People can't decide what to hate on.
Too many co-op focused experiences and they complain Xbox doesn't make enough quality single player experiences.
Now this piece of news comes out to do with Avowed and other subreddits complain the game is poorly developed and lacks focus.
Just let them cook. The game looks fun, and it's spirit hearkens back to pillars of eternity. The game doesn't need to be another grim dark Skyrim experience.
Not only a third person RTS, it was also originally developed as a Mac exclusive game, with its first public reveal being done by Steve Jobs. That legit feels like looking into some alternate timeline
Keep in mind at that time Bungie was like the premier developer representing gaming on Mac thanks to stuff like Marathon, Myth and Minotaur. It actually made waves back in the day when it was announced Microsoft had acquired them because it was seen as them being employed by their direct competitor also entering the gaming space.
Microsoft even let them port Halo CE to MacOS after the Xbox and PC versions just as a sort of professional courtesy given the game's origins
I can't wait for it to be another exclusive that scores in the low 80's if it's good and then people will point to that as an example that Xbox doesn't have good exclusives.
If it's bad you can rest assured that it will score in the 50's to 60's and the entire internet will consider it the worst game ever.
I always found that funny. Hellblade scores an 80/81 in metacritic and somehow it sucks, but Stellar Blade scores an 81 an it's a game of the year contender.
Games within the souls genre particularly. Never could get into them despite how good the general public deemed they were.
I did however really like Remnant 2 though.
Or any Battle Royal game that's out there, can't stand that genre.
Thats why I play whatever interests me and dont give a shit what people on the internet say. Its the same with movies.
Morbius, despite being a joke on the internet, was a very okay movie. Not movie of the year definitely but FAR from as bad as the internet made it sound.
Starfield imo was a very similar situation, definitely not game of the year, but FAR from as bad as the internet whines about it.
You're confusing public opinion with clickbait. YouTubers will also claim that completely unviable strategies are overpowered to tease a video where they stomp a lobby full of low-ranked viewers.
Hellblade played it as safe as humanly possible with 0 interesting gameplay, instead focusing entirely on cinematic visuals and feel. It came and went and its entire legacy forever more will be as a very pretty game you can beat in a few hours, same as the the order 1886 from the ps4. Stellar blade is a studios first major triple a game from a region still new to getting any kind of worldwide play, and went for a character action style of gameplay which has historically been doable by a very select few studios, and they ended up doing a pretty good job at it. Context has, and will always matter with metacritic scores. A 4 hour art house movie needs to be a hell of a lot more interesting to get people excited than a new John wick movie.
You mean like the first game which had worse puzzles, worse gameplay, worst combat and was even more of a walking simulator except that one was a timed PS4 exclusive so it scored an 87 and no one brought up these critiques back then. Hellblade 2 as marketed as the same experience but better, which it is, and suddenly it's an 81 metacritic. It sounds like you'e trying to move goalposts. Also I've played Stellarblade. It's as generic as an action game can be. It's not this big ambitious game.
I mean you can't be that lost in the sauce m8, critic scores are one thing but user scores are a better sample size to see how the game is received and hellblade is far below 80, maybe the game just isn't that fun, it's really a story more so than a game you just happen to control the character in, nothing wrong with that, but it was never going to sell hotcakes, compared to big booty anime warrior who fights dmc style bosses in tight ass clothes.
So we're throwing out critic scores and only using user scores now? This sounds like goalpost moving but alright. I also love how immersive walking simulators are shit now, but games like Journey won GOTY and Hellblade 1 was a GOTY contender with the very same set up. Lol. I guess when games are Xbox exclusive the rules change.
I mean tbf your right, but people for some games love the critic scores and for other they are disregarded I'm just saying as a whole it doesn't make sense
user scores from metacritic? where there's no proof of purchase let alone play time?
The only user score that matters is Steam Reviews and HellBlade 2 is 87% on Steam, over 3.5k reviews.
Those aren't really comparable; Steam and Metacritic rate games differently. Steam has a thumbs up and thumbs down rating system (no scores at all), while Metacritic has scores. Steam also doesn't have official critic scores integrated into those.
Both systems got their own strengths and weaknesses.
Metacritic user scores, sure, but not the critic scores. But also when it comes to user reviews on Steam, there has still been review bombing in the past, and there are also low effort reviews. It suffers less from it for sure, but it's not completely free from it.
It'll be in the low 80's/high 70's and that's fine. Obsidian rarely ever misses, and it'll only be in that metacritic range now that it will be facing increased scrutiny. More reviews, more opinions.
Comparison is the thief of joy, not everything needs to be a tent pole game with a $100 million budget.
People's persecution complex is the real issue.
Hellblade was an 81 metacritic game.
Hellblade 2 changed very little and was an 80 metacritic game.
How is that harsh or an Xbox tax?
The Xbox Tax is fake. Nobody loves playing pretend Oppression Olympics more than Xbox fans because it basically overcompensates for this idea that the world is somehow out to get them for supporting a game console with a lower install base than the others, and it also deflects from the fact that they made that purchasing decision in the first place so it's basically their fault that they're stuck in a position where they feel they have to justify why their platform gets so little support and why that colors other people's discussion around it
Both Hellblade games are basically scored exactly the same on Metacritic. It's really not this deep at all. Reviewers don't adjust criteria depending on what game goes where or who's publishing it or whatever
And also we need to stop acting like a game scoring anywhere in the 80's is bad at all. It really isn't and the fact that I only ever see "it scored this and this on this review aggregate site" as a metric for one's personal enjoyment of a game exclusively on this subreddit says a lot about the desperation to be validated that goes on a lot among this community specifically. Bias exists everywhere, even from Xbox fans towards PlayStation and Nintendo fans. This isn't mutually exclusive to you at all.
It's because Xbox doesn't have system sellers and hasn't had one for a long time which Xbox desperately has consistently needed for a decade.
If you're already an Xbox fan it doesn't matter but that's why Microsoft spent billions upon billions to get system sellers.
Starfield was supposed to be that most recently but it landed like a dud.
Me personally I absolutely love Obsidian and will play whatever they make.
But unless you already love Obsidian and or Xbox, Avowed doesn't look all that spectacular or different.
Obsidian games don't show well in trailers just like Avowed.
People who complain about co-op experiences obviously never browse the Xbox store — they just play what is fed to them through Game Pass. Co-op experiences are in the vast minority of games.
