Please don't criticize games for being similar to previous games.
- Thread starter itsmeyouidiot
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Look at Bioware, PERIOD. No further statement needed.Estocavio said:
On the other hand, some of their rehashes were still quite enjoyable.
It's not so much that the new game same as the old one has less individual quality, it's that the experience is lessened by the lack of difference. In a vacuum, sure, the new Zelda or Mario or Assasin's Creed (yes, it's not quite just a Nintendo problem) is a really good, maybe even great, game. When you've been playing a series since it's inception, however, it can get old and rather frustrating if you like the source material. I've been playing Zelda and Mario for 20+ years already. I get that they're astablished franchises that consist almost entirely of solid games, and I can't say I don't enjoy them at all, but whenever I play one I always get the feeling of "Meh, I've done this before." There's no excitement anymore because the series have failed to evolve at any tangible level since, maybe, the N64 interations (and even that's a stretch on the Zelda side of things). Why do I always point out the big N franchises when I talk about this topic? Because, as I said above, I've been playing them for so long. Yes, Assassin's Creed is getting stale, but at least it's only been around for a few years. Nintendo's franchises have already been stale for over a decade.
Where all the so-called innovative AAA games that are killing gaming? Name them, and I will name five rehashes for each one you come up with.
Where is the evidence that there is a demand for more innovative gaming, anyway? All the best sellers this year were sequels. Battlefield 3, COD 16, FIFA, TES 5, etc.
So both of your premises are false. If you want to make the argument that it's fine to have sequels, make that argument. I agree with you. But please don't pin the imaginary spike in innovation on the made-up backlash against sequels. AAA gaming is suffering from an awful drought in originality right now, not a lack of quality sequels.
Where is the evidence that there is a demand for more innovative gaming, anyway? All the best sellers this year were sequels. Battlefield 3, COD 16, FIFA, TES 5, etc.
So both of your premises are false. If you want to make the argument that it's fine to have sequels, make that argument. I agree with you. But please don't pin the imaginary spike in innovation on the made-up backlash against sequels. AAA gaming is suffering from an awful drought in originality right now, not a lack of quality sequels.
There's nothing wrong with a series retaining the bones of a formula, or a certain feel or dynamic. But for a series to not have any notable differentiation after several iterations, that is something worth criticising. Critiquing a series for becoming formulaic is perfectly valid.
But hey, opinions are opinions. If you enjoy a game that others find tired, there's nothing to stop you from enjoying it.
But hey, opinions are opinions. If you enjoy a game that others find tired, there's nothing to stop you from enjoying it.
Someone's still bum hurt over zero punctuation's review of skyward sword. It's Ok no one takes his reviews seriously anyway and your not fooling anyone as to what the true purpose of this thread is.itsmeyouidiot said:
Someone's still bum hurt over zero punctuation's review of skyward sword. It's Ok no one takes his reviews seriously anyway and your not fooling anyone as to what the true purpose of this thread is.itsmeyouidiot said:
*Ahem* Butt hurt is the proper term, I'll have you know.stinkyrobot said:
Yes it's quite obvious it was over that.
I agree with the first statement . BUT what happens when , something like OOT comes out , it's great in almost every aspect , there is not much room for improvement. I think it's the same as CoD . After CoD 4 they set the bar so high that every game afterwards seems samey . Now add the fact that they release one every year and people get bored fast.Soxafloppin said:
Game have to be criticised for not doing anything different, or leaving the games identical. It is done so it avoids score inflation for instance, at one point a game like Pac Man would be given something like 90 (but lets lie and say 100) what would happen if the game was released but with extras, lets say pac man champion ship edition? What would we give the game a 101?
No if a game keeps repeating itself introducing nothing new the game should be punished as the content is not necessary or hasn't improved enough in the given time.
We need to keep hitting games over the head and telling them off otherwise we would get rehash after rehash and scores would make even less sense.
Games like ACB and ACR or almost all CoDs. They need to know they can't just push out new games with not difference excluding a few maps.
No if a game keeps repeating itself introducing nothing new the game should be punished as the content is not necessary or hasn't improved enough in the given time.
We need to keep hitting games over the head and telling them off otherwise we would get rehash after rehash and scores would make even less sense.
Games like ACB and ACR or almost all CoDs. They need to know they can't just push out new games with not difference excluding a few maps.
