I'm pretty sure the "weekly" crowd have more of a right to be here than you, considering the massive quality of this post.Amphoteric said:Ah yes, the weekly flood of people coming to the escapist and slowing it down to a snails pace.
I've never played a Zelda game though for some reason.
I don't play CoD, but I tend to excuse non-Nintendo franchises for sequeling because A) they usually have connected stories. No one plays Nintendo games for the plot, but I'd bet there are some doofuses who care about General Shepherd or whoever from CoD. And B) they (usually) have several small innovations rather than one big gimmick. Nintendo games are notorious for the big gimmick. "Oh look, Mario has a water gun! But now he's in space! And Link is a furry now, last time he was a poorly drawn cartoon!" But look at the huge number of tiny little things Halo 2 added from Halo 1. Even though the big gimmick might, in some cases, change gameplay more drastically than a number of minor tweaks, it ironically feels more like Nintendo is just trying to push something out the door as fast as possible. At least to me.Lordofthesuplex said:Really? Because I played CoD4 and other the nuke scene, I didn't see what the big deal was. But whatever I'll give you that. Can't say that applies to every CoD after it though. People go on and on about how every Mario and Zelda game is the same thing (which is bull) but they never wanna call out CoD's yearly sequels now do they?Call of Duty 4 is better than Goldeneye because its graphics are better, its sounds are better, its gameplay is more refined, and its multiplayer component is much more compelling.
But, fuck, Super Mario Galaxy 2 can't even be given this argument. That's the same game. Period.