Statistically it's gotta be like 99% of games on the Xbox storefront that are single-player. 0.99% are split-screen co-op, and 0.01% are online co-op. If you have a buddy that you like to play online co-op games with, you have maybe one release per year where you can do that, and it's typically not a AAA game.
Also, today's gamers mistake Fortnite or Apex for "co-op games". People don't even remember Splinter Cell, Army of Two, Ghost Recon, etc. You know, actual co-op.
Completely agree, and I don't get why co-op would even be a problem of any sort in a game like this. Borderlands already set a reasonable baseline for how what is essentially an RPG should work in co-op, and has a design that seems to align with what they are doing here.
Additionally, The Outer Worlds felt like a game that could have used co-op.
Literally nothing is lost if co-op is an extension of the game and adding a multiplayer component doesn't get the powers that be greedy. I'm not outraged or worried about this news, but I'm guessing when I play Avowed I will likewise think hey this would be even more fun with a friend.
I agree, but it's the direction the developers chose.
We can compare any game to any other game and ask ourselves why it is missing whatever features another game has, but I fear that's a disservice to the product overall. Game development has to have a through-line and be actually achievable.
It's not like they promised co-op then took it away, or delayed it like Halo Infinite in the case of campaign.
It's almost like gamers are a diverse groups made up if millions own with their own likes and dislikes but with one common trait. They will always bite in negative content.
I mean, there’s not really room to. The ratio of exclusives that Sony has compared to Xbox has got to be like 5-to-1. Unless you literally want less, I don’t know what to tell you.
Especially since they’re bringing them to PC on day 1, unlike Sony who picks and chooses and normally takes a few years.
I feel like we can both be right, but we can't both be wrong.
PC day one is a non-issue. It's a wedge made by fanboys.
Xbox has lots of good games, maybe you just don't play them?
Laughably untrue my guy. I love Xbox and I wanted them to succeed, but lies like this just make the brand and its community look like an even bigger joke.
No, it's not a lie, it's a quantifiable fact, you can go ahead and count them if you want. I guarantee you Playstation 5 does not have 5 times more exclusives than Series X/S.
You just made yourself look like the joke by doubling down on your gross exaggeration.
I mean that was hyperbole, but Playstation absolutely has significantly more. And I’m not taking indie, etc. I’m talking AAA titles folks really care about.
And my guy, anyone who is saying with a straight face that Xbox has more exclusives than PlayStation need not call anyone else a joke lol. Yall are clearly biased fanboys who are defensive of a brand you love.
I’m impartial. I wanted Xbox to succeed. They were my go to console. But facts are facts. As are sales numbers.
>I mean that was hyperbole
Yes, it was, but then you doubled down on it and called the truth *laughably untrue* which is just weird but also makes me think you didn't actually mean it as hyperbole.
>And I’m not taking indie, etc. I’m talking AAA titles folks really care about.
Now you're moving the goal posts. I don't know why but probably because you were factually incorrect. You're also bringing opinion into it since not everyone will care about the same things you do and you don't know what everyone else cares about.
>And my guy, anyone who is saying with a straight face that Xbox has more exclusives than PlayStation need not call anyone else a joke lol.
I never said it had more, it might or it might not, I haven't counted the exact numbers. All I said was that they have *roughly* the same number of exclusives.
>Yall are clearly biased fanboys who are defensive of a brand you love.
No, I'm just being factual since you're clearly being a biased fanboy.
>I’m impartial. I wanted Xbox to succeed. They were my go to console. But facts are facts.
Yeah, you're impartial to Playstation, obviously, since you're ignoring quantifiable facts to wage a console war on the subreddit of a console you clearly don't like. And you're right, facts are facts, but you're wrong about the facts. PlayStation 5 has roughly the same number of exclusives as Xbox Series X/S, **not 5 times more**. But if you want to try and name 55-75 PlayStation 5 exclusives, be my guest.
Edit: why do you respond to me if you're gonna get triggered and block me, are you dumb enough not to realise that I can't actually see your response if you block me? 😂 All I see is a notification that says you responded with something. I'm guessing tears.
You are verifiably wrong on this, dude. Go look it up if you really need to. Xbox and PlayStation have released roughly the same number of games this generation, and Xbox is rapidly passing Sony's production capabilities.
Thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, it has been removed for the following reason: **Rule 6**
Complaining about downvotes and asking for upvotes are disallowed in this community.
[Please see our entire ruleset for further details.](https://www.reddit.com/r/xbox/wiki/rules/)
Co-op games do not take away from single player games. They are not mutually exclusive. Dying Light 1/2 are both great examples of how to do both co-op and single player at the same time.
Cutting co-op only limits the number of people that will play the game. I very rarely play any story driven games that do not have co-op since it means my wife and I cannot play them together.
They never promised co-op.
It was a development choice early in development. The game does not need to be everything to everyone, as unpopular as that may be.
I would rather the game have co-op as well, because playing with friends is cool. I just refuse to foment controversy because the developers choose another, equally valid direction for the game.
Its definitely a strike against it. Honestly other than obsidian I haven't seen anything about avowed that makes it seem like its going to be an a game I want to play. Most of the stuff ive seen looks ok. Not great.
I think the hard answer is that we have to wait for it to come out and see?
It may not be a game you want to play and that's fine.
Could marketing have been better/different? Maybe, but I don't feel like it's been bad.
I feel (based on the previews) like it's a game I will play, and that doesn't make my opinion or taste worse then yours.
Yeah I agree. There's plenty of games that aren't for me that others love. Sometimes it's harder for me to get legitimately excited for games after spending decades getting hyped and being letdown. I'm pretty sure avowed is coming to game pass so I'll definitely try it if it is. And I really hope obsidian makes a great game. Despite what it seems like.
Makes sense. We seen time and time again in past several years of what happens when developers that excell in single player content shift to multiplayer
Sure, but my issue with this sentiment is that a single player dev is just supposed to stick toto single player games. These people are creators and deserve the space and opportunity to expand to new ideas like anyone else in any other creative field.
Nothing would have been wrong with it being co-op, as a matter of fact, Id have loved that. Just judge the game as it is
No need to judge games for themselves, they are all so pathetically predictable. I can tell you every feature Star Wars Outlaw will have and I looked at none of the footage.
