SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Nov 10 2009 11:00 pm

Microsoft Game Studio outright owns the following IPs:

Aegis Wing
Age of Empires
Alan Wake
Azurik
Banjo-Kazooie
Bankshot Billiards
BattleTech
Black & White
Blinx
Blood Wake
Blue Dragon
Brute Force
Combat Flight Simulator WWII Europe
Conker
Crackdown
Crimson Skies
D.OT.S
Fable
Forza Motorsport
Freelancer
Fuzion Frenzy
Grabbed by the Ghoulies
Halo
Hexic
Infinite Undiscovery
It's Mr. Pants
Jawbreaker
Jetpac
Joy Ride
Kakuto Chojin
Kameo
Kung Fu Chaos
Lips
Lost Odyssey
Magatama
Maximum Chase
MechAssault
MechWarrior
Microsoft Flight Simulator
Microsoft Train Simulator
Midtown Madness
Ninety-Nine Nights
N.U.D.E.@Natural Ultimate Digital Experiment
Perfect Dark
Phantom Dust
Project Gotham Racing
Quantum Redshift
Rallisport Challenge
Rise of Nations
Scene It?
Shadowrun
Starlancer
Sudeki
Sudeki
Tao Feng: Fist of the Lotus
Tex Murphy
The Movies
Too Human
Tork
Viva Piñata
Voodoo Vince
Whacked!

And, the following are in-house developers:

343 Industries
BigPark
Lionhead Studios
Rare Ltd.
Turn 10 Studios
Xbox Live Productions
Wingnut Interactive

2010 SLF Tag Champ Joined: Jun 07 2006 Posts: 12294

can we all just pretend a few things, so that video game discussion doesn't have to be the same thing over and over again?

1: the wii is the best system evar.
2: the ps3 is worth purchasing.
3: the 360 still red rings and therefore isn't worth owning, no matter how great the library is.

I think if we can all just agree to disagree on agreeing on these key points, we can avoid having a topic like this ever again. who's with me?

Posted: Nov 11 2009 12:15 am

FNJ wrote:

can we all just pretend a few things, so that video game discussion doesn't have to be the same thing over and over again?

1: the wii is the best system evar.
2: the ps3 is worth purchasing.
3: the 360 still red rings and therefore isn't worth owning, no matter how great the library is.

I think if we can all just agree to disagree on agreeing on these key points, we can avoid having a topic like this ever again. who's with me?

Posted: Nov 11 2009 12:25 am

FNJ wrote:

can we all just pretend a few things, so that video game discussion doesn't have to be the same thing over and over again?

1: the wii is the best system evar.
2: the ps3 is worth purchasing.
3: the 360 still red rings and therefore isn't worth owning, no matter how great the library is.

I think if we can all just agree to disagree on agreeing on these key points, we can avoid having a topic like this ever again. who's with me?

Case in point, my neighbor is trading in his 360 because of the Red Rigns he keeps getting

2010 SLF Tag Champ Joined: Jun 07 2006 Posts: 12294

I had one returned at sams a few weeks ago, and I asked the guy what was wrong with it, and he says "I got hte rings", so I plug it in and it works fine. then theres liek an awkward moment where we kinda look at each other, where he knows he's a retard. so what I do is I knock the system off the counter and let it smash into the floor. deliberately. then I say "man, those red rings are a killer!" and refund his system for the hell of it.

Posted: Nov 11 2009 12:46 am

I hope this doesn't degenerate into a console war debate because I think it's been a great discussion so far. Speaking at least for myself and my posts here, I just wish that Nintendo would be able to retain it's exclusives but also have the game titles that stretch across all other system platforms (maybe this is not possible hardware wise, I don't know) , but I fear if they don't change soon they will find themselves in the same vein as Sega and I don't think anybody want's a gaming market where everything is run by Sony and Microsoft.

Posted: Nov 11 2009 01:29 am

I personally like the fact that the 360 get's the RRoD... I make allot of money repairing them here in Fairbanks for the military. Makes for a great business.

Posted: Nov 11 2009 01:39 am

Berserk007 wrote:

I hope this doesn't degenerate into a console war debate because I think it's been a great discussion so far. Speaking at least for myself and my posts here, I just wish that Nintendo would be able to retain it's exclusives but also have the game titles that stretch across all other system platforms (maybe this is not possible hardware wise, I don't know) , but I fear if they don't change soon they will find themselves in the same vein as Sega and I don't think anybody want's a gaming market where everything is run by Sony and Microsoft.

