Please don't criticize games for being similar to previous games.

[Jegsimmons]

i look for a few things in a game

good story
good gameplay
improving where its needed
not being boring

As long as it hits 3 out of 4 of these i consider it a good game, 2 of them is an average to sub par game.
I dont mind if the game play is the same if it works (halo, half-life)
i dont mind if the story fails if they at least looked like they tried to do something new or put effort into, sometimes it doesn't work.

HOW EVER!!! when the story is lazy, the gameplay is copy and paste with no sign of improveing obvious flaws, and it become predictable and obvious that they didnt try because they will sell anyway (thus becoming repetitive and boring); it shall receive my scorn!!!

NO EXCEPTIONS!!!!

 

[Jegsimmons]

The sameyness of Modern Warfare is bad?

MADDEN.

NHL.

NBA.

ALL GAME SERIES THAT ARE THE SAME GAME YEAR AFTER YEAR.

I'm not arguing that MW isn't getting stale (which it is, don't get me wrong), but Jesus, a lot of games seem to be getting a damn free ride.

i cant speak for everyone else on the matter, but i personally think sports games are complete shit no matter what you do with it.

 

[Techsmart07]

If I'm spending $60 on a new game, even if it is a sequel, I feel that it should at least feel like a new game. Similar, but not the same. New levels alone does not make a sequel worth $60. Worth a $10 dlc pack? Maybe, but not $60. A sequel should build upon the existing mechanics (or add onto existing ones), and provide some type of improvement over its predecessor. If I want new maps alone for a game, I will play something that allows a modding community. I will get a lot more maps for free, some of which will be more fun than the originals. Honestly, I find the downward trend being that more and more developers are relying more on releasing what should have been content from the original game as either additional DLCs, or as a sequel. I wouldn't say the demand for innovation is causing a problem, it's corporate greed.

 

[Veylon]

I'm not sure that there's an issue here. Sure, AAA title are samey. But that's because they cost however many tens of millions to make, so companies can't afford for them to fail. So they play it safe. I don't expect innovation from them.

It's the indies and smaller companies that do the innovating. There's been the occaisional Minecrafts and Angry Birds that do shockingly well. They demonstrate which ideas do and don't work and eventually the industry picks up on them.

And the "innovation is killing gaming" charge is ludicrous. What are these wacky innovative AAA titles that are losing the industry money hand over fist? The closest that comes to mind is Mirror's Edge, and that one didn't do too bad.

 

[Dfskelleton]

I honestly believe that the demand for constant "innovation" is killing gaming.

Seriously?

Eh, if you say so. Add it to the list.

Clearly we should be demanding stagnation.

"AAAAAH!!! THESE GAMES ARE DIFFERENT!!! STOP BEING DIFFERENT!!!"
(I know that's not what the OP is saying, but I thought it sounded silly)
OT: There's a difference between repeating what you did earlier but making it better and doing the exact same thing over and over. For example, Dead Space 2. It's still generally the same thing, you fight from a thirdperson perspective, your health is displayed on Isaac's back, you kill your enemies by dismembering, them and you upgrade your suits and weapons to become the literal God of Dismemberment. However, Dead Space 2 added things like combat in zero-G, jetpacks, and lots of amusing enviornmental traps that can send your pursuers into the cold void of space. It's the same formula, but with new ingredients that make the whole thing better (although the enemies still always jump out of the exact same styled vent)
Then, you have games like CoD or Madden, which do little to nothing in the sequel other than add a new weapon or new players or new graphics. That's when you have a problem.
Sticking to what works is good, but when you stick to what works and you're too afraid to venture out and add on to it, then things get boring.

 

[Aeonknight]

I'm a creature of habit, so I don't mind buying games that are sequels. The catch is you have to keep all the good, and try to improve on what was bad about your previous installment.

Example: Gears of War 3. Fixed some of the shotgun antics, added new weapons, new cover dynamics, changed up the reload timers to give each gun a unique feel, etc. Anyone who's played the series can tell that Gears 3 is much different from it's predecessors. No complaints here, worth every dollar I spent.

Example 2: MW3. I've always liked the MW series, but this is the first time I'm seriously considering selling it back for another game. They took the overabuncance of killstreaks from MW2 and made it worse, and took the absolutely terrible "square" feeling maps of Black Ops and made every single map like that. They took the worst aspects of their last 2 games and put them together. Disappointing.


