Games with Gold is extremely underwhelming lately...

To be honest it wouldn't bother me if they scrapped it. I would still pay for Gold. I do wonder how many of the current detractors would be weeping, wailing and gnashing their teeth then though.

 

THEOWENKILLER do not put words in my mouth, where did i say that MS is ripping me off or im not getting my monies worth? I have simply said the games are underwhelming. When you compare GWG to PS+ which both give 'free' games with their sub (which costs
the same) then yes the MS selection has been poor and UNDERWHELMING (not a rip off)

Heres the thing if somebody makes a thread saying how great GWG is then i wouldnt go into that thread and say no theyre not how can you think that so why do people do it in these threads? If you dont like the complaining why waste your time reading and replying?

 

Hey Boas off topic by the time my mate went last night you were on Fifa so I watched Vikings instead, will be about over the weekend for some co-op if your about?

On topic I now agree that the GwG titles are on the large underwhelming.

 

@Genchy yeh mate will be on over the weekend. Will be on tonight if your about for a game or two?

 

Ok cool should be on about 10:00ish!

 

Nice i may be a bit later than that. If i dont make it like last time il msg you.

 

@OWENKILLER, I was on about games in general not GWG. I'll at least try those.

 

Well put blue as a nearly 30 year old man I think I know whether I like most things in life. I deffo know what types of games I like. GwG has provided me with 2 so far.

I think you bring up a point that may be easily overlooked and not given much thought at first. I think age plays a factor, at least for some. I'm your age +18 yrs. (Shaddup lol).
Most games that GWG has offered... I've already played at some point.

I'm talking more about the type of game than actual titles. I played 8 bit, 16 bit and etc. games by the ton... back when they were the 'latest greatest'.

Now it isn't that they weren't fun, I'm just more the type that plays a game that I like... a lot. Until I'm tired of it. Then I'm pretty much done with it. I guess I'm not very
nostalgic. I will (very rarely) grab a game that I haven't played in a long time and play it. It'd have to be a great game though.

I suppose I'm also the type who, when I see the newer console(s) hit and I see the newer games and graphics and everything the new tech brings, I'm all over it. Once I move forward,
I could care less if I ever play something that would (or could) be played on older gen systems. Aside from an occasional remaster [of a great game/series].

Of course I realize that means I may be missing some really good games that are on GWG (and I also realize they aren't all older '[insert bit #] looking' games)... but I'm not
out to play every game ever made. I'm out to play the games that grab my eye, look like fun and I have a blast playing. Taking into consideration, my age, gaming experience and preferences, GWG rarely has much for me. Which is fine.

 

@Blue

I'm your age and I find it interesting that I see things completely the opposite of you.

You haven't played these games and when you do that becomes apparent very quickly. Shovel Knight and many of the other pixel/sprite based games that we are seeing today couldn't have been made on the NES, etc. They have chosen to use a graphics style that
has been around for decades but everything else is innovative and new (controls, depth, etc).

When I play the next gen console releases I get the feeling of "been there, done that". We are seeing nothing new and innovative. The games may look pretty but it's the same FPS's and open world games that have become so prevalent in recent years. To make
matters worse the games are focusing so much on graphics that we are losing the depth and gameplay we've seen in the past.

The big console developers are giving us recycled trash and people are buying it. It's going to be interesting to see what happens when some of the "pretty" indie titles hit the console and people start to see the innovation and gameplay that are being offered
by the little guys. You're absolutely right, gaming experience makes a huge impact on what you play and part of that experience comes from knowing and playing what's available in the big world of gaming.

 

ur right we are paying a fee for LIVE and thats all when we got LIVE we never payed for free games did we just to use LIVE

 

You haven't played these games and when you do that becomes apparent very quickly. Shovel Knight and many of the other pixel/sprite based games that we are seeing today couldn't have been made on the NES, etc. They
have chosen to use a graphics style that has been around for decades but everything else is innovative and new (controls, depth, etc).

The look is part of the appeal for me. It can have the best controls and etc. available, but if it has "been there, done that" graphics, it loses a part that would contribute to
the immersion for me. It doesn't have to have a world that looks so real I'd swear it is. But I at least want it to look like the devs tried to make use of the console's ability... or perhaps better put, it should look like they "want me to believe".

When I play the next gen console releases I get the feeling of "been there, done that". We are seeing nothing new and innovative. The games may look pretty but it's the same FPS's and open world games that have become
so prevalent in recent years. To make matters worse the games are focusing so much on graphics that we are losing the depth and gameplay we've seen in the past.

