Topic: Team Microtransactions (MTX) PS3 Library Deliberation Thread

@BAMozzy That's cool. Just make sure to update the google doc, and I'll regularly refresh the list at the top of the thread.

When we move onto the next bunch of games, do you want me to edit the existing, finalized list of the first batch and replace them with the new set? That way, the newest list will always be the most visible.

My grading of Assassins Creed would be as follows:-

Very Important
Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag - Already discussed above and how its importance, not just to gamers but also for Ubisoft and, on particular Sony (although some of that was also for PS4 and its stunning beauty realised in full 1080p. I know that this was important for PS4 BUT PS3 also had extra game play and was still a beautiful looking game. The actual game itself, the importance of it to the franchise, gamers and of course Ubisoft does warrant this to be Very Important.

Important
Assassin's Creed - first in series and we would not have the franchise without it
Assassin's Creed III - May have been a departure from its predecessors but also wasn't particularly well received on general so only 'important' as it was ACiv (for reasons I have mentioned) that really put AC on the gaming Map again.
Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood - gave us a creative MP and first for this Franchise
Assassin's Creed: Revelations - finished off the best part of the franchise

Existing
Assassin's Creed Rogue - Only because I have no knowledge or experience of this title so cannot move it up or down.

@BAMozzy I really need to boot up AC4 on the PS3. I played Rouge on the PS3 and that was stunning

@Ralizah If you don't mind please - as soon as we have locked in a list and submitted it, then there is no need to keep it on the front page. It maybe an idea though that we do keep a record of our final submission - a simple cut and paste to the latest point in the thread - what ever page/post number that will be.

If, for any reason, we need to revisit any of our final list positions, there should be a record of it somewhere in this thread. It makes sense to put a copy in the thread as just a regular post and should be relatively 'easy' to find, maybe you can put an index - First group of games on page 'X', post 'Y' for example in the first post too but Post 1, Page 1 MUST have the current group of games and the current positions so that any team member can easily find it.

Thank you

@ZeD haha I'm using a colour code on my spreadsheet Green is Very Important, Blue is Important, White is Existing, Amber is Not Important and Red is Pointless. Nice one.

Re: Army of Two
The main focus of this series was the co op, whether online or local.
With that in mind, the third game Army of Two: The Devil's Cartel removed this, so I argue that this should be put in Not Important, maybe even Pointless

Army of Two, like AC, introduces the series for what it is. A co op cover shooter, pretty much what Gears of War is on the Xbox 360.

Army of Two: The 40th Day improves upon the base game with more dynamic levels and a morality system which many reviewers praised. One reviewed it as the best cover to cover shooter on PS3 but I cannot think off the top of my head of any others?

But, as good as these games are, I feel they should probably stay in Existing as I do not think they influenced anything, if anything, they burnt themselves out with the third game.

A solid, not groundbreaking, action experience for its fans. If you like to shoot stuff, and your friend does too, you've got a winner. - Cheat Code Central on 40th Day

Thoughts?

@themcnoisy Lol, great minds. It think it will be easier for us to see what we have locked down just in case one wants to veto

Looking at the Google Docs, (great idea - as long as EVERY member can look at it) but NO Orange games are to be moved unless there is an agreement after a discussion to do so! If ANY team member believes that an Orange game is positioned incorrectly, they MUST start a discussion and state clearly their reasoning as to which position they believe the game to be. They must also make it clear that its a game that has been positioned by someone and do not need to open up a discussion on ANY game that they are responsible for positioning.

For example, if the game is not orange, a game they have been asked to research etc, then they do not have to justify moving it or why they have opted to place it under a certain category but must make it clear that it has been positioned (highlight in Orange - especially those in 'existing' column). If someone then disagrees with that position, therefore a game highlighted by Orange, they MUST open up a discussion and are not permitted to move that game until a conclusion from that discussion is reached.

I hope that makes it clear - but to reiterate the rules
Games not highlighted can be moved by ANY member of the team without needing to discuss or justify their positioning - however, once moved, they MUST be highlighted in Orange to indicate that a team member has positioned the game. This is considered the 'initial' position.

Games highlighted in Orange must NOT be moved until a discussion and FINAL conclusion is met - then it is positioned and highlighted in Green - permanently locked in that category and cannot be moved or rediscussed. Any team member can start a discussion regarding the 'initial' position at any time but the 'sooner, the better' to allow time for discussion and for a FINAL conclusion to be decided.

ALL team members will have a chance to participate and to help decide on the final position(s) - whether the conclusion can be resolved through the discussion but if not, by a majority verdict in a 'team' vote. In the event of a 'tie', extra points will be given to those who have played the game and if that still ends in a tie, then, and only then will it be a captains verdict. If I haven't played the games, I will base my decision on the evidence presented through that discussion - although I am hoping we can finalise the position long before it gets to be a captains decision.

If there is anyone who wants to discuss the above, then please voice your opinion now so we are all clear on how we will progress through the numerous lists of games we will be positioning. Before the first list of games are set are finalised, I want everyone to be clear on how we will be progressing and working through these lists. I do NOT want someone who has positioned a game in a certain category to find it moved without a discussion and/or finalisation of that position.

Please can everyone look at the Google document and first off, move ANY unmarked games to a position, don't forget to mark that position in Orange. If anyone has an issue with ANY games marked, please start a discussion and explain why you think its in the wrong category.

Thank you

I'm still trying to figure out where to put the Atelier games, but Atelier Rorona undoubtedly belongs in "Pointless." Atelier Rorona Plus is a superior version of the game in every way. It's existence makes the original game pointless.

