An outdated RPG that wasn't all that great upon release even, updated in graphics alone so that it runs in outdated HD without any PC support. Fable: the gift that keeps on disappointing.
The lack of focus on games may have started it, but the list of restrictions which came out after the reveal is what's really grinding people's gears. Making an entertainment center is fine and all, and should've been marketed as secondary until it became a standard where people who are not gamers might look to such features, but people also have enough wits to figure out lack of proper focus in a console reveal when new features are coming out is just bad presentation, not necessarily a bad console. Then you start coming out with details like used game fees, online requirement, can't function without Kinect being on (a device which essentially monitors the room with both audio and visual), and yeah, people are going to not much like the console. So what happens to a family that uses multiple consoles in their house, with multiple gamer tags? What happens when another tornado/hurricane hits and a city can't get online for a day? What happens when Microsoft shuts down their servers for the system? How about when ad companies decide they want to pay MS to unlock achievements or coupons by holding up their product in front of the Kinect for a certain amount of time? Or rental movies/subscription tv pay per the person in the room?
MS is putting all the risk on the consumer which is bad business. More, when consumers decide with their wallets to take such risks, other companies follow suit because they see people are willing to pay up despite the risks, and sooner or later someone begins abusing them for easy money because the standard has been set. Don't believe me, just look at DLC. MS basically introduced this and now companies, like EA especially, offer on-disk content at outrageous prices, often as preorder bonuses so you'll pay full price or extra for minimal content without hearing any feedback about the game beforehand, and this is the standard for gaming today.
The article says it well. There's no need for this so why should anyone embrace it? We want electricity, we want our mobile devices to stay connected. Why should we care about a stationary gaming system requiring itself to always be online? What grand benefit does this truly offer? This is a useless restriction.
@Mega_Skrull Eh. While it sucks certain people don't get to play certain games, I doubt it comes to PS3 and that's probably for the better. Thing is, PS3 rather tends to be difficult to develop for, and therefore expensive, which can hurt a company as much as help when they have to spend extra time and extra money dealing with a third system's architecture rather than furthering the game.
Video games are coming to a stage where developers are beginning to realize it's not just about gameplay. They are slowly coming to find that this form of media offers more than action or platforming. Video games are unique in that they offer people the opportunity to interact with a world, whether that be through story or combat. Is story strictly required? No. There's a place still for the story-less games. But is gameplay strictly required? No. Because there's also a place for interactive stories. In the end, the overall quality of a game comes from the overall experience. Gameplay is big in that, but there are subtleties in music, atmosphere and, yes, stories, which makes games more enjoyable. What would Metal Gear Solid be without its wide array of memorable characters, if it was just a stealth/action title? What would Ocarina of Time be without the cheery Castle Town music, haunting Malon's Song or epic Overworld theme? What would the ending of Mass Effect be like without the scale of what's happening around you? What's Bastion without the narration? Games are an experience, not limited to simply how polished the controls are and how not stupid the AI is. Every aspect tends to matter. This doesn't mean developers shouldn't make games based purely around gameplay, but it's more doubtful people will pay full price for such a game. Such games certainly have a place, though. They are the innovators, without which the fuller titles wouldn't be able to steal ideas from.
This is nice and all in theory, but in practice different scores mean different things depending on the reviewer. What would be considered the average game? To some it's a 5/10. To others, for any number of reasons (from peer pressure to 50% being a failure on most tests) it's closer to 7.5 or even 8. More than that, a lot of reviewers, like it or not, tend to review a game based on the backing behind it; a AAA game that's got some game breaking issues is still likely to score above 8/10 with many reviewers while lesser known titles would be rated an entire point or two lower. End of the day, the score alone is meaningless. It's a cute highlight to have sit on top of what should be the main attraction: the content of the review, either in written or in video form. A good reviewer isn't someone who can put down a good score and call it a day. They are someone who is good at weighing the pros and cons of a title and have a consistent taste for games, whether it be for refined quality, level of polish, innovation, visceral action or any number of things which people can relate to and latch onto.
b09boy's comments