Just because talking points and world views are repeated, doesn’t mean they’re 110% objective.
Even the staunchest most vocal of Infinite critics discuss the controversies and negativity of the game alongside their desire to see the game improve for the better.
What’s constructive about everyone saying the same thing from the same perspective? It’s a place of discussion, so I’ll contribute to that discussion from my perspective.
I’ve played Devil’s Advocate and take that stance a lot for the sake of discussion, but I’m not even playing that role here. Most of what I stated was actually critical of the direction 343 had been taking and suggesting my own patronage to this game is time limited.
I’d say they haven’t had a great track record, but it’s barely been a good one at best.
However just because things have not been stellar overall doesn’t mean that every last aspect about every entry that 343 put out is bad. It’s imbecilic to accept the idea that just because “343i” is slapped on the box that every last bit of the games they released is 110% bad and -10% good.
Halo 4 was an awful step for Halo in terms of gameplay, sandbox, (arguably) art design, and focus shifts that favored trends over established mechanics. Graphically it was a marvel how impressive the visuals were for a late stage 360 title, the revamped Reach engine was probably the best engine used in a 343 title to date, and Spartan Ops was years ahead of the curve to what we’re seeing now represented in seasonal story telling.
MCC was an utter train wreck of a title multiplayer being solidly unplayable for the better part of a year upon launch, with graphical hiccups and even poor optimization causing some of the single player aspects to be unplayable as well. Fast forward and it’s one of the most robust and fleshed out collection of titles available to players, some titles reverted to their original glory through painstaking tweaks and others receiving modern overhauls alongside dev encouraged mod support. The MCC isn’t just a needed replacement for players who want to play older Halo titles after servers were shut off, it’s the best way to play them bar none.
Halo 5 was a tone deaf break from what made Halo Halo. Leaning heavier towards then modern tropes and forming monetization and gameplay around them alienating core fans in favor of attracting new ones. Making a visual mess that couldn’t decide whether it favored fidelity or stable FPS values, and introducing the weakest generic campaign to date. I can’t speak much to the positives of this title, but I credit H5 where it’s due in the department of a robust Forge mode, consistent and fulfilling updates, and a pronounced effort to right some wrongs such as a firefight mode (which wasn’t great) and an expanded customization suite.
These are obviously watered down talking points and we could go much deeper, but even though you know these games weren’t great to various degrees, surely you recognize there are good intrinsic aspects to them?
Vocal minority suggests that these unpopular ideas get some traction when it’s actually the opposite that’s happening.
An overwhelming majority of the time people such as yourself often misconstrue/misunderstand and/or oversimplify/generalize (or worse, purposefully misrepresent) what the differing person is saying on the basis of drumming up divisiveness or vitriol rather than accept the reality that someone has a different position on the matter.
I’m in no way “incessantly defending the concept of F2P”. I’ll admit I like the idea of playing a game that I don’t have to pay for, especially at a time in my life where financially I don’t have a lot of scratch to spend on myself or my entertainment. I can’t spend $60 on a several new titles a year or even afford $15 a month. Occasional discounts/deals, F2P and already owned titles are what I lean towards to get my gaming fix, hell I recently sold off some appreciated items on Steam just to afford D2 Witch Queen because I won’t have any funds to put into gaming until August budget wise.
There are drawbacks, particularly in development of titles giving Devs/Publishers the idea that a subpar product can just be released and patched later that shouldn’t be ignored.
Monetization is a concept that is hit or miss, and honestly it’s rather esoteric across the board and even within games themselves. I could point out how a game gets it right, but also how that same game gets it wrong. Releasing a game incomplete is pretty unilaterally bad, but monetization can have so much nuance within a single title.
If this were true, then F2P wouldn’t be as pervasive as a trend as it is.
There’s a spectrum of examples of F2P titles that range from near perfect to abysmal failure much like there’s a spectrum of examples of P2P titles that range from near perfect to abysmal failure.
I mean honestly, this isn’t black and white. This entire discussion is various shades of gray.
I understand that you’re a staunch opponent to F2P, and I’m more so a middle ground/acceptor of it rather than a proponent opposite your stance. But calling someone a shill for a differing stance is just low my guy, especially when it doesn’t even fit the definition or the narrative. If you have a problem with what I’m saying, just discuss it rather than vilifying me personally. Contextually pointing out what you have an issue with can lead to some constructive discussion and a better understanding of each other’s stances even if we still don’t see eye to eye.