Also moved Ape Escape to "Pointless." It's a Playstation Move tech demo and little else. It also reviewed terribly.

@Ralizah Why was there a 'Plus' version released on the same console?

@Ralizah @BAMozzy @leucocyte @LieutenantFatman @Rudy_Manchego
I know we can communicate here but for how long this will take, is it worth creating a Discord server? We can have a room for any disputes on Orange games, general chat, general discussion etc?

@ZeD I would put Verdict Day in important for various reasons. For one it had by far the most features of any AC game to date, all of them being quite well realised.

The only thing stopping me suggesting it shouldn't be very important is 1. The nonsensical narrative of the campaign and 2. The poor sales outside of Japan which of course has the inevitable outcome of it not being an influencer.

@ZeD To be honest, I think we have a reasonable time frame and, if there are any games that none of us have an opinion on (the unmarked games), we can allocate these around the team to research and make Orange. Its unlikely that any of us will contest those as they are likely to be unmarked as none of us had any experience of them.

This thread should be adequate to discuss games in time as we do have until Sunday to get our finalised list in. I am happy to use this forum for discussion and don't actually have a Discord account and not sure I have a suitable headset to use for discussion. If 'necessary' I am happy to use my PS4 and party chat for an actual discussion - have a scheduled get together over a PS4 chat (maybe even play the same games together too???).

I am happy either way - just as long as we get these games organised as a team in time to meet any deadlines. I think the first 'day' or so can be used to position and maybe even lock down the popular (as in the games that any of us played) leaving the unmarked/unpopular games to be divided out amongst us to research and position. The weekend that the final positions have to be submitted, will also be the final chance for any 'orange' game to be discussed so I am not sure if we 'need' a discord chat option. I will though go with the majority decision on this.

EDIT: I also think it may be a good idea to keep the discussion here - see how or why a 'contested' game was positioned in the way they were. It also helps me as Captain (as well as anyone else) to see and remember any points that someone raises as to why they think a game should be repositioned. Its more difficult if its just spoken and I want everyone to feel that their points are heard and understood/documented. Its easy to forget or not pay enough attention to someone's chat. The points raised will be a visible reminder to everyone without feeling your 'voice' went unheard.

Again though, that's my opinion but happy to go with the majority verdict on this.

@ZeD re: Army of Two: that seems fair enough to me, i've only played the first two though. i didn't even know a third one existed, which may indicate that while i thought the 40th day was a decent enough cover shooter, it didn't leave a lasting enough impression that i looked to see what happened to the franchise. and it did have a basic morality system that would be influence on games likes the spec-ops the line. existing is probably fair enough. i'd have to look up the third game to see if it made any significant improvements or missteps.

hi team, just catching up on comms. I can access the google docs file and all looks good.

As I am late to discussions, what is the best thing for me to do. I don't have any major disagreements. At first I thought about raising Angry birds as that was an important title in the history of mobile gaming but at the same time, this is about the PS3. Does the existence of a port mean it is more worthwhile? Probably not.

Also was AC Rogue and Brotherhood important games? Food for thought.

Are there any games people want me to research? Apart from the Telltale, AC and Angry birds games, I've not got much experience.

re: Assassin's Creed - i think listing all of the Assassin's Creed games in the important category is a bit overkill. not important is not the same thing as not good. for me i don't consider III important for Assassin's Creed, nevermind gaming in general. the franchise can be easily enjoyed without it. i know it's considered a misstep, but it's unlikely that it could have ended the franchise - the success of II, and the subsequent installments with Ezio, pretty much guaranteed there'd be a sizeable fanbase, and it's not like the franchise hasn't blundered since (eg. unity) and recovered. Rogue is more-or-less a last-gen spin-off - you did play as a templar, but that's not something they further experimented with (at least not that i recall, though i've only played a couple of titles since black flag), and the focus of the franchise had already moved to current-gen with AC:Unity.

Hey @Rudy_Manchego !
You could argue that those AC games were "fillers" as we were at the point of a yearly release for the franchise. So the question is, did they offer anything to the table that was important?
When Brotherhood came out, it offered multiplayer which I put a bit of time into and was actually quite good at it. At the time the only other major offering for MP were FPS & they felt a little stale (plus I was not too great at them). But saying that, between Brotherhood and Revelations, I also felt the latter is better on a whole. Better story, closure and the MP was a lot tighter. Revelations is Important.

AC Rouge, is a strange one as it feels like it was Ubisoft's last cash grab of the franchise for the PS3. It was an extension on what had already been set in AC4. I did enjoy the story in this one and thought the characters were well portrayed.

@leucocyte AC3 started to break from the "norm" that the franchise had set, with AC4 being the ultimate goal. I agree it is defiantly the weaker of the games and maybe, thinking about it, it may be over kill being in important.

From my limited experience with the series (take this with a grain of salt, as I couldn't care less about these games)...

I think AC I and IV probably deserve to called "important," but I'm not seeing how the other games deserve to be anything other than "existing" at most.

@Ralizah said through gritted teeth! 🤣

AC1 as important, yes I agree as it started this whole new franchise and how to tell a story.
AC4, i think is v important as it shows where the series got in the timeframe of the ps3 gen. Graphically fantastic, solid story with an improved game play.

Ok maybe I missed something and I don't feel nor have the time to go through pages and pages of text but what is with all these team ---- threads popping up all of a sudden? We have three threads now for them is it necessary to have three separate threads? I am not complaining just trying to figure out why we need three separate threads. I don't want to shut any of them down so I just figured I ask.