| Torillian said: The only reason the point of innovation is brought up is because it was stated that KZ2 was obviously more generic and less innovative than Halo 3, which is what I was arguing against. I never said and never meant that a great game has to innovate. Obviously they don't, but if your argument is that one title is better than another because of innovation then yes the title should innovate. |
I would tend to agree Killzone 2 was less innovative than Halo 3 but in defence of the stance you're taking it's hard to justofy the generic statement completely. I would agree that in the same way Halo 3 seeks to be rather unique in it's gameplay you could indeed argue with Killzone 2 the control system that got people flapping actually is a definate move by the devs to give the game it's own feel. I don't like Killzone 2 for either the controls or the narrow viewpoint but it's not deserving of being called generic really once you've played it. On the innovation front, KZ2 doesn't stand head and shoulders out from other shooters and thats why it gets criticism as it's perfectly polished with few risks taken to innovate (you could argue they didn't need to).
