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

[EternalFacepalm]

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?

That, good sir, is what we call a "mappack". These things are usually priced around 6?. Not SIXTY.

The thing is, innovation is necessary for an experience to be as enjoyable as possible. If a game refuses innovation in fear of losing sales, then that game will probably not be as fun as if they'd have attempted innovation.
Assassin's Creed is slowly, but surely, getting more innovative, though, so that's great.
Skyward Sword actually offers an entirely different experience, in my opinion. Zelda has always kept the same core gameplay, but expanded on it.
Call of Duty, on the other hand, has been rehashed five times. It's getting old.

 

[Gecko clown]

As long as the previous game was good and the new one at least adds stuff to the mix I don't mind. I mean if a shooter gets a sequel they're not going to completely change the engine, genre and the way it plays just to be innovative. If Call of Duty games are a rehash then technically so was Portal 2, Skyrim, Batman: Arkham City and Mass Effect 3 will be a rehash. That's because they took what worked in the previous games improved on them and added a few things. Portal 2 added some new puzzle devices and co-op, Skyrim added a shiny new graphics engine, a few more interesting things to make the world more believable and a new world. It wasn't innovative, neither of them were.

 

[Fishyash]

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

Erm... no.

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.

How has the game being turn-based got to do with RPGs, or is it a completely unrelated side note?

So what if Modern Warfare 3 is the same as the other 2?(cutting the AC part because I don't really know about that game)

So what if MW3 is the same as MW2? What about highly similar to CoD4, or WAW, or Black Ops?

I'll make this simple, it's fine having similar mechanics (if it ain't broke, don't fix it), but the thing that annoys the hell out of me (and why people call it just another rehash) is that they keep all the same bad things that were in the previous games. It's going to be a rehash if you keep all the core mechanics AND all the problems with the previous games, and add a fresh coat of paint on it.

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?

Someone saying any of the zelda games are bad have a minority opinion, I don't see why you would complain about it unless you consider a 7.5 a bad score or something. Although it is a perfectly valid complaint that since ocarina of time, the core mechanics for the 3d zelda games are very similar. I know that personally, I have no plans on buying skyward sword because I have lost interest in the zelda series, and skyward sword doesn't seem to bring anything truly different to the table, although it is probably a great game on its own.

 

[Joccaren]

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?

It is really quite simple.

Rehash = Expansion pack. Should be sold for $20
Sequel = New game, things have changed. Should be sold for full price (Between $60 and $100 depending on where and when you buy it)

What is happening is this:
Rehash = Expansion pack. Sold for full price.

That is wrong. If I want basically the same engine with a couple of new maps, I'd rather have it done the good old fashioned expansion pack way. I remember when expansion packs added a new campaign, new units/weapons or W/E and new maps, and was sold cheap. See WC3 TFT for a good example. What happens is the same sort of thing - A few minor tweaks to gameplay, new maps, new units/weapons or W/E and a new campaign - are being sold as entirely new games, and priced as such. There is nothing wrong with a game staying the same, so long as it doesn't charge full price. For me to pay full price, I expect a new game that plays differently to the previous ones. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. Its pretty hit or miss. E.G: Mass Effect to Mass Effect 2. Sequel. Why? Massive streamlining, new campaign, pretty much everything redone. Was successful. Dragon Age: Origins to Dragon Age 2. Sequel. Why? Pretty much everything was redone. Somewhat successful, but with lots of backlash from many fans. Dragon Age: Origins to Dragon Age: Awakening. Expansion. Why? New campaign, new items, new abilities, but not really any massive overhauls to anything.


There is something wrong when people demand the same thing over and over again, and complain when handed something different. Take the Transformers movies for instance. You can be assured in every single one of them, there will be mostly the same people (Give or take a few from movie to movie), some worldwide threat (Megatron, that Sun harvesty thing, that teleporty thing) that Sam has to stop, alongside Optimus, and both will get into big trouble at some point, and Sam's girlfriend will get into trouble, then there'll be some overdone scene of them looking at each other, then him saving her, then by some miracle or other, Sam and Optimus will win the battle, then there will be some speech by Optimus saying Earth is safe, and we're all done. The movie is 100% predictable from start to finish. Does that make it a bad movie? No (Dependant on who you ask of course). Does it do anything new or interesting like Inception did (Not saying Inceptions ideas were totally innovative and new, but that they were something quite different from all the other movies out at the time) or Sherlock Holmes (Same thing, though I haven't seen the sequel yet, which will probably be more of the same).

