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

Doesn't change anything.

So if I say I'm going to make a pirates game there's a good chance it could score high? Good to know. That's a different team, it has nothing to do with this.

Rare isn't creative enough. Don't bring the industry into this. It has nothing to do with anyone else.

Still wrong. The scale is very poorly used universally.

Not, still twisting what I said.

And still twisting what I said, mixing it to your own points.

It doesn't work like that because YOU FUCKING QUOTED ME YOU TWAT. I don't have to concede if I don't agree. So it's not me who is 'kicking and screaming' anything, I've just been responding with my points and opinions, you're the one forcing your point of view on me while dismissing all my points and contexts to fit your points of view, which by the way are a different perception of the issue from me, so there isn't a whole lot of relation. Look how fucking personally you took a harmless opinion on RARE. FOR SEVEN DAYS you have been pushing your opinion on me. And you're trying to make out you're not a Lemming?

Can't you go start your lemming crusade with someone else. If it'll make you feel better I won't say any bad things about RARE and MS anymore in this thread, happy?

When your measuring stick is a gimped piece of technology, then you can't isolate rare without without taking a look at the piece of technology or how M$ implemented it. Even the creative usage you pointed out WASN'T POSSIBLE on xbox. It was a gimped bit of technlogy at the begining, and it was a gimped piece of technology when they stopped forcing it on consumers. Once M$ get's their shit together and solve kinects problems then sure you can make an argument that a worthwhile bit of tech on a console is being underutilized by a single developer.

Still wrong. The scale is very poorly used universally.

Where's your proof, there are very clear definitions and its very clearly all used? Again by what measure are you claiming its misused. This is baseless fanboy logic. Is this true because Conan said so?

Not, still twisting what I said.

Am I can you clarify why multiplatform and choices is bad then? You stated it made one system less valuable... how exactly?

And still twisting what I said, mixing it to your own points.

Again your failure to understand the implications of your own points. If a developer is hitting 75-85 in MC and reviews, has a single outlier, is somehow a trash developer that is unreliable?

It doesn't work like that because YOU FUCKING QUOTED ME YOU TWAT. I don't have to concede if I don't agree. So it's not me who is 'kicking and screaming' anything, I've just been responding with my points and opinions, you're the one forcing your point of view on me while dismissing all my points and contexts to fit your points of view, which by the way are a different perception of the issue from me, so there isn't a whole lot of relation. Look how fucking personally you took a harmless opinion on RARE. FOR SEVEN DAYS you have been pushing your opinion on me. And you're trying to make out you're not a Lemming?

Can't you go start your lemming crusade with someone else. If it'll make you feel better I won't say any bad things about RARE and MS anymore in this thread, happy?

Its interesting you think I'm dismissing your views by attacking the logic and underlying facts that lead you there. Its more interesting when you think I'm kicking and screaming because I respond as much as you... or that I'm taking this personally. This is a discussion forum and I am discussing. If you don't like your ideas being attacked go blog your ideas. The reason your kicking and screaming is because poorly thought out... seemingly reactionary responses (and fairly expected fanboy logic) here. They are cop out arguments.

criticizing rare as unreliable and shouldn't have been given an opportunity was a cop out argument of whether or not M$ supporting a developer and letting them be creatively free was a good move or not. Completely disregarding the functional quality of what they produce and the general good/great critical reception of what they produce.

criticizing rare for lack of creativity with kinect, cop out argument to support rare is a trash developer, it ignores critical success of rare and failure to understand that the tech was crippled and everyone failed on it. You didn't think this through at all.

criticizing the review scores is a cop out argument to supporting your view rare is a trash developer, its completely baseless and its fanboys that attack review scores because they don't conform with the fanboys opinion.

criticizing M$ for not doing enough because the games are not exclusive again... completely ignores everything they are doing and the exclusive argument is a cop out argument to try to devalue xbox when xbox isn't losing anything of value on the platform. (Although you skirted around this point more without directly saying it)

criticizing M$ for giving users options because you don't need them. Thats a complete misunderstanding of the point of options...

