand waving to empower your point. It's the sort of cheap thing we did just to wind up the Nintendo fanboys with the Wii. You somehow likened it to Mario Galaxy, which wasn't my point, but I was respecting your earlier points and trying follow them with my own examples as well.

I mentioned Nevermind as an example of how the technology could be used with games to enhance them with Kinect 2.0 and an example of just how advanced it was past motion, being able to do a job a heart pulse tracker was needed for. You basically again discarded my point, mentioned how the game wasn't coming out on the Xbox One for what ever reason. You then continued to throw the individual points I was making out, and blurred the contexts together to make your point. That's not a good way to do it and not a good way to argue.

My original argument wasn't that RARE had no value, it was that they have to prove themselves and I don't trust them until that happens or anyone else that hasn't kept up anything resembling a consistent record for a long time. That's not fanboy, I give respect to people who deliver. You can make out that 'you just think they should make what they want', but you have shown blind faith in them. I have never in my gaming life listened to previews. A lot of the time they are unrepresentative of the final product. That's partly where I'm coming from.

Until they prove themselves, I have a low point of view for them. The rest of what I said about disbanding them or moving their ips around is because I think 14 years of showing not very much and not even displaying creativeness even with failed projects on Kinect 1 or 2.0, leads me to consider them a financial burden.

You think I'm a fanboy because I want to wait until a developer delivers and I think you're a fanboy for your blind faith. The fact you are taking it personal with this defensiveness is proof like this is specifically about RARE. Believe it or not, I have the same standards for any developer which is what I was trying to say when I mentioned 343, Turn 10, Black Tusk etc. But you again used the cheap tactic of dismissing it because you didn't think it had anything to do with the argument, because you keep pulling it back and forth and moving the goal posts on what we're talking about at any given time, and I let you because I've mostly been just responding to your points rather than being forceful in the argument, in the hopes this asshole argument will end. I had a reason for saying everything, I will tell you when I digress, by saying "I digress".

The problem is, you think you're really good at arguing with this, but you keep it narrow, dismiss, control the direction of the arguments and merge points and contexts. That's partly what I mean when i say you lack clarity. Arguments start one way and they expand, many different points and issues come up that need to be dealt with individually and respected. Being dismissive, belittling and throwing away contexts isn't winning.

Once the Scorpio comes out with 4K 60FPS gaming the PS4 Pro will become a joke with its fake upscale 4K and 30FPS

So you mean the vast majority of their library has been well received except for one of their first games on xbox... and they have a inconsistent record? Sketchy means unreliable in terms of information. If you just wanted to call them unreliable... call them unreliable.

Again what reality do you live in where 1 game of many good ones means they are unreliable. It just means they had an outlier statistically. The reason I attack you for being a fanboy is your attempting to use poor logic to push your agenda of rare is a trash company... Its all to refute that it was a positive that they were released from kinect.

Wait for what to come out? Again this has nothing to do with their focus on kinect being released. And trying to say you didn't say anything negative... wtf how stupid do you think people are. Explicitly dismissing the company's value because of talent that left is saying something negative.

That's not how context works. You don't pick and choose how to use it. When an entity is made up of many parts and sometimes the individual parts are addressed with a point, the point then doesn't automatically get joined around, until it's concluded to be part of a larger point by the person making it. I shouldn't have to digress far off the subject to have contexts be respected.

Aslo addressing points your making explicitly makes it easier to converse. Saying they have an unreliable on its own is completely addressable without the rest of your 'context'. The larger point your making is Rare isn't that good. Your arguments aren't that interrelated... critical reception, sales, kinect, you don't like their games. These can all be deconstructed on their own. Its not my fault your points to hold up to a shred of scrutiny.

Like the point your making in the above quote has nothing to do with the rest of your argument so it can be pulled out and addressed separately.

I mentioned Mario Galaxy for the innovation and creativeness, but just as a starting example of what Nintendo were able to do with the Wiimote, they made many interesting Wii games. I mentioned Milo and Kate for the interesting research developments in creativeness and ai, despite it never being released or turning into an end product. The point here was that a good developer can do amazing things and be creative with what they have. RARE haven't shown that ability. Even if it was just experimental ideas. You discarded my point and took the cheap way of saying it never came out and they made an on rails shooter. But that's moot since I was never talking about any end products with my point.

