archer88

I don't care at all. I can see why people would want to use their old controllers for local MP games, and the new features don't appear to fundamentally change the way you play, but at the same time new controllers for new consoles isn't that crazy of a concept. Not a huge fan of the price I guess.

I mean, I probably won't be getting a PS5 since I don't see the point in having both consoles and I am pretty entrenched in the Xbox ecosystem at this point. Still, It's cool to see them try to innovate, and I hope those features are used in more than just first party games. I doubt PC support happens but you never know.

They recently started putting their first party games up on steam, including the Halo franchise. I doubt they backtrack on that and tie things to the Microsoft storefront again. If anything, this likely prevents the Epic store from having the next fallout or elder scrolls game as a store exclusive on PC.

Deus Ex, though I'm not sure it could be done.

I think the level of detail that Eidos Montreal managed to put into Prague in Mankind Divided was incredible, but attempting that for a game the size of the original Deus Ex would be daunting. Still I would love to see the original game with the majority of its mechanics intact and just brought into a modern era.

This is an amazing quick look dear reader...

Huh. This one surprises me. The prequels have had issues, but I've never seen someone just hate them both wholesale. I would say Deus Ex is probably my number one all time and I thoroughly enjoyed HR and MD, despite the flaws in each, but if they didn't hit with you as a fan of the original then your criticism seems fair.

Was your disappointment with Mankind Divided for the same reasons as Human Revolution? I know the main complaint is the core story-line feels incomplete, but I found Prague to be a interesting place to explore with a lot of unexpected details, and the side missions fleshed out the world in some interesting ways.

Yeah, it's hard to take someone seriously when that is one of their complaints.

I think what is actually disappointing about BL3 is the lack of progression in game mechanics. For example, after they introduced the gun grinder in TPS I thought the logical progression would be actual gun crafting or modding. It just seems like there is more that could have been done to build on the BL formula.

Dying Light is a video game!

@liquiddragon: I think you're reading my posts as more hostile than they actually are. I never said across the board that success is due to the developer and failure is due to SE. Re-read what I wrote. The first thing I say is SE funded, the developers executed and the results were great games. That's a joint effort. My point isn't that SE is a shitty company, it's that the seem out of their element when dealing with IPs, and the studios that develop those IPs, that are outside of their normal fare.

- TR1 was successful by any standard; the problem with SE in that case is that their statements after launch expressed disappointment with the game which bothered the developer enough that they felt compelled to publicly defend the quality of they had made. Tomb Raider being a quality product was due to both parties.

- DX:HR was successful and loved by fans an critics. It being a quality product was due to both parties. I didn't get into this above because we weren't really talking about the quality of DX:HR, but if there was anything to criticize it was the boss battles and the push a button ending, which were design decisions and EMs fault.

- Hitman was maybe successful, but just not right away. Hard to tell who pushed for the episodic release but it seems like it was IO driven based upon statements about developing the levels better. It's also hard to tell if it was a good idea. The episodic release kept Giant Bomb coming back to it throughout the year. The same sort of coverage didn't happen with Hitman 2 despite it being a more polished package that was released as a whole. Anyway, I highlighted the timing of SE looking for buyers to illustrate that they probably never really saw how IO fit under the SE umbrella. Even then, I'm not blaming SE, I said they weren't a good pairing. That's on IO as well.

- DX:MD. Ok this one I largely blame SE for, but its hard to argue against it given what the game was criticized for by fans and reviewers. Even then I think I was being fair when I made statements like

"As the developer Eidos Montreal could have done something differently to better wrap up the story or to make Breach less of a grind but it's hard to know how much freedom they had to do so. The founder of the studio resigned during development due to issues with SE and the art director left shortly after MDs release. Employee turnover is reportedly high for that studio, which usually points to an issue with some aspect of management, though not necessarily with SE."

EM could have done better with the restrictions SE placed on them and didn't, that is, if they had that level of control or the time to do so. The high turnover could be due to EM management or it could be due to SE management. Maybe it's neither. Maybe people don't like living in Montreal. Who knows.

- Thief 4. Underwhelming and I think it is entirely EMs fault.

Now, back to my original post and this press conference. Compare how they handled the FF7 Remake and the Avengers reveal. The former is paced well, executed well and showcases why you should be excited about what they are making. The later was muddled, disjointed and underwhelming. Promoting FF7 seems natural, but they seem to stumble while doing the same for Avengers. Just like the seemed to stumble with IO and Hitman or EM and Deus Ex Mankind Divided. Avengers was supposed to close the show for them and THAT was the result.