YOU tried to refute these core points I made, It's good that M$ let Rare out of the kinect box, its good that play anywhere exists and M$ is supporting PC because options are ALWAYS good. The context of what your saying are generally in direct opposition to that. So that's the context I'm working in.

You'd already gamed extensively this gen on other platforms/PC, and whatever 1st parties you had access to weren't for you...which is fine. I've used X1 since 2013 launch as my primary gaming platform so I've experienced probably a lot of the same games your referring to for the first time or only on X1....all a difference in perspective, really don't think your experience is damning to the platform.

Also, it was the earlier 360s that had issues. I bought my Slim in 2010 and have never had any issues with it.

Also, Rare has proven to be a mostly competent developer, and Sea Of Thieves looks like it might be good.

And a 5/10 is dead average, not significantly better or worse than everything else out there...mediocre, middling....

6 and 7/10 is NOT a bad score for a game or film! There are too many people who think this way...I think a lot of reviewers are at fault because they don't downrate terrible games to the point of 3's and 4's so people start perceiving anything below a 7 is a bad rating. But in a purely logical sense, 5 being the middle of the scale, anything above 5 is by definition NOT bad, bad would be anything sub-5.

Like with that guy Jim Sterling who received death threats for giving Breath of the wild a 7/10, a GOOD score, but because so many have Zelda nostalgia/Nintendo fanboyism they can't accept EVERY SINGLE REVIEWER not giving it 9 or 10/10 and anything less than that is unacceptable. Most publishers/developers should be glad they get a 7, but it seems over time standards have become twisted.

For me with films 5 is dead average and anything above that is something I actually like. Games are harder to rate and review I feel because they're interactive, rather than passive entertainment. So much of the end user experience is dependent on how each individual finds the quality of the interaction, and everyone likes different sorts of gameplay, and differing graphics and visual aesthetics...but a 6 or 7/10 to me is not a bad game at all. If anything I think 8's and 9's are thrown around a bit too casually maybe. A game shouldn't get an automatic 5-6 points just for being base functional, having start menu, recognizing controller input, and having some kind of sprite graphic on the screen. And then you have the issue of everything mostly being compared to it's peers at the time...as it's not fair to compare an Atari game with PS4, etc.

You two totally hijacked this thread with all that Rare shit though, haha. Anyone left that worked on Goldeneye? Loved that game.

There probably aren't of a lot of developers left at rare that were from the n64 days.

I think most people conflate the idea of the average game score and a score of average. If the average game score was 5, I think our hobbie wouldn't be all that popular, if good games were actually hard to come by or rare occurrences... But a score of average meaning the intermediate of two extremes is a reasonable score for a game.

I know I'm fighting a lot in this thread, but I'd like to point out our standards are not twisted (although maybe from a publisher perspective). Again its a review, someone's personal opinion, and a professional reviewer has the ability to articulate their thoughts. The problems with reviews, I think our pool of critics are generally one sided and share a lot of the same opinion. Like rare might be rated higher if it found the critics and market that loved their games (there is a much healthier market today for them I think), and games like uncharted/last of us might get docked a bit more for being too cinematic. I feel like tastes in gameplay are so varied that critique should also be more varied.

If your a fan of jim sterling.. you might know his work. If you'd like to see the games that deserve the 0-6 ratings the most he generally is the only one willing to attempt to play those games. Its usually enough to show that bad games aren't worth playing even to critique them. A 5 game should be any game that is considered a complete experience and is functional. The other 6-10 are reserved rate the experience on a personal level.

No you idiot, we stopped discussing a while back. Now we're just going around in circles. And this isn't a discussion it's just you pushing your OPINION.

I did refute your points, I didn't try. That's why your fall back position is twisting everything round to fit the parameters of your argument and the direction you see each issue.