“How dare they pivot! They should’ve never pivoted so that we could complain and criticize them for not pivoting. Now we have to complain about them pivoting instead!“
-typical Reddit console warrior
Good!
Zero interest in someone with different priorities getting in my way of engaging with story and dialog and written records. And zero interest in a narrative driven experience that was hampered by having to cater to that multiple priority schism and experience during writing amd development.
If Redfall gives us any guidance, develop what you know and are comfortable with. Don't try to chase trends, new genres, or develop games by committee. It seldom works out when the passion and drive is not there.
That's fine with me. As a solo player I hate games that are built and balanced around co op. With that said I also imagine people who love co op would be sad.
I, for one, am happy to hear this. I don't really play games in co-op. Nothing against anyone who does enjoy co-op, but generally when a game is designed for a co-op experience, the single player experience suffers. It usually feels off.
There are exceptions to this of course. All of the Halo games are a major exception. Mass Effect 3 is another exception.
But it's a pretty hard thing to get right, and I think Obsidian made the right call.
Seamless co-op in a well designed game wouldn't hurt either experience. You mentioned Halo, but I've always thought Gears was better at co-op. Warhammer's Space Marine 2 seems to be doing something similar to Gears.
I'm not saying Obsidian has to do it, but an open world fantasy game with good multiplayer is very much needed and could be a huge game. Basically, Diablo but 3rd person, or if Dragon's Dogma or Dragon Age characters in your party could be controlled and customized by friends. If done right, that wouldn't hurt solo players.
I disagree. A co-op implementation that does not hurt the single-player experience is the exception. It's a very difficult thing to implement without affecting the single-player experience (as evidenced by Obsidian's decision in this case).
There are many games that do it well, including Gears, yes. But that doesn't mean it's well implemented in every case. If the team did not have the confidence that they could pull off co-op without negatively affecting single-player, then I say they made the right call and I applaud them for doing so.
Yeah, I don't care about them canceling it - if it wasn't working then yeah, let it go. However, I do hope someone eventually makes the game I described earlier, or even a fantasy RPG setup like Destiny.
I don't say this for many games, but BG3 is worth its pricetag even at full price.
Of course, if you're waiting cause money is money and you need it, fair enough.
Oh I don't doubt it, all I've heard is praise across the board.
But I'm a patient person. I have more than enough to play in the meantime. I'm in absolutely no rush.
Sounds like Dead Island 2 would be the closest thing to compare with its co-op and segmented world gameplay. That game has its very light RPG elements but more about action without any decision tree elements.
Sure. I mean it's not like anything can happen to derail the project or they change their mind and work on something else, like what this article says. Guess it's also why we haven't seen any news about it after some time or seen some gameplay of it. I understand that development takes time, but anything can happen. No need to be like that.
Not trying to be a hater. But the more I hear about Avowed, the more it sounds like a mediocre by the numbers experience. All we've ever heard is that "we thought about co-op but decided against it." "We thought about romances, but decided against them." " We have an expansive world with a lot of races, but you can only play as a human or elf." Then again, it's being developed by obsidian so I'll reserve my judgement until I've played it. I wonder how it'll hold against the juggernauts like the witcher, Baldur's gate 3, Elder Scrolls and Dragon Age.
I think it just sounds disappointing because this was supposed to be Obsidians jump from AA to AAA with the financial backing of MS. Obsidian has made great games under tight budgets and strict timelines, Avowed was supposed to be the title where they finally get that massive budget and more flexible timeline to make that AAA title we all know they’re capable of. It seems they kept scaling back though, keeping the AA mentality when building the game.
I'd rather they not feature creep by jumping on making a massive AAA title and focus on making. A a higher budget AA game first. If this hits they can set their sights higher later.
It's good they did this early on in development because we've seen how other games have turned out when they course correct further into development. Gotham Knights is by far the best example -- that game was very clearly supposed to be some sort of live service MMO-esque type game, but they seemingly got cold feet when the Avengers game crashed and burned.
I hope for Bioware's sake that the same doesn't happen for the new Dragon age game.
All I want from my games
MINIMUM 8 hours single player story
Split screen multiplayer
Split screen co-op.
And fuck off with open world games for the sake of it.
Fallout? GTA? Yes makes sense, love it.
Halo Infinite? Get the fuck outta here.
Essentially I want to go back to about 2000-2010
It's weird. As someone who's been incredibly interested in this game I feel like I've almost never seen anything for it. How close is this to release? Because I know they just did a showcase for it recently and have shown stuff before. But I've never seen this game pop up as an ad on YouTube or my Xbox and I feel like I know nothing. Tho from what I have seen and heard it does sound awesome
'm definitely excited tho that's for sure. Especially since I thought fallout new Vegas was amazing and I've heard pretty good things about outer worlds. I just haven't gotten it just yet but it seems to run and look great on series x which I just recently got.
Def give it a try! It’s not as long as New Vegas but it has some good storytelling and it’s a fun RPG. Not game of the year or anything but a solid time.
Outer Worlds was excellent, definitely play it.
It got crapped on because everyone just *assumed* it was going to be Fallout: New Vegas in space. Obsidian never claimed that it would be and made it pretty clear months before release that it wasn't a full open-world RPG. Then when it was released people were still mad that it wasn't FNV in space.
It's still got all of the Obsidian hallmarks - great story, excellent characters, and a hilariously twisted sense of humor. Absolutely worth playing at least once.
Like really, have you seen the PlayStation sub?
"Xbox has no games" and then then the moment the "this porting" rumor appears, they start the "oh i want Forza, and Halo! And Starfield! And Flight Simulator! And i Hope they port Indy! And Hellblade 2! And this, and that!"
Only in this sub will you find people saying there’s a conspiracy against Xbox games 😂
Starfield just outright wasn’t that fun of a game for many, even Xbox fans. To discredit criticism of the game because “no they just hate it because we have it” is you showing you are the weird fanboy
yep, the media and gamer sentiment switch on the game BEFORE launch literally the day it was confirmed to not come to PS. And sure enough with these rumors of the PS5 release many of the same people were suddenly favorable to Starfield and eagerly awaited the PS5 version announcement.
Lmao. All these fake leakers are STILLLLLL making desperate fake "leaks" about it coming to PS5. Games developed by BGS(Bethesda Games Studio) are Xbox console exclusive until further notice, so all these guys need to be ready to mindlessly lie and hate on the next elder Scrolls as well. The people crying for BGS to rush out Fallout 5, hope you own a PC or Xbox....
