It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Good Microsoft Games? Let me think... clearly Fable!

Unfortunately no clue if there will ever be a new Fable.

Best so far:

-Fable The Lost Chapters (can be gotten as a DRM free Steam version, however, no pad support)
-Fable 2
-Fable 3
-Ori and the Blind Forest (well technically MS is just the publisher, yet NIS is just a publisher too for way to many games... the people still call it "NIS games".)

Sadly, the best series so far is not continuing...
avatar
Tokyo_Bunny_8990: I wouldnt say Microsoft has been a good publisher. Hasnt exactly produced anything good of note and even bombed the Halo series which was their flagship. They might not be EA or Square bad of trying to make everything live service but they arnt a good publisher.
avatar
pds41: I maintain they are good owners. They broadly take the approach of letting the studios and sub-brands keep doing what they're good at and maintaining individual identities. Just look at Zenimax, Obsidian, inXile etc. Contrast this with EA (the publisher where developers go to die - Bullfrog, Maxis...)

As for not having produced anything good, you're forgetting Flight Simulator 2020, the Forza and Forza Horizon series, Sea of Thieves, Age of Empires, Freelancer and Starlancer, Crimson Skies, Ghostwire: Tokyo, Starfield... And those are just on the PC.

Like I said, much worse owners/publishers out there.
MS is awful as a publisher and company. The last decade is all the proof you need. Even when they bought rare from nintendo, all the franchises were ruined and several not used at all.
Post edited October 15, 2023 by Raf..
avatar
pds41: I maintain they are good owners. They broadly take the approach of letting the studios and sub-brands keep doing what they're good at and maintaining individual identities. Just look at Zenimax, Obsidian, inXile etc. Contrast this with EA (the publisher where developers go to die - Bullfrog, Maxis...)

As for not having produced anything good, you're forgetting Flight Simulator 2020, the Forza and Forza Horizon series, Sea of Thieves, Age of Empires, Freelancer and Starlancer, Crimson Skies, Ghostwire: Tokyo, Starfield... And those are just on the PC.

Like I said, much worse owners/publishers out there.
avatar
Raf..: MS is awful as a publisher and company. The lat decade is all the proof you need. Even when they bought rare from nintendo, all the franchises were ruined and several not used at all.
Not all franchises deserve to have sequels made indefinitely. You might be upset that you didn't get a sequel to... well, I don't know what as you didn't actually provide any examples, but on the contrary, the last decade (well, post 2016 when Lionhead was closed) has been a great era to be owned by Microsoft rather than the other big publishers. They've broadly left the studios alone to keep making the games they want to make.

But some people just see the name "Microsoft" and think "awful" without looking at everything that has happened.
avatar
Xeshra: Good Microsoft Games? Let me think... clearly Fable!

Unfortunately no clue if there will ever be a new Fable.

Best so far:

-Fable The Lost Chapters (can be gotten as a DRM free Steam version, however, no pad support)
-Fable 2
-Fable 3
-Ori and the Blind Forest (well technically MS is just the publisher, yet NIS is just a publisher too for way to many games... the people still call it "NIS games".)

Sadly, the best series so far is not continuing...
Even the Fable games largely ripped off Shenmue with Molyneux wanting to one up Yu Suzuki. I mean they are solid but all he promised, the first ended up being a short game as I figured there would be a drawback to all he promised.
Molyneux should accept he will NEVER be half the talent of Suzuki. It would be like a director from the 70's or 80's aspiring to match Buster Keaton, Sergei Eisenstein or Akira Kurosawa.
The best XBox stuff was largely published or largely finished before MS bought them...case in point, Mass Effect, Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey. Also Sunset Overdrive, Dead Or Alive, Panzer Dragoon Orta, Otogi, Jet Set Radio Future, etc. Or XBox had a superior version...Fatal Frame 1 and 2.
Fable is under Molyneux's own studio and published by MS.

Even the Rare stuff could have been better had MS not rushed them for a launch day release. MS needs a Nintendo approach to release.
avatar
pds41: I maintain they are good owners. They broadly take the approach of letting the studios and sub-brands keep doing what they're good at and maintaining individual identities. Just look at Zenimax, Obsidian, inXile etc. Contrast this with EA (the publisher where developers go to die - Bullfrog, Maxis...)

