Topic: Team Microtransactions (MTX) PS3 Library Deliberation Thread

@Tasuki Yes, it's necessary. The different teams are working on different sets of games, and there's a lot of specific back-and-forth communication between them that doesn't concern the other teams.

@leucocyte I disagree that listing ALL the other AC games as 'important' is not overkill. They were certainly more important than just existing on the platform and each for differing reasons. I can't comment on Rogue personally as I didn't play it myself BUT the first AC game was important because it was the first and many 'key' ingredients to the open world structure were based around this. Whilst it was important from that perspective, it also made a few mistakes that Ubisoft learned from and why AC2 was more important. Brotherhood (the next on the list as AC2 was already passed as Most Important) was important as it featured a MP and one that was 'creative'. Maybe not as important as say Call of Duty but certainly not 'just' existing. I could go on and on about every game' in the list but I am sure you get the point.

I am sure that each AC game can fall into a spectrum of reasons why they can be considered 'important' and certainly some that would be much more important than others - even within a 'single' category like 'Important' for example.

I see it similarly to say a review score system - Very Important (for example) being those games that for one reason or another that could be equivalent to just taking the metacritic score as the reason and those games scoring 85-100 score for example. 'Important games could be the equivalent of games that score 65-84, the existing games the equivalent of 45-64, the not important games being 25-44 and the pointless 24 and below. Of course we are NOT looking at these from just the metacritic score but the similarity is still applicable. ALL the Assassins Creed Games are 'important' to a degree and whilst say Assassins Creed is (for example) an 80 game in terms of 'importance', Brotherhood could be 70 - which would still fit within the spectrum of 'important' and above simply existing.

I don't see that we as a team MUST have 'X' number of games in each 'category'. IF we choose to, we could decide that EVERY game out of the 30+ are ALL important for one reason or another and our Final submission could have ALL the games in just 1 category. Its like you can give out more than one 10/10 game review in a week/month/year if its deserving of that score. Every AC game (for example) could be reviewed at 80-90/100 - some may even have the 'same' score as another. We certainly don't have split the AC games up and spread them out from 'pointless' to Most Important. If we decide that EVERY AC game is 'most important' for whatever reason, that is totally acceptable - like EVERY AC game 'could' have a metacritic score of 85+ for example so every AC game could fall in a 'best' review scores bracket if we were only considering their review score - which we are not.

I hope that helps to clear things up and why I am totally unconcerned about multiple games from a franchise appearing under a 'single' category (like 'important') if they fall under that umbrella. You wouldn't criticise those who have to categorise the Uncharted games individually and put them all in the Most Important. Even 3 was a Game of the Year and was important from a visual standpoint. What that game achieved on a PS3 was astounding and it was a show piece for PS3. I wouldn't be surprised if it alone sold numerous PS3 consoles for Sony and, as someone who owned a 360, can safely say U3 was the best looking game on that generation of consoles. Regardless of what 1 or 2 could be argued as being most Important, you cannot really argue that 3 was any less than most important 2 - even if some felt the story or whatever wasn't as good as 2. It would deserve its place, just like the other Uncharted games.

If you do have ANY reason to question the position of ANY Orange highlighted game, you are welcome to start a discussion with the team and explain your reasoning why it should be moved. The fact that 'other' games in the same franchise are in the same category - which is highly likely as we seem to be allocated games alphabetically so it very likely we will be asked to categorise complete franchises - as we have here - is NOT reason enough. It has to be a 'valid' reasoning on a 'game by game' basis and if that does mean a complete franchise ends up in the same category of importance, so be it.

If you have played the game you are contesting, even better.

I hope this clarifies the situation. If you have any experience of the games that have not been initially placed, please feel free to position them under the heading that you think best suits them on a 'game by game' basis regardless of whether other games from the same franchise are also in the same bracket.

@BAMozzy the multiplayer in Brotherhood is what makes it important to me.

@BAMozzy - we currently have 2 AC games as very important, and 5 as important. we already agreed as a team about AC2, and personally i don't think of black flag as quite as important as others, i'm not going to dispute that, nor the original game, brotherhood, or revelations. my point is that the categorisation is not necessarily related to how good they are, whether they would score 70 or 80, but according to "Importance to gaming as of today, Technical achievement, Artistic Merit and Personal opinion", for at least three of these, AC3 misses the mark for me. it's not even important in the scheme of AC, nevermind gaming in general. plus it had a really dull map, 19th century east coast US is just not a good setting, it missed all the verticality that we were used to. as for rogue, nobody really talks about it much, it was more or less a last-gen filler because there was no way unity was fitting on PS3/X360. aside from playing as a templar, it had nothing much distinguishing it from other AC games, or contributed much to the series going forward.