I haven’t owned a Sony console since the PS2, but I disliked Starfield when I played it. I can definitely understand the hate, whether it got parroted by people without an Xbox or not.
God damn all the worst people from the other Xbox subs came over here cause holt shit no way you said starvield is even slightly comparable to Skyrim. It's an empty game with not much to do but walk around and some space battles
No, it's the Outer Worlds in a fantasy setting. Just like Fallout and Elder Scrolls have these settings, Outer Worlds and Avowed do the same thing. They are smaller scale than the Bethesda games though. And not every game has to be hundreds of hours long.
I genuinely hope it isn’t Outer Worlds.
Outer Worlds was wonderfully written but had worse systems and combat than Oblivion… which came out 13 years before it.
I’m a giant supporter in coop games. There’s been so many times where I’m playing something and thought, damn this would be fun to play with a few buddies. I dabbled a bit with coop mods on pc and they have always made the experience so much better. My favourite was Skyrim coop and Zelda twilight princess coop. It’s just such a blast to play with some good buddies.
First teaser I was super excited about this. Everything I’ve seen since then this looks absolutely awful. One of the worst looking games I’ve seen in years. Terrible design/models/landscape/colors, even worse combat & animations. Looks like a pride parade Skyrim clone with worse everything.
That said Xbox has some BANGERS coming up that I’m really excited about. This was a huge letdown unfortunately
I just want couch co op to play with my dad and little brother man. I can only play Halo, Gears and Borderlands so many times (Do I still have fun- yes of course I do) but I'd like to see some more couch co op love man.
I'm still looking forward to the game but a co-op open world RPG with friends sounds like it would've been a lot of fun, especially if it had the shared world feature from Grounded.
Man, all I want is to play something like this is friends.
Literally just make the designed for single player and give us the option to invite a friend or three and call it a day, no need to work them into the story. Just have them exist.
The mod Skyrim together is literally perfect.
The game stays the same and you can have people join and fuck around that’s all most people want.
Not here to complain, just curious if it’s really that much more difficult to make these games coop? I love playing online RPGs with friends but it seems like that’s a genre where the best games are made for solo play only
Edit: the downvotes lol gamer nerds are so pathetic
Seems like it would be much harder to allow the full freedom of choice and consequence when multiple players are involved. Consider how MMOs (or MMO-like such as Fallout 76) have to make all quest-givers unkillable because one player removing a quest-givers would lock all other players out of the quest. Another big question mark is how does progress work? If two players join up for a co-op session 20 hours into a playthrough having made different choices throughout, is the state of the world just the host player's choices? These are solvable issues, but they can limit the scope of the games that Obsidian makes
That's what I don't understand. Just make every single player game also coop. Don't change anything else in difficulty or enemy count or behavior. It doesn't even have to make sense in the story. Halo also had 4 master chiefs in coop, nobody cares. It's just fun.
Then the game better be amazing. If it's mediocre, then that doesn't bode well for them playing it safe and sticking to "what they're best at"
So should we expect a 9/10?
People can't decide what to hate on. Too many co-op focused experiences and they complain Xbox doesn't make enough quality single player experiences. Now this piece of news comes out to do with Avowed and other subreddits complain the game is poorly developed and lacks focus. Just let them cook. The game looks fun, and it's spirit hearkens back to pillars of eternity. The game doesn't need to be another grim dark Skyrim experience.
8 months is nothing. They had an idea, tried it, realized is lt wasn't working, and pivoted. Happens all the time.
Wait until they find out Halo was supposed to be 3rd person
And an rts. Halo wars is close to the original concept for halo.
Not only a third person RTS, it was also originally developed as a Mac exclusive game, with its first public reveal being done by Steve Jobs. That legit feels like looking into some alternate timeline
Keep in mind at that time Bungie was like the premier developer representing gaming on Mac thanks to stuff like Marathon, Myth and Minotaur. It actually made waves back in the day when it was announced Microsoft had acquired them because it was seen as them being employed by their direct competitor also entering the gaming space. Microsoft even let them port Halo CE to MacOS after the Xbox and PC versions just as a sort of professional courtesy given the game's origins
And Overwatch started as an MMO.
Remember when Destiny was supposed to be 3rd person as well? Bungie really keeps wanting to do a 3rd person game seems like.
Classic Xbox game getting nitpicked to death before release
I can't wait for it to be another exclusive that scores in the low 80's if it's good and then people will point to that as an example that Xbox doesn't have good exclusives. If it's bad you can rest assured that it will score in the 50's to 60's and the entire internet will consider it the worst game ever.
I always found that funny. Hellblade scores an 80/81 in metacritic and somehow it sucks, but Stellar Blade scores an 81 an it's a game of the year contender.
That's why I never care about reviews anymore or people's opinions on games. If I like it, I like it. If I hate it, I hate it.
What games do you hate?
Games within the souls genre particularly. Never could get into them despite how good the general public deemed they were. I did however really like Remnant 2 though. Or any Battle Royal game that's out there, can't stand that genre.
the fact that Stellar Blade scored to high is kinda sad. It's one of the most mediocre games ever created only carried by sex appeal
And being exclusive, although this game was announced for Xbox before Sony bought exclusivity.
Thats why I play whatever interests me and dont give a shit what people on the internet say. Its the same with movies. Morbius, despite being a joke on the internet, was a very okay movie. Not movie of the year definitely but FAR from as bad as the internet made it sound. Starfield imo was a very similar situation, definitely not game of the year, but FAR from as bad as the internet whines about it.
Haven't seen many saying stellar blade us a goty contender
It's all over YT let's plays in the thumbnails and video titles. "iS sTeLlAr BlAdE gOtY??!!" or something to that effect.
O so click bait headlines
You're confusing public opinion with clickbait. YouTubers will also claim that completely unviable strategies are overpowered to tease a video where they stomp a lobby full of low-ranked viewers.
Hellblade played it as safe as humanly possible with 0 interesting gameplay, instead focusing entirely on cinematic visuals and feel. It came and went and its entire legacy forever more will be as a very pretty game you can beat in a few hours, same as the the order 1886 from the ps4. Stellar blade is a studios first major triple a game from a region still new to getting any kind of worldwide play, and went for a character action style of gameplay which has historically been doable by a very select few studios, and they ended up doing a pretty good job at it. Context has, and will always matter with metacritic scores. A 4 hour art house movie needs to be a hell of a lot more interesting to get people excited than a new John wick movie.