But your context it full of shit, and nothing to do with me because I never really cared about Play Anywhere. And that was just one side of the argument, one that never interested me, doesn't mean others aren't valid.

Now why the **** would I waste anymore time engaging in your individual points, when everythime I do try to discuss it, you just dismiss my point of view on a particular issue?

You are not actually discussing anything, just telling me your points of view over and over, but it never even countered my points of view, because actually they are just advantages and disadvantages of the same issue. Everyone is well aware of those adavatages, and for many the disadvantages are just too great in what they look for.

Xbox Multiplatform:

Advantage: Play Anywhere

Disadvantage: Xbox becomes a useless console to the PC gamer who doesn't just want to extend their PC with device.

They are different sides of the same issue. And A LOT of PC Gamers aren't happy with that, they did like buying consoles and they need a justification for doing that. And many don't like that MS did it mid gen. Certainly I don't, I didn't get the 'option' if I had known I would have saved the £429 I wasted.

Your point of view doesn't take away from that just because you don't understand the other point of view.

And your fanboy comes through because on top of that, you make justifications for MSs handling of the situation, like it's my fault I early adopted, it's my fault I didn't research using a crystal ball. Playstation fans must be laughing their asses off, that this is what lems defences have come too. Basically saying 'why would you expect better treatment from MS?', that's some fanboy shit. PS fans get treated good from day one.

I don't see Sea of Thieves' subject matter and shown game-play to be inherently bad.

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

Forza Horizon 3 has semiless multiplayer and Halo 5 lives by multiplayer.

PS4 was leading the install base without Uncharted 4, Persona 5 and Bloodborne.

Against Xbox One, selling an inferior hardware box at higher price was a sales bottleneck and both XBO and PS4 started from near ground zero.

Xbox One is just "Windows 10 S" based game console box.

The main reasons for Xbox hardware existence;

1. MS has major disagreements with the general PC OEM's CPU:GPU chip area allocation ratio within a certain price range. AMD and Intel is not interested in self funding a large APU size chip with 70 to 80 percent GPU. Xbox = big GPU and small CPU ratio for a given price. AMD's self funded Raven Ridge APU is the closest to XBO in terms GPU power and it took AMD more than 3 years to do it. Almost everybody has forgotten Windows Vista beta build and Intel's GPU requirement protest.

2. Nintendo business inspired business model with enhance DRM attracts game developers.

3. Less PC IT support issues attracts different audience i.e. the "white goods" test. MS maintains Xbox client hardware on-behalf of the user. No support blame game between GPU vendors and MS.

4. Xbox enables MS to set hardware and software customization without massive regression verification checks or hardware feature politics from AMD, Intel and NVIDIA.

I swear man. Don't get involved, enough of everyone repeating themselves is going on.

ONE more time just for you. I never said it was bad, I said I'll wait for the final build before judging.

Seriously, I don't need you repeating everything as well.

Not all of this is my opinion. Nevermind, couldn't do what they wanted, that is a fact, there are only 15 game kinect 2.0 games, another fact, limited functionality on xbox, another fact, Rare's quality, objectively they made solid working games, another fact, subjectively they get good/great critical reception, another fact.

The difference here is your cherry picking facts like 66 for the first game under M$ to call them unreliable, or basing your opinion on no facts like review scores are misused, again complete missing that would invalidate your use of review scores to begin with if you actually believed that. It demonstrates that you latched onto an idea that suites your purpose.

They are different sides of the same issue. And A LOT of PC Gamers aren't happy with that, they did like buying consoles and they need a justification for doing that. And many don't like that MS did it mid gen. Certainly I don't, I didn't get the 'option' if I had known I would have saved the £429 I wasted.

A lot of PC gamers are unhappy they don't need to buy a console... yup. You heard it here folks. They did this with the 360 as well, many games were Microsoft exclusives, not pure 360 exclusives.