I mentioned Nike+ and Dance Central as good examples of where it really worked in practice, when you belittled it to hand waving to empower your point. It's the sort of cheap thing we did just to wind up the Nintendo fanboys with the Wii. You somehow likened it to Mario Galaxy, which wasn't my point, but I was respecting your earlier points and trying follow them with my own examples as well.

I mentioned Nevermind as an example of how the technology could be used with games to enhance them with Kinect 2.0 and an example of just how advanced it was past motion, being able to do a job a heart pulse tracker was needed for. You basically again discarded my point, mentioned how the game wasn't coming out on the Xbox One for what ever reason. You then continued to throw the individual points I was making out, and blurred the contexts together to make your point. That's not a good way to do it and not a good way to argue.

Galaxy is a poor comparison. Again the wii had MUCH more respectable software, showing that the wiimote was a much more reasonable design for gaming. It actually had a LOT of games that worked with it.

Nevermind was IMPOSSIBLE on xbox because of the way M$ implemented Kinect 2.0. The developers themselves mentioned they were not able to reproduce what a M$ engineer did on a blog because of 'reasons' they weren't allowed to disclose.

Nike+ and Dance Central were good examples of games and considering they were the best kinect had to offer showed off the limitations of how kinect 2.0 was implemented on xbox. Again it was instructing users to do things in their living room. The other examples being something like kinectamils where you interactive with something on the TV. There were no truly innovative or complex games that were on the kinect.

Trying to blame again an industry wide issue on rare is again a fanboy argument. Rare was not at fault for how M$ implemented the kinect and pushed it as a motion detection device for interaction with media. Your ignoring that M$ had a flawed approach to kinect and it only really shined on PC. Again this is fanboy logic by ignoring the wider landscape in the comparison with mario galaxy and kinects holistic failure and trying to pin the blaim on a single developer.

My original argument wasn't that RARE had no value, it was that they have to prove themselves and I don't trust them until that happens or anyone else that hasn't kept up anything resembling a consistent record for a long time. That's not fanboy, I give respect to people who deliver. You can make out that 'you just think they should make what they want', but you have shown blind faith in them. I have never in my gaming life listened to previews. A lot of the time they are unrepresentative of the final product. That's partly where I'm coming from.

Until they prove themselves, I have a low point of view for them. The rest of what I said about disbanding them or moving their ips around is because I think 14 years of showing not very much and not even displaying creativeness even with failed projects on Kinect 1 or 2.0, leads me to consider them a financial burden.

Actually they have delivered and were consistent. Again statistically your are incorrect. And out of the context of your argument against its a positive they aren't. They have proved themselves. 1 good game, and the rest mostly great on xbox + 360 prior to kinect. And kinect was a failure on many levels because that wasn't a reliable input. That's part of the reason developers didn't support it. Also it required a lot of space people didn't have.

Saying they weren't creative on kinect is ridiculous... again your ignoring everything. Just Dance and Nike+ are the types of games kinect was designed for...

You're going to have to explain what I'm a fanboy of. Because it just sounds like a cop out way to end a sentence.

I don't need to know what your a fanboy of to see the extent of the logic twisting your are doing to discredit a simple positive for M$, and that's its good that they let Rare be more creatively free. And any one with a shred of intelligence should be able to acknowledge the quality in rare's craft, every game they released prior to kinect on 360 was a critical success and show cased a well made product, not game of the year material but definitely not trash games that make them 'unreliable' in any way shape or form. Your arguments are just stupid and try to isolate rare with kinect's failures even though kinect failed entirely. Your using fanboy logic to try to discredit a great developer, not a top tier developer or AAA, but one that has a solid track record with M$ apart from sales. And any one with a shred of intelligence can see that Sea of Thieves has a lot of love from the developers, its a well made game. Whether or not it's fun for you has nothing to do with the overall positive for its existence.

You'd either have to be stupid or a blatant fanboy to try to push this hard against rare / Sea of thieves.

I SWEAR, YOU are either retarded or you're trolling me at this point.

You have failed to demonstrate their consistency, and you don't get to plant the goal posts anymore. 5 bad games out of 9 over a 14 year period with Xbox. Not counting re-releases, remakes, and the unending shit handheld ports or indeed handheld developed games.