You mean like the first game which had worse puzzles, worse gameplay, worst combat and was even more of a walking simulator except that one was a timed PS4 exclusive so it scored an 87 and no one brought up these critiques back then. Hellblade 2 as marketed as the same experience but better, which it is, and suddenly it's an 81 metacritic. It sounds like you'e trying to move goalposts. Also I've played Stellarblade. It's as generic as an action game can be. It's not this big ambitious game.
I mean you can't be that lost in the sauce m8, critic scores are one thing but user scores are a better sample size to see how the game is received and hellblade is far below 80, maybe the game just isn't that fun, it's really a story more so than a game you just happen to control the character in, nothing wrong with that, but it was never going to sell hotcakes, compared to big booty anime warrior who fights dmc style bosses in tight ass clothes.
So we're throwing out critic scores and only using user scores now? This sounds like goalpost moving but alright. I also love how immersive walking simulators are shit now, but games like Journey won GOTY and Hellblade 1 was a GOTY contender with the very same set up. Lol. I guess when games are Xbox exclusive the rules change.
I mean tbf your right, but people for some games love the critic scores and for other they are disregarded I'm just saying as a whole it doesn't make sense
user scores from metacritic? where there's no proof of purchase let alone play time? The only user score that matters is Steam Reviews and HellBlade 2 is 87% on Steam, over 3.5k reviews.
Which actually tracks because that pretty much puts it at the originals Metacritic score.
Those aren't really comparable; Steam and Metacritic rate games differently. Steam has a thumbs up and thumbs down rating system (no scores at all), while Metacritic has scores. Steam also doesn't have official critic scores integrated into those. Both systems got their own strengths and weaknesses.
Except STEAM actually proves you bought and played the game. Anyone can review bomb on meteoritic which is par for the course with xbox games.
Metacritic user scores, sure, but not the critic scores. But also when it comes to user reviews on Steam, there has still been review bombing in the past, and there are also low effort reviews. It suffers less from it for sure, but it's not completely free from it.
User scores are pretty obviously biased against Xbox though that's kinda the point
Remember kids: If someone says a platform doesn’t have games, they usually mean the platform doesn’t have a game they personally want to play.
It'll be in the low 80's/high 70's and that's fine. Obsidian rarely ever misses, and it'll only be in that metacritic range now that it will be facing increased scrutiny. More reviews, more opinions. Comparison is the thief of joy, not everything needs to be a tent pole game with a $100 million budget.
[удалено]
People's persecution complex is the real issue. Hellblade was an 81 metacritic game. Hellblade 2 changed very little and was an 80 metacritic game. How is that harsh or an Xbox tax?
The Xbox Tax is fake. Nobody loves playing pretend Oppression Olympics more than Xbox fans because it basically overcompensates for this idea that the world is somehow out to get them for supporting a game console with a lower install base than the others, and it also deflects from the fact that they made that purchasing decision in the first place so it's basically their fault that they're stuck in a position where they feel they have to justify why their platform gets so little support and why that colors other people's discussion around it Both Hellblade games are basically scored exactly the same on Metacritic. It's really not this deep at all. Reviewers don't adjust criteria depending on what game goes where or who's publishing it or whatever And also we need to stop acting like a game scoring anywhere in the 80's is bad at all. It really isn't and the fact that I only ever see "it scored this and this on this review aggregate site" as a metric for one's personal enjoyment of a game exclusively on this subreddit says a lot about the desperation to be validated that goes on a lot among this community specifically. Bias exists everywhere, even from Xbox fans towards PlayStation and Nintendo fans. This isn't mutually exclusive to you at all.
It's because Xbox doesn't have system sellers and hasn't had one for a long time which Xbox desperately has consistently needed for a decade. If you're already an Xbox fan it doesn't matter but that's why Microsoft spent billions upon billions to get system sellers. Starfield was supposed to be that most recently but it landed like a dud. Me personally I absolutely love Obsidian and will play whatever they make. But unless you already love Obsidian and or Xbox, Avowed doesn't look all that spectacular or different. Obsidian games don't show well in trailers just like Avowed.
Only Nintendo has system sellers
Is that really the tone, personally I think this is good news. I like single player experiences.
People who complain about co-op experiences obviously never browse the Xbox store — they just play what is fed to them through Game Pass. Co-op experiences are in the vast minority of games. Statistically it's gotta be like 99% of games on the Xbox storefront that are single-player. 0.99% are split-screen co-op, and 0.01% are online co-op. If you have a buddy that you like to play online co-op games with, you have maybe one release per year where you can do that, and it's typically not a AAA game. Also, today's gamers mistake Fortnite or Apex for "co-op games". People don't even remember Splinter Cell, Army of Two, Ghost Recon, etc. You know, actual co-op.
We’re also about to get an exclusive online co-op game 🤣. Towerborne y’all. Make sure to check it out day one!
And just because a game is Coop doesn't mean it can't be single player. Ghost Recon and Baldur's Gate are both coop and can be played solo just fine.
Completely agree, and I don't get why co-op would even be a problem of any sort in a game like this. Borderlands already set a reasonable baseline for how what is essentially an RPG should work in co-op, and has a design that seems to align with what they are doing here. Additionally, The Outer Worlds felt like a game that could have used co-op. Literally nothing is lost if co-op is an extension of the game and adding a multiplayer component doesn't get the powers that be greedy. I'm not outraged or worried about this news, but I'm guessing when I play Avowed I will likewise think hey this would be even more fun with a friend.
Big difference between co op RPG and GaaS co op like Suicide Squad too.
[удалено]
I agree, but it's the direction the developers chose. We can compare any game to any other game and ask ourselves why it is missing whatever features another game has, but I fear that's a disservice to the product overall. Game development has to have a through-line and be actually achievable. It's not like they promised co-op then took it away, or delayed it like Halo Infinite in the case of campaign.
It's almost like gamers are a diverse groups made up if millions own with their own likes and dislikes but with one common trait. They will always bite in negative content.
Skyrim is grim dark ? When did that happen
[удалено]
I disagree. I think Xbox has a great library. What do we do now?
A duel, obviously.
