I am no longer a fan of the COD franchise. Lost faith in Activision long ago - still remember what they did to Jason West and Vince Zampella (not to mention Guitar Hero) and they still release too many games too frequently (with micro-transactions and too many bugs). Chances are Sledgehammer will move from one WWII theatre to another in subsequent games. Anyway, I moved on from COD when I got my Xbox One to other better titles. And yet, this game intrigues me. But since I don't trust the hype (bananas, yeah right) or reviewers (including GameSpot) I will wait and see. If it is done well, has something new and is FUN I will seriously consider it, but later when it's less expensive. We'll see. Marketing is usually just hype and often outright lies. The proof of the pudding is in the eating of it, not what someone says these days.
I have been burned out with the COD franchise. Nonetheless, I am somewhat intrigued with this game, but they really have to deliver for me to come back to this series. Otherwise COD titles will remain games I go back and play on my Xbox 360, and I will play other better shooters instead on my Xbox One. Here's what they need to do.
1. Must improve the graphic fidelity. Not impressed with what I see for next gen. Faces and talking can be so much better these days.
2. Must have excellent controls and game-play mechanics, with in-game challenges and missions achievable several different ways.
3. Must have a great single player campaign that is NOT a corridor shooter (this is so OLD).
4. Must have split-screen and co-op game-play.
5. Must have bots (AI enemies) and private matches.
6. Must have Zombies or Survival or Spec Ops. (or better yet, all 3)
7. Must be a finished game, whole and complete on release day. Follow the lead of Blizzard and CD Projekt RED.
8. Must not nickle and dime players with micro-transactions. Jason West and Vince Zampella would never have allowed this.
9. Must STOP releasing a COD game every year. *
10. Must not require extensive grinding to get at the good gear or finally begin to see success in multiplayer.
11 Must bring something new to the WWII genre that hasn't been done before and also makes it epic and yet personal.
12. Must include a variety of game-play modes (multiplayer and local)
13. Must be truly fun again, not just for hardcore gamers, but for casual gamers, indeed everyone.
14. Must include rewards, but not the sort that are game changers - take a page from the Rainbow 6 or Borderlands franchises.
* Releasing a COD game every year eliminates any built up longing for the next game. Look at the anticipation that is built for every Elder Scrolls and Fallout game. Learn from this. Stop churning out yearly releases that no one wants (except perhaps competitive gamers).
You do these things, and do them well and I just might be interested. Otherwise... Meh. And no, I will not pre-order. I will wait and see what the quality of the product is and if it measures up. And if it looks good I will buy it when it drops in price.
Ubisoft is making it too much of a habit of releasing a game that is not finished and does not have enough content and diversity for gamers - a distinctively bad trend. Rainbow 6 Siege suffered severely from this. They still haven't fixed all the problems on that game, including nuisance issues with connectivity. But at least that game had great core game-play - they nailed that part. But what we have now a year and a half later (with numerous patches and updates) is the game that they should have released in November 2015. As for FOR HONOR, I played the Beta and sent in my comments, of which Ubisoft did nothing. Again, there is not enough variety, and where there is variety it is counterproductive. You develop various skills playing 1v1 or 2v2, but when you go into the 4v4 mode where there are minions, those skills don't matter. Just gang up on one player or another - which can be very frustrating. And the learning curve is way too steep. Playing bots (AI) on Easy should be... well... much easier than it is. You don't really get a chance to develop your skills if you are being killed left right and center (pun intended). There should also be a training mode (beyond the tutorial) similar to many fighting games, where you can practice your skillset in an arena against one or more AI opponents (of a wide range of difficulty settings). I also don't like the control scheme (and there are few options). In the end, I doubt this game has much lasting appeal, much to keep but a few coming back for more. Too bad. I have been a fan of many Ubisoft games, but they've been rushing game releases way too much recently. They need to take a page out of Blizzard's, CD Projekt RED's, and Bethesda's play-book and NOT release a game until it is truly finished and properly tested (and yeah, I know Bethesda's games can be a bit buggy, but they are HUGE). Having said that, at least Ubisoft is listening to some fan complaints.
