Console Exclusives: Are you for or against them & why?

[joker454]

If every exclusive game was highly rated, you might have a point.

It's not for every game but I assure you it happens, do what you will with that info Likewise the opposite can happen is one party pisses off the other. Like, oh I don't know, standing in a room while a reviewer of a well known online magazine points to a team lead of a particular game and says "I don't like you and that's why you're going to get 6/10", the later seeing all 8's and 9's on metacritic with their 6.0 right at the bottom true to their word. Yeah...that happens as well. It's all a game, everyone needs to play to win. That's how reviewers can get the in depth background access they need to one up other online magazines, by playing the game for the titles that matter. Otherwise you get locked out.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's not for every game but I assure you it happens...

I'm sure it does. But we need only look at the data to see it's not a major influence. few of the exclusives are super high scorers, and those that are tend to have user reviews that match. For the purposes of this discussion, we can take a 95 % exclusive game and consider it as 95% good, rather than 85% good with an inflated score. Likewise a 95% multiplat can be considered the same (and there's pressure with publishers as well as console companies. EG went into this a while back in a big expose-transparency story around Christmas time I think).

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Further to my post above, I think we may as well abandon the point about which game was better. In terms of my engagement and connection (sorry!) then it's the The Last of Us. No contest. And when I played it was drained by poor survival horror games and had low expectations even from Naughty Dog. In terms of adranline-pumping jaw-dropping action Uncharted 2 is unparalleled to me. It's never been surpassed. Great story, great characters, great (and funny) dialogue. The first game that made me rub my eyes with nextgen disbelief? Gears of War. I played it on a friends 360 and knew I had to kiss goodbye to my PlayStation 2. However, if I reflect on the games that kept me playing the longest, gripped to exploring and unlocking the story? Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Skyrim.

How do you even weigh such experiences? I know I can't.

It's still highly subjective. For example, these are just my opinions.

Best RPG for the past 10 years? Dragon Age Origins (multiplat)
Best FPS for the past 10 years? Battlefield or COD (multiplat although Halo is close)
Best Third person shooter for the past 10 years? Gears of War (exclusive) or TLOU (exclusive)
Best Adventure game for the past 10 years? I actually can't pick among the many PC exclusives
Best Co-op game for the past 10 years? Dungeon Defenders (multiplat, Borderlands 1/2 is also close and also multiplat)
Best platformer? The last Rayman (multiplat)
Best Open World? Probably RDR (multiplat)

Remember, just my opinion and yours is likely different. I could go on and on with various genres featuring either multiplat or exclusives. And if we did everyone on this forum, we'd have a different list for each person.

Hence, I don't care either way. From a gaming standpoint multiplatform is never bad. However, exclusives can lock me out of playing them whenever I want. I'm not going to buy every platform out there anymore. I barely see the value in owning more than one platform anymore. Right now the only reason I even still have an Xbox One is because it has an entire genre (fitness programs) that doesn't even exist on preferred platform (PC). Otherwise I'd likely give it away or sell it.

But it doesn't bug me. I know why exclusives exist and it's fine. I don't have to play every game out there (Not ever buying another EA game until I can get their games on Steam again, so I still haven't gotten to play Crysis 3. ). If I really want to I can try them out at friends (almost finished TLOU after multiple months now by doing this. ). If they have a good story I can just watch them on Youtube.

The whole question of which is better is like asking 100 different people whether Red is a better color than Blue. Although the discussion itself is vastly more interesting than the discussion around Red versus Blue (the colors, not the show.)

And hence I'm neither for nor against them. They are inconvenient for me, but I understand why they exist.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It's still highly subjective. For example, these are just my opinions.

Exactly!

 

[pjbliverpool]

People keep mentioning Gears of War but it's worth remembering that it's not an exclusive (same goes for Halo). The sequels were but that's another story . Personally I think consoles need exclusives which generally makes them a good thing, but the current and upcoming exclusives on the next gen consoles hold no interest for me in the face of (in my opinion only) a much more interesting lineup of multiplatform games on the horizon. WiiU on the other hand does have a few I'd be interested in but I'd never buy a whole console just to play 3 or 4 specific games.

