the_dengle said:
Or an indie game, or LBP, or DKCR, or Kirby, or... Actually, I'm thinking the reason critics are harder on New Super 2 is because there are more games of the same genre to compare it to. Galaxy came out in '07; Galaxy 2 in '10. How many noteworthy, revolutionary 3D platformers were made between those two games? Eh... how many 3D platformers at all were made between them? NSMB came out in '06, New Super 2 in '12. Twice as long between games. 2D platformers are a dime a dozen this generation, so they have to prove that they're REALLY spectacular to stand out, to warrant much praise. There were plenty of 2D platformers in the past 6 years that added to the genre, expanding on an old formula. For New Super 2 to come out and pretend none of that innovation took place, like it's still 2006, was... a mistake. At least, apparently, in the eyes of the average critic. The 3D platformer genre hasn't experienced massive change since Mario Galaxy in '07. The FPS genre hasn't changed much since Halo or COD4. But 2D platformers have come a long way since 2006. Maybe it's not "fair" to grade games on that kind of scale for one genre only, especially since New Super 2 is such a high-quality game in its own right, old-fashioned or not. But I imagine there would be a similar lashback if someone released an extremely dated FPS..... (*cough*, DNF). Now, sure, DNF was a plain-old bad game when you got right down to it. But one major criticism of it that cropped up frequently was that it ignored so much of the evolution of the genre in the past decade. Maybe it's still a bit of a double-standard. Maybe it's still a lot of a double-standard. Maybe it only looks like a double-standard on the surface, but is pretty consistent when you look closely. Maybe I'm not going to commit to a clear opinion of my own, because (maybe) I don't really care. :P |
Do reviewers really care much for LBP? I thought the reviewer consensus on that one was largely indifference, at least as a platformer. I don't think Kirby was particularly shined on either, at least not for anything beyond its art style. I admit, my perception could be wrong though.
As for the indie games, most of those are artsy puzzle games wrapped in a veneer of a platformer. I know it may sound like I'm nitpicking, but I'm inclined to think reviewers are more in love with the fact that those are indie games than anything else.
I see where you're coming from regarding how 2D platformers are more common now than 3D ones (although I'd hardly label them as "a dime a dozen," especially when the bulk of them are more puzzle than platformer). But I don't put as much weight in that, since other games in crowded genres continue to get high plaudits. This generation has been saturated with shooters, WRPGs, brawlers, and sandbox games, yet this doesn't stop reviewers from slapping 90+ scores on Uncharted/Gears/God/Assasin's/Mass Effect/whatever 3+. Perhaps the evolutions within those titles elude me, since I admit I'm not a huge fan of those genres,* but the changes between UC 1 to 3, or Gears 1 to 3, for example, don't strike me as anything more than minor tweaks.
Perhaps you've got your finger on the pulse more than I do, though. Maybe reviewers really do place greater value on the recent 2D platformers than I (and likely most of the general public) do. It certainly wouldn't surprise me too much, in light of how IGN let an editor run a peice that claimed Splosion Man was a better game than NSMBWii!
*Actually, I like WRPGs. But this generation's offerings pale compared to the late 90's/early 00's, imo. That's a rant for another time.