Another thing that I feel is worth considering is how well a game has stood the test of time. Personally I don't feel the older Assassin's Creed games have, and playing them today wouldn't be quite so fun. I did enjoy the online in Brotherhood though, that was good fun.

@BAMozzy I don't think the idea was that multiple games in a series can't be "important." Rather, these games seem to be churned out on an annual basis, and there's only so much you can accomplish with that much development time.

I think the score system analogy you made is off for a number of reasons. First off, the categorization of these games isn't supposed to do with how "good" they are (which is what an ordinary scoring system is supposed to measure) so much as their importance to the medium and console in general. Secondly, the whole point of an exercise like this is to use our subjectivity and historical hindsight to rank games in a way that would have been impossible when they were first being reviewed. The biggest thing to consider is how long of a shadow these games have cast over the years, in spite of their design flaws or problems related to aging, which is exactly why other people agreed with your assessment of something like Uncharted 1, I think. Can you REALLY say the same thing about a number of those Assassin's Creed games that seem to come and go with regularity?

I would argue that it's certainly inadvisable to classify great gobs of games as being "important," because doing so destroys the whole point of an exercise like this. Even if every game on the PS3 were excellent, it wouldn't follow that all of those games should be classified as "important." That's because the "importance" of a game is contingent upon how it differentiates itself from its peers and influences the medium as a whole. And I don't think there's much of an argument to be made for a lot of the AC games accomplishing this.

Finally, I most certainly would say Uncharted 3 is less important than Uncharted 2. The latter game was a bolt of game design lightning that fundamentally changed the cinematic action game genre forever. Uncharted 3, as well-designed as it is, largely just rides UC2's coat-tails.

If every game is important, then no game is important. Saying some of the AssCreed games are "existing" isn't saying they're bad, or even not pretty good... just that they're not as important to the system and the medium as a whole as other games are.

Not my team, but I have to give two cents about The Awakened Fate Ultimatum if that’s okay. I personally think it’s important. It’s artistic achievement is extremely well done and very thought provoking. It was a pioneer in choice and consequences being in JRPG and making some real tough decisions (with maybe sometimes less consequences than Mass effect, but more impactful at the same time). It’s not a huge technical achievement, but I really think it was an overlooked game. It’s also one of the few, and the first game, to make me cry. It’s lack of technical achievement and being overlooked are the only reasons I wouldn’t rate it higher.

@leucocyte The 'score' was irrelevant to the point I was making. The way you are describing things is like saying Assassin's Creed Origins can't be a 9/10 because Assassin's Creed 2 got 9/10. EVERY game, regardless of whether its part of a Franchise or not has to be assessed on its own merit. EVERY Assassin's Creed game was at least important in one way or another - whether that was technical achievement, artistic merit, creative licence etc etc. As I said, I cannot comment about Rogue, but all the others were more than just 'existing' on the platform.

The point I was making, trying to use a critical review score as a parallel, as an illustration of principal only, is like saying ALL the Assassins Creed games scoring between 65 and 84 out of 100 on metacritic so they can ALL exist in the 65-84 group. You don't then decide that there are too many AC games in that score range so one (or more) has to be kicked out of that group, that their critical score doesn't count now because there is already an Assassins Creed game that scored between 65 and 84.

As I said, if you feel that a game doesn't merit being included in that particular group then we can open that up for a discussion and decide as a 'group' which bracket that game belongs once all the points are raised about it - at least from the person contesting and the person(s) who placed it in that group in the first instance. There is NO rule that states no two games from the same franchise can be considered 'very important' or even just 'important'. Some may well be more important (like some games can have a 'higher' metacritic score) than others but they can ALL occupy the same 'category'. Again to use 'review score' as an illustration, if the bracket was games with metacritic scores between 65 and 84, ALL Assassin's Creed games could well be in the SAME group - even those that were critically better (scoring 80-84) alongside others that were not so highly praised (scoring 65-70) by critics. They would all be in the same bracket of games scoring 65-84.

If you don't agree with the position, then please raise a discussion. Assassins Creed has already been discussed and has dropped down from 'most' important to just important after a discussion. If necessary, it can be moved again as its not locked in place - that is the purpose of the Orange highlight. A highlight tro show that the game has been placed in a certain category and, unless someone challenges and its decided as a whole group (or we reach deadline to submit our results) its free to be discussed and reasoned as to why it needs to be placed elsewhere.