Well ofc those two will pass because their just very common in the video games industry that have become trends. It's not a case of oh those people got tired of saying it, it's just at that time it was in every game.teisjm said:
Games not changing is not a trend, it's bad design normally unless it's a real story driven game.
There should always be things in each new game to keep the fresh and entertaining, rather then leaving them to rot and repeat themselves.
I don't hate MW3 for being just like the first two, to say that would make me a hypocrite for absolutely loving Mario Galaxy 2, and the HL2 episodes. Just because a game is similar to it's predecessors doesn't "kill innovation" if you want innovation don't play a game ending in 3.
No, I hate MW3 because it's a grayish brown, military based shooter, under the oppressive cloud of realism. The military is BORING, the military is not a good theme for a game, it's a dumb idea, plain and simple.
But that's beside the point, I'm still planning on playing Assassin's Creed Revelations, even though it's basically just an expansion pack to Assassin's Creed 2. Why? Because I bloody loved Assassin's Creed 2, I wanted there to be more to Assassin's Creed 2, and now there is more to Assassin'e Creed 2, isn't this pretty much exactly what I wanted? True, I was disappointed at the return of Ezio AGAIN, but as far as gameplay goes it's still the formula I know and love.
No, I hate MW3 because it's a grayish brown, military based shooter, under the oppressive cloud of realism. The military is BORING, the military is not a good theme for a game, it's a dumb idea, plain and simple.
But that's beside the point, I'm still planning on playing Assassin's Creed Revelations, even though it's basically just an expansion pack to Assassin's Creed 2. Why? Because I bloody loved Assassin's Creed 2, I wanted there to be more to Assassin's Creed 2, and now there is more to Assassin'e Creed 2, isn't this pretty much exactly what I wanted? True, I was disappointed at the return of Ezio AGAIN, but as far as gameplay goes it's still the formula I know and love.
I think there's a difference between formulaic and stagnant. Call of duty is stagnant because though the story and levels are different it still feels the same. While the legend of zelda is formulaic, getting items and completing temples while fighting ganon (sometimes) are par for the course there is an honest attempt to change the feel and smaller more inconsequential parts of the game. I also think it's because zelda has a somewhat unique gameplay style/control scheme that some people regard it as it's own genre. it's a ZELDA game. Complaining about the temples would be like complaining the latest cod being a first person shooter. So basically cod is the same thing over and over every year, zelda is the same genre: zelda, every reiteration. Of course this is just an example/speculation.
Rehashes are, of course, okay up to a point.Zachary Amaranth said:
The best comparison I can make is The Witcher, and The Witcher 2. The Sequel is the same formula, with Addons and Refinements.
What makes it okay, is simply that it adds enough Content and Improvements and Changes to get away with it, in addition to having a whole new Story. In doing all this, it is distinctly a Sequel, and not a Rehash. I know, thats getting down into gritty details, but the distinction needs to be somewhat present. Rehash, I feel, is when very little is changed or added. For example, and forgive Me anyone who doesnt like the following statement, Halo 1 and Halo 2. Exact same Game, different Missions and a couple of Weapons. Thereby not necessarily making it bad, but making it more of a Rehash than a Sequel.
Now to look at Bioware; DA:O and DA2. I for one noticed that DA2 had less Content than DA:O.
ME1 and ME2 - ME1 had more to do, but less ways to do it. ME2 had less to do, but more ways to do it. Though they were also rather different Games, for better or worse.
Its a complex subject, really
I'm inclined to agree.Estocavio said:Its a complex subject, really
Saints Row 2, to me, is similar to what you say about the Witcher 2. While it kind of follows the same idea, it expands it enough to make it a different game. 3, while it's still fun, ends up being a rehash. In fact, while they do explain it, one of the things I hate most about the game is "you're working your way up from the bottom again."
Saints Row 1: You were nobody and worked your way up. Understandable.
2: You were taken out in the last game, working your way up again was kind of cool, actually.
3: Okay, we already did this whole thing before. Twice. At the point I'm signing autographs, even the "You're in a new city" thing SHOULD. NOT. MANDATE. THIS.
Now, if that were my only problem with 3, I probably wouldn't call it a rehash, but really, for the most part it is. and it's still fun, but....
I want to throw out Mass Effect for different reasons. Mass Effect's story is your basic retread of science fiction and action tropes, but it does it in a really compelling way. Despite objections to gameplay elements in both ME and ME2, this is the primary thing that makes me like 1 and not 2.
