E3 2009

[Aboobie]

Originally Posted by Danny

Then again this has been the worst year I can remember for games so I'd take anything right now.

This year hasn't been great so far and looking at my recent history of playing cheap B/C rank games from last year backs this up. Saying this Resident Evil 5 was very good and there are some great releases imminent (Sacred 2, Star Ocean, Prototype, Red Faction). Infamous on the PS3 looks great too.

[Streeteh]

Originally Posted by Aboobie

Infamous on the PS3 looks great too.

Started playing it today, it really, really is.

[NokkonWud]

Originally Posted by Danny

Then again this has been the worst year I can remember for games so I'd take anything right now. Even looking through the upcoming titles for the year only a few are of real interest. Marvel Alliance, FN4, Call Of Juarez 2, Dirt 2. Just about all in the last quarter. I wish they would space titles out a bit better.

You said the same thing last year and that was ace .
You missed Splinter Cell Conviction, Call of Duty 4, Halo 3 ODST, Battlefield Bad Company 2, Dead Rising 2, Aliens vs Predator, Prototype and Batman Arkham Asylum and of course, many more.

We've already had UFC, Skate 2, Halo Wars, Resident Evil 5 and on PS3, Killzone 2 and InFAMOUS.

It's not been a bad year, nor will it be.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by NokkonWud

You said the same thing last year and that was ace .
You missed Splinter Cell Conviction, Call of Duty 4, Halo 3 ODST, Battlefield Bad Company 2, Dead Rising 2, Aliens vs Predator, Prototype and Batman Arkham Asylum and of course, many more.

We've already had UFC, Skate 2, Halo Wars, Resident Evil 5 and on PS3, Killzone 2 and InFAMOUS.

It's not been a bad year, nor will it be.

I didn't forget them it's just personally I'm not interested in buying them.

I didn't get on with the last splinter cell despite the game being fantastic I just couldn't work it all out like I usually can with those games. It was a long time ago but I gave up aftre the first couple of levels.

CODMW2 I won't bother with despite loving MW1 MP. I just don't have the stomach for yet another COD campaign, it's gotten dull for me and might pick it up when it's £20 for some MP or if it has a better zombie mode.

Dead Rising I didn't get on with the controls in the first at all and the save points got on my tits. It depends if those items are fixed.

Halo ODST, your still talking about halo, your still talking about Halo, you still talking about halo E3 demo looked dull and dated to me and the only reason it will sell is because it's halo.

I know everyone has titles they are waiting for but for me personally this has been a **** year, next to nothing so far. Halo wars I've played alot. It's not a great game at all, but I love RTS and it's the best one made for a console so far controls wise despite the balance having been done by 3 year old kids.

Can't comment on your PS3 games because I have never owned one. From a 360 point of view genuinely massive exclusives seem to have dried up.

They should have spent the money making games like bioshock 2 an exclusive. Hell no GRAW 3 til even march next year either. A 3 year wait between 2 and 3

You mentioned I said the same last year take a look at my profile and see the games I played in 08 or last played 08. My fav from that list are WaW SP, viking, too human, NBA homecourt, Brothers in arms and army of two. I don't feel like I missed too many big hitters? Gears 2 was or still is broken.

Mind you it doesn't matter too much music games have taken over my life anyway

[leowyatt]

Originally Posted by Danny

CODMW2 I won't bother with despite loving MW1 MP. I just don't have the stomach for yet another COD campaign, it's gotten dull for me and might pick it up when it's £20 for some MP or if it has a better zombie mode.

Now you see I couldn't give 2 hoots about a Zombie mode and personally think it would be a stupid thing to do for MW2. I thought the campaign of MW1 was a breath of fresh air compared to the previous titles. It's one of the reasons I never got COD5 because I didn't another WW2 shooter, yes that isn't technically correct but for me it was a step backwards, especially after the great romp that was COD4.

[Danny]

Yeah I understand what your saying but the game is essentially exactly the same regardless of new or old skin. Watching the E3 demo with the guy running around in the open taking out soldiers just looks crap to me after a few years playing games with a cover system or like graw where you use modern weapons in a slightly more realistic way.