People seem to forget the Wii has its fair share of adult titles. Manhunt 2, the game so brutal that it had to be heavily censored to be released, was on the Wii. Madworld and No More Heroes, Wii exclusives, at least for now anyway. Not to mention House of the Dead: Overkill. And dozens of others. But yeah, it's not getting a new FPS every fucking month. Big fucking deal. Back in the day, we had Quake 2. And we played Quake 2 for like three years straight. You know why? BECAUSE NOTHING ELSE WAS ANYWHERE NEAR AS GOOD. Companies need to work on that. Why do I need a new FPS every month? Why can't there just be one really good one that I play for a year straight? There are people who haven't played anything but WoW since 2006. Why can't someone make a console game that's that addictive? Why are we paying $30-$60 for ten hours of single player and another 30 hours of online multiplayer every other week? What the hell is wrong with us?

Posted: Nov 11 2009 02:45 am

The same reason some people trade in a car ever year for the next best model I suppose. People want the next best thing. Sure Wii has adult titles but I think you would agree they are by far the minority of the catalog, not that saturating it with adult titles, fps or otherwise really means anything good or bad. I think we could all agree to some extent that if the option is there to have a wider range of games on the system whether that be exclusives or multi-platform titles it would be a good option to take especially when a good share of gaming households own at least 2 of the 3 modern gaming systems.

I wish there was a console game that could be that addicting with multiplayer or not, but I think the only answer to that would be a console based MMO that would tack on an additional subscription fee. As far as modern games I keep going back to GTA IV and the Call Duty series (big suprise titles I know). I wish they would develop a final fantasy tactics / Valkyrie Chronicles game with extensive multiplayer, now that's something that could last me years.

Posted: Nov 11 2009 02:53 am

Other than the Resident Evils and the MGS remake, there weren't any adult titles for the GC either.

Nintendo is happy in its niche as the Family Game System.

More power to them.

Posted: Nov 11 2009 06:21 am

Knyte wrote:

Other than the Resident Evils and the MGS remake, there weren't any adult titles for the GC either.

Killer 7, Eternal Darkness, XIII, eight Tom Clancy games, True Crime: NY, True Crime: LA, Turok Evolution, BloodRayne, Dead To Rights, Gun, Mortal Kombat: Deception, Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance...

Should I keep going? Or are we going to look at the past through idiot-colored glasses?

Posted: Nov 11 2009 01:08 pm

I often found that argument to be lacking as well. I had several games that were rated M but it's not just that. Do you really think Conflict Desert Storm is kid friendly? How about Viewtiful Joe and it's sequel? Sure it seems directed at kids, but the primary market was for Hardcore Gamers. I really don't think that to base the system off of it's software library with the more marketed games is fair. I found Killer7 to be one of the best on GameCube but it wasn't as marketed as strongly as say, Mario Sunshine or F-Zero.

On topic of the MGS remake, Kojima practically begged for it to be placed on the Gamecube. (Which he did for Snake's inclusion into Brawl... Kind of makes you think)

As for FPS games, there is a reason why I play them on either my PC or PS3 and that's because the control scheme is suitable for me. I'm sure there are people who play the Wii that are GOD's with the FPS scheme built for it, but not me.

Joined: Dec 15 2008 Posts: 199

Hopping back on topic here. I think MW is getting ported now ecause activision wants more money. he originl wasn't prtd because:

a) IW didn't want to port it to the Wii because they felt they wouldn't get a port good enough for their "standards" out of it.

b) Treyarch was busy working on WaW at the time and couldn't be asked to do it.

c) Once the WaW port did pretty well, Activision asked Treyarch to do it, and they did because they aren't high and mighty like IW (also not as good imo, but iw occasionally come off as dicks to me)

Also, back to the console war discussion, first party titles so far for me this generation go in this order:

1. Sony (overall most consistent in-house teams. GOW3 and The Last Guardian need to come out now!)
2. Nintendo (lots of great first party titles, though many just not my cup of tea)
3. MS (lots of first party titles, but not many in house)

Posted: Nov 11 2009 02:56 pm

Lol I like how syd gets super defensive.

Posted: Nov 11 2009 03:02 pm

Slayer1 wrote:

On topic of the MGS remake, Kojima practically begged for it to be placed on the Gamecube. (Which he did for Snake's inclusion into Brawl... Kind of makes you think

It's kinda funny actually, Snake would've still been able to get in due to that shitty port of Metal Gear on the NES and that neat GBC game. Plus Twin Snakes came after Melee, so I don't think Kojima put it on GCN just to have Snake in a game that wouldn't be out for another five or so years.

And F-Zero GX was marketed strongly? I doubt that, I only saw a TV spot for it pop up occasionally back when it was new, I didn't even see ads for it in the magazines or the internet.

