| kber81 said: Why people expect every single game to be innovative? When I read about fighters (oh no, another game when you have to fight), fpp shooters (why we are always forced to shoot in shooters) or platformers (jumping?) which are below expectation because of still same gameplay I feel sorry for reviewers. I'm sure they are unable to provide any example of novelty they want so badly... |
It isn't just a question of innovation -- it's a call to bring something new and interesting to the table with regards to the series. They could take ideas from another game or series and integrate them into their game, and if it's awesome that's great. It sounds like parts of the game are tedius and boring, and the whole game is basically a simple sequel with very little different from the previous incarnations.
Look at the way Super Mario progressed. The very basic ideas are identical, but the ways in which you execute them are completely different. SMB, SMB2 and SMB3 were quite different, SMW and Super Mario 64 were both big changes to the franchise.
Look at the way Blizzard split off their Starcraft and Warcraft series of RTS games -- they've completely changed the mechanics of Warcraft w/ WC3 so it would provide a different experience from Starcraft. They're keeping the play similar but fresh.
The changes don't have to be huge, but there needs to be some new ideas tied to every sequel or you'll just end up playing the same game for an extra $60. Improving the graphics is easy although tedius work. You simply throw manpower at the problem. Spending time in the design phase being creative and coming up with new ideas which are inherantly risky requires far more energy than simply saying, "This formula worked before -- duplicate it and make it look better."