"Samey" games aren't a completely bad thing, as long as there's forward progression. When it starts going backwards is when you really feel the stagnation everyone talks about.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

The real problem is that developers are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they deviate too much from a proven formula, gamers complain, if the stick to much to a proven formula, gamers complain. So no matter what they do they can't win.

 

[Nouw]

The sameyness of Modern Warfare is bad?

MADDEN.

NHL.

NBA.

ALL GAME SERIES THAT ARE THE SAME GAME YEAR AFTER YEAR.

I'm not arguing that MW isn't getting stale (which it is, don't get me wrong), but Jesus, a lot of games seem to be getting a damn free ride.

They aren't completely the same, they add gameplay features each year. For example, in Fifa '11 you have better graphics and an 'arena mode.' You can also play as a keeper and there are many more stadiums. I assume the leagues are updated too.

Sure nothing's really mind-blowingly different but there are some differences. Personally I'm not a big fan, I see no point in buying them every year.

 

[NiPah]

Like, seriously.

I'm tired of people always making the same bullshit complaint that a game sucks because it's a "rehash," or whatever.

To my ears, this complaint always sounds the same: "This game has similarities to a previous game, and therefore is devoid of any and all redeeming qualities whatsoever!"

I honestly believe that the demand for constant "innovation" is killing gaming.

Because of it, people are showing hatred for games that deserve nothing but love. Certain genres are now all but extinct because people abandoned them. 3D platformers have been nearly nonexistent since the N64/PS1 era, and turn-based RPG games have been eschewed in favor of action and strategy RPGs, which are so fundamentally different that I honestly don't think they should be called RPGs at all.

So what if Modern Warfare 3 is the same as the other 2? That doesn't make it any less fun, does it? So what if the new Assassin's Creed adds nothing new to the core gameplay aside from minor tweaks? Shouldn't the fact that you're playing a different set of levels than before make it an entirely new experience? And now people are saying that Skyward Sword is a bad game because it's so similar to the previous games, which is odd because, last time I checked, Ocarina of Time was the most highly-praised game of all time. Seriously, people are saying that Zelda is a bad game? What the hell is this world coming to?

I do feel lack of innovation and games that rehash previous iterations are justifiable criticisms of a game... a criticism is merely a fault someone has found in a game. Are you ok with rehashes? I know I am, so when I hear someone say "it's just a rehash" or "its just like blah blah" I ignore it. Do I care what others see as faults in games that I enjoy? NO! and you shouldn't either, because your enjoyment of a game is the only thing you should care about.

Look I criticize games for not keeping original voice overs (I like the Japanese language, so sue me), does the vast majority of gamers care about this? no. should they care that I care? no. But in that vast majority there are a few individuals who care about that original dub, or in your example care about similarity, and thats why people post criticisms.

To answer your second question I'll posit the legacy of Tony Hawk Pro Skater, this is an extreme example where lack of innovation led to the slow and arduous downfall of a once highly-praised game.

 

[Thaius]

Games should be similar to previous ones, but they should also tread new territory. The problem with people crying for innovation is they don't want to take baby steps. Take a working formula and tweak it a little bit so it's not the same as the previous but still keeps the good qualities. To a person who's not interested in the series, they probably won't notice or care and yell rehash. The thing is it is different, if only slightly.

I love the Disgaea series, and between each one they make a few minor improvements, however while 1 and 2 are similar 1 and 4 are not. They kept the basic mechanics and expanded them, but it was just a little at the time. If you only liked the series, you don't have to get them all, once it seems like they added and/or fixed enough content buy the next one. CoD may only include minor differences in each installment but go play the first one from this gen and the latest one. Honestly I haven't played any but I'm guessing there is a bigger difference than what most people would like to admit.

I'm just quoting this for truth. Dude, you nailed it.

I get upset when people say Halo: Reach is exactly like the others, because it's very plainly not. I get even more upset when people say all the Final Fantasy games are the same, because you'd have to be a blind monkey to play any two of that series (with the possible exception of some of the early ones) and say they're the same game. The only way one could think there's little to no difference is to be familiar with absolutely nothing more than the basic, basic gameplay mechanics at the root of the series. Innovation sometimes comes in leaps and bounds, but the most impressive achievements come through many small changes and additions over long periods of time.

 

[Jandau]

I can kinda understand when people complain that a sequel is exactly the same as the previous game in the series, but what bothers me is when people complain that two different games are the same simply because they control similarly or their interfaces are alike or something like that.