I have absolutely no issue with any Orange game being discussed and the person(s) who disagrees with the positioning, challenging its placement with a reasoned argument as to why it doesn't belong where it is. Just saying there are too many games of the same franchise in the same group is NOT a reason. If someone, not me as I have no experience of the franchise) decides that every Atelier game belongs in the 'pointless' category, I certainly will not be challenging them, saying they cannot ALL be pointless. If course they can just like EVERY Assassin's Creed game can be considered Important (or better) in exactly the same way that 'every' Assassin's Creed game can score 85 or better on Metacritic because every single game is assessed on its own merit.

As I said, if you feel that any Orange highlighted game is incorrectly placed, then please challenge that with a reasoned argument as to why you think it needs to be moved and into which group you believe it should belong. There is absolutely no reason that multiple games from the same franchise cannot belong in the same group and they can be important for differing reasons and even for the year they released. Some Assassin Creed games were certainly important for PS3 as Sony had the marketing rights and that alone could make them 'more' important than just 'existing' on that platform - the franchise as a whole could considered important for Sony if Sony had the marketing rights, offered extra content etc.

The purpose of this is to separate games up into just 5 distinct categories at this stage. We are not saying that Assassins Creed 3 is more important than say Brotherhood, the 1st or Revelations, just that it was more important than just existing on PS3. Its the equivalent of making a list of every game that scored 65-84 for example and that every AC game (bar 2 and 4) fit into that bracket because of the metacritic score and for no other reason. We are NOT basing this purely on a metacritic score for these, we are just saying that they were all 'important' enough for what ever reason, regardless of what other games are in that group, taken purely on a game by game basis, that they all deserved to be in that group for now rather than in most important or just 'existing'.

Multiple, even every game from a franchise can ALL be in the same group. They have to be considered on a game by game basis, not thrown out because we already picked our game(s) for that category. Again to bring up Metacritic once again, but they won't mark down a games metacritic score because a game in that franchise already has that score.

I don't know how else I can explain it. We are NOT being tasked with assessing which Assassin's Creed game was 'most' important in our opinion, which 1 was important - just asked to arrange games into 5 different categories. We could all just decide that EVERY game is just 'existing' - no important games and no pointless games. I personally believe that every one of the Assassin's Creed games (bar Rogue) was at the very least important for the PS3 era, gaming and/or Sony/Ubisoft in one way or another - they were all better than 'just' existing on the console. If you believe otherwise, then please by all means challenge with a reasoned argument as to why a game needs to be moved. If we can't sort it out by a discussion, we will have a vote on it.

Incidentally, did you actually play Assassins Creed 3?

@Jaz007 I'll need to do some research on that game. I appreciate your input!

So, I think I'm going to go ahead and stick the whole swath of Atelier games in the "Not Important" category. They're not pushing any technical boundaries, they're not particularly influential on anything outside of themselves, and while they're fun, charming little games, I don't think they set very many hearts on fire. I'd argue for them having a higher placement on Vita, because, due to that system's lack of big games, they stood out more prominently, but I don't think they merit anything more on PS3.

@Ralizah The 'score' point was illustrative. If we had been asked to categorise the games purely on their Metacritic score into 5 distinct groups (100-85, 84-65, 64-45, 44-20 & 19-0), you would have NO issue with having ALL the Assassins Creed games in the same group - even if the 'best' one scored 84 and the worst only got 65. You would have no qualms saying that all those games belong in that group and that its not 'overkill'.

However, we are NOT basing this on metacritic score but on some other criteria that could mean something to one person and different to another.The games could all be important for one reason or another to different people too. Just as one AC game may score 84 and therefore be at the top of that criteria (games scoring 84-65), another AC game could be at the bottom of that criteria with a score of 65. Point is, all those games can and would belong in the same group. Just like every game was reviewed on its own merit, so can we judge every game on its own merit. NOTHING is cast in stone yet either, they are all highlighted in Orange meaning that if someone disagrees with their placement, they can start a discussion as to why they believe its positioned wrongly and which group it should belong in. As I have said, I do think that all the Assassins Creed games were 'important' for one reason or another and, like categorising games purely on metacritic score, you can have some that are placed 'higher' in that bracket, missing out on being most important, and some that may well be lower, closer to dropping into just existing. However they would still belong in the same group if it meets those parameters.

It would be much easier if the parameters were 'black and white' - like putting them into groups based purely on their metacritic score. Nobody could argue that a bunch of the same franchise games all falling into the same group because they all scored 65-84 for example. It would even be easier to see which games are closer to the top of that group and which may well be at the lower end but NOBODY can question that they all belonged in the same group because of the parameters that were stipulated.