Bad: Grabbed By the Ghoulies, Perfect Dark Zero, Kinect Sports, Kinect Sports Two and Kinect Sports Rivals

Good: Kameo, Viva, Viva Trouble in Paradise and Banjo

STILL going round in circles. Apart from saying my arguments are bad you have FAILED to present ANY reasonable solid arguments of your own, you just keep repeating your points, which you don't need to do, I got them the first time. AND you're still mixing points and contexts.

You call me the fanboy when ALL I said was that I'd rather wait for their fucking pirates game to be released before I praised them, and I'm the one that's pushing? Are you fucking serious? Considering how hard you feel the need to defend them against someone's opinion, you vindicate them and shield both MS or RARE from ANY criticism or responsibility, and you can't see that you are the fanboy.

I mean, this is all opinion, why does it bother you what I think? Do you have a shrine to MS and RARE or something? We've both said everything we need to, are we done yet?

actually Nothing of theirs was rated "bad". Your argument falls over as soon as you anything above average as bad. 50+.

good kinect: Kinect Sports, Kinect Sports Two and Kinect Sports Rivals <- again there are flaws with kinect I think supersede rare's issues.

good: Grabbed by the Ghoulies.

Great: Kameo, Viva, Viva Trouble in Paradise and Banjo, Rare replay, Conker Live and reloaded, Perfect Dark Zero, Rare Replay, all were all generally well recieved and about 80 avg on metacritc, either just shy of or just above.

STILL going round in circles. Apart from saying my arguments are bad you have FAILED to present ANY reasonable solid arguments of your own, you just keep repeating your points, which you don't need to do, I got them the first time. AND you're still mixing points and contexts.

Your arguments are wrong.

Kinect was M$'s failure,

Your wrong about what was possible on xbox, Nevermind a game YOU brought failed to deliver because of M$'s push for motion detection for kinect. Kinect had serious limitations you continue to ignore.

Your wrong about Rare's track record.

Your opinion on M$'s letting rare out of the kinect prison is based on wrong assumptions and trying to refute this as an overall good thing again is coming from a place of fanboyism. The logic your applying is just dumb.

You call me the fanboy when ALL I said was that I'd rather wait for their fucking pirates game to be released before I praised them, and I'm the one that's pushing? Are you fucking serious? Considering how hard you feel the need to defend them against someone's opinion, you vindicate them and shield both MS or RARE from ANY criticism or responsibility, and you can't see that you are the fanboy.

I mean, this is all opinion, why does it bother you what I think? Do you have a shrine to MS and RARE or something? We've both said everything we need to, are we done yet?

I didn't praise RARE originally, I praised Microsoft for letting them be creatively free. And your trying to refute that with Rare's quality with a bat shit crazy measuring stick. Somehow a pile of good to great games are a terrible track record? A game that people are already able to play and is being well received from critics and players alike is somehow so 'unreliable' that you can't agree it was an overall positive for microsoft?

I'm also CRITICIZING M$'s implementation of kinect to defend rare about your stupid accusations they were not being creative enough with kinect when it was an industy wide issue and how M$ pushed kinect. How exactly am I shielding M$ from any responsibility? Again the reasoning here is astoundingly stupid and utter nonsense. I'm defending them against a clearly biased, stupid, and uneducated opinion... opinions aren't protected against critique you know. You can have a stupid a opinion which you do.

You are a retard if you think 50%+ is good, that is how it is supposed to work, that is not how it works. Ask ANYONE. Lets take GameSpot and pretty much ANY other reviewer out there. 6 out of 10 bad, 7 out of 10 okay, 8 out of 10 good. When you have 40 reviews like that it adds up to the MC score. Are you new to gaming? Did you just start?

First learn what Kinect 2.0 can do, then name the limitations of Kinect 2.0. Also the true limitations are unknown since it didn't get maturity time. The Xbox One was VERY limited in its first year too, it got maturity time, drivers, software, games, UI, everything improved with time.

"Your wrong about Rare's track record." most convincing argument you've got I'm sure.

Logic simple, you, crazy. Logic RARE have released games ranging from bad to good, equals, I don't trust their product until they're done. That's how normal people work.

"Bat shit crazy measuring stick" it's called reality to everyone else.

"A game that people are already able to play and is being well received from critics and players alike is somehow so 'unreliable' that you can't agree it was an overall positive for microsoft?" Such a fanboy. That means the whole game will be decent? Have they played the whole game?

"I'm defending them against a clearly biased, stupid, and uneducated opinion" I've presented an opinion based on experience with the way the video games industry has worked for decades, you... Probably since yesterday.

-

I'll explain it one more time, read it to yourself slowly. I'll break it up:

A developer, has inconsistent record. Okay, ups and downs. Goods and bads... You got that part?

I wait. See what I do, is reserve judgement. I give them the time they need.... TIME, I give. Keeping up?... time, theirs...okay

I then see how the final product turns out. I judge it when it's finished. No no, that's not simple enough. I check it out when it's done. No, okay... Game done, I pay attention... Okay I got it. Imagine it's like food in a microwave... I wait for the beep.

I just don't know how to simplify this for you

A fairly simple and benign opinion to anyone else. To you: "HOW DARE YOU SAY ANYTHING BAD ABOUT RARE, BLAH BLAH BLAH, I LOVE YOU RARE".

-

And you're only criticising Kinect to fit your narrow goal posts and to reinforce your narrative in PROTECTION of RARE and in defence of MS blaming the product more so than how MS handled it. Your opinion on Kinect is based on cherry picked information to fit your argument, similar tactic you use in general.

0-10 is uniform scale. Everywhere. Your are wrong.

3/10 is bad for gamespot.

5 mediocre (not bad, but not good)

6 - fair.

7 - good

8 - great

From large media outlits to small ones... you are incorrect. 7 is good. 6 is ok. Having 1 outlier on xbox and most being just shy of great you completely wrong about your idea of how reviews work.

http://www.ign.com/wikis/ign/Game_Reviews

https://www.polygon.com/pages/about-reviews

http://www.thejimquisition.com/review-score-guide/

Logic simple, you, crazy. Logic RARE have released games ranging from bad to good, equals, I don't trust their product until they're done. That's how normal people work.

Just look up the gamespot scaling system. You are wrong about their games being bad to good. Its actually good to great. They have a reliable track record of mostly good to great games.

First learn what Kinect 2.0 can do, then name the limitations of Kinect 2.0. Also the true limitations are unknown since it didn't get maturity time. The Xbox One was VERY limited in its first year too, it got maturity time, drivers, software, games, UI, everything improved with time.

Your missing my argument entirely. I'm not talking about the limitations of the technology itself. I'm talking about the limitations imposed by Xbox. Again what was available to devs was not what was avaialble to PC developers... Kinect was a failure because nobody could utitlize it's potential on xbox.

There were inherent limitations because xbox required to utilize the feed for the OS so it created a hard requirement for how it functioned on the xbox. Better drivers would not allow for the heart rate monitor to work because thats not what it was designed to do on the xbox at a software level.

I'll explain it one more time, read it to yourself slowly. I'll break it up:

A developer, has inconsistent record. Okay, ups and downs. Goods and bads... You got that part?

Your explanation is wrong, so your conclusion/opinion is nonsense.

I wait. See what I do, is reserve judgement. I give them the time they need.... TIME, I give. Keeping up?... time, theirs...okay

I then see how the final product turns out. I judge it when it's finished. No no, that's not simple enough. I check it out when it's done. No, okay... Game done, I pay attention... Okay I got it. Imagine it's like food in a microwave... I wait for the beep.

Your directing the conversation away from M$ to diminish M$'s choices based on rare's quality.

Since you were wrong about rare's quality, taking a wait and see approach is backing out of your own argument.

And the fact is there are plenty more resources compared to normal game development that would suggest we can have more confidence in rare's next title.

So why is it so difficult for you to give M$ credit for making a positive choice that has a high probability of getting a high quality game on the market they will likely be in the good to great range, and we already know enough that it has a fanbase base already through the insiders program? Its all around good for M$, and good for any one that enjoy's rare's games.

And you're only criticising Kinect to fit your narrow goal posts and to reinforce your narrative in PROTECTION of RARE and in defence of MS blaming the product more so than how MS handled it. Your opinion on Kinect is based on cherry picked information to fit your argument, similar tactic you use in general.