For example, The Old Republic is the latest in a long line of games being bashed for having core gameplay ripped off from WoW. That's a retarded statement. Seriously, it is. That core gameplay is the "Autoattacks + Abilities" approach that has predated WoW by many years. In fact, it's one of the staples of WRPG gameplay, kinda like JRPGs where two sides face off, stand still and take turns beating at each other. It's a style of gameplay. Saying that this game "ripped it off" from that game or that game ripped it off from yet a 3rd game is silly, just as it would be to claim CoD ripped off the gameplay from Doom 1...

It's the basic paradigm of controling one or more characters from an isometric or 3rd person view with either RTS-style controls (isometric) or basic directional controls (3rd person), with combat being comprised of automated basic attacks (autoattacks) complemented by special abilities, which are usually lined up on one or more toolbars for easy access. WoW didn't invent it. MMOs before WoW used it as well. Heck, non-MMO RPGs have been using it before and after WoW. All the way back to Baldur's Gate, as far as I can recall (but I'm sure that someone can quote me an earlier example). Yes, Baldur's gate basic approach to combat is at its core the same as WoW's or TOR's or KotOR's or Dungeon Siege's or Dragon Age's or etc.

Now, it might be argued that if the paradigm is so old, then why hasn't it evolved? It's stale, old, boring. Couldn't the same be argued about the entire FPS genre then? I look at sports games of today and I see the same basic gameplay of my old FIFA game (the first one). RTS games have also stayed more or less in the same basic paradigm since Dune 2 (yeah, I know, Herzog Zwei, but that game was different). That's what we call genres and subgenres. Should we just have one game in every genre and call it a day?

This is mostly down to people mistaking their personal tastes for objective truth. They'll argue that some game or (sub)genre is stale, boring, rehashed and whatnot and most of the time it's simply a matter of them not really enjoying that (sub)genre, that style of gameplay. Maybe they like to play a game from that genre once in a while, but can't stomach any more. But then, instead of acknowledging that their tastes run to something else, they'll make a sweeping condemnation of the whole (sub)genre as if it were objective truth.

I'll use myself as an example: I don't like FPS games much. I'll play one every so often. Heck, I grew up with them. But they aren't to my tastes anymore. After I play one, they all feel the same, dull, boring bland, just "another parade of gun porn". And yet, there are people who gulp them up, who can play FPS after FPS and have a blast, who genuinely enjoy that style of gameplay. On the other hand, I love RPGs. I can play one after another, even the ones that ARE very much alike and not get bored. However, there are people to whom Dragon Age is "just another game with silly elves".

Is either of us wrong? Not really, as long as we accept that we dislike some things because of our tastes and not because they objectively suck.

Damn, this went longer than I planned...

 

[cdstephens]

If there is literally no change at all between two games, or only superficial changes, and the developer is trying to sell it as a new game, then YES I will complain.

For example, there is a distinct difference in play between Halo 1 and Halo 2. There is also a distinct difference in play between Oblivion and Skyrim. However, there has almost never been any distinct differences in play in Mario Kart games, which to me presents a problem.

 

[Crazedc00k]

Actually, I disagree with you. For me, its about suspension of disbelief. Take Uncharted 3. On its own, a really stand up example of a game. Not quite perfect, but stellar in many ways. But having played Uncharted 2, I really had a hard time getting into it. Why? Well, every time the game got really good, for example, in a collapsing french castle or sinking ship as a setpiece, I would suddenly realize that. . . wait. . .this is just a variation on what worked last time. A ship? Well, a train was well received last time, lets try another form of transportation. Same for the collapsing castle that might as well be a collapsing Nepalese hotel. Point is, innovation isnt always necessary or even appropriate, but creativity and a willingness to not just play it safe are necessary for truly outstanding games.

 

[jmerridew124]

I complain about sequels with no real improvements over their predecessors because back in 1996 Id software released Quake, which came out with two expansion packs, each of which cost (If memory serves) less than $10. Each pack featured new weapons, monsters, and a new, complete campaign. Today's expansion packs often cost $10-$20 and contain fewer than ten multiplayer maps (Halo 3 gave us 3 per pack), while things which should be called expansion packs are packed and sold as full games.

EDIT: I'm talking mainly about this new slew of boring, repetitive FPS multiplayer monstrosities which no one will shut up about. Seriously, Modern Warfare was where the FPS craze should have ended. I want my nonsensical crazy fun games back. Space Channel 5 Part 3 maybe?

 

[Subeer]

I don't mind the games being the same but at the same time I don't want to be playing the same thing forever. It's true that I could just turn to a different game to play something different but those games never really become as popular as say COD.

 

[Seventh Actuality]

You already made this thread, and it was retarded then too.