 

[Sonic]

People keep mentioning Gears of War but it's worth remembering that it's not an exclusive (same goes for Halo). The sequels were but that's another story . Personally I think consoles need exclusives which generally makes them a good thing, but the current and upcoming exclusives on the next gen consoles hold no interest for me in the face of (in my opinion only) a much more interesting lineup of multiplatform games on the horizon. WiiU on the other hand does have a few I'd be interested in but I'd never buy a whole console just to play 3 or 4 specific games.

Exactly how are Gears of War or Halo series not exclusive to the Xbox platforms?

 

[DrJay24]

Halo 1 &2 and Gears 1 were on PC.

 

[Sonic]

Halo 1 &2 and Gears 1 were on PC.

Oh yeah I forgot about the PC games.

 

[DJ12]

I guess I'm for console exclusives.

When the game is on both platforms, one version invariably isn't as good as it could be as the devs have usually aimed for the middle ground between the two consoles, leading one to have worse performance trying to keep up and the other never missing it's required framerate (indicating plenty of power left untapped)

But who knows, this generation things may change as both consoles are similar to PCs (And each other), maybe PS4 gets "High" settings and Xbox One gets "Medium" settings, both games look comparable, but the strengths of the PS4 get used more often.

 

[JPT]

I am for exclusives, its where some risk is taken, look at Heavy Rain, Puppeteer and Journey as examples for that.

CoD, BF, AC and so forth are less risky games and more boring in my view.

 

[pjbliverpool]

It's completely not. You miss the point because the original point being argued was about "games that push the HW on a technical level"; which neither of the games you mentioned do... even remotely.

I was arguing about games that meet the gold stanrdard in production values and quality. The games you mentioned only go to prove my point, as those annualized conveyor belt developed sequels are the very definition of average in terms of the quality of the production in each iteration. Neither compares favourably to the biggest exclusives, nor do they do so with the big multiplatform juggernauts like GTA 5 and RDR.

That's my whole point. The games with production values thet rival the exclusives, are the ones we ultimately get very few of in comparison.

That would make sense is the AC and CoD games (amoungst many other multi platform games like the Crysis and BF series) weren't well known for pushing the hardware on a technical level and easily able to stand toe to toe with the best exclusives but since they are and can, I don't see the logic in your post.

The most technically impressive games on the last gen consoles as far as I'm concerned were GTA5, BF3/4 and Crysis 3. On the current generation the upcoming games making the biggest graphical waves seem to be AC:Unity, CoD:AW and The Division. All multiplat games. Go figure.

 

[rockaman]

I am for exclusives, its where some risk is taken, look at Heavy Rain, Puppeteer and Journey as examples for that.

CoD, BF, AC and so forth are less risky games and more boring in my view.

That's a good point. A lot of these exclusives don't have to be as populist.

The entire purpose of a lot of the multiplatform games is to be completely populist. At least when I think of Battlefield I think of populist. And buggy, very buggy. Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty.... blockbusters I'm just not interested in, the same theme, same story arcs or themes or non-stop action sequences, I'm just lost in the number of titles in those series.

Not that any game doesn't have the goal of selling in the hundreds of thousands and millions, but an exclusive has a unique opportunity to "add a unique experience" to a portfolio of games particular to a platform.

And in that sense the curating done by the platform holder or by the publishing studio making an exclusive title maybe gets to be a little more creative.

And it's also not to say creative games aren't on PC or multiplatform, but a special partnership with a platform holder I guess might be a good way to deliver more specialized or experimental titles when there's more direct discussion and hopefully agreement between publisher and developer that a new idea or new experience has some breadth behind it.

After all, how did Demon's Souls or Journey come to fruition?

 

[joker454]

I am for exclusives, its where some risk is taken, look at Heavy Rain, Puppeteer and Journey as examples for that.

CoD, BF, AC and so forth are less risky games and more boring in my view.

I think that's very subjective though. I won't make any lists since that would just start a war, but personally I find many exclusives to be painfully boring and derivative. Often this is the case because exclusives are so focused on trying to look the best to where they ultimately forget about game play, and subsequently get beat in that regard by other multi platform games.

 

[pjbliverpool]

And it's also not to say creative games aren't on PC or multiplatform, but a special partnership with a platform holder I guess might be a good way to deliver more specialized or experimental titles when there's more direct discussion and hopefully agreement between publisher and developer that a new idea or new experience has some breadth behind it.

I think most people would tend to agree that if specialized and/or experimental titles are your thing, the PC would be the first stop over console exclusives. What with the thousands of Indie games released every year and all.

