ll_Exile_ll

That still doesn't explain how Goldeneye not being on gamepass would somehow be better. It didn't take the spot of something else, it is just a bonus for those that care. Everything MS releases goes on gamepass. If want to gripe about the value of gamepass, as you said that's another conversation, but I still fail to understand how any game being put on gamepass could possibly be bad.

I'm struggling to find any logic in this. Are you actually saying that, instead offering this release as a free extra for their subscription service that millions of people already pay for, they should have instead kept it locked away as part of an Xbox One game compilation that originally released over 7 years ago? And on top of that, they should have kept it quiet, like some sort of no marketing stealth release?

Why even bother getting the deals done to get this on Xbox at that point? Xbox Game Pass is a great value that gets regular day 1 AAA release and has a solid catalogue of AAA and indie offereings at any given time. Goldeneye releasing on it does not impact that value proposition in any way. Anyone that is interested can play it, those that are not can happily ignore and play all they stuff they presumably subscribed for in the first place. There is no reason whatsoever for it to not be on game pass, especially not in favor of it being a Rare Replay exclusive. I still cannot imagine the thought process in thinking that would make any sense at all.

Goldeneye is Important™, but it has been a very long time since it was a good video game to play. Like, just 4 years after it came out you have Halo completely redefining the console shooter. Forget about playing Goldeneye in 2023, it was antiquated in 2003.

This is just not true.

Sonic Mania has an average score of 87%, 97% critics recommended. 93% positive reviews on Steam (with most of the negative related to the DRM or PC port issues).

Sonic Mania Reviews - OpenCritic

Also, Sonic Generations would arguably apply as well. Only a 77% metascore, but 83% user score and 93% positive Steam reviews.

I can accept Generations may not apply to your "universally loved" criteria (though, depending on how strictly you define "universally," that could be no game ever), but Mania most certainly fits whatever metric for widespread acclaim you want to come up with.

Finally, you can certainly pick apart how well they've aged, but the Adventure games were incredibly well regarded across the board when they were released.

I hadn't really played a Kirby game since Kirby 64, but the series finally going 3D was enough to get me interested and I quite enjoyed 100%-ing this one. It's a very delightful game. Probably in the bottom half of my top 10 for 2022.

They are on the launch pad, they just need rocket fuel.

There is no third game. I'm sure God of War will continue in some form, but they've been pretty upfront that the Norse saga is a two game story and this is the end of it.

I played Lost Odyssey around the time it came out and really enjoyed it. I've had the itch to play it again a few times in recent years, but the thought of digging around in a closet for my 360 (and hoping it actually works) isn't super appealing. Nor is the idea of dealing with the technical realities of games from that generation.

I would love a PC or modern console port of Lost Odyssey, but it doesn't seem too likely at this point. I am aware it's supported with backwards compatibility on modern Xbox systems, but I don't have any of those.

The Witcher 2 is an action game. Maybe playing with a keyboard and mouse gave you a different perception, but it's essentially the same combat system as Witcher 3, but clunkier. Weapon damage in both Witcher 2 and 3 is based on the damage range of the weapon, so that comment about dice rolls existing in the earlier games but not 3 is inaccurate. I have no idea where you're getting any kind of Dynasty Warriors similarities for Witcher 3, but that's honestly a very silly point of comparison.

The Witcher 3 is not really any less of an RPG or more action oriented than Witcher 2. That big shift from weird hardcore PC RPG to action RPG happened in the Witcher 2. All the Witcher 3 did was take that idea and shift it to an open world and improve the combat from Witcher 2. The only major mechanical change from 2 to 3 was that in 2 you needed to drink potions before combat, while in 3 you can do that during combat.

If anything, Witcher 3 leans more into the idea of you role playing as Geralt with all the Witcher contracts. Being able to role play the Witcher profession wasn't well supported in Witcher 2, with only a few monster contracts that were mostly about killing a bunch of the same type of monster rather than hunting a specific one.