Kinect wasn't a failure on every market space, Just xbox because of M$'s handling of it pushing it to be a motion controller on xbox and limiting it to mostly that so dev's were crippled with it. Again your argument is stupid that rare failed at making kinect games on xbox and disregards EVERYONE was crippled because of M$'s stupidity.

Again your claim that I'm reinforcing a narrative is astoundangly stupid when your the one trying to push some narrative that it must be rare's creativevty limiting them with kinect and not a gimped bit of technology on Xbox that practically everyone failed at, where the majority of games are dance/exercise titles. Your actually ignoring the reality of kinect. Your confusing the potential of kinect 2.0 standalone with kinect 2.0 software layer on xbox and M$'s agenda to push it as a motion controller. None of my information was cherry picked. I think there were a total of 15 games for kinect on xbox one, all of which were motion based. The features of the TECH did not make it onto the xbox one directly. It went through MS's software layer which FORCED it to be a motion controller first. It failed hard at that as the games were limited to the space in your living room, constricted movement in the game world.

Again YOUR example of nevermind failed because of M$'s policies at the time. How you can argue rare's fault in lack of creativity with a crippled addon is beyond stupid.

So I'll agree M$ messed up with kinect and stopped bundling it on xbox and stopped focusing on it making it kind of a useless addon. But again my argument has always been that it was a good thing M$ stopped making people pay for it since it M$ dropped the ball with this bit of tech and any chance of it succeeding now relies on hobbiest to produce interesting software on PC. So its sort of a moot point on your end to try to prop up kinect as I always considered a failure because of M$.

You think I'm cherry picking when you try to stack Rare up against the most accomplished developer of all time basically? Nintendo outclasses almost all gaming developers and even they have their stinkers.

@waahahah said:

@HalcyonScarlet said:

You are a retard if you think 50%+ is good, that is how it is supposed to work, that is not how it works. Ask ANYONE. Lets take GameSpot and pretty much ANY other reviewer out there. 6 out of 10 bad, 7 out of 10 okay, 8 out of 10 good. When you have 40 reviews like that it adds up to the MC score. Are you new to gaming? Did you just start?

0-10 is uniform scale. Everywhere. Your are wrong.

3/10 is bad for gamespot.

5 mediocre (not bad, but not good)

6 - fair.

7 - good

8 - great

From large media outlits to small ones... you are incorrect. 7 is good. 6 is ok. Having 1 outlier on xbox and most being just shy of great you completely wrong about your idea of how reviews work.

Yeah i guess that is why lemmings here claimed Uncharted 1 wasn't any good,or that Resistance was trash,even that Resistance had 86 here and on meta to,oh i remember now why it was because last gen xbox 360 had many games with 90 score so anything under 90 was consider bad of simple meh,and i can quote some old poster about it if you like.

Lemming have a goal post movement this gen that is totally pathetic last gen games in the mid 80's were trash this gen games with 60 like Ryse are some how good and we most ignore the scores..

And while I agree, this is completely unrelated, wrong interpretation of reviews/quality is stupid at any level. Although I think ps3 actually had more AAA games and the sony fanboys tried to discredit games like the aforementioned rare titles...

I didn't read anything past the first post, as I don't care to, but I will go ahead here and agree with the original post, although it could have been made a lot shorter, more objective and to the point.

I had an XBONE for about a week before I sold it out of boredom. I wasn't limited on games either - I had shared a 200+ library with a friend - there was just nothing I wanted to play that I hadn't already beaten on PC or some other platform.

I still hold on to my original XBOX, however. It serves me well with hours of daily fun to this day. I wouldn't mind getting a 360 either, I just don't want to invest money in a system that is guaranteed to break randomly one day.

You can't move the goal posts with the scaling problem. I don't care if GameSpot calls a 6 out 10 'orgasm', it doesn't represent the reality.

Are you drunk? That wasn't my explanation. Now you don't even know what part of the argument we're at.

But I'm not wrong about RAREs quality. It's just you who have low standards. RAREs lack of talent has spoken for itself over the years.

He's saying this only because it fits his argument, otherwise he's lost. We all know the point of average isn't 5/10, it's 7/10. Could you imagine arguing that with a straight face. When a game gets 5/10 here, it's unfinished or partly broken.

Ah man, I never realised how much lemmings move the goal posts, this is the worst. @waahahah can we end this yet?