But even then, I can enjoy a rehashed game. It also depends on my expectations, to an extent.
Like, I've never really expected any Nintendo franchise to be fresh. I think anyone who insists they are are deluding themselves, but that doesn't mean they can't be fun. It's what gets me about those responses to ZP's Skyward Sword video. "Oh, how dare you call it a rehash, it's totally not because I LIKE IT!"
Well, no. It's still a rehash. I don't know why it being called that offends people so much beyond blind fanboyism and the notion that everything with Nintendo on it must be a freaking diamond.
Speaking of diamonds, I picked up Pokémon Diamond after years absent from the series. I was unsurprised to find that little had changed in terms of plot and mechanics. They had added some superficial touches, but it's still basically the same game I played in High School. Mostly, there were new Pokémon.
But I enjoyed it. And when Pokémon Black/White came out, I bought White and saw basically the same thing. Except they gave us a slightly more 3D environment, and more Pokémon, and so on.
Still, didn't stop me from having a good time with it.
That's the thing, though. Nintendo's been releasing largely the same game since the 80s. A lot of the changes have been techological. A switch to 3-D on the N64, for example. Touch screen additions for the DS line. And that's fine. I quite enjoyed Mario Galaxy, despite being still largely similar to Mario 64. A game doesn't need to be creative or innovative or novel to sell, but that doesn't make it not a rehash.
You're probably not walking into COD or Zelda or Pokémon or Halo looking for "innovation." On the one hand, it's kind of silly to expect it from them. On the other, it's kind of silly to not expect some criticism as well.
The biggest problem with reviews is that gamers just seem to want to be told their shit don't stink. In this case, it's the games they like. This is why we have the "Four point scale" in which 7 means terrible (And now, so does eight and it's only so long before 9 goes down, too), why we expect incremental improvements in scores to each game, and why we have this problem with people complaining about fairly accurate criticism of repeats.
But again, since these aren't bad things, nor is not being called perfect, I have trouble seeing the problem.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go rant about how the story in Rock Band 3 is PERFECT, because that's apparently what we do with games we enjoy now. >.>
Well, to be fair, sports games are a bit different. They're not made with marks of innovation or their creativity, they're more or less just iterations in sports. Much the same way real-life sports operate. They have seasons every year, rosters change, teams advanced or fall, and then repeat next year. Then the games sort of mimic them in that fashion. So, really.. there isn't much wrong with that. Madden in particular could use a bit more "oomph" to set itself apart every year though... they have the budget and the resources to do it.ediblemitten said:
Non-sports games, like COD, well.. there is no reason for it have annual rehashes, it doesn't make any sense. Unless you want to talk about that whole.. war thing, and the MIC... and well, it kinda resembles sports "seasons" at that point... Another discussion for another time.
heh
this actually got me thinking.
new Mario/Zelda game comes out? I'm ok with it, and likely wont hear a negative comment from me, unless its a new Metriod THEN I'm doing math to work it into the budget
new madden/CoD comes out? I'm highly likely to blast it from not being other then being copy and paste and stupidly over priced for what amounts to DLC.
i guess the reason there is, effort, nether Madden or CoD seem to have much of it, as both are pretty much guitly of 'copy and paste' production, where nothing is really added cept a fresh texture pack, and they boot a new one out the door annually. not to mention all the imitators
where as the Wii's life cycle has only seen 2 Zelda games, one being a port from the game cube, and 3 Mario games, if anything Nintendo, and even Bethesda do it right, they change very little at the core, add a few new things and kick out a new game once ever few years. they take their time and it shows. Mario Galaxy 2 not withstanding
this actually got me thinking.
new Mario/Zelda game comes out? I'm ok with it, and likely wont hear a negative comment from me, unless its a new Metriod THEN I'm doing math to work it into the budget
new madden/CoD comes out? I'm highly likely to blast it from not being other then being copy and paste and stupidly over priced for what amounts to DLC.
i guess the reason there is, effort, nether Madden or CoD seem to have much of it, as both are pretty much guitly of 'copy and paste' production, where nothing is really added cept a fresh texture pack, and they boot a new one out the door annually. not to mention all the imitators
where as the Wii's life cycle has only seen 2 Zelda games, one being a port from the game cube, and 3 Mario games, if anything Nintendo, and even Bethesda do it right, they change very little at the core, add a few new things and kick out a new game once ever few years. they take their time and it shows. Mario Galaxy 2 not withstanding