As for not having produced anything good, you're forgetting Flight Simulator 2020, the Forza and Forza Horizon series, Sea of Thieves, Age of Empires, Freelancer and Starlancer, Crimson Skies, Ghostwire: Tokyo, Starfield... And those are just on the PC.

Like I said, much worse owners/publishers out there.
Going pretty far back if you are mentioning Freelancer. Its a good but very short game if its the one published in 2003. Ghostwire was also created before the acquisition pretty independent of Microsoft, as is Starfield (which is getting alot of flak even from fans so wouldnt put it under "good" tbh). Games take about 5 years to produce so these were in development before Microsoft involvement. They shut down Aces Games in 2009 which was in charge of Flight Simulator and basically didnt have Rare do much by tying them to the Kinect which they shut down so Aces and Rare could have produced more and better stuff under better management.

You also want to then look at their flops to get a fair assessment of their performance. Im not gut reacting Microsoft = bad since I do think Gamepass is revolutionary and an amazing deal for gamers (I just hope they continue to sell physical games cause f digital only). But in terms of content, they are lacking compared to competitors Sony and Nintendo.

avatar
Sarang: Even the Fable games largely ripped off Shenmue with Molyneux wanting to one up Yu Suzuki. I mean they are solid but all he promised, the first ended up being a short game as I figured there would be a drawback to all he promised.
Molyneux should accept he will NEVER be half the talent of Suzuki. It would be like a director from the 70's or 80's aspiring to match Buster Keaton, Sergei Eisenstein or Akira Kurosawa.
The best XBox stuff was largely published or largely finished before MS bought them...case in point, Mass Effect, Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey. Also Sunset Overdrive, Dead Or Alive, Panzer Dragoon Orta, Otogi, Jet Set Radio Future, etc. Or XBox had a superior version...Fatal Frame 1 and 2.
Fable is under Molyneux's own studio and published by MS.

Even the Rare stuff could have been better had MS not rushed them for a launch day release. MS needs a Nintendo approach to release.
Yeah Shenmue is awesome. Played 3 on PS plus and bought it along 1 and 2 to experience the series. Too bad it seems the story will go unfinished from the looks of it. I understand the criticism for 3 even though I enjoyed it (probably cause Im new to the series and didnt go through the wait).
From what I've read about Microsoft, they tend to be pretty "hands off" with the studios they buy... So other than Bobby Kotick FINALLY getting the boot, I don't expect much to change for the next 2-3 years...
avatar
Cavalary: And Ubisoft got something out of it...
avatar
SpikedWallMan: I'm not so sure that they actually gained anything there. To me it basically sounds like Activision just unloaded the responsibility for the most risky and potentially unprofitable part of their business onto Ubisoft for 15 years. Even major players like Google, Amazon, Netflix, and others can't seem to make ubiquitous game streaming happen, and I don't see that trend changing anytime soon. (And that's a good thing, IMO.) So I just see that as a time/money sink that Ubisoft probably won't be able to handle.
The big corporations keep betting on it being big though, and working towards it.
But you may be right when it comes to the time frame, letting others deal with it for now and getting the rights back when they believe it'll be a sure, established thing.
avatar
pds41: I maintain they are good owners. They broadly take the approach of letting the studios and sub-brands keep doing what they're good at and maintaining individual identities. Just look at Zenimax, Obsidian, inXile etc. Contrast this with EA (the publisher where developers go to die - Bullfrog, Maxis...)

As for not having produced anything good, you're forgetting Flight Simulator 2020, the Forza and Forza Horizon series, Sea of Thieves, Age of Empires, Freelancer and Starlancer, Crimson Skies, Ghostwire: Tokyo, Starfield... And those are just on the PC.

Like I said, much worse owners/publishers out there.
avatar
Tokyo_Bunny_8990: Going pretty far back if you are mentioning Freelancer. Its a good but very short game if its the one published in 2003. Ghostwire was also created before the acquisition pretty independent of Microsoft, as is Starfield (which is getting alot of flak even from fans so wouldnt put it under "good" tbh). Games take about 5 years to produce so these were in development before Microsoft involvement. They shut down Aces Games in 2009 which was in charge of Flight Simulator and basically didnt have Rare do much by tying them to the Kinect which they shut down so Aces and Rare could have produced more and better stuff under better management.

