Microsoft Spending $1 Billion on Xbox One Exclusive Titles (1 Viewer)

[Kevin Collins]

Addressing concerns that the company isn’t taking games too seriously with the upcoming Xbox One, Don Mattrick (along with Phil Spencer) recently revealed to OXM that the company is investing $1 billion into exclusive titles for the console.

 

[Edwin-S]

That was quick.

 

[DaveF]

Should these be rolled into the Xbox One thread? A more unified conversation about the Xbox one that way?

 

[Sam Posten]

That was my feeling too Dave but I figured I was a lone cranky voice on it...

 

[DaveF]

Of course you are Sam.And I'm going with you!(Finished rewatching LOTR last night)

 

[Morgan Jolley]

$1 billion is a lot, but what if the games end up sucking?

 

[Edwin-S]

They'll spend it all on CoD releases, because even if they suck...well.....CoD.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

But CoD is on PS3/4 and Black Ops II was even on Wii U.

 

[DaveF]

$1 billion is a lot, but what if the games end up sucking?

then they will have wasted $1B

 

[Edwin-S]

But CoD is on PS3/4 and Black Ops II was even on Wii U.

I was being a bit facetious with my remark, My main point is that MS seems to think that CoD is some kind of saving grace on the XBOX. They seem to rely too heavily on that particular franchise, because Activision provides, IIRC, exclusive DLC for CoD on the XBOX system. They announce their new box and what do they announce as a major game......CoD, which is available on every other system. The problem is that CoD is getting long in the tooth. I'm playing Black Ops II and I'm not overly impressed. The reboot of Tomb Raider was a good game. I finished that one, but I'm not sure Black Ops II is good enough to hold my interest. BOII may be my last CoD purchase ever, unless they do something radical to freshen the gameplay. I really get sick of the grenade spamming in CoD games; although BOII seems to have less of it than usual.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

What CoD did to Medal of Honor, something else will do to CoD. It's only a question of when.

 

[Edwin-S]

The series that I thought was better than CoD in almost every respect was the Brothers in Arms series. Sure, it did have the problem of feeling directed, similar to CoD, but the development team did a much better job of concealing the seams. Also, in those games you could flank, assign your team to lay down suppressing fire, etc. In fact, concentrating fire would allow a player to completely suppress enemy squad fire, allowing you as the player to get around and take them out. CoD games always have that "frontal assault is the only solution" feel to them. Brothers in Arms had a good mix of FPS with a bit of strategy thrown in. Black Ops II has a bit of this in one section, but I find it a bit confusing to get set up for defense of key points. it feels like you are under attack before you can even move your guys into some sort of defensive position.

The CoD series does have some interesting points to it. For example, the one game where you are the gunner in the loitering gunship. I thought that was a bit of all right. Right now, as far as FPS games go, METRO: Last Light seems to be a bit of a fresh take on the FPS genre. For one thing, it takes place in Russia. The story, so far, has enough mystery to keep you going. The game graphics are very good. It has Nazis in it. You have the option to knock out opponents or eliminate them, like said Nazis. So far, I would be classified as merciless, since I basically kill any Nazi I come across. A game can't be all bad when you get to wipe out Nazis.

Seriously, though, so far METRO: LL is a top flight FPS.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

That game does look interesting. Unfortunately, it also looks like another game that I absolutely couldn't play when my kid is awake, so it would just be frustrating.

 

[Edwin-S]

That game does look interesting. Unfortunately, it also looks like another game that I absolutely couldn't play when my kid is awake, so it would just be frustrating.

I should point out one thing that I noticed after playing it further. The game is based on a Russian SF novel. The game is pretty cut scene intensive as they fill in the story. The use of cut scenes approaches, but doesn't quite reach, the level of MGS4. I like story driven games, so the heavy use of cut scenes does not bother me; however, if a person likes to skip cut scenes or does not enjoy the exposition that those types of scenes entail then the game may not be ones cup of tea.

Just thought I'd let you know, in case you ever do have an interest in checking it out.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Thanks. I dig a good cutscene as much as the next red-blooded gamer, although I've heard that MGS4 is completely overboard -- doesn't it *start* with, like, a 45-minute noninteractive scene or something like that?

 

[Edwin-S]

It's been quite awhile since I played MGS4. I remember some of the cutscenes being quite long. The opener was looooong, but I can't recall if it was 45 minutes. METRO: LL isn't quite that bad, but there have been a few spots where I thought that they could have shortened the cutscenes and made part of it playable. Still, overall, it has been good so far. I have read that the original game was good, but the clunky controls killed it. I might check the first game out if I can find a copy cheap enough. Don't want to spend too much on it if it is unplayable due to the controls.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Well, if you don't like the controls, you could always try this:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/112210/metro-2033

 

[Morgan Jolley]

MGS4 did have some crazy cutscenes, but the game was also pretty phenomenal. The whole series is.