 

[rockaman]

I wouldn't completely agree, but I think PC is a great platform for specialized titles with or titles with newer thinking. ARMA to DoTA to Minecraft, and others. But I think consoles, sometimes with exclusives, especially budget ones, have done well in this regard as well. Maybe not in volume of titles, but I would say definitely in how far they reach. Sony's deal with ThatGameCompany alone made a few really exceptional and forward thinking games.

I don't think indie has a monopoly on that even today, and I think indie is too loose a term regardless. And many of those most popular budget and smaller titles are completely platform agnostic, whether you're looking at Don't Starve or Spelunky or FEZ or Cave Story. And it seems like the experiments on consoles, especially exclusives, are able to secure more funding to realize their objectives than most of the competing specialized games on PC.

 

[SlimJim]

I think that's very subjective though. I won't make any lists since that would just start a war, but personally I find many exclusives to be painfully boring and derivative. Often this is the case because exclusives are so focused on trying to look the best to where they ultimately forget about game play, and subsequently get beat in that regard by other multi platform games.

For example: Uncharted series, The Last of Us, God of War 3, are all games with best graphics, and best gameplay, even game of the year awards in their respective genres, or overall. So if you havent, you should play those.

The Halo games had pretty great gameplay. Although, in the tech/art department they were kind of lacking. But that doesn't mean that only exclusives that don't look the best had bad gameplay:
Alan wake case in point: bad graphics, bad, repetitive gameplay.

Although I'll give you Beyond; I got this game (and many others) for free when visiting Sony HQ in my country to check out the new PS4. The game can look absolutely phenomenal. But the gameplay, or rather the genre; could not hold my attention at all. I would have felt bad if I didn't get the game for free. Even if I only payed 5 euros, it would have felt like a waste. Which is a big shame because the production values are amazing.

 

[Devious]

Alan Wake had bad graphics? I think despite the 544p resolution the game looks pretty damn great. I'll agree on the gameplay part though, it did get pretty repetitive.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

For example...

Ypour post is irrelevant. Jokere expressed an opinion and stated he wouldn't enter into a list wars because it subjective. Your examples are subjective. You can't cite GOW as evidence of exclusives being better when for some people with different tastes, it was jolly boring.

 

[JPT]

I think that's very subjective though. I won't make any lists since that would just start a war, but personally I find many exclusives to be painfully boring and derivative. Often this is the case because exclusives are so focused on trying to look the best to where they ultimately forget about game play, and subsequently get beat in that regard by other multi platform games.

The thread title is asking for my opinion

I can rephrase a bit, exclusives seems to have more freedom to experiment, because they want to stand out as a beacon for their platform.

As for games being boring, I agree, any game can get boring or repetitive, and some that at the outlook seem very repetitive and/or a grind fest can be super fun.

Look at Heavy Rain (I have not played QDs other games) it was different and peeked my interest a lot. As a game I felt it was very restricted (I never finished it) and the phasing was weird. But I really do applaud Sony/QD for trying it and it seems to have sold decently since they got to make new game

Would any none exclusive publisher take on a game like Heavy Rain, Puppeteer and Journey? I do not know the industry except from being just another game player, but my understanding is that probably wouldn't have taken the risk.

So I am for exclusives because we get more diverse fauna of games to play

 

[Prophecy2k]

Shifty I think it's practically impossible to have a discussion about the value of platform exclusive games whilst keeping all discussion entirely objective. It's an inherently subjective topic, since people value different things.

Jokers comes in and claims someone else's opinion or perspective is subjective and then goes on to contribute his own personal subjective opinion/perspective. PJliverpool does the same. So did I. So did SlimJim and practicaly everyone else in this thread.

What a gamer values in games will differ from game to game and person to person (in some cases developer to developer). For me, consoles exclusive have always offered something unique that other multiplatform games often do not. But that's fundamentally down to my ability to appreciate certain aspects of some games because of my own subjective preferences and the things I value most in the video games that I play.

For others, who value something different, they might easily dismiss the games I consider "best-in-class" because those games do not adequately meet their expectations of what a "great game" should have or do.

I fail to see the point of keeping the thread going if everyone's subjective expressions will just instantly get shot down for being subjective. Outside of people subjective preferences, there's really little discussion to be had.