You also want to then look at their flops to get a fair assessment of their performance. Im not gut reacting Microsoft = bad since I do think Gamepass is revolutionary and an amazing deal for gamers (I just hope they continue to sell physical games cause f digital only). But in terms of content, they are lacking compared to competitors Sony and Nintendo.
It's a tough one - I've been trying to say that MS in the last ten years has been good, but also dealing with those who were gut reacting "Microsoft = bad". Bringing up Freelancer was a reaction to the guy who said that their only good game was Halo.

Regarding Starfield, I know where you're coming from in terms of it being soon post acquisition (but the recent MS approach has been fairly hands-off, so I don't doubt that Zenimax will be given the leeway to do more of that type of game). I'd also argue that Starfield is getting a bit of a hard time because that's what happens with every Zenimax-Bethesda game - e.g. "Morrowind is better than Oblivion/Skyrim".

Realistically though, until recently Sony didn't release anything on PC (and Nintendo is more a casual publisher) so assuming the choices for Activision/Blizzard were Microsoft, Sony, EA or Ubisoft - I think they ended up with the best owner.

I'm still not over Codemasters being purchased by EA.

avatar
Sarang: Starfield, the lack of further Mistwalker releases(not even finishing the slate being developed before canceling their work), the canceling of Scalebound, True Fantasy Live Online(which later became Fantasy Life), canceling Fast and the Furrrriest which looked like a spiritual sequel to Diddy Kong Racing, killing off Project Gotham Racing, that online only MP Shadowrun, not releasing Magatama, Phantom Dust or Every Party in the US and no remaster of "Quantum Redshift". Oh and no backwards compatibility for "Project Sylpheed" on the XBox One and beyond as well as lacking bc for the 360 Indie games. Oh yeah and no Kinect support for the Series X and S, just for the Kinect games, nothing else mind you.
Not being a console gamer, I have no idea what any of this is or what half of those games are or were. I don't really care what happens on consoles - I'm thinking purely from a PC perspective.
Post edited October 17, 2023 by pds41
avatar
Tokyo_Bunny_8990: Going pretty far back if you are mentioning Freelancer. Its a good but very short game if its the one published in 2003. Ghostwire was also created before the acquisition pretty independent of Microsoft, as is Starfield (which is getting alot of flak even from fans so wouldnt put it under "good" tbh). Games take about 5 years to produce so these were in development before Microsoft involvement. They shut down Aces Games in 2009 which was in charge of Flight Simulator and basically didnt have Rare do much by tying them to the Kinect which they shut down so Aces and Rare could have produced more and better stuff under better management.

You also want to then look at their flops to get a fair assessment of their performance. Im not gut reacting Microsoft = bad since I do think Gamepass is revolutionary and an amazing deal for gamers (I just hope they continue to sell physical games cause f digital only). But in terms of content, they are lacking compared to competitors Sony and Nintendo.
avatar
pds41: It's a tough one - I've been trying to say that MS in the last ten years has been good, but also dealing with those who were gut reacting "Microsoft = bad". Bringing up Freelancer was a reaction to the guy who said that their only good game was Halo.

Regarding Starfield, I know where you're coming from in terms of it being soon post acquisition (but the recent MS approach has been fairly hands-off, so I don't doubt that Zenimax will be given the leeway to do more of that type of game). I'd also argue that Starfield is getting a bit of a hard time because that's what happens with every Zenimax-Bethesda game - e.g. "Morrowind is better than Oblivion/Skyrim".

Realistically though, until recently Sony didn't release anything on PC (and Nintendo is more a casual publisher) so assuming the choices for Activision/Blizzard were Microsoft, Sony, EA or Ubisoft - I think they ended up with the best owner.

I'm still not over Codemasters being purchased by EA.