Thing between movies and games, movies cost between $15 and $35 dependant on Age, 3D or not, where and when you see them. Games are a far larger investment, and thus should provide a greater experience. Simply being interactive isn't enough, I've played through interactive movies before and they are about as entertaining as basic games (Not very, unless you're having one of those days where basics is fun, or are in the mood for basic gameplay). What sets games apart is what is done with them, and if nothing is done with them, nothing sets them apart, and they should be as cheap as interactive movies ($20 or so on DVD).

 

[ToastiestZombie]

I think you may be talking about CoD in the OP, but not directly saying it. COD is a fine example of people complaining that there is no change whatsoever. There may be no massive gameplay changes, but that is good since the gameplay in COD is very good. Why change what isn't broken. MW3 has 16 new maps, a new survival mode, it finishes off the story and it has a massive overhaul to the killstreak system. It warrants more than enough for a 40 pound purchase.

 

[Joccaren]

As long as the previous game was good and the new one at least adds stuff to the mix I don't mind. I mean if a shooter gets a sequel they're not going to completely change the engine, genre and the way it plays just to be innovative. If Call of Duty games are a rehash then technically so was Portal 2, Skyrim, Batman: Arkham City and Mass Effect 3 will be a rehash. That's because they took what worked in the previous games improved on them and added a few things. Portal 2 added some new puzzle devices and co-op, Skyrim added a shiny new graphics engine, a few more interesting things to make the world more believable and a new world. It wasn't innovative, neither of them were.

There is a fine line between rehash and new game.

CoD falls onto the rehash side as pretty much all they ever do to it is give it some new maps, a new campaign, and some new graphics. There will be some interface changes dependant on which developer made that game, and what they prefer, and there will be some balance changes on certain weapons and such. The games, however, play basically the exact same. The balance changes are the effect of a free patch by any other company, and go from 'X is the gun everyone uses' to 'Y is the gun everyone uses'. New maps are often sold for between $5-$15 per pack, and recognised as a rip off for that price. Graphics do nothing to change the game whatsoever, just make it look prettier. Something I'm pretty sure a patch could accomplish, especially when using basically the same engine. The gameplay tweaks are always minor, and people will still play much the same way. E.G: Despite the fact that there is now 3 strike packages, everyone will still run around the map shooting anything that moves, and deploying Killstreaks when available. Compare MW3 to MW2, there isn't a lot of difference.
Now, Mass Effect 1 to 2, as one of your examples. Almost everything was changed on some level in the transition. Dialogue now had interrupts, and persuasions no longer relied on a skill but directly on your P/R. You had far less health, and guns dealt far more damage, resulting in far quicker deaths for anything out of cover, refocusing the game into a cover shooter. Instead of click to travel to X, you now had to pilot the ship and manage your resources. Upgrades no longer bought from merchants, but found, then 'built' with resources. Infinite stock of all guns and inventory completely removed. Armour taken into parts instead of a whole suit. Elevators replaced with loading screens. 90% of skills removed, streamlined. One or two new skills added in. Ammo enhancements become powers. Instead of being able to wield any weapon, with reduced power based off class, each class can wield only certain weapons. Omni-tool hack game replaced with new hack game. Omni-tool bypass game replaced with new bypass game. Life changed from simple shields and health to shields, barriers, armour and health, each weak to different weapons. 'Ultimate Weapon' upgrade for one weapon type available half way through the game, or training in a weapon type to enable a disabled weapon type for certain classes. All abilities have specialisations at final level. Vehicle sections removed, re-added on a smaller scale in DLC. Planet Exploration gone. Economy: Now purchase only, no sales can be made.
You name it, it underwent some change or other from ME1 to 2. The story was even structured differently. CoD on the other hand, remains mostly the same. Now cool new features with a big impact on the game. Just a couple of smaller scale ones that, whilst they impact the game, don't change the way it plays. In CoD, your playstyle will remain similar between all games. Similar to changing classes in either Mass Effect 1 or 2. You will get a slightly different experience, but overall the gameplay is still quite similar. From Mass Effect 1 to two, you play very differently. Choosing weapons based off what they do better damage to rather than what has the highest DPS and accuracy, Staying in cover for the majority of every battle rather than running and gunning some, covering others. There is a different feel from ME1 to 2, and will be from 2 to three, though near certainly to a lesser extent. All of the CoDs, however, feel fundamentally similar.
Where the games you listed take what worked, improve, then add a few things, CoD to most seems to take what worked, copy/paste, add nothing. This is not true and is an over-exaggeration, but there is not a lot that changes between each game.

 

[Joccaren]

I think you may be talking about CoD in the OP, but not directly saying it. COD is a fine example of people complaining that there is no change whatsoever. There may be no massive gameplay changes, but that is good since the gameplay in COD is very good. Why change what isn't broken. MW3 has 16 new maps, a new survival mode, it finishes off the story and it has a massive overhaul to the killstreak system. It warrants more than enough for a 40 pound purchase.