Maybe I'm wrong. I admitted I don't play a ton of JRPGs so has this happened with some of the JRPGs SE has published and I'm just not aware of it?

Am I thankful for the good games they have produced? Yeah of course. But that's not a reason to just shut up and be grateful when there are valid things to criticize.

@liquiddragon: You're right, SE put up the money to make those games and the development studios executed. Amazing, well received games were the result. Lets look at your examples though.

TR1 sold over 3 million copies within weeks of being launched and is the best selling game in the franchise but SE still announced their disappointment with it's sales numbers. This resulted in Crystal Dynamics releasing a statement where they defended their work and the performance of the game.

DX:HR sold over 2 million copies at launch and was well received. SE then green-lit a sequel but in an effort to maximize revenue, made some questionable decisions during it's development. They had the planned game cut down in scope with the intention of it being split into two games, they ran a pre-order campaign that unlocked more bonuses the more total pre-orders they received, the forced micro-transactions into the game late in it's development, and they pulled resources from the main campaign to develop "Breach" which is largely designed to encourage micro-transactions. The game was well reviewed but did not sell as well as it's predecessor. Hard to find good numbers, but somewhere around 1 to 1.5mil it seems. The largest complaints were a campaign that felt short with an incomplete ending and micro-transactions in a single player game. The franchise is now on hold.

Hitman 2016 was well received, but under performed. Hard to get a number for sales because it's episodic but by the end of 2017 it seems they had reached 7 million unique players and 13 million by mid 2018. By the time the final episode was released, but before it was released as a full package on a disc, SE started looking for potential buyers. It really just seems like these two weren't a great match for each other from day one. An unfortunate pairing after the Eidos purchase.

As for Eidos Montreal specifically, I can't personally speak to SotTR because I didn't play it. A quick lookup says it sold over 4 million copies and was generally well received. Some praise for the puzzle design of tombs and some complaints about the writing and it feeling a lot like the previous two games. That...doesn't seem so bad, I guess. I think Mankind Divided is an amazing game that needed more of a conclusion. The main story feels short, but I don't agree that the game was light on content. There are some amazing side-missions in that game that really flesh out the world and shouldn't be missed. It's at least 40 hrs of content. There's also a ton of detail to the world and they really nailed giving players a lot of choice in how the accomplish objectives. I played through the entirety of Breach and it was fun to work through but could be frustrating when progress was restricted in ways that were clearly intended to promote micro-transactions. When I look at what went wrong with MD, like marketing, post-launch revenue streams, and micro-transactions, it all seems like publisher driven issues. As the developer Eidos Montreal could have done something differently to better wrap up the story or to make Breach less of a grind but it's hard to know how much freedom they had to do so. The founder of the studio resigned during development due to issues with SE and the art director left shortly after MDs release. Employee turnover is reportedly high for that studio, which usually points to an issue with some aspect of management, though not necessarily with SE.

You know what I will blame Eidos Montreal for? Thief 4.

I really didn't care for most of what was shown in this presentation, but I don't think that's SE fault really. My JRPG tastes are pretty...selective, and a lot of what was on show here didn't really do much for me. FF7 Remake looks really good with some interesting combat, but I have no nostalgia for the series, so the hype for this seems a little intense to me. To each their own. Once that part of the presentation was over I didn't see much to get excited over, but that's probably because I don't have any experience or reverence for classic SE properties, and they didn't show enough of the other IPs like Outriders or Dying Light 2. As for Avengers, seemed like a bit of a rough announcement but it's probably too early to pass judgement. Also, there have been some "rowdy" audiences before, but this group was fucking annoying.

I'm not trying to flame here, honestly. I don't know what I expected from this presentation, but it highlighted to me that they are well suited to developing/publishing/promoting JRPGs and ill-suited for any other developments. I'm a big Deus Ex fan and it was frustrating to see an otherwise great game (Mankind Divided) mangled by SEs poor management. They never seemed like the right fit for IO interactive, to the point where dumping them was actually a blessing. When it comes to Tomb Raider I get the impression that profits are all that mattered to them and the quality of the games were an afterthought. I know they are a company trying to make money, but there seems to be so much care and passion put towards products like Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest that just isn't there when it comes to games that aren't traditional SE fare. I love video games and want to see every player in this industry thrive, I just get the feeling that some games or studios would be improved if they had no ties to SE.