This is going to be much more difficult because things are much greyer. There will be numerous games that may well be more important to someone than they are to another, may well be looked at from a certain perspective and positioned according to their viewpoint but another person may well have a completely different opinion. This is why I have stated that NO game is locked in position until Deadline OR until EVERYONE has a chance to discuss and where necessary amend any position.

A case in point, earlier today, AC3 was positioned in the 'most important' category and, after a discussion, it was amended and moved down a place - that was before I wrote the 'rules' for progressing as I know some people may not have had a chance to see, had a chance to have their say. Now the rules are in place in that ANY Orange marked game is up for discussion and will not be locked in place until we either reach deadline or come to a 'majority' verdict after a 'discussion' with reasoned arguments as to which category the game in question rightly belongs. I have absolutely no issue with EVERY game in a franchise belonging in the same category if necessary - whether that is Most Important, Important, Existing, Not important or Pointless. If you decide that ALL the Atelier games for example are 'pointless' I am more than happy for them ALL to be categorised in that way. I won't argue and say they can't all be Pointless, surely one must be important or even 'most' important by some criteria. If they ALL belong in a group, then they ALL belong in a group. Some AC games may well be more important than others, some for different reasons but they could all be 'important' enough to belong in that one group. You cannot say that we have too many games of a single franchise in the same bracket as a reason to downgrade or promote them to another group. To use the 'metacritic score' analogy for illustrative purposes, its like having all those games in the same group because they all scored 65-84. Some may well be nearer the top of 'importance' (like scoring 80+) and closer to being 'most important' whilst others could be at the lower end of importance (like scoring 70 or less), but still more important than just existing with others being somewhere in between (like scoring 71-79) in terms of importance.

to reiterate, the point of mentioning the scores was purely illustrative and for no other reason. Just like games from the same franchise could all fall into the same group if the parameters were purely based on metacritic score, so can multiple games from the same franchise fall into the same group based purely on 'importance' - regardless.

I am sure this isn't their 'final' grade either in all of this - that the games will then be assessed based on the groups we decide they belong in. I bet this is a preliminary round to separate games into 5 categories to make it easier than rating all 1442 games from position number 1 to 1442.

Again though, if you disagree with any marked game, in any position, please start a discussion listing why you believe it should be moved - if we all agree, it will be moved. I am NOT making any of these games and their position final. The Orange status means that someone (whether its me, you or anyone else in the team) has thought about the game and positioned it accordingly. Being Orange, it just means that is the 'initial' position and unless someone disagrees and starts a discussion about it, then at deadline, it will be locked in that position. If someone does want a discussion over a certain games position, great, lets do that and as soon as a position is agreed on by the majority, then it will be locked in that position. Whilst games are Orange or not marked, they are NOT finalised positions. As far as I can see, we do not yet have ANY game in their final place...

I am NOT dictating which games belong where, just stating that I have NO reason to believe that multiple games from the same franchise cannot exist in the same group, cannot be consider 'important' if another game or games from the same franchise are in that group. The whole Call of Duty games, as far as I am concerned, could ALL belong in the same 'important' group for example, just like they could ALL exist in the same 'existing' or 'not important' group if we as a team decide - but EVERY game will be considered on its OWN merit regardless of what position other games from that same franchise were placed into.

I don't know how much fairer I can be. I am giving EVERYONE a chance to position the unmarked games without any question or justification. I am giving EVERYONE a chance to question that position, to challenge that position and a voice that will be heard to state their reasons why the game should be moved. I am giving us, as a team, if that discussion cannot be resolved by the person who first positioned a game and the person challenging that position a chance to have a vote with the majority rule deciding its place.

The ONLY time that I will 'pull rank' will be at 'deadline' when we have to submit our final positions - if they are not locked in by that point, they will be. As I said, I really don't know how much fairer I can be. I do believe though that an entire franchise could belong in a single group, whether that's for the same reasoning or for completely different points much like an entire franchise could belong in the same group if the parameters were purely based on metacritic score. If someone feels that, for any of the reasons @themcnoisy stated, whether its for 1, 2 or more reason, as long as they have a reason for its placement, that is totally acceptable. If someone disagrees, then lets have a discussion but I see NO reason why the entire library of a franchise cannot occupy the same category at all - whether that's on the better side or worse, whether that's for different reasons or the same...

@Ralizah oh and on the subject of Atelier - if you believe that they are all not important or even pointless, then you go right ahead and place them in that group. I have absolutely no issue with you doing so and I have no experience or knowledge of the games to question your placement.