avatar
Sarang: Starfield, the lack of further Mistwalker releases(not even finishing the slate being developed before canceling their work), the canceling of Scalebound, True Fantasy Live Online(which later became Fantasy Life), canceling Fast and the Furrrriest which looked like a spiritual sequel to Diddy Kong Racing, killing off Project Gotham Racing, that online only MP Shadowrun, not releasing Magatama, Phantom Dust or Every Party in the US and no remaster of "Quantum Redshift". Oh and no backwards compatibility for "Project Sylpheed" on the XBox One and beyond as well as lacking bc for the 360 Indie games. Oh yeah and no Kinect support for the Series X and S, just for the Kinect games, nothing else mind you.
avatar
pds41: Not being a console gamer, I have no idea what any of this is or what half of those games are or were. I don't really care what happens on consoles - I'm thinking purely from a PC perspective.
Quantum Redshift is MS' Wipeout/FZero. Gotham is Forza Horizon long before Forza Horizon and the devs. Bizarre Creations made "Metropolis Street Racer 1 and 2" first.
Starfield's problems might be because I heard it was built on Vulkan then when MS came over they demanded it be switched to DirectX.
avatar
Cavalary: The big corporations keep betting on it being big though, and working towards it.
But you may be right when it comes to the time frame, letting others deal with it for now and getting the rights back when they believe it'll be a sure, established thing.
Big companies may be betting big on it, but so far they're really losing. (See: Stadia, OnLive, GameFly Streaming, etc.) The only sane streaming option that I have seen is GeForce Now because it at least puts the user in control of what they have purchased by importing their existing offline games, but even that is mostly a niche market. I also think that people are already suffering from enough subscription fatigue with music/video streaming services, and video games require a much larger time commitment compared to listening to an album or watching a movie which makes paying monthly for game streaming even less appealing unless you're willing to speedrun your games in order to save subscription costs. Given the past failures and the apathy of gamers towards streaming even when the tech has been around for a while, I just don't understand why companies keep trying to force streaming in the market. (Well, other than the fact that it is the ultimate DRM.)

So I'm not as optimistic that Ubisoft will be able to establish anything even in 15 years, and that's assuming Ubisoft isn't bankrupt by then.
avatar
Warloch_Ahead: So, Obsidian making a sequel to Arcanum headed by Tim and Leonard is out of the question now?
Oh, I'd love to see them (Obsidian) or InXile (who made Wasteland 3 in the old-CRPG style) develop that.
Rumor has it inxile is working on an unannounced fallout. No clue if it's true, but the source is more reliable than the usual "trust me bro"
avatar
pds41: It's a tough one - I've been trying to say that MS in the last ten years has been good, but also dealing with those who were gut reacting "Microsoft = bad". Bringing up Freelancer was a reaction to the guy who said that their only good game was Halo.
Still a bad example. It would be like me saying Taito is a great developer. They made space invaders.

avatar
pds41: Regarding Starfield, I know where you're coming from in terms of it being soon post acquisition (but the recent MS approach has been fairly hands-off, so I don't doubt that Zenimax will be given the leeway to do more of that type of game). I'd also argue that Starfield is getting a bit of a hard time because that's what happens with every Zenimax-Bethesda game - e.g. "Morrowind is better than Oblivion/Skyrim".
So mods to the rescue again.

avatar
pds41: Realistically though, until recently Sony didn't release anything on PC (and Nintendo is more a casual publisher) so assuming the choices for Activision/Blizzard were Microsoft, Sony, EA or Ubisoft - I think they ended up with the best owner.

I'm still not over Codemasters being purchased by EA.
How is Nintendo a "casual publisher" when they basically have been carrying their own consoles through their own multiple exclusives that have all been pretty great?

And the right choice was probably Microsoft and the other 3 companies arnt allowed to buy Activision/Blizzard because of anti-trust issues. Just because a judge says the merger wouldnt hurt competition doesnt mean it actually wont. If Activision needed to be bought for some reason, it would have been nicer to have been by a non-gaming company like Amazon or Apple or Google who are already dipping their toes into the gaming market (although Apple and Google dont need to since they already earn a lions share for being a platform despite not producing any notable games themselves).
Well, hell. I hate this.

First, Bethesda goes woke and gets bought by Microsoft. Coincidence? Khajiit thinks not. Then they start buying every studio in sight, spreading THE MESSAGE like cancer. And no one gives a damn about any of it because, y'know, Microsoft owns us. They own the world's biggest operating system, so they own our computers.

Now they want to own everything: every IP, every device, every platform. All I can think of us Revenge of the Sith: So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause.
Amazon buying Acti-Blizz is no different than MS buying Acti-Blizz. You're trading one billion dollar company for another.

MS, for whatever it's worth, has a better track record with its in house video games, and I want you to think about that for a minute.

Amazon's game releases outside of Lost Ark have all been horrendous or end up canceled. And Lost Ark is developed by an Asian company not owned by Amazon.