I mean, there’s not really room to. The ratio of exclusives that Sony has compared to Xbox has got to be like 5-to-1. Unless you literally want less, I don’t know what to tell you. Especially since they’re bringing them to PC on day 1, unlike Sony who picks and chooses and normally takes a few years.
I feel like we can both be right, but we can't both be wrong. PC day one is a non-issue. It's a wedge made by fanboys. Xbox has lots of good games, maybe you just don't play them?
I mean this is just straight up factually incorrect. They have about the same amount of exclusives.
Laughably untrue my guy. I love Xbox and I wanted them to succeed, but lies like this just make the brand and its community look like an even bigger joke.
No, it's not a lie, it's a quantifiable fact, you can go ahead and count them if you want. I guarantee you Playstation 5 does not have 5 times more exclusives than Series X/S. You just made yourself look like the joke by doubling down on your gross exaggeration.
I mean that was hyperbole, but Playstation absolutely has significantly more. And I’m not taking indie, etc. I’m talking AAA titles folks really care about. And my guy, anyone who is saying with a straight face that Xbox has more exclusives than PlayStation need not call anyone else a joke lol. Yall are clearly biased fanboys who are defensive of a brand you love. I’m impartial. I wanted Xbox to succeed. They were my go to console. But facts are facts. As are sales numbers.
>I mean that was hyperbole Yes, it was, but then you doubled down on it and called the truth *laughably untrue* which is just weird but also makes me think you didn't actually mean it as hyperbole. >And I’m not taking indie, etc. I’m talking AAA titles folks really care about. Now you're moving the goal posts. I don't know why but probably because you were factually incorrect. You're also bringing opinion into it since not everyone will care about the same things you do and you don't know what everyone else cares about. >And my guy, anyone who is saying with a straight face that Xbox has more exclusives than PlayStation need not call anyone else a joke lol. I never said it had more, it might or it might not, I haven't counted the exact numbers. All I said was that they have *roughly* the same number of exclusives. >Yall are clearly biased fanboys who are defensive of a brand you love. No, I'm just being factual since you're clearly being a biased fanboy. >I’m impartial. I wanted Xbox to succeed. They were my go to console. But facts are facts. Yeah, you're impartial to Playstation, obviously, since you're ignoring quantifiable facts to wage a console war on the subreddit of a console you clearly don't like. And you're right, facts are facts, but you're wrong about the facts. PlayStation 5 has roughly the same number of exclusives as Xbox Series X/S, **not 5 times more**. But if you want to try and name 55-75 PlayStation 5 exclusives, be my guest. Edit: why do you respond to me if you're gonna get triggered and block me, are you dumb enough not to realise that I can't actually see your response if you block me? 😂 All I see is a notification that says you responded with something. I'm guessing tears.
Dismissing indies for AAA makes every single thing you say so utterly worthless
You are verifiably wrong on this, dude. Go look it up if you really need to. Xbox and PlayStation have released roughly the same number of games this generation, and Xbox is rapidly passing Sony's production capabilities.
Please bring the receipts on this. I would guess you are way, way off on true exclusives. Unless you're about to whine about Xbox games being on PC.
You first. It’s a well established fact. Only fanboys would suggest otherwise.
Thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, it has been removed for the following reason: **Rule 6** Complaining about downvotes and asking for upvotes are disallowed in this community. [Please see our entire ruleset for further details.](https://www.reddit.com/r/xbox/wiki/rules/)
Co-op games do not take away from single player games. They are not mutually exclusive. Dying Light 1/2 are both great examples of how to do both co-op and single player at the same time. Cutting co-op only limits the number of people that will play the game. I very rarely play any story driven games that do not have co-op since it means my wife and I cannot play them together.
They never promised co-op. It was a development choice early in development. The game does not need to be everything to everyone, as unpopular as that may be. I would rather the game have co-op as well, because playing with friends is cool. I just refuse to foment controversy because the developers choose another, equally valid direction for the game.
Its definitely a strike against it. Honestly other than obsidian I haven't seen anything about avowed that makes it seem like its going to be an a game I want to play. Most of the stuff ive seen looks ok. Not great.
I think the hard answer is that we have to wait for it to come out and see? It may not be a game you want to play and that's fine. Could marketing have been better/different? Maybe, but I don't feel like it's been bad. I feel (based on the previews) like it's a game I will play, and that doesn't make my opinion or taste worse then yours.
Yeah I agree. There's plenty of games that aren't for me that others love. Sometimes it's harder for me to get legitimately excited for games after spending decades getting hyped and being letdown. I'm pretty sure avowed is coming to game pass so I'll definitely try it if it is. And I really hope obsidian makes a great game. Despite what it seems like.
"LeT tHeM cOoK"
Good
Is this what we are outraged about today?
Maybe it's the depression but how do people have the ability to constantly be outraged, it looks exhausting.
They are bored and want to stay distracted
Makes sense. We seen time and time again in past several years of what happens when developers that excell in single player content shift to multiplayer
Sure, but my issue with this sentiment is that a single player dev is just supposed to stick toto single player games. These people are creators and deserve the space and opportunity to expand to new ideas like anyone else in any other creative field. Nothing would have been wrong with it being co-op, as a matter of fact, Id have loved that. Just judge the game as it is
Obsidian did dip their toes with multiplayer with that Grounded game. So, they are comfortable with doing it just not for Avowed.
I agree. Just speaking in general in regard to *your original comment.
That's the same person.
Lol thanks
No need to judge games for themselves, they are all so pathetically predictable. I can tell you every feature Star Wars Outlaw will have and I looked at none of the footage.
“How dare they pivot! They should’ve never pivoted so that we could complain and criticize them for not pivoting. Now we have to complain about them pivoting instead!“ -typical Reddit console warrior
Eight months into development no less! Why, they may have already workshopped the main story and begun character design!
"I don't want good games! I want problems, always!"
Love this
Basically the opposite of Redfall.
Can’t wait, game looks wicked
thank god
Good! Zero interest in someone with different priorities getting in my way of engaging with story and dialog and written records. And zero interest in a narrative driven experience that was hampered by having to cater to that multiple priority schism and experience during writing amd development.
I’m glad it’s not co-op. I don’t want that at all.
Thank god
Buying a Series X soon and definitely one I look forward to playing this year soon
That's not long into development so it probably didn't affect it extraordinarily.