Also you said earlier you weren't a PC gamer, so why don't you buy games on xbox? Or you trying to push yet another dumb scenario to push fanboy agenda.

NOBODY has taken anything away from you.

And your fanboy comes through because on top of that, you make justifications for MSs handling of the situation, like it's my fault I early adopted, it's my fault I didn't research using a crystal ball. Playstation fans must be laughing their asses off, that this is what lems defences have come too. Basically saying 'why would you expect better treatment from MS?', that's some fanboy shit. PS fans get treated good from day one.

Even if your in a situation where your choosing to buy all your games on PC and feel like you didn't need to by an xbox one, calling this a bad thing is just dumb. Because M$ is allowing you to choose the platform where your buying those games, and your choosing to exercise those options. Only an idiot would be upset at M$, a reasonable gamer would just sell their xbox and buy a different console or buy more PC games once a product they bought outlived its usefulness to them. You have buyer's remorse.. nearly 4 years after you bought a day one edition.

IT IS YOUR FAULT FOR EARLY ADOPTING. You'll be inheriting any mistakes a company made or in this case positive changes for M$'s platforms making them more interchangeable and if you own both one will supersede the other. If you want a console for exclusives only, then wait until there are exclusives you feel spending 429 is justified. Only a dumb fanboy would buy a gaming platform with no games they want on it, then be upset 4 years later and complain about it not having games and it wasn't worth the cost.

$399 XBO inferior hardware is still crazy when $399 PS4 has superior hardware. AMD and AIB partners are NOT crazy enough to price R7-260 class GPU the same as R7-265

Touchy people in this thread...lmao

I made a mistake and edited my response. Also I'm not a leming, I own 5 games for xbox one, and 300 for PC. 12 Games for a wii u... and 2 for ps4.

Niether xbox one or ps4 has been worth the costs but, as a sane human being I understand I made the choice to buy a product well before it had any real use for me. It occasionally has uses... And thats something I'm ok with because I get to buy everything on my preferred platform.

That doesn't mean anything. As someone once told me, it's not what you own, it's who you root for. And we've seen it here in many people who have claimed to be 'Manticores'.

Listen, I shouldn't have gotten mad. But you are not listening to anything I have to say and we have both said everything we have to say, we have failed to come to a conclusion. This NEEDS to end.

See thats the problem, I am listening, And I've defended my points against a lot of dumb logic or poor reasoning on your end. Again you can have your opinion but calling rare a trash developer as a way to divert the conversation away from whether or not M$ made a good choice. Each time you refute my points we are generally stepping away more and more from the core arguments. This happened especially with rare. Your arguments weren't holding up otherwise you wouldn't have needed to attack review scores validity if your opinions held up under scrutiny.

I've never claimed to be a manticore. I'm a PC gamer first, I buy consoles because I can and buy games on them that I want. Generally those I can't get on PC or when I want to play a particular game on console. I'm rooting for M$, not xbox...

You can have buyer's remorse but it's ultimately YOUR FAULT for not waiting until there was something that justifies you spending a lot of cash. I'm also assuming your buying M$ exclusives on PC because its your preferred platform, again, you are benefiting from M$'s decisions this gen. Any PC gamer this gen will be HAPPY with Microsoft move to support the PC more, which means investing in a second and mostly redundant platform like a console isn't needed, or they can free themselves of a console. But as someone that stated your not a PC gamer, why are you speaking for PC gamers?

Also you could have stopped responding ages ago, like I mentioned it takes little effort on my end.

Uh huh, sure it does. And actually, you didn't mention that, I did. You've been making case, I've just been responding.

You need to learn to read very carefully. It is clear you do not. You use words like 'discussion' and even 'listening' etc, but you have no real understanding of actually doing these things. You partially use the language, but fail to actually follow through. You also make way too many assumptions.

I will say you are not nearly as good as you think you are, and because you think you are, you allow yourself to stay flawed.

