Soleron said:
Changing the core gameplay = bad. Battle mechanics, continuous overworld, partners. Changing the content of the game = good. "You start in a house with your mom and then a professor makes you choose a fire water grass starter and then your rival picks the other one then you walk to eight gyms while fighting an evil Team and meeting rival, then the final battle with Team involves a legendary they've captured/harnessed, after which you face the Elite Four and go into the Hall of Fame". - every pokemon game, getting very tired now. Can people distingush one from the other? I want the content to surprise/excite me, but I still want it to be the same game I enjoyed playing last time. |
This.
This also applies to NSMB2. NSMB2 didn't even have new Power-Ups (The Golden powers aren't exactly game-changing), while NSMBU has new features, that's why it's not getting as much flak as NSMB2. Paper Mario games only need new content, partners and story progression to feel fresh and different.
It's as if Nintendo decided to remove jumping from 2D Mario games and instead add a gun.