Whether it warrants the $60-$100 (Dependent on location) purchase is entirely up to opinion, but I don't feel it does. All that you have stated has been done in expansion packs that sell for $20 before. Take my WC3 example. TFT finished off the story, added a IDK how many new maps, and some custom maps (Similar to new modes, though they had been created by map makers already. Blizzard just copied the ideas and made their own), added new units and abilities, and adds in an extra to-the-side campaign with a new twist (Multiple map carry over of actions. Similar to a Mass Effect 1 to 2 carry over, but done within one campaign). It also added new functions, objects and other bits and bobs to the World Editor, and more options straight from the start screen (I believe custom campaign was one of these). It added the ability for players to build shops, added a neutral race (Campaign only sadly), and other minor upgrades. That did not sell for $60-$100.

Why what is sometimes still released as an expansion pack by some developers (Though they are now quite few) is sold as an entirely new game is what some people can't comprehend. Well, they can, but they can't comprehend how it is eaten up and defended. For such a small change, there should not be that large a price tag.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

I think you may be talking about CoD in the OP, but not directly saying it. COD is a fine example of people complaining that there is no change whatsoever. There may be no massive gameplay changes, but that is good since the gameplay in COD is very good. Why change what isn't broken. MW3 has 16 new maps, a new survival mode, it finishes off the story and it has a massive overhaul to the killstreak system. It warrants more than enough for a 40 pound purchase.

Whether it warrants the $60-$100 (Dependent on location) purchase is entirely up to opinion, but I don't feel it does. All that you have stated has been done in expansion packs that sell for $20 before. Take my WC3 example. TFT finished off the story, added a IDK how many new maps, and some custom maps (Similar to new modes, though they had been created by map makers already. Blizzard just copied the ideas and made their own), added new units and abilities, and adds in an extra to-the-side campaign with a new twist (Multiple map carry over of actions. Similar to a Mass Effect 1 to 2 carry over, but done within one campaign). It also added new functions, objects and other bits and bobs to the World Editor, and more options straight from the start screen (I believe custom campaign was one of these). It added the ability for players to build shops, added a neutral race (Campaign only sadly), and other minor upgrades. That did not sell for $60-$100.

Why what is sometimes still released as an expansion pack by some developers (Though they are now quite few) is sold as an entirely new game is what some people can't comprehend. Well, they can, but they can't comprehend how it is eaten up and defended. For such a small change, there should not be that large a price tag.

Well what people value games about varies much differently too, you seen to value innovation in every game. Whereas I judge games based on if they are off a good quality (MW3 is, even though it barely changes anything), and how much playtime I get from it. I've gotten about 2 days worth of gametime from MW3 so far, getting up two prestiges and I enjoyed almost every minute of it, I don't care if they reused a gun or didn't make a new engine. I think that maybe people should stop judging games based on their content, but judge them on how good they are and how fun they are to play. Doesn't mean you're wrong or I'm right, because everyone has different opinions, that is why people will defend stuff like this.

 

[Fishyash]

I think you may be talking about CoD in the OP, but not directly saying it. COD is a fine example of people complaining that there is no change whatsoever. There may be no massive gameplay changes, but that is good since the gameplay in COD is very good. Why change what isn't broken. MW3 has 16 new maps, a new survival mode, it finishes off the story and it has a massive overhaul to the killstreak system. It warrants more than enough for a 40 pound purchase.

Okay, why don't they also improve the pitifully narrow FOV, improve the restrictingly linear campaign and fix the horrendous respawn positions?

Buying the same thing with the same flaws with some extra doohickeys attached does not warrant a full price purchase for me.

If someone doesn't at least improve upon the game by fixing the bad mechanics why don't they try something new?

 

[CoL0sS]

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

I think I understand what you're trying to say, but you could have phrased this better.

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

This is just you being nostalgic. I won't argue with what you said about RPGs because I long for a Baldurs Gate/Planescape Torment/Icewind Dale style game, but to say 3D platformers have been nonexistent is wrong. They've just been upgraded and (somewhat) devalued. PS2 had some great platformers such as Jak&Daxter, Ratchet & Clank, Psychonauts and Beyond Good And Evil.
Many modern games have obligatory platforming segments upgraded with fancy physics and animation(Uncharted, God Of War, Assassins Creed etc.), so the way I see it you probably have problem with "modern" concept of platforming. There are many indie studios that would gladly accept your money for their old school style platformers.

So what if Modern Warfare 3 is the same as the other 2? That doesn't make it any less fun, does it?