I did mention it, again your basically blaming me because your continuing to participate. Again if you don't want to be apart of this, then don't.

You need to learn to read very carefully. It is clear you do not. You use words like 'discussion' and even 'listening' etc, but you have no real understanding of actually doing these things. You partially use the language, but fail to actually follow through. You also make way too many assumptions.

I will say you are not nearly as good as you think you are, and because you think you are, you allow yourself to stay flawed.

Just because I'm destroying your arguments doesn't mean I'm not listening. Again this push away from the arguments because your ideas are flawed.

Options are bad because -> you can buy a game on multiple platforms you own making one a bit more redundant because you're preferred platform always comes first. Your ability to buy games on PC is what your arguing against. As a PC gamer your upset about your ability to buy games on PC... AS A PC GAMER YOUR UPSET ABOUT YOUR ABILITY TO BUY GAMES ON PC.

Microsoft is bad because you find the xbox a bit superseded by your PC -> your an early adopter and bought a system before it had any use, and your upset because it never panned out. Somehow this is M$'s fault for your choice in spending money.

this one takes a bit... lets follow the logic.

• Microsoft made a bad choice with rare -> because rare is a 'trash' developer with an unreliable record, even though there record is generally nailing great in aggregated review scores.
• Rare made a game with a 66 -> Ok so we have an outlier that isn't representative of the majority of work, and its the only outlier of many games? How does this represent a unreliable record. It doesn't.
• You want to wait for rares game to come out -> Even though its already out for many people and getting great reception, to down play M$'s choice to let rare make a game they want.
• You shouldn't give developers unlimited time/money to prove themselves, sony is a great example to do it right -> and yet Sony gave team ico nearly unlimited resources to deliver their game. Sony is a beautiful example of a company willing to cultivate a competent developer into success.
• Kinect should have showcased rare's creativity -> rare should do something that no other developer was successful at even with the limitations M$ imposed, confirmed by your example never mind,
• Reviews are abused -> Evidence?

These are your opinions -> Backing out of your own arguments, again deflecting the scrutiny on the logic/perspective your using to form these opinions.

I'm responding to much and forcing my opinions on you -> Its somehow MY fault you haven't moved on? OK.

All I see is you deflecting responsibility and dismissing M$'s good choices with extremely twisted fanboy logic, and the Rare discussion showed how amazing your train of thought is is how quickly you'll move to a more external issue all the way to criticizing review outlets. And since none of your opinions really hold up against scrutiny or facts your now attacking my ability to argue. I called you a fanboy because the logic you use to form your arguments and opinions is ridiculous.

Oh noes, he says he's destroying my arguments, quick it must be true.

-

Find where I said 'options are bad'? No... Okay.

-

Console becomes redundant = 'a bit superseded'. Not quite.

Blaming the early adopter is your own sick opinion. How dare anyone excited about what MS, Nintendo and PS, buy into their console... Even though I've been doing it since the SNES and only got burned with the Xbox One.

-

'MS made a bad choice with RARE'

The good games stopped coming in by 2008, 9 years ago. That's a long time.

The bad:

2003 'Grabbed by the Goulies'

2005 'Perfect Dark Zero' Universally criticised among gamers. SO bad, I, like many other gamers will still play shooters dating back to and even before the N64 including PD on XBLA, but PDZ was just bad. Never even hear people mention that anymore.

The good:

2005 'Kameo'

2005 'Viva Pinata'

2008 'Viva Pinata: Trouble in Paradise'

2008 'Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts N Bolts'

-

It is normal to wait until the final product comes out. Perfectly willing to accept what people say about it then. If it's great, fine.

-

You're right, Sony IS a great example, thanks. Firstly as I was once told, Team Ico is a development team, not a developer, so they weren't sitting on their ass. Second, Sony games usually deliver in quality or/and sales.