I didn't move the goal posts, there is no scaling problem as there is fairly universal rating system for games. The problem with the scaling is it doesn't match YOUR reaility. So again your reality is yours alone (fanboy).

Your explanation of ups and downs is a again being interpreted through your fanboy logic as being bad games. As far as rare's traditional games go they had one 'ok' game, and games lying on good/great thereafter. Your are objectively wrong.

And second going back to my original assertion, options are NEVER bad and microsoft made the right choice for dropping kinect, including windows in their platform and allowying rare some freedom to make what they want. You've tried and failed miserably to discredit rare and discredit options using incredibly twisted fanboy logic.

Or you know several reviewer outlets clearly defined 7/10 as good including GS, 5/10 being neutral or average in that sense, and your trying redefine it based on your own reality. There is no special interpretation there... they are clearly defined.

Here's an example of a 'broken' game by your standard thats not broken, or unfinished, and suffers greatly from poor execution on top of a intriguing premise.

On a proper scale, 5/10 is average.

But the game industry has always sucked at using the full scale and gamers are too stupid about anything having to do with number scores. Which is why the scale is so distorted and abused now.

I think this industry would be better off without number scores as they only serve two purposes now. Something for pubs to splash all over adverts and something for fanboys to bicker about.

I don't think they are abused that much, if we were truly getting mediocre 5/10 games all the time no one would want to play games. A lot of games are good thankfully and some are divisive when they cater to a particular taste. I do think critics are generally bad and we don't have enough diversity. And gamers don't seem to understand that critique is heavily opinionated. I kind of wish reviews were split into opinion scores and functionality scores. A game like skyrim can be a 9 in fun but sometimes a 6 in overall functionality. You know so you can have that disclaimer this game gonna be a lot fun but.. but painful fun. Like boxing but with know dopamine rush.

Man you're a delusional lem. We've had this problem since the 90s. EDGE is one of the few who actually use the whole scale.

I just posted a 5 and you can clearly see where GS and other places use the entire scale. They aren't shitting all over the game either. The facts are on my side and you call me delusional? It's fanboys that skew and misrepresent the scale. 360 vs ps3 the starting point of a good game changed regularly. And it was on sony fanboys that pushed it closer to 90 because 360 had far more games between 75-85 early in it's lifespan.

Just click on reviews and you can see a range of 4-9 recent reviews.. with most games being rated higher than mediocre.

Do you really think that good games should be rated bad because those ratings are less used. Again you'd be wrong to assume the outcome should be weighted in any particular value, or evenly represented.

No one is buying what you're selling.

I view Sea of Thieves like any other toon style graphics from Rare games. Kinect was a distraction.

You are wrong. Feedback is part of the creative process.

@kvallyNo argument just pointless rambles eh?:

That seems to be what we are getting from you, yes. I applaud you for your self criticism.

@kvallyYeah you can move along.

:

We'll follow you.

So?

It's important, but it's not 'development credit' important.

Just like if someone wrote song or made a film, should I get developmental credit for feedback? At most I'd expect a 'special thanks' or some sort of credit, not main credit.

Right reason and facts seem to be a high price to pay for fanboys.

@kvally Uh oh

Being a lem, you'd know.

Right, I'm a lem because I said a couple of good things about, defended rare from biased/uneducated opinion, and blamed M$ for kinect industry wide kinect abandonment.

While you think an average of 8 is a trash record and a developer shouldn't be trusted. That they should have been able to do something creative with a bit of tech that the majority of worthwhile software was exercise/dance programs... totaling 15 games for xbox one and considered an industry wide failure. Comparing kinect to an industry wide success and a devloper that has made some of the highest scoring games ever. That first party support from m$ is bad because you have a PC already and you don't like options. The stated definitions of all the reviews are bad and that we have a crisis where most of the range of numbers is superfluous and unused even though all the values are used on almost all websites. And that 8 should mean a bad game, but these definitions are clearly stated as 'great' almost unanimously by the majority of gaming websites.

If I'm a lem, your the grandmother supreme 6 headed 150 nippled cow of cows.

lol those alternative facts.

HAHAHAHA, A cow lol, only PS console I have is PS2, lemming.

You're not fooling anyone, come out of the closet and be free.

Interesting time we live in, actual facts are now alternative.