@Jdzspace: I agree. Although there are titles in this list that will be fun to play for various people, many are smaller independent or arcade-type games. And a few (as you say) are legacy games. Nothing here has the WOW factor. And I agree, it isn't much different for Sony. Maybe I should capitalize this year on playing some games I haven't gotten around to or haven't finished yet. But I'm hoping for something big and unexpected to be announced around E3.
Sea of Thieves could be fun for a group of friends, but it's lacking a certain pizzazz. I am desperately missing Fable. I was looking forward to Scalebound, but that went awry. Xbox NEEDS a new AAA action adventure game.
Maybe bringing back some old titles would help, which are lost in limbo somewhere, such as Crimson Skies, MechAssault, RalliSport Challenge, Sudeki, or others - updating each one, creating new stories and making them next-gen.
I'm glad there's a bunch of hype around the Switch. I don't have a history or sentimental connection with Nintendo games like many others do, Only Zelda looks interesting to me (finally). But I hope the system lives up to all the expectations and does well.
Not sure if I can afford a Scorpio, but I want one, even just to play my existing library on. Looks awesome. Can't wait for more details.
I'm also glad that some people are able to find several games on this list exciting. Unfortunately I am not one of them. Maybe E3 will contain an Xbox surprise worth waiting for. Maybe the Fall will include other unannounced titles. But it sure would be nice to have SOME amazing game to look forward to. Come on Microsoft, step it up. We want and demand more than sub-par games. Give us the WOW factor, beyond Forza, Gears and Halo.
@bosay831: I agree. Microsoft is definitely not the only one (and I allude to this in part in my paragraph about how various software developers are moving to the subscription model), but the main article was about the announcement of Xbox Game Pass, so my comments were primarily directed to that. Of course it is a rental service. But if you rent a car or a lawnmower you pay for the time used - these are not subscription based. And yes, pricing on other things like DLC and micro-transactions are perpetrated by many. And if Microsoft just wanted to drive down pricing in the used gaming market, why not just price older games much more competitively in their store? Why are we expected to still pay the full price (or nearly full price) for a game that has been out for a year or more. Microsoft is too slow to lower prices, while outlets like GameStop tends to be more market driven. But your points are well made and I welcome your input. So thanks.
I don't like Xbox Game Pass for much the same reasons I don't like EA's service (and will NEVER pay for such a thing). I try to obtain games that I like and want to play, at the best deal possible (at or near release or later as a used title). With this being the case I want the ability to play this game anytime I want, from this day forward. In 20 years from now, for nostalgia reasons perhaps, I want to be able to go back and play that game I so fondly remember (like we can on the NES and other older consoles). I want that game in my library (for life). A subscription service as both of these are defined to be inhibits this from actually happening. Or I have to stay subscribed to play that game years later (which ends up costing me more than if I had just bought the game outright), assuming the game is still listed. Also I do not think I play enough games. When I play a game I like to play it as far as I can go, getting as many achievements as I can. This takes time for me. Therefore, neither the Xbox Game Pass nor the EA service are for me. I want a library that is mine, which I can sell or pass on to my kids or their kids.
This service is for those who don't want a permanent library or want to play many games, moving from one to the next quite quickly, and have no interest in being able to play the game again later in the future. It could be useful for those who want to try out a bunch of games (particularly useful for game reviewers), perhaps instead of renting, BUT they will likely not include the most recently released titles until the game has been out for some time.
In the end, I am noticing a trend among software developers (including Game Publishers, etc.) moving more and more to a subscription model to help increase revenue. I don't like this. I HATE that Microsoft Office went to a subscription model. You end up paying more for the software over time, and will lose complete access to it should you ever quit your subscription (can't open your own documents anymore). In this case (with Xbox Game Pass) you will have numerous game saves that you can't use unless you maintain the subscription service or go out and buy the game (or rent or borrow it). In 20 years these games may not be so readily available. You'll be able to play Mario, etc. on your old NES, but NONE of the titles you played with a subscription and you are no longer subscribed to. For all these reasons and more I would rather just buy the games I want and create my own library over time.