I am what I would call a character driven, story based gamer. If it has a decent story and characters / situations I can relate to in some way, I'm hooked. IMO, some of the best
games I've ever played have been (but not limited to) games that there has been talk, or rumors, of a movie surrounding them. Halo, GOW, Mass Effect (to name some favs). All are games in which, at times, I was so engrossed in the story and the action... I
was more interested in 'why' I was doing than 'what' I was doing and I almost forgot I was 'playing a game'. I don't need 'new and innovative' in how a game controls, it just has to have decent controls that work. Depth and gameplay are a bit subjective...
IMO.

The big console developers are giving us recycled trash and people are buying it.

Your opinion... funny though, even you admit people are buying it. That should tell you something and it falls along the lines of "One man's trash is another man's treasure". Pretty
judgmental of you... but that doesn't surprise me.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens when some of the "pretty" indie titles hit the console and people start to see the innovation and gameplay that are being offered by the little guys.

Maybe... maybe not. As I said, "pretty" is only part of it. Depends on one's definition of innovation and gameplay. If they want me to play their games, then they'll have to make
an IP that makes me turn on my X1 and have thoughts like "It's time to enter the world of <Game world> and become <Character>" - Not thoughts like "It's time to play <Game>". That's a bit over-simplified and there are always a few exceptions, but that's my
gaming taste... or what it has evolved into.

You're absolutely right, gaming experience makes a huge impact on what you play and part of that experience comes from knowing and playing what's available - and appealing -
in the big world of gaming.

 

I think the OP has a perfectly fare criticism. Sony and Microsoft are competing with very similar services, those of us that have both have noticed the pretty large disparity in free games offered. What I will say in microsofts defense is I think their side
of the equation has gotten a lot better in the last two years. Unfortunately for them, in terms of game offers and discounts, their competition got better as well.

 

@Blue

I don't know, I guess I'm just not getting it.

A game needs to be visually appealing for you to play it but that's only part of it. Story matters but if you don't play the game because the graphics aren't appealing how do you know if it has a good story?

Confusing.

If "To the Moon" freebirdgames.com/to_the_moon came to the One next month would it be a play or a no play? One of the best stories in any game ever ( not just my opinion every review will
basically say the same thing) so it meets that criteria yet the graphics probably don't meet visually appealing criteria.

You're not one of the ones passing judgment on these games as being bad but rather they are games you don't want to play for the above reasons. That's your option and I of course have no problem with that. It's the people that are bashing these games as
being bad without ever playing them that I take issue with.

As far as depth and gameplay being subjective I tend to disagree. I think it would be recognized my most people that the depth was removed in Dragon Age from DA:O to DA:I as a tactical rpg, or that Destiny is lacking in gameplay compared to other games in
the same genre, That doesn't mean that people don't enjoy those games and what I view as a step backwards may actually be the appeal to someone else.

 

I don't know, I guess I'm just not getting it.

A game needs to be visually appealing for you to play it but that's only part of it. Story matters but if you don't play the game because the graphics aren't appealing how do you know if it has a good story?

Confusing.

Let me see if I can clarify it a bit by putting it this way. It has to tick all the boxes with a 'good enough' rating for me... again, to over simplify.

The link you posted is a great example. The story sounds like an awesome concept. But you're right... graphically, it'll be a pass. Will I be missing a great game? Possibly...
I'd venture to say your opinion may even be probably.

So here's the thing, we'll keep going with the context of that game. If that were a story in a book and it was written in a small text that wasn't very readable [so to speak]...
or even if it were just an odd font that was less desirable and more distracting than what you've become accustomed to, the story would be just as good. But how appealing and how tempting would it be?

Maybe for you, it may still be tempting enough and that's fine. But for me, I'm going to put it up beside all the other books... games out there that interest me. I'm going to
weigh in all the factors, like how long do I usually spend on one game? How many others are available at the time that do check all the boxes? Does it release in a 'lull' when I may actually have time to play it that won't interfere with the time I'll spend
on more appealing [to me] games?

Some of it has to do with the statement I made which was along the lines of 'I don't plan to play every game out there.' This can also be interpreted as 'I don't have the time
or budget to put into every game out there.' So I choose the ones that are most appealing. Yes, I'll miss some good ones because of my judgment. But I'll still be playing ones that I like. Because I can't play them all.

 

^^That sums it all up pretty good. I'm the exact same.