Hephaestos on 13 May 2009
| Dodece said: @Hephaestos Yours is not an uncommon mindset you equate quality with popularity. That simply is not correct. Popularity can persist in spite of poor quality. Quality is a testament to originality, care, and refinement. Nintendo got poorer ratings for not taking their game to the next level. Should they be rewarded for that. I am not sure a simple timeless formula has its own virtue, but in gaming if your not getting decidedly better then your really standing still as others pass you by. Honestly I prefer the bold that will try to push the envelope. For example I have asked people that have played all the versions of Mario Kart how much better do they feel the Wii version of the game is. Often I get the reply of a tad. A tad better, a tad worse, or about the same. So the series has not seen a dramatic improvement in more then ten years? Then why should it be getting the same high marks each time. Do not get me wrong it can be good, but did the developer do what it took to make it great. |
that is exactly why I cited the 3 wii music games...like the MK series, the core gameplay is not very varying besides the new tracks ( =D ), yet these seem to always get great scores for adding drums? the same 4 buttons pushed differently? , but MK which adds online play (an extreemly big leap for MK) and bikes to it's gameplay is seen as identical to it's previous itterations?
Was this not just as much of a leap (I believe it's a bigger one) than the music games?
I'm not complaining about MK's bad score, i'm stating that your approach is made flawed by this double standard there is which removes a 17M game and puts 3 less deserving 3M games in it's place...
OoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO
