Post E3, what are your purchases for this year?

Thing about Sony is they constantly had New IPs. On 360 you were forced to play those gamez except XBLA. Not Sure why its hard to undersand. 360 was disappointing in last years and that's coming from someone who prefered Xbox since the original. Overall Sony had better games last gen IMO, enough to sway me to their brand.

I personally think Gears, Halo and Fable are played out like CoD.

Is there a single franchise that isn't played out after the 2nd or 3rd sequel?
 
Thing about Sony is they constantly had New IPs. On 360 you were forced to play those gamez except XBLA. Not Sure why its hard to undersand. 360 was disappointing in last years and that's coming from someone who prefered Xbox since the original. Overall Sony had better games last gen IMO, enough to sway me to their brand.

I personally think Gears, Halo and Fable are played out like CoD.
No doubt Sony had more IPs, but they also milked to death as many as they can. As soon as a IP does well, they'll churn them out just as bad as MS. As soon as a franchise doesn't do well, they'll can it.

360 had better games as a whole to me. All the XBLA and Indies games were icing on the cake as there must have been an advantage of 1,000+ games. Don't get me wrong, most of those Indie games aren't great, but XBLIG had something like 1,000+ games alone.

No doubt Sony had good IPs, but MS were good too (just fewer). What 360 had was noticeably better third party games and online. Not only were most 360 games better, but certain kinds of games (often Bethesda and Bioware) were much worse on PS3. We're not talking about a few FPS slower here or there. But noticeably worse visuals, frame rate and a key game like Skyrim was lousy. Among the best games of 2011, but unplayable for some people who got the corrupted saved games issue due to PS3 ram. It got so bad, DF's analysis showed the game occasionally dropping to ZERO frames per second as the game would lock up when walking around.
 
Is there a single franchise that isn't played out after the 2nd or 3rd sequel?

Symphony of the Night, Ocarina of Time/Wind Waker, Super Mario World/64/Galaxy, Metroid Prime, Morrowind/Skyrim, FF7, GTA 5 are some examples of 4th+ sequels held in high regard by the uttermost exemplary intellectuals of society.
 
Is there a single franchise that isn't played out after the 2nd or 3rd sequel?
Symphony of the Night, Ocarina of Time/Wind Waker, Super Mario World/64/Galaxy, Metroid Prime, Morrowind/Skyrim, FF7, GTA 5 are some examples of 4th+ sequels held in high regard by the uttermost exemplary intellectuals of society.
Although the UI was a bit clunky, Wizardry 7 was excellent.

And I'm sure JRPG fans will say FF7 or some later games were great too.

I'd say the sweet spot of CoD was: CoD 4, WaW, MW2, BO (which is technically CoD 4-7)
 
Cod 4 was great. It was a slide downhill from there for me though. And ODST is right up there with Halo 1 for me.
 
Although the UI was a bit clunky, Wizardry 7 was excellent.

And I'm sure JRPG fans will say FF7 or some later games were great too.

I'd say the sweet spot of CoD was: CoD 4, WaW, MW2, BO (which is technically CoD 4-7)
After playing through the witcher 3, definitely looking forward to a fourth installment .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frozpot
Is there a single franchise that isn't played out after the 2nd or 3rd sequel?


I dont have an issue with sequels. My gripe is they're handled improperly. It seems I cant get a break from Halo, Gears, Forza, Fabke on 360/X1.

No doubt Sony had more IPs, but they also milked to death as many as they can. As soon as a IP does well, they'll churn them out just as bad as MS. As soon as a franchise doesn't do well, they'll can it.

360 had better games as a whole to me. All the XBLA and Indies games were icing on the cake as there must have been an advantage of 1,000+ games. Don't get me wrong, most of those Indie games aren't great, but XBLIG had something like 1,000+ games alone.

No doubt Sony had good IPs, but MS were good too (just fewer). What 360 had was noticeably better third party games and online. Not only were most 360 games better, but certain kinds of games (often Bethesda and Bioware) were much worse on PS3. We're not talking about a few FPS slower here or there. But noticeably worse visuals, frame rate and a key game like Skyrim was lousy. Among the best games of 2011, but unplayable for some people who got the corrupted saved games issue due to PS3 ram. It got so bad, DF's analysis showed the game occasionally dropping to ZERO frames per second as the game would lock up when walking around.

Sony had my favorite games last gen while 360 felt lazy at times. I played series like Skyrim on PC while the majorty ran solid on my Ps3. Some titles had issue but like I said the majority was solid. True 360 had better online gameplay but Sony easily made up for it. XBLA was nice. Gears, LO and Alanwake stood out to me (Forza 3 was also entertaing). My problem is the niche titles never made it passed XBLA. I don't think anyone would disagree If I said 360 played it safe for a whole 3 years. We had Alan Wake and Horizon. The remaining titles were Halo, Gears, Forza, Fable and XBLA titles. Because they were lazy Sony had more to offer imo. Either way it's all preference.
 
Last edited:
Is there a single franchise that isn't played out after the 2nd or 3rd sequel?
Easy to say, if you don't play them...

Now, what was it you were saying about FF7/Shenmue 3?

I'm really looking forward to the next great RPG to come along. And I don't mean a shooter/adventure/hack-slash game, I want a true rog. Skyrim is the closest thing we've had for ages...

Edit* Val! Lol! The line after your name looks like something an evil frenchman would say to a teenage girl in a brochure for kids learning about their bodies.
 
Easy to say, if you don't play them...

Now, what was it you were saying about FF7/Shenmue 3?

Do you have to play every Assassins Creed to think the franchise/gameplay has grown stale and isn't for you?

I guess I just meant franchises tat come out with any regularity.