If, as I have said, anyone from the team disagrees with you, they can always start a discussion as to why they believe it (or 'they' if multiple) belong in a different group.

Thank you.

I hope that I have explained my position, my logic, my understanding of the task ahead and how I perceived our role. I am NOT dictating that all games from a franchise belong in one group, just saying that they all can belong in the same group if someone has reasoned that they belong in the same group. If someone then disagrees, I hope that I have put measures in place so that any disagreement of positioning the games can be challenged by providing reasons it needs to be moved. If the person who originally positioned the game agrees, as well as anyone else in the team who may have an opinion on it, it will be moved. Nothing has been decided, nothing is final until they are marked in green. I will try and remember to ask EVERYONE to look through the placement once every game is at least 'orange' as a final chance for any discussing, any challenge and if everyone agrees, then I will lock the positions but NOTHING is final until they are green.

@Ralizah @BAMozzy The four metrics are Importance to gaming today*, technical achievement, Artistic Merit and finally personal opinion.

*After Ass Creed 2 the series was successful and Ubisoft added in systems on top of systems and map icons on top of icons. I would argue a few years ago we witnessed a big push back on that openworld design and viewed from today's lens Ass Creed 3 is seen as a lesser game. The Metacritic ratings are a snap shot of what reviewers felt at release, we are reevaluating all the games from today.

So, I updated the first post. I'll try to do so every night when there are changes made. I added a new category for unplaced games.

Tomorrow, I'll start researching Arcana Heart 3, Arcana Heart 3: Love Max!!!!!, and The Awakened Fate Ultimatum.

I have done some research on Baja: Edge of Control.
It received a lot of mixed reviews with most stating that if you are looking for off-road/arcade racing, then there are the likes of Motorstorm & Dirt already on the PS3.
It seems like a game that just got released and then drifted into the void.
Impact on gaming today: none
Technical achievement: reports of muddy graphics & poor frame rates. Motorstorm Pacific Ridge released in the same year and knocks spots off this.
Artistic Merit: Same as above.
Personal: never heard of the game until now so no comment

Final verdict: Not Important

We have yet to place these 11 games:-

Apache: Air Assault Gaijin Entertainment
Aquapazza: Aquaplus Dream Match Examu
Ar Nosurge Gust Co. Ltd.
Arcana Heart 3 Examu - @Ralizah
Arcana Heart 3: Love Max!!!!! Examu - @Ralizah
Arcania: The Complete Tale Black Forest Games
Ar tonelico Qoga: Knell of Ar Ciel Gust Corporation
Army of Two EA Montreal
Army of Two: The 40th Day EA Montreal
Asura's Wrath CyberConnect - @ZeD
The Awakened Fate Ultimatum Nippon Ichi Software

@Ralizah @leucocyte @LieutenantFatman @Rudy_Manchego Please can you all pick 2 games from this list that you will look into and decide which category they rightfully belong into. If not I will allocate the games to you. As soon as you have decided which 2, make sure you let the team know so that we can remove those games from the list and ensure we have every game looked into.

@ZeD as you have already looked into one of the 12 (on Page 1), can you please just pick 1 more. Have you updated the Google doc re Baja?

I will of course look into the 2 that should be left and thus we will have every game covered....

@BAMozzy Spreadsheet updated. I will look into Asura's Wrath. Not a game I have played but it has been on my backlog for a long time 🤣

@ZeD Based on the description, doesn't that game you researched sound more 'pointless' than 'not important'?

Either that, or I might need to re-seat the Atelier games. I called them not important because of their incredibly niche nature, lack of ambition technically, and lack of influence over other games. In and of themselves, though, they're well-made little games, and usually perform fine.

@BAMozzy I'll research the two Arcana Heart 3 games.

@Ralizah Hmm, fair point. The question is, would any notice if it did not exist? If no, then it would be seen as pointless

Asura's Wrath
Impact on gaming today: Not a lot. The interactive movie genre bar was really set by Heavy Rain with the hack and slash genre belonging to God Of War.
The subject of the game is very Niche and fans of the series it is based upon, love the game.
Technical achievement: From what I have seen, this one plays out like an interactive anime with gameplay elements mixed in which are usually hack and slash. The game runs smooth with little issues
Artistic Merit: Visually the game is beautiful. Great worlds, great models and even though it looks like it is dubbed, the voice acting is not half bad.
Personal: Even though I have wanted to play this one for a while, I have not lost sleep over it. It did received mixed reviews but they did state it is not for everyone.
A niche game subject that is loved by the fans it is aimed at. It is not pointless and may not be classed as Not Important for that reason.

Final verdict: Existed