This seems like an easier transition than from a single player to a game as a service
If Redfall gives us any guidance, develop what you know and are comfortable with. Don't try to chase trends, new genres, or develop games by committee. It seldom works out when the passion and drive is not there.
Good
That's fine with me. As a solo player I hate games that are built and balanced around co op. With that said I also imagine people who love co op would be sad.
YES
Good thinking. Excited for this one.
Good
This is probably really good news.
I, for one, am happy to hear this. I don't really play games in co-op. Nothing against anyone who does enjoy co-op, but generally when a game is designed for a co-op experience, the single player experience suffers. It usually feels off. There are exceptions to this of course. All of the Halo games are a major exception. Mass Effect 3 is another exception. But it's a pretty hard thing to get right, and I think Obsidian made the right call.
Seamless co-op in a well designed game wouldn't hurt either experience. You mentioned Halo, but I've always thought Gears was better at co-op. Warhammer's Space Marine 2 seems to be doing something similar to Gears. I'm not saying Obsidian has to do it, but an open world fantasy game with good multiplayer is very much needed and could be a huge game. Basically, Diablo but 3rd person, or if Dragon's Dogma or Dragon Age characters in your party could be controlled and customized by friends. If done right, that wouldn't hurt solo players.
I disagree. A co-op implementation that does not hurt the single-player experience is the exception. It's a very difficult thing to implement without affecting the single-player experience (as evidenced by Obsidian's decision in this case). There are many games that do it well, including Gears, yes. But that doesn't mean it's well implemented in every case. If the team did not have the confidence that they could pull off co-op without negatively affecting single-player, then I say they made the right call and I applaud them for doing so.
Yeah, I don't care about them canceling it - if it wasn't working then yeah, let it go. However, I do hope someone eventually makes the game I described earlier, or even a fantasy RPG setup like Destiny.
Baldur's Gate 3 was just last year!!!!
I haven't played it yet so I can't speak for it. I'll give it a try when it's on sale.
I don't say this for many games, but BG3 is worth its pricetag even at full price. Of course, if you're waiting cause money is money and you need it, fair enough.
Oh I don't doubt it, all I've heard is praise across the board. But I'm a patient person. I have more than enough to play in the meantime. I'm in absolutely no rush.
Sounds like Dead Island 2 would be the closest thing to compare with its co-op and segmented world gameplay. That game has its very light RPG elements but more about action without any decision tree elements.
If it ended up being co-op people will be. Find out it was going to be co-op, people are bitching.
Cant wait for this!! Obsidian, Coalition, and Playground Games are the Xbox MVP studios!
I hope Obsidian is still working on Outer Worlds 2
Of course they are. They have several teams that are working on projects concurrently. They're Xbox's workhorse.
Obviously they are
"obviously"
Obvious to anyone with a brain
Sure. I mean it's not like anything can happen to derail the project or they change their mind and work on something else, like what this article says. Guess it's also why we haven't seen any news about it after some time or seen some gameplay of it. I understand that development takes time, but anything can happen. No need to be like that.
Buddy they're a AA studio gearing up to release a new game, of course there's no gameplay of Outer Worlds 2 lmao
Ok buddy
Yeah, exactly
Alright. So you just want to be right then and don't want to see reason. No reason for me to say anything to you anymore then. Blocked
Thank god. Any game designed around co-op or multiplayer or any type is usually an immediate no go for me.
I mean I want a solo game first. But it would be cool if a friend can join my journey with his character.
Good. Last thing this industry needs is more looter shooter co op slop. Give us a real RPG that is actually fun to play.
Oh is this the PoE sequel? Cant wait!
Thank god.
Not trying to be a hater. But the more I hear about Avowed, the more it sounds like a mediocre by the numbers experience. All we've ever heard is that "we thought about co-op but decided against it." "We thought about romances, but decided against them." " We have an expansive world with a lot of races, but you can only play as a human or elf." Then again, it's being developed by obsidian so I'll reserve my judgement until I've played it. I wonder how it'll hold against the juggernauts like the witcher, Baldur's gate 3, Elder Scrolls and Dragon Age.
In Witcher you can only play as a human Just let them cook.
Just not a good comparison
Ok
Sounds to me like they’re really thinking about the experience they want to create.
I think it just sounds disappointing because this was supposed to be Obsidians jump from AA to AAA with the financial backing of MS. Obsidian has made great games under tight budgets and strict timelines, Avowed was supposed to be the title where they finally get that massive budget and more flexible timeline to make that AAA title we all know they’re capable of. It seems they kept scaling back though, keeping the AA mentality when building the game.
I'd rather they not feature creep by jumping on making a massive AAA title and focus on making. A a higher budget AA game first. If this hits they can set their sights higher later.
they're clearly not ready for AAA.
Nah you're definitely being a hater. Reserve your judgement until you play the game yourself.
the hype for the game needs to dial down at least 3 level. otherwise it will be an average game.
Well, let's see how it compares to Pillars of Eternity 1+2, easily Obsidians best work yet.
I have been wondering that whether Obsidian would have a chance in the future to remake Alpha Protocol or make Alpha Protocol 2.
Okay but can they finish outer worlds 2 first?
Hope it comes out on physical with whole game on disc then I'll buy it week one, otherwise I'll probably never play it.
It's good they did this early on in development because we've seen how other games have turned out when they course correct further into development. Gotham Knights is by far the best example -- that game was very clearly supposed to be some sort of live service MMO-esque type game, but they seemingly got cold feet when the Avengers game crashed and burned. I hope for Bioware's sake that the same doesn't happen for the new Dragon age game.
As an almost strictly single-player gamer, I am very excited to get my hands on it.
That’s awesome news. Can’t say I would’ve been all that excited for a co-op experience, I like my RPG’s to be solo.
Good for them for figuring it out and bouncing, and I guess good on Microsoft (???) for not making them shove it back in.
All I want from my games MINIMUM 8 hours single player story Split screen multiplayer Split screen co-op. And fuck off with open world games for the sake of it. Fallout? GTA? Yes makes sense, love it. Halo Infinite? Get the fuck outta here. Essentially I want to go back to about 2000-2010
It's weird. As someone who's been incredibly interested in this game I feel like I've almost never seen anything for it. How close is this to release? Because I know they just did a showcase for it recently and have shown stuff before. But I've never seen this game pop up as an ad on YouTube or my Xbox and I feel like I know nothing. Tho from what I have seen and heard it does sound awesome
Obsidian just did like an hour deep dive a few weeks ago.
