Remember also if it wasn't for public pressures and uproar MS was going to LAUNCH what they showed at E3 with the series x/s on launch date. Post of me wishes they did, to see the amazing fallout afterwards
What has Sony got to do with this? Did he fuck your wife or something?
quite surprised at the bad scores..
at least we can give it a try on Gamepass.
Since apparently you missed this with selective reading:
Below is just in the 1st two pages of the ascent thread alone. this has been going on for months and is not limited to that game, but i guess youre like stuart and have selective reading.
im not picking on you dude and i would like to hope you would. it still doesnt change the fact to my point, and the one that staurt and thicc seem to be hung up on with some type of fake dog whistle call out against people, yet conveniently ignore whats been going on around these here forums, so lets continue to play the cry me a river victim card game (not you , them)
So, your thoughts on it seem to be that people can't acknowledge if a game is getting so-so reviews (whether they're justified or not) and simultaneously be thankful that they can still try playing the game at a reduced financial risk to them in case there are things about the game THEY actually enjoy that the reviewers don't?Since apparently you missed this with selective reading:
Below is just in the 1st two pages of the ascent thread alone. this has been going on for months and is not limited to that game, but i guess youre like stuart and have selective reading.
Yeah but you are trying to twist it as in its ok to release broken games as long as they are on gamepass since you are not buying them, it's not. It's a huge issue that so many games are released broken. Gamepass might mitigate it somewhat but it's not a pass.
You just said a whole lot to say nothing, typical. i responded to your accusation of using game pass as a joke with proof of it being something that has been parakeet'd for months now. No one solicited those reply's they were offered up on there ownSo, your thoughts on it seem to be that people can't acknowledge if a game is getting so-so reviews (whether they're justified or not) and simultaneously be thankful that they can still try playing the game at a reduced financial risk to them in case there are things about the game THEY actually enjoy that the reviewers don't?
Are you then advocating that a game's financial and critical success with a potential fanbase should rest solely on the shoulders of reviewers whom not all might actually "gel" with the game outside of reasons within the game itself? Because that seems to be what you want to allude to, and if so, that is absolutely foolish. There are quite a few people who've played the game through GP and ended up really liking it, even buying the game itself, because they didn't let a reviewer or two stop them from trying the game themselves and making their own judgement on the game from their own personal experience with it.
It's like you want to put the power 100% in the hands of reviewers, and gamers just be sheep who play what reviewers tell them to if reviewers decide the game gets a green sticker with a 90 on MC. Rubbish. People trying games like The Ascent through GamePass isn't "justifying" mediocre review scores; it's a means of not letting reviews that are potentially way off the mark be the end-all-be-all in determining a game's success in building an audience and revenue/profit if there's actually a lot of good in there to be had.
Because believe it or not, gamers can disagree with prevailing critic opinion. Maybe go look at what's happened with film reviews the past several years to get an example of that
I don't even remember going into The Ascent OT (at least not that I remember; might've been in the review thread for a little bit though), so how am I guilty of fake dog whistling calling people out, when apparently in order for me to have been doing that I'd need of been aware of stuff happening in certain threads for months, when I haven't even been to some of those threads in the first place?
So are you saying ha/lo is broken? because nowhere have i said that, but as someone mentioned in this thread if the shoe fits wear it? Apparently thats what you got from it so that must be the case? im not trying to convnice you either way. And sure you could have played a game like the ascent, come a lil closer young'n let me tell you a story. You know back in my day dev's use to release demos for there work (a practice that should be brought back across all platforms) and it was pretty darn effective, but that's a discussion for another day so carry on if you feel that way.
When you think about it, this game was suppose to come out last year and they still need more time after a 1 year delay?
How about comparing Halo with Halo instead of GOT and TLOU2? Like it doesn't even make sense. Halo is a long-standing franchise already. You would be fine to pay $60 for the campaign of COD too?Okay this legit made me laugh, so I appreciate that much
Otherwise, why would I make a bunch of hoopla over essentially nothing? Should I look at any game without MP Day-1 as half a game? Or any game without co-op campaign Day-1 as half a game? Because that would suddenly put A LOT of other games, including a lot of exclusives from two other certain platforms, into that category. You didn't see me saying dumb stuff like Ghosts of Tsushima should've been delayed to ensure the MP was there Day 1 given how soon after launch the MP came, did you? I didn't attack TLOU2 for splitting up its SP and MP either...
Halo was known for its multiplayer and now that part is F2P with mtx/battlepass instead so now you only pay $60 for the campaign and that's it. How would you call that then?
