If it's the same, does it suck?

[DarklordKyo]

I really don't get this double standard we get in the industry as far as sameness goes. I saw a dude play Arkham Origins, and I, once again, heard the most common complaint about it (namely, that it's Arkham City 2.0). I find that there's a bit of a double standard because there are some games that don't change much, and people complain about it, while others (like, as far as the consensus goes, Call of Duty, Madden, God of War, etc.) get their sameness ignored & sell like hotcakes. Is this a genuine double standard?, or am I thinking too much into this? [and in case I come off the wrong way, I'm not one of those people who hates mainstream titles because it's cool (heck, I like God of War), just want your opinions on the matter].

 

[TehCookie]

Is it a double standard if it's different people? I doubt the people calling it the terrible for being the same are the ones enjoying it. Either that or what the people actually mean when they like/hate change, they hate it if it doesn't change to suit their taste, but if it's something they like they're fine with it staying the same.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Of course it's a double standard, shit you like vs shit you don't.
So people will go "I can pay full price again for the exact same thing! Yaaaay!" or "I'm suppose to pay full price again for the exact same thing!? Booooo!"

Obviously that would be far less prevalent if consumers had some standards for the shit they throw money at, but hey we don't live in a fairytale land now do we.

 

[Qvar]

I rage at CoD every day if that makes you feel better. Never played the Arkham games tho.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I would think the people ignoring the sameness aren't the same ones criticizing the sameness.

 

[Raikas]

I think it depends what the target market goes into a game expecting.

People generally don't go into a CoD or sports game expecting a new story or new controls - and the people who bash the games for always being the same are often (although obviously not universally) the same ones who hate the game in general. They're not the target market, so the game doesn't need to appeal to their sensibilities.

If people go in to Arkham Origins expecting something else then it's not hypocritical of them to be disappointed - even aside from the fact that they may not be the same audience that's buying CoD, sports games, etc, holding different types of products to different standards is hardly an odd thing to do.

 

[w9496]

I think it comes down to how good the base game is.

The Call of Duty franchise can get away with it because their groundwork is solid and always has been. People know that they're going to play a polished game when they buy one(at least if it's Treyarch made. No guarantees with Infinity Ward.).

 

[The_Lost_King]

No they just copied their last game wrong. We want it to where the game is still mostly the same, but it offer's a different enough experience for us not to be like, "I've played this before...".

 

[Tom_green_day]

I play CoD because it's the same. I know when I go into the game I'll be familiar with it, with the controls and guns, and IMO most of the changes are improvements. You can't do something loads without doing it right.
I think it's different to Arkham games as they're story-focused single-player experiences where you're expecting new stuff, however for CoD you aren't and it's more just an online fuck-around.

 

[Legion]

Is it a double standard if it's different people? I doubt the people calling it the terrible for being the same are the ones enjoying it.

I would think the people ignoring the sameness aren't the same ones criticizing the sameness.

This.

This is something that far too many people seem to overlook. There are millions of people who play games, and many of them also discuss those games on the internet. Unless you are repeatedly seeing the same people contradicting themselves with their complaints, it is much more logical to assume that the people who make complaint Y are not the same people who make claim X.

 

[Ratties]

It's a bullshit thing to say anyways. Take pokemon for example. If a pokemon thread ever comes up, there are those people that ***** about it staying the same.

Gen 2. Introduced 2 new types. Dark and steel. Pokemon now have the ability to hold items. Entry hazards are introduced. New moves to learn.

Gen 3. New weather mechanics. Pokemon now have abilities. New moves to learn.

Gen 4. Physical/special splitting of moves. Completely changes the metagame, how we play pokemon now. New moves to learn. Hail gets introduced.

Gen 5. Battles are faster now. Moving pokemon sprites. Reusable tms. New moves to learn.

Gen 6. New fairy type. Mega evolution s. New moves to learn.


Just stop bitching about how you are playing the same thing again and again. If they introduce new stuff, then it isn't the fucking same now is it, lol

 

[Evonisia]

The Call of Duty games at least do change every game, you can't play any of Black Ops' modes and have it be the same as MW2s as much you wish it would. It's a common misconception because the core gunplay rarely changes, minor balance changes and a shift in perk system or singleplayer system and the game became completely different.

 

[Vale]

Well, I sure loved Dark Souls and its almost the same thing as Demons' Souls.
Liked Arkham City too.
So I suppose iteration in itself is not necessarily bad.

 

[Snotnarok]

God of War I don't see the "same-yness" it's 3 games that progressively did more things bigger, it's different to how God of War vs Dante's Inferno where it was a different title with similar weapons, health system, hell the orbs and opening chests was identical.
Arkram Origins the complaint I heard is it's a less good Arkram City, so there's less reason to go out and grab it. I never played it, I'm still going through Arkram Asylum.

So what I'm saying is..if a game is same-y it's gonna get issues, but if it's same-y and does less then it's in trouble. Saints Row 4 got that same criticism despite the game playing entirely different for the most part. Yes it's on the same world but it really didn't look all that similar.....when jumping over buildings.

 

[Snotnarok]

God of War I don't see the "same-yness" it's 3 games that progressively did more things bigger, it's different to how God of War vs Dante's Inferno where it was a different title with similar weapons, health system, hell the orbs and opening chests was identical.
Arkram Origins the complaint I heard is it's a less good Arkram City, so there's less reason to go out and grab it. I never played it, I'm still going through Arkram Asylum.

So what I'm saying is..if a game is same-y it's gonna get issues, but if it's same-y and does less then it's in trouble. Saints Row 4 got that same criticism despite the game playing entirely different for the most part. Yes it's on the same world but it really didn't look all that similar.....when jumping over buildings.

Funny you'd mention that, as I just finished Saints Row 4.

Here's a case in which sequels are awesome: each new episode of Saints Row manages to surpass the previous one.

Too bad that Saints Row is the exception, most of the times.

Still... new IPs. We sorely, desperately need new IPs before the sequels bubble bursts.

That problem would be evaded if companies would stop re-purposing games, a few Nintendo titles, Resident Evil, etc they're games that should have been differently titled but they wanted to use the popularity of the name to sell.
It's a shame really. ...Then there's the Reboots.

 

[DEAD34345]

Personal taste is the thing that makes the biggest difference here. The Call of Duty games bore me and seem identical to one another, yet the Dynasty Warriors games somehow seem varied and original enough to remain entertaining to me. I fully understand that, objectively speaking, the Call of Duty games probably contain many more changes in each iteration than the Dynasty Warriors games do, I simply don't care.

I suppose that is technically a double standard, but once again, I simply don't care. What's wrong with double standards?