Posted: Nov 11 2009 03:04 pm

At any rate, is the game mentioned on the thread title any good?0

Posted: Nov 11 2009 05:16 pm

Ba'al wrote:

Slayer1 wrote:

On topic of the MGS remake, Kojima practically begged for it to be placed on the Gamecube. (Which he did for Snake's inclusion into Brawl... Kind of makes you think

It's kinda funny actually, Snake would've still been able to get in due to that shitty port of Metal Gear on the NES and that neat GBC game. Plus Twin Snakes came after Melee, so I don't think Kojima put it on GCN just to have Snake in a game that wouldn't be out for another five or so years.

And F-Zero GX was marketed strongly? I doubt that, I only saw a TV spot for it pop up occasionally back when it was new, I didn't even see ads for it in the magazines or the internet.

Compared to say Eternal Darkness which was Awesome but never really mentioned in TV or in some Magazines aside from maybe Nintendo power, F-ZERO was favored more then ED.

Posted: Nov 11 2009 05:20 pm

Eternal Darkness had all sorts of banners on GameFAQs when it came out. It wasn't marketed strongly in traditional outlets, but the online buzz was strong. I don't know if that was enough to sell a game back then, but it certainly is now.

And speaking of F-Zero: I didn't even know there was an N64 F-Zero game until it showed up on the virtual console.

Posted: Nov 11 2009 07:17 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

Knyte wrote:

Other than the Resident Evils and the MGS remake, there weren't any adult titles for the GC either.

Killer 7, Eternal Darkness, XIII, eight Tom Clancy games, True Crime: NY, True Crime: LA, Turok Evolution, BloodRayne, Dead To Rights, Gun, Mortal Kombat: Deception, Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance...

Should I keep going? Or are we going to look at the past through idiot-colored glasses?

I was talking about mature games specifically designed for the GC. Not ports that were on everything. Though, I did forgot Eternal Darkness.

Joined: Aug 24 2005 Location: Mount Holly, NJ Posts: 1062

The new COD is catching A LOT of flack for being too violent/realistic. There's one level in particular ("No Russian") that stands out. I'm normally one to tell people that want to censor video games to go fuck themselves, and this case is no different. I think a level like this puts war in the face of those playing... it forces the player to make moral decisions... and mostly, it doesn't separate the cost of war from the player. You don't mindlessly shoot drones, you're forced to choose what you would do in this extremely difficult, yet tactical situation.

Do I think that situations like the one depicted below are common in war? Probably not. But at least the new COD is producing a video game narrative that speaks more to the real cost of war than we've seen in the past. This is important, in my opinion.

Also... this is an eight minute clip of the level. If you haven't played it yet, and want to be kept in the dark, don't watch it. It's fucking intense, though.

Posted: Nov 11 2009 09:20 pm

aherpesoutbreak wrote:

Hopping back on topic here. I think MW is getting ported now ecause activision wants more money. the original wasn't portd because:

a) IW didn't want to port it to the Wii because they felt they wouldn't get a port good enough for their "standards" out of it.

b) Treyarch was busy working on WaW at the time and couldn't be asked to do it.

c) Once the WaW port did pretty well, Activision asked Treyarch to do it, and they did because they aren't high and mighty like IW (also not as good imo, but iw occasionally come off as dicks to me)

Well, that makes sense. Thank you for providing an answer to the original question!

Joined: Dec 15 2008 Posts: 199

No problem Syd! Now I need a new SNES challenge.

*cracks whip on you and douche*

2010 SLF Tag Champ Joined: Jun 07 2006 Posts: 12294

username wrote:

Lol I like how syd gets super defensive.

Don't talk shit about the wii! Oh, it's terrible!

2010 SLF Tag Champ Joined: Jun 07 2006 Posts: 12294

Kubo wrote:

The new COD is catching A LOT of flack for being too violent/realistic. There's one level in particular ("No Russian") that stands out. I'm normally one to tell people that want to censor video games to go fuck themselves, and this case is no different. I think a level like this puts war in the face of those playing... it forces the player to make moral decisions... and mostly, it doesn't separate the cost of war from the player. You don't mindlessly shoot drones, you're forced to choose what you would do in this extremely difficult, yet tactical situation.

Do I think that situations like the one depicted below are common in war? Probably not. But at least the new COD is producing a video game narrative that speaks more to the real cost of war than we've seen in the past. This is important, in my opinion.

Also... this is an eight minute clip of the level. If you haven't played it yet, and want to be kept in the dark, don't watch it. It's fucking intense, though.

bah. everyone's missing the point!

games aren't supposed to make statements, they're supposed to be fun!

I'm worried more about that bad level design than I am the moral implications that the scene brings about. It's no fun. you can't die, nothign shoots back at you. what's the point in even playing the level? just make it a big long cutscene and avoid the whole ordeal.

Joined: Aug 24 2005 Location: Mount Holly, NJ Posts: 1062

FNJ wrote:

bah. everyone's missing the point!

games aren't supposed to make statements, they're supposed to be fun!

I think some games have the ability to effectively do both.