One game is exclusive to a console, while the next is multi-platform. How do you keep up with a series when it keeps jumping consoles?
Certain games are released solely for one video game platform, such as Ratchet and Clank (PlayStation 4) or Halo 5 (Xbox One). These titles are classified as exclusives. Exclusives are often published (manufactured and marketed) by the Platform’s company and developed (created and designed) by first party studios. Such is the case with Halo 5 being published by Microsoft and developed by 343 studios, a Microsoft Owned studio (first Party).
Dead Rising 3 has sold over 5 million copies, making it the top-selling game in the series despite being exclusive to Xbox One and PC.
This really needs a re-release. Enjoyed all 4 games with 3 probably being my second favourite.
It's 2013! I'm on my Xbox One and streaming from my laptop to my chromecast! Life couldn't be better!
Now I can stream my Xbox One from my TV to my phone to my tablet while I'm inside my refrigerator.
Surprised this didn't get a Series S/X boost. I believe it's still locked to 30fps. Then again so is the PC version until you go into the .ini file and change it.
Mark from WellPlayed writes about five game launches that were impacted by unfortunate scheduling.
Zero Dawn sold really well so I’m not sure this belongs. The second game released next to a big game again and it hurt it some I forget what it was though, oh yeah Elden Ring .
But a good game is a good game to me I don’t care when they release personally but they do have to think about it when you want to get more people to buy it.
The Survivor Trilogy was a drastic reimagining of Lara Croft and Tomb Raider, and it provokes changes for the character that are truly fantastic.
Deserves less IMO, i think the 1st in the new trilogy was a perfect 1st step for the new direction. The next 2 games were half steps at best. Not only that, every character in the series including Lara is just annoying and doesn't make sense in terms of motive, like yes they have a motive, but none of it seems proportional to the lengths they are willing to go through for it. The most annoying thing is every one of the games say "become the Tomb Raider" yet 3 games later and we're still not there? No thanks. Then there's the mess of the 3rd game, massive skill tree that serves almost no purpose as there's literally only like 3-4 short encounters in the whole game, and they took till the 3rd game to finally manage some decent puzzles even remotely close to previous games in the series. Nah, the trilogy infuriated me to no end as a long time fan of the series, i hope we get better going forward cause that crap sucked.
The first in the trilogy was my favorite. I thought they were going into the right direction with that one until the second one came out and seemed like a graphical downgrade but the gameplay was okay. As for the Third, Graphics were really nice but it was kinda boring me to death with its non-stop platforming and exploring with not enough action! Well, for me anyway...
Graphics on the 3rd one were abysmal. It’s more colorful and has more variety, but everything else was a noticeable downgrade.
The more open world with NPC quests was also handled very poorly, to the point I missed Angel of Darkness.
I know it is your opinion, but she did progress as a character in each game, she even got more muscular and seasoned.
That is the thing, people first complained that there was not enough platforming and actual tomb raiding in the first and second games. Shadow remedied that and kept the combat elements.
3-4 encounters? huh? did we play the same game? there was plenty of combat and, the skill tree did matter, like being able to hang enemies from trees, set explosives traps on bodies, being able to counter, and that are just a few of the combat skills. The skill tree also had things like being able to hold your breath underwater longer, crafting upgrades, zipline upgrade, and climbing upgrades that all changed how you can approach situations.
Not knocking your opinion, but we definitely had different experiences. I had 98% completion on the shadow.
Sorry but i'm with him about the low number of encounters, the game throws loads of weapons and skills you're way with a comparatively low amount of places to actually use them, so they felt under utilised.
Yeah...no
It was awful, for THREE GAMES it was "become the Tomb Raider" where she went back to square one after each game. Not to mention after a huge reaction of killing someone for the first time she then becomes Rambo straight after and goes on a slaughter spree without a single other reaction. Her development was all over the place.
She was whiney, weak and in later game a little arrogant and selfish
Oh and the voice actress compared to the previous ones was not as good
Lara Croft deserved better and while they are decent games as they are, we deserved actual Tomb Raider games, we could have had better survival games if they just stuck with the original Lara Crofts origin about her plane going down. Surviving 2 weeks in the Himalayas...I'd have liked to seen that, who knows what mystical threat she could have faced in the mountains or underground some secret concealed cave.
I thought Shadow of the Tomb Raider had better gameplay than Rise, but it annoyed me the most of the trilogy when I stopped to think about the story.
It's like they deliberately decided to make her unlikeable and did nothing to make the character you're playing as likeable or have even one sign of humility.
2013 I thought was a fine entry, but Rise and especially Shadow were painfully mediocre follow ups imo, I really didn't like how selfish and angry her character was in those two.
First one was decent, played through it twice.
Second one was okay, played through it once.
Third one was really bad, tried twice a year apart, still can't get through the first two hours, it is just really bad.
Honest question, what did you find bad about it? the opening 2 hrs of Shadow were fantastic imo.
The opening was very similar to the first 2, what did you find really bad?
Not looking for an argument, just an honest question.
3rd one just didn't feel like a tomb raider game. Possibly because the development was passed to another development team. Big mistake! Microsoft killed tomb raider making the first game a timed exclusive. Never recovered after that.
Try not to make it all "complicated" than it is.
Exclusive means, if you can't play it anywhere else, it's exclusive.I know there is a group of individuals that want to change the definition, but that is what it is.
I can't play "legally" any Nintendo game on any other device than a Nintendo console.I can't play "legally" any Sony game on any other device than a Sony console. But when a company comes out and says that all their games will be releasing on another platform to promote an OS, or to make back money they invested in an IP that didn't sell, it is no longer exclusive if I don't have to buy the console to play it.
It's not that hard to figure out. It's still another device other than a console. Are dell, Acer, Compaq, Samsung, Toshiba,etc. Microsoft hardware? No. It's not that complicated.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/...
It's not that complicated. It's on one console and generally on PC too.
What are consoles?
Console exclusive means the game can be available on PC, mobile, etc., but cannot be available on any competing console. Case in point: Splinter Cell Conviction.
Exclusive:
Wii U: Bayonetta 2
PS4: Horizon Zero Dawn
Xbox One: ---- Can't really say when Microsoft have them coming to PC.
So for all those PS4 exclusive that people been hyping up that is also on PS Vita or PS3. Sorry it's not exclusive to the PS4. Remasters, Remakes and Ports don't count either on all three platforms.
If it's on PC it don't count.
If it also a Console / Handheld version. AKA Dragon Quest XI. It not exclusive.