-

Blaming Kinect: Child of Eden, 4 Dance Central games, Nike +, Fru, Fantasia Music Evolved. These are some of the good Kinect games. Showing some creative ideas. And if you want to say the Kinect games are bad, you have to say all of RAREs good games are bad, because there are a ton of Kinect games with scores ranging from 75 - 85.

-

If the review scale wasn't abused, more games considered good to great by gamers would get 6s and 7s. Only very best would be getting 8s. And 9s would be unsual, with 10s being highly unlikely.

Take Yooka Laylee, how does a game with Uncooperative camera, Convoluted level design and Outdated gameplay get a 6. Surely games should start to get competent and really quite good by a level of 6.

Gaming media do it on purpose because it shows instant clarity to the general consumer the message they're trying to convey. If a good game gets 8/10 or more it looks A LOT better than 6 or even 7/10 sometimes. If good games started at 6/10, people will ask what's wrong with it, and that's not the message that they want conveyed on the marketing of say packaging, adverts and promotions etc. Publishers have a lot of power with the media because of their financial involvement with advertisements and promotion, so they can say, 'ya know it looks better to use the scale higher up'.

That's why magazines have gone from 77 to 7.5 to 7.0 and to the bigger jumpers 3/5. To try and rain that in a bit and bring clarity while still conveying the message. But mostly, competent games starts at 7, good to very good between 8 and 9, and 9 to 10 pretty much great.

While I will concede some of RAREs games may be at least good, considering the length of time MS have had RARE 14 years, considering Banjo was 9 years ago, and the amount of projects they had, and considering these have mostly been big budgets, they haven't really delivered enough on quality or sales for me to say they're consistent.

You brought up you can play games on your PC and that is bad because it devalues your xbox.

You are argueing against M$ making the games multiplat took away from your xbox somehow? It factually didn't. But allowing you the choice to essentially abandon the platform your on one hand admitting you bought the system without any particular justification to and when M$ gave you the choice, you chose to buy those games on PC. Your argument DEPENDS on the choices being bad to work. And then blaming M$ for your choices instead of taking responsibility for your spending habbits like M$ changed something. They didn't. They took nothing away from the xbox, but they gave to the PC.

Again your perceived changes by M$ haven't affected you negatively. You bought a plastic box before you had a use for it, 4 years in and you found no use for it? How is it M$'s fault you bought their box when you didn't need to? You could have waited. You can be excited for a product with out throwing your money at it prematurely. That is YOUR FAULT.

'MS made a bad choice with RARE'

The good games stopped coming in by 2008, 9 years ago. That's a long time.

The bad:

2003 'Grabbed by the Goulies'

2005 'Perfect Dark Zero' Universally criticised among gamers. SO bad, I, like many other gamers will still play shooters dating back to and even before the N64 including PD on XBLA, but PDZ was just bad. Never even hear people mention that anymore.

The good:

2005 'Kameo'

2005 'Viva Pinata'

2008 'Viva Pinata: Trouble in Paradise'

2008 'Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts N Bolts'

None of these games are objectively bad. 6 is fair 7 is good. 8 is great. 9 is amazing.

Again you are incorrect in your grouping of bad games.

So your opinion is based on skewed logic.

It is normal to wait until the final product comes out. Perfectly willing to accept what people say about it then. If it's great, fine.

What has this got to do with M$'s decision making, Rare is objectively a competant developer and their games are as widely appealing. Again this has nothing to do with Rare directly as its how Microsoft is behaving post ballmer.

And again sony has taken competent developers.

You're right, Sony IS a great example, thanks. Firstly as I was once told, Team Ico is a development team, not a developer, so they weren't sitting on their ass. Second, Sony games usually deliver in quality or/and sales.

A developer is a team. This distinction makes no fucking sense. And rare isn't sitting on their ass either, they are making sea of thieves. Prior to that they were making kinect games.

Team Ico's games prior to the last guardian sold about as much as rares games (500k for ico, 1m for shadow).

Blaming Kinect: Child of Eden, 4 Dance Central games, Nike +, Fru, Fantasia Music Evolved. These are some of the good Kinect games. Showing some creative ideas. And if you want to say the Kinect games are bad, you have to say all of RAREs good games are bad, because there are a ton of Kinect games with scores ranging from 75 - 85.

I never said the games were bad, but LIMITED. Again the way M$ implemented kinect forced people to make much simpler experience. Nothing you mentioned even came close to something like Mario Galaxy or even half of what the wii produced so the comparison and expectation on a developer is stupid.

Nothing complex or deep came out of that. If anything that list of games just proves the point further. The fact that you can list the majority of the games in a single sentance and it seems normal. Again the tech was limited and it drove people away because traditional experiences didn't work with it, there was never going to be a mario galaxy, only a fru.

If the review scale wasn't abused, more games considered good to great by gamers would get 6s and 7s. Only very best would be getting 8s. And 9s would be unsual, with 10s being highly unlikely.

Take Yooka Laylee, how does a game with Uncooperative camera, Convoluted level design and Outdated gameplay get a 6. Surely games should start to get competent and really quite good by a level of 6.

That's why magazines have gone from 77 to 7.5 to 7.0 and to the bigger jumpers 3/5. To try and rain that in a bit and bring clarity while still conveying the message. But mostly, competent games starts at 7, good to very good between 8 and 9, and 9 to 10 pretty much great.

Again just look at the review scores on gamespot, your objectively wrong. Rime 6/10... still not considered bad, but not 'great'. The reason why we sit on the upper half is because most games are at least good games, and we get a lot of great games. We can use aggregated scores to get a general sense of quality and fun. And most people don't play bad games, usually because they are bad. They die on impressions.

6 is fair. Not good. It means it just passes mundane a little and is at least a little fun. 6 Is a reasonable score for a game with outdated gameplay and generally high quality put together otherwise. The fact is it IS a competent engineering effort, generally well made and isn't broken. Its just has a lot of flaws and is considered OK not GOOD.

Good games start at 7. I linked you multiple websites rules and that is the general idea. I didn't check all of them but likely they are close. Stop trying to spin this because you are factually incorrect and have no evidence of reviews with improper scores. Also I'll agree there may lack diversety in review scores, OPINIONS generally seem to follow together. So like Banjo N&B, most people think its good, some think its great.

So let me repeat this again, the facts are on my side, critics have generally considered rare's quality good to great RELIABLY. You interpreting good other than good is pathetic.

While I will concede some of RAREs games may be at least good, considering the length of time MS have had RARE 14 years, considering Banjo was 9 years ago, and the amount of projects they had, and considering these have mostly been big budgets, they haven't really delivered enough on quality or sales for me to say they're consistent.

All but grabbed by the ghoulies was considered good, and it wasn't even considered a 'bad' game. Even their kinect games were generally well received.

Have they been big bugdets? Where's your facts here? Even Sea of Thieves is a high quality indie sized MP game basically. You think Viva Pinata or Banjo Had as big of a budget as Uncharted? I can't find anything on the budget so thanks for presenting more baseless nonsense. Again your making the assumption of their budget based on the quality/size of the games.

Facts are not on your side, not even close. You only twist them to be.

It's okay, you tried your bestest.

Now -

You are judging Rare with your framed track record argument. You attempted to skew the view points by omitting the RARE's second year 2008 game with higher MC number.

I've included that and made amendments. IF you think what I said in my middle sentence "I'll wait for the final build before judging" was unfair, than make a thread about it and see how many people actually think it's a big deal.

Seriously, go argue about GPU specs with someone. This has nothing to do with you. It's been going on for now 9 days, I don't need you involved as well.

@HalcyonScarlet: lol. You have to lie about scores to try to prove a dumb point. And you cant take responsibility for buying something prematurely so your upset M$ gave you the option to abandon you purchase... and your salty for abandoning it.