WaW suceeded in making a better SP game in my opinoon because it didn't have the crap respawning til you get to a line. Thats not so noticable on anything but Vet granted, but it ruins the game. It only happens twice in WaW and thankfully they have adopted the Waw way for MW2. I thought MW1 was extremely flawed in that respect, call in a chopper and have them respawn inside a building you have just pounded before you can enter the trigger point in the doorway. But I've always thought if you play the game on Vet and Vet alone it ruins the game for you as the flow of the game is so broken. I appreciated the game flow a lot more after replaying on a lower level.

I liked zombie mode it just needed more player slots to make opening up and covering buildings more fun.

[Streeteh]

I have to pick up on your point about spending money to make bioshock 2 an exclusive i'm afraid danny. That viewpoint makes no sense to me, why spend money on making a title that is inevitably going to exist on keeping it exclusive? A game is great whether it is available on multiple platforms or not, to limit it to one platform does not improve the quality of the product. MS should be spending more money on developing first part games imo, there are literally none, they rely wholly on 3rd party developers as far as i know. This is where sony has the upper hand at the end of the day (even if they don't exploit it anywhere near as well as they should). They have made their exclusives by owning the majority of developers that produce them.

I'm sorry if i seem agressive, i just never 'get' the concept of using money to force a title to be exclusive, it's counter productive in my eyes. If you want something to be exclusive, make it yourself or give developers a reason (other than a cash incentive) to make it so.

[Aboobie]

Originally Posted by Streeteh

MS should be spending more money on developing first part games imo, there are literally none, they rely wholly on 3rd party developers as far as i know. This is where sony has the upper hand at the end of the day (even if they don't exploit it anywhere near as well as they should). They have made their exclusives by owning the majority of developers that produce them.

I'm sorry if i seem agressive, i just never 'get' the concept of using money to force a title to be exclusive, it's counter productive in my eyes. If you want something to be exclusive, make it yourself or give developers a reason (other than a cash incentive) to make it so.

Because Microsoft emply a different ethos to acquiring exclusives doesn't make it any less valid and the accusation that simply 'MS throw money to get exclusives' is quite blinkered. Mass Effect, Lost Odyssey, Gears of War were all funded by MS in much the same way that EA Partners program works. MS have shown that simply buying good sudios (think Rare) isn't necessarily the best use of money and starting their own studios, like Spawnpoint and Wingnut), and working with, helping to fund new start-ups like Ruffian, Mystwalker and Realtime Worlds brings better returns. Recently Sony have also seen the benefits in such partnerships, preferring to work with devlopers such as Media Molecule and Sucker Punch rather than making big studio purchases.

Sorry Streeteh. I know where your coming from with Sony and Nintendo nurturing first party studios but really why does it matter, for example that Sony have an internal studio to develop singstar and MS used Inis. Also the accusation that MS use money to force exclusives is bit PSforumsish and I whilst I do think MS offer deals to promote games I's struggling to think of a time it's been done as crudelty as you imply; I know Sony did it a lot last gen though. Even the GTAIV episodes were a product of a deal where MS worked with a cash-strapped Take-2 and paid for their development.

They still have a few first party studios and they've published brought Forza 3, Fable 2, B&K: N&Bs and Halo Wars all recently.

[Streeteh]

I was a little drunk when i wrote my post above and the point i was trying to make got lost pretty badly. I wasn't trying to say buying/forming 1st party studios is the only way to develop games, but rather criticising dans comment that they should have thrown money at 2K games to make Bioshock 2 an exclusive game. I don't see the point in such acts when the money could be used, as you've rightly mentioned, to help another developer get the best out of a game from day 1. Getting games developed for your platform whether 3rd or 1st party is the ideal outcome, but i feel getting in on the ground floor is the way to go like MS did with gears or sony with LBP, to just fork out money to 'make bioshock 2 exclusive' doesn't seem like a particularly great move to me is all. It should be about more than throwing money at a developer, as MS have shown helping the development of a game from the ground up really has excellent results, an example would be gears of war which by helping with the development ended up improving their console (more ram iirc as recommended by Epic)

[divine]

Ultimately MS are a business. If Bioshock 2 being a paid for exclusive would bring better returns (with regards money but also things such as userbase increases, increased brand loyalties) than investing that same money elsewhere then they would do it, simple as that.

Their ultimate aim is to maximise profit and they will do that in whichever way they feel best, whether that involves buying off exclusives or nurturing a new studio.