It's hardly fair to deny people right to expect more for their $60. I found MW3 campaign setpieces fun, but multiplayer was hardly fresh. I'd never buy it, so I borrowed it. You can only blame people for believing the hype created by retailers, developers and let's be honest some gaming sites. IF consumers were better organized and capable of voicing their disappointment eloquently they wouldn't have these problems year after year. But, let's face it most of the MW3 players are 13-year-old trolls.

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?

Should it? What about story, characters, mechanics, setting, art design, atmosphere? Personally, I've lost all the interest in that series when I played first 20 minutes of Brotherhood. I did nothing to capture my attention and distinguish itself from dozens of other games I could spend my money on. However, this is just my opinion

Seriously, people are saying that Zelda is a bad game? What the hell is this world coming to?

I'm not big on Zelda series, but to my knowledge there have been a bunch of bad Zelda games since 1986.

 

[Bvenged]

[HEADING=2]All right, fine.[/HEADING]
I'll stop criticising games with too many similarities if an agreement can be met.

- I'll stop criticising games for being too similar to their prequels if the similar sequel doesn't cost the price of a full fresh-content game. I'm not going to pay the full £40 for something I already own 70% of from the previous; and since this is CoD we're on about here, I'm not going to pay £45 for the same shitlread own 90% of, again. Drop the price and then I might start considering it. Get that marker of similar content to around 30-40% and then I'll consider paying full release price.

But that will never happen, so I'll never stop criticising; also those greedy chumps who cause it to happen won't be getting a penny of my money for as long as this continues.

 

[Palademon]

No, Modern Warfare 3 sucks because it actually took steps backwards, and gets publishers another year of millions that they don't need.

People can't be pleased anyway. Keep the same but with tweaks? REHASH! Change things? RUINED!

 

[Worgen]

Is the whole "rehash" thing the new buzz topic now? It seems everyone is defending sequels and such all of a sudden. Kind of strange. We've been complaining about these things for YEARS and people are just now getting mad about it.

This is hardly new, I mean dynasty warriors has been an industry punching bag for years since it released new games fairly regularly that all had the same story, xplay still gets its rocks off when a new one comes out since they can fan that old flame and they are unoriginal as fuck.

 

[Something Amyss]

So what if Modern Warfare 3 is the same as the other 2? That doesn't make it any less fun, does it?

It DOES make it a rehash, however.

It's still a rehash if it's as similar as this game is to its predecessors.

Being fun doesn't make it not a rehash, and that seems to be what these arguments come down to. "But *I* enjoy it so it's not a rehash!"

Let me go the other way with this. If it's fun, if you enjoy it, why do you give a flying fish if people call it rehashed? Instead of trying to pretend the Emperor has no clothes, why don't you just say "so what? It's fun. I enjoy it."

Why whine about an accurate representation of the stagnation of game series if enjoyment is really your issue?

It IS your issue, right?

You know what? Not only do I enjoy the Dynasty Warriors franchise, but I've owned every Guitar Hero Game for consoles except the very last and Rocks the 80s. I've owned every Rock Band except Green Day. Dynasty Warriors, with only a couple of entries in the series, has been very samey, but its fans love it anyway. Same goes with all the other Koei Warriors titles (Samurai, Orochi, Gundam, etc), but they're FUN. Guitar Hero hasn't really done anything creative since Harmonix left, and Rock Band didn't really add much until 3 with pro instruments. And while I would defend the changes in RB3 as enough to actually make a difference, most of the titles in all three series are pretty much retrod territory.

So I'm just just saying "lol your games suck."

I seriously don't get the problem, because I don't feel the need to run around complaining that a title is rehashed if it's still fun.

 

[Something Amyss]

This is hardly new, I mean dynasty warriors has been an industry punching bag for years since it released new games fairly regularly that all had the same story, xplay still gets its rocks off when a new one comes out since they can fan that old flame and they are unoriginal as fuck.

I think he was talking about the complaints about the word "rehash." We had three complaint threads in the course of a DAY here.

In any event, only thing that bugs me about the Dynasty Warriors thing is that the same people who complain about it being the same every year are the ones who then go on and praise Madden and COD every year. I get it. You enjoy your roster update, so why are you slamming mine?

 

[Estocavio]

The Problem is that were NOT Innovating, and instead redoing whatever works really well once.

Look at Bioware being influenced by Skyrim.

 

[DeltaEdge]

Football has been the same for years and the superbowl has been rehashed over 40 times!!!!! football isn't good anymore!

Ah, but football is still the same game. They didn't make it into a new game every single year. People are still playing the first game and loving it. You can't exactly call it a rehash if it has yet to be re-made.