They haven’t really ironed out a release date yet, so I wouldn’t expect a large marketing campaign until that is handled.
Obsidian is always super low-key with their marketing. Xbox did change their marketing head though recently? Maybe it was Microsoft’s fault.
'm definitely excited tho that's for sure. Especially since I thought fallout new Vegas was amazing and I've heard pretty good things about outer worlds. I just haven't gotten it just yet but it seems to run and look great on series x which I just recently got.
Def give it a try! It’s not as long as New Vegas but it has some good storytelling and it’s a fun RPG. Not game of the year or anything but a solid time.
Which version should I play on my series x? I see there's an original version and a spacers choice version
Spacers choice, think that includes the dlc.
Outer Worlds was excellent, definitely play it. It got crapped on because everyone just *assumed* it was going to be Fallout: New Vegas in space. Obsidian never claimed that it would be and made it pretty clear months before release that it wasn't a full open-world RPG. Then when it was released people were still mad that it wasn't FNV in space. It's still got all of the Obsidian hallmarks - great story, excellent characters, and a hilariously twisted sense of humor. Absolutely worth playing at least once.
It's good to know some devs will still make a decision like this instead of ramming ahead with a game as something it doesn't need to be.
Peoples opinions mean nothing because people just want to complain because anything with shock factor gains views/clicks/followers in today’s time.
Thank fuck
And so they made… Skyrim?
I sure hope so. Can’t have too much Skyrim.
Except if it's Skyrim in space, then suddenly it's the worst game ever.
[удалено]
Like really, have you seen the PlayStation sub? "Xbox has no games" and then then the moment the "this porting" rumor appears, they start the "oh i want Forza, and Halo! And Starfield! And Flight Simulator! And i Hope they port Indy! And Hellblade 2! And this, and that!"
Only in this sub will you find people saying there’s a conspiracy against Xbox games 😂 Starfield just outright wasn’t that fun of a game for many, even Xbox fans. To discredit criticism of the game because “no they just hate it because we have it” is you showing you are the weird fanboy
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
yep, the media and gamer sentiment switch on the game BEFORE launch literally the day it was confirmed to not come to PS. And sure enough with these rumors of the PS5 release many of the same people were suddenly favorable to Starfield and eagerly awaited the PS5 version announcement. Lmao. All these fake leakers are STILLLLLL making desperate fake "leaks" about it coming to PS5. Games developed by BGS(Bethesda Games Studio) are Xbox console exclusive until further notice, so all these guys need to be ready to mindlessly lie and hate on the next elder Scrolls as well. The people crying for BGS to rush out Fallout 5, hope you own a PC or Xbox....
This was crazy and happened in the Starfield sub too but then they all pretended otherwise
I haven’t owned a Sony console since the PS2, but I disliked Starfield when I played it. I can definitely understand the hate, whether it got parroted by people without an Xbox or not.
Yeah I get that this is an Xbox sub but it's not hard to imagine what a polarizing game that is. It's not some big conspiracy lol.
God damn all the worst people from the other Xbox subs came over here cause holt shit no way you said starvield is even slightly comparable to Skyrim. It's an empty game with not much to do but walk around and some space battles
No, it's the Outer Worlds in a fantasy setting. Just like Fallout and Elder Scrolls have these settings, Outer Worlds and Avowed do the same thing. They are smaller scale than the Bethesda games though. And not every game has to be hundreds of hours long.
I genuinely hope it isn’t Outer Worlds. Outer Worlds was wonderfully written but had worse systems and combat than Oblivion… which came out 13 years before it.
No.
Wasn't this known years ago?
I wouldn't have minded playing this with a friend or two, one bit.
I'd love a drop in coop option
I’m a giant supporter in coop games. There’s been so many times where I’m playing something and thought, damn this would be fun to play with a few buddies. I dabbled a bit with coop mods on pc and they have always made the experience so much better. My favourite was Skyrim coop and Zelda twilight princess coop. It’s just such a blast to play with some good buddies.
I would much rather pay for multiplayer DLC down the road.
Sue me, I'd have been more excited about a co-op RPG.
First teaser I was super excited about this. Everything I’ve seen since then this looks absolutely awful. One of the worst looking games I’ve seen in years. Terrible design/models/landscape/colors, even worse combat & animations. Looks like a pride parade Skyrim clone with worse everything. That said Xbox has some BANGERS coming up that I’m really excited about. This was a huge letdown unfortunately
I just want couch co op to play with my dad and little brother man. I can only play Halo, Gears and Borderlands so many times (Do I still have fun- yes of course I do) but I'd like to see some more couch co op love man.
[удалено]
I do wish it stayed Co OP. I always have more fun playing with my wife. Still can't wait to hear more about it.
I'm still looking forward to the game but a co-op open world RPG with friends sounds like it would've been a lot of fun, especially if it had the shared world feature from Grounded.
Aw a co op RPG would have been great
Man, all I want is to play something like this is friends. Literally just make the designed for single player and give us the option to invite a friend or three and call it a day, no need to work them into the story. Just have them exist. The mod Skyrim together is literally perfect. The game stays the same and you can have people join and fuck around that’s all most people want.
Bummer, I like coop.
Not here to complain, just curious if it’s really that much more difficult to make these games coop? I love playing online RPGs with friends but it seems like that’s a genre where the best games are made for solo play only Edit: the downvotes lol gamer nerds are so pathetic
Seems like it would be much harder to allow the full freedom of choice and consequence when multiple players are involved. Consider how MMOs (or MMO-like such as Fallout 76) have to make all quest-givers unkillable because one player removing a quest-givers would lock all other players out of the quest. Another big question mark is how does progress work? If two players join up for a co-op session 20 hours into a playthrough having made different choices throughout, is the state of the world just the host player's choices? These are solvable issues, but they can limit the scope of the games that Obsidian makes
Porque no los dos?
That's what I don't understand. Just make every single player game also coop. Don't change anything else in difficulty or enemy count or behavior. It doesn't even have to make sense in the story. Halo also had 4 master chiefs in coop, nobody cares. It's just fun.
Then the game better be amazing. If it's mediocre, then that doesn't bode well for them playing it safe and sticking to "what they're best at" So should we expect a 9/10?