If you could show me where the other kinect 2.0 games went? Or where the definitions of all the rating systems mean something completely different? Or how you lost the option to play a game on an xbox one because of PC... Or how 8.0 average is considered trash.

At least a cow has a reason to be this dumb.

Films has credits for special thanks and consultants. The original creative designer for KI is still in MS.

86 MC and 82 MC are very similar scores.

Since Sea of Thieves is cross between World of WarShips with Monkey Islands theme, World of WarShips has 81 MC and The Secret of Monkey Island: Special Edition has 86 MC.

Kinect 2.0, still twisting what I said.

Ratings, proof? Apparently everyone knew about this but you. As if more than a handful of reviewers have ever bothered using the whole scale. I mean that was a low point for you, to save the argument that you apparently you can't let go, move the goal posts and make up some shit.

Multiplatform, still twisting what I said.

8.0, still twisting what I said.

Why waste time with someone who will continually twist what I say to fit their own arguments and throw out the context of everything I say and move the goal posts.

You don't even understand the basics of an argument. Both sides put their position forwards, and if they're still at an impasse they move on, but you keep banging on and on, repeating everything and continually twisting everything, like a child.

That's how you know you're a lem. Only a fanboy would keep on like this about this crap.

Games have credits too which I'm sure RARE shows up there. They just wont be with the development staff.

Why do you keep telling me about Sea of Thieves, what do you want me to say? I already said it was by RARE.

Leadership and feed back can guide the development's creative process.

The main point with out-sourcing is transferring the grunt work to the out-source team. The creative leadership team can focus on the product's quality and vision.

Sea of Thieves is just a toon World of Warships with Monkey Island/Pirates of the Caribbean themes and co-op focus gameplay. Sid Meier's Pirates has 88 MC.

The most disappointing console I've purchased but I feel bad saying it.

I wish I could love it more.

I think I would've been much better off keeping my PS3 than trading it towards an XB1 but IDK.

You said rare wasn't creative enough and I pointed out its an industry wide failure and M$ pushed it the wrong way. How is that an alternative fact? Unless we missed something like all of the games that came out proving me wrong. Your comparison to the wii failed to take into account both libraries of games where we can see the wiimote actually had real games developed for it. How can nintendo make mario galaxy? Better technology.

Ratings, proof? Apparently everyone knew about this but you. As if more than a handful of reviewers have ever bothered using the whole scale. I mean that was a low point for you, to save the argument that you apparently you can't let go, move the goal posts and make up some shit.

They have used the entire scale. This is the problem with your argument is that it is factually wrong. And the definitions are there. And the concept of having to use the entire scale for it to work is ridiculous. Like I mentioned, are you trying to force equal representation? Why are low numbers under represented? No on wants to play ACTUAL trash games.

Multiplatform, still twisting what I said.

You said it being on PC made xbox have LESS value. That's just not possible. It just means PC has more value and you have more options. Apparently you don't understand the implications of your own argument against choices here.

8.0, still twisting what I said.

You said their record was unreliable and they are a trash developer. That means 8.0 avg score with the only outlier Grabbed by the ghoulies was the first game they made under M$, is a trash and unreliable average. (hint: if they were really unreliable it would be lower or the majority of scores would have a larger range).

Why waste time with someone who will continually twist what I say to fit their own arguments and throw out the context of everything I say and move the goal posts.

You don't even understand the basics of an argument. Both sides put their position forwards, and if they're still at an impasse they move on, but you keep banging on and on, repeating everything and continually twisting everything, like a child.

That's how you know you're a lem. Only a fanboy would keep on like this about this crap.

What's the point of arguing if it 2 sides are just going to declare their version of reality. And by continuing it its on display, how you've been kicking and screaming against rare and M$ supporting multiple platforms as both bad things and using fanboy logic to try to twist M$'s positive choices as somehow bad.

Only a fanboy lives in a reality where Rare is a trash developer and would call someone a lem for not conforming to twisted review scores. Only a fanboy lives in a reality where M$ supporting both their platforms is somehow bad for giving you options where to buy software. Only a fanboy lives in a reality where being able to buy a game once and play and have the option of where to play the game on multiple devices is bad. Only a fanboy lives in a reality where having the option to not buy a useless bit of tech is a bad thing. The only way those things are actually bad is if you use fanboy logic which you have, repeatedly.