coolbeans said:
Alright, when it comes to innovation do you think that's all interpreted for things not done before in videogames? No, it should be interpreted as things innovated in both the series and other games in it's respective category. They basically noted, gameplay-wise it's a true-blue sequel it doesn't take any chances on something new and a year-old game did basically all that in this game (be reasonable and exclude platforming elements if you will) and you expect the same score, get real? When it comes to originality, the reviewer just didn't see any risks taken like that of LBP, SMG, etc etc. for game this gen. |
What risks did halo 3, gears of war 2, GTA IV and Fallout 3 take?
And also it's funny how you ignore the fact that Uncharted 2 really did innovate over Uncharted 1, by adding a new multiplayer mode, for example, or adding the a note over each chapter stating how many treasures it has and how many of them you collected, ot the stealth mode... or the machinema mode... man it's fun :)
Now, in case I didn't make myself clear:
I don't care if games are "innovating" or not, I want games to be fun.
Let me ask you a question, does having a completley new plot, much bigger, much better and more complex, with better characters, not innovation?
Who said that this isn't innovation?
Why is it "innovation" in books, but not in games?
A game isn't only about the gameplay, it is also about graphics, story, music etc, a game is about the experience that you have while playing it, and gameplay innovation isn't required for a game to be "innovative".
Bet with Dr.A.Peter.Nintendo that Super Mario Galaxy 2 won't sell 15 million copies up to six months after it's release, the winner will get Avatar control for a week and signature control for a month.