In contrast to all this is STEAM, where you buy the game and it is yours for life. No subscription fee. And you have access to thousands of games for the PC, often at sale prices, and which you can play on any PC you have access to. If Microsoft turned Xbox Game Pass into something similar, I would probably seriously consider it, because the game becomes part of my lifetime library, which I can play at any location now or in the future WITHOUT paying any additional fees. The STEAM model is brilliant and much better than Xbox Game Pass or the EA service. Therefore, GameStop need not worry, because there are those of us who will still want to buy a used game at a great price to add to our own personal library.
I truly believe that we are being inundated with subscription fees for too many things. I am convinced this is one reason why many people have financial difficulties. They are paying way more in subscription fees than anyone ever did 30 years ago. I therefore minimize what subscriptions I have. You see, with a subscription model, you pay for the service even if you NEVER use it or never use all its features and benefits fully. This is how they make money. In contrast, I intentionally eliminate as many subscription fees as I can. I don't even have a subscription for TV. And since I don't need my mobile phone to be an everything device (perhaps unlike many others), I currently use a pay-and-talk plan. I am much better off financially than most as a result. I have no debt and never will. Subscription fees (among other things) will be the death of the middle class. Seriously, think about what I have written. Add up what subscription fees you are paying monthly or annually. What are you paying for that you could do without or can buy outright if you waited until you had the money? Or perhaps one day we will be paying all sorts of fees for stuff, but never own much of anything in the end.
To top it off, Microsoft will be increasing Xbox Live Gold memberships (yup, a subscription), which has no other alternative for multiplayer gaming. Xbox Live has been a cash cow for Microsoft, and instead of honoring their loyal customer base by decreasing the fees, they want to increase them. Sounds and smells like another cash grab to me.
So NO. If you truly understand what this is all about, most of us don't want or need Xbox Game Pass and another subscription fee to worry about and diminish our already limited cash flow. Let's stop the insanity, which means that's a definite pass for me.
1. Congratulation to Bethesda Studios for creating a couple of great games that sold well. 2. It doesn't matter which sold more - this is just marketing hype. 3. Is this just the original game releases, or does it also include the recent Special Editions of Skyrim? 4. Without actual sales stats over what period, we cannot verify the veracity of the statement. 5. In the end it does not matter. Bethesda Studios makes great games, Play the ones you prefer and have fun. Statements without measurable numbers are meaningless.
(1) The Media and Game Review websites like to perpetuate the console wars and stir up trouble whenever they can. (2) The impression is console generations may be over and we are now into merely iterating on a particular platform (retaining many features and able to play prior games). Therefore, Project Scorpio will be the most powerful console when it is released, but there is nothing stopping Sony from iterating again a year or so later and leap-frogging Microsoft at that time. They will each likely do this repeatedly.
So, no big deal. Play the games you love on the system of your preference and stop dumping on those who choose differently. We are all gamers. Having several system options in the marketplace actually benefits US, the gamers. Celebrate what you love and tone down the agitation - it's immature and serves no purpose.
This just shows how one (GameSpot and indeed most people) can form an opinion (review and rating) on the release of a game, but in retrospect years later can be shown to have been completely wrong and managed to exclude so many good games that often take time to grow on you. You have just proved GameSpot that your precious scoring system is severely flawed. A better list would be, now that we know better and have seen the impact certain games have had over a period of years, these are the best games that have ever been released. Therefore, as always, take a game reviewers score with a gain of salt. Everyone has biases, and GameSpot is no different. Check other sites and game-play footage, and talk to your friends before you form your own opinion. Never depend on any one single score. No site (or person) gets it right all the time. as GameSpot has now proved. Besides, we all have different tastes and preferences in a game. What I love to play or am willing to put up with, may not be what you want to play. Be wise and informed.
Riprock's comments