Metal Gear Solid 5 looks soooo different than MGS4 and is launching 7 years after the previous mainline installment. I'd love it if more companies would treat their IP's like that.

 
Last edited:
Do you have to play every Assassins Creed to think the franchise/gameplay has grown stale and isn't for you?

I guess I just meant franchises tat come out with any regularity.

Metal Gear Solid 5 looks soooo different than MGS4 and is launching 7 years after the previous mainline installment. I'd love it if more companies would treat their IP's like that.
Keep moving those goalposts to support your flawed argument.

Also, keep the trolling out of here.
 
Keep moving those goalposts to support your flawed argument.

Also, keep the trolling out of here.

I've seen you use the "moving the goalposts" phrase a few times now and I'm not sure if you know exactly what context to use it in.

I could be mistaken, but I think the phrase is properly used when there is a specific result that has been established between two or more parties, and once the results come in, one party chooses to assess the result based on a different set of parameters in order to save face. I don't believe it's used properly when used as a response to very casual, unspecific, conversational dialogue.

For example, I made the following very casual comment...

"Is there a single franchise that isn't played out after the 2nd or 3rd sequel?"

I said this as a response to a member who was disparaging MS's constant use of the staple Xbox franchises.

My vast knowledge of this industry and the constant comments about games/franchises that I do champion, should have suggested to you that this was either improperly written or it was a simple brain fart. Of course there are franchises that retain some freshness after the 2nd or 3rd installment. For example, I've praised Hideo Kojima's games time and time again recently.

The statement above was clearly wrong, but I think you're using the phrase a little too loosely. I've seen you use it one or two other times where it didn't quite fit either but neglected to say anything because I thought you know, it might be a brain fart.

Hope that helps!
 
I've seen you use the "moving the goalposts" phrase a few times now and I'm not sure if you know exactly what context to use it in.

I could be mistaken, but I think the phrase is properly used when there is a specific result that has been established between two or more parties, and once the results come in, one party chooses to assess the result based on a different set of parameters in order to save face. I don't believe it's used properly when used as a response to very casual, unspecific, conversational dialogue.

For example, I made the following very casual comment...

"Is there a single franchise that isn't played out after the 2nd or 3rd sequel?"

I said this as a response to a member who was disparaging MS's constant use of the staple Xbox franchises.

My vast knowledge of this industry and the constant comments about games/franchises that I do champion, should have suggested to you that this was either improperly written or it was a simple brain fart. Of course there are franchises that retain some freshness after the 2nd or 3rd installment. For example, I've praised Hideo Kojima's games time and time again recently.

The statement above was clearly wrong, but I think you're using the phrase a little too loosely. I've seen you use it one or two other times where it didn't quite fit either but neglected to say anything because I thought you know, it might be a brain fart.

Hope that helps!
makes claim no franchises are not stale after 2nd and 3rd installment. Backtracks from statment when someone lists Playstation centric games with one being the best candidate for stale and boring, Metal Gear.

Goalposts Jerry. Goalposts.
 
makes claim no franchises are not stale after 2nd and 3rd installment. Backtracks from statment when someone lists Playstation centric games with one being the best candidate for stale and boring, Metal Gear.

Goalposts Jerry. Goalposts.

I guess it's just the limitations of this format that makes it hard to understand. No worries.
 
I literally just finished the main quest of GTA:V(and surprisingly loved it!!). I have barely started Farcry. I have a few classes left in Diablo. Have barely touched Games with Gold games... And returned MGS due to feeling overwhelmed...

I've only played 11 hours of Witcher due to wanting to finish at least some of the back log, and still haven't played Halo 4 in the MCC except for the start (I didn't get it for 360 either... Eep!)

I kind of want this year to stretch out more! I'm about to get a ps4 (The last of Us! I need you!), and I know that all my other games are going to be tosses aside inc Fallout 4 comes out! Ughhhh...

I've been playing games more than ever, ever since my break up with the man endowed with charisma, uniqueness, nerve and talent... Or c*** for short, but I'm still playing catch up!

There had never been an E3, where I was amazed by idies! Indie games are actually appealing to me now. I think the fact that they've lifted their game help.

I felt that this years felt like the waters between Mmo and single player weren't as distinguished this year.

Retro Replay, FallOut 4, Uncharted collection, and whatever real Final Fantasy comes out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andy
Saying franchises are played out, lol. If people only wanted new IPs we'd be waiting awhile for a new game. Nothing wrong with taking an already established franchise with an engine already in place and continuously improving on it with sequels. If you're truly sick of a franchise, you probably have a short attention span. Just my opinion.
 
I was thinking Fallout would be my only purchase, but I'm knee-deep in the Witcher 3 right now, and I think it'll take me several months to finish (Sept/Oct). After finishing it, I'm not going to be in the mood for another 4-month long RPG. Also, Bethesda games are notoriously buggy on release, so it might be a good idea to wait 6 to 8 weeks before picking it up. I did that with Witcher 3, and it worked out well -- gave them time to patch it 5 times.

So I might wait on Fallout a while -- give them time to patch it up, plus give me time for a few palette cleansers before another monumentally long RPG.

Probably Rise of the Tomb Raider on Xbox would be my main purchase, then. I'll supplement with several indies on PS4 (Ethan Carter, Gone to the Rapture, Dreamfall) and several episodic series (Life is Strange, Borderlands, Kings Quest).

Other games I'm interested in this year include the Uncharted Collection, PGA Tour 15, and Mad Max, but I doubt I'll be picking any of them up until 2016.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Plainview
Saying franchises are played out, lol. If people only wanted new IPs we'd be waiting awhile for a new game. Nothing wrong with taking an already established franchise with an engine already in place and continuously improving on it with sequels. If you're truly sick of a franchise, you probably have a short attention span. Just my opinion.

This doesn't make any sense.