By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JWeinCom on 26 May 2014
Edit Thread
artur-fernand said:
JWeinCom said:
veritaz said:

I hate reviews that give a game a lower score because it isn't revolutionary enough for their standards. A good game is a good game in my book. It doesn't have to change the whole formula to be great.


You can't evaluate games in a vacuum, like any other medium.  Doing something for the fourth, fifth, tenth, or twentieth time isn't going to have the same appeal as it did the first.  Surprising and innovating is a key part to making a game exceptional.


Perfecting an already existing formula is enough to create an excellent game, at the hands of a competent developer. What does GTA V and The Last of Us have when it comes to "surprises" or "innovations"? Or, hell, Mario Kart 8 got an 89. Multiple games on the series have 90+. The series isn't exactly known for innovating on every single instalment, but for what the game proposes to be, it probably has unmatched quality.

Sometimes, it just feels like a huge double standard really. I'm not saying Watch Dogs or Second Son are anywhere near The Last of Us or GTA V. But listing "lack of innovation" as one of the flaws is horrible, not everybody needs to reinvent the wheel.


So uhhhh... give me a chance to reply maybe instead of quoting the same post multiple times?

Anyway, I haven't played Last of Us, or GTA V, nor do I care to.  I've only played about 4 races of Mario Kart 8, and I'm guessing you don't own it either.  Three entries of the series scored above 90.  Super Mario Kart, which basically invented its genre, Mario Kart DS, which was a pretty substantial leap as the first title with online plus had a ton of modes.  Then you have Super Circuit, which I didn't really like either.   And, I have seen complaints about the lack of innovation in Mario Kart.  The score isn't simply a measure of how innovative a game is.  Mario Kart may just be more fun than watchdogs in general.

You don't have to reinvent the wheel, but you need to improve it somehow.  Otherwise, why is this game going to excite me?  If you have the same meal for dinner every night, you're going to get sick of it.  If you choose to make a game in a genre that is heavily over-represented, you need to seperate yourself from the pack somehow.

artur-fernand said:
JWeinCom said:
artur-fernand said:
Oh no, is it gonna be another game that loses points for not being "innovative" or "revolutionary" enough? That's the absolute WORST complaint you can have about a game, what the hell is up with this obsession with "innovation"? Give me a break.

It pisses me off to no end.


The obsession with innovation is about not wanting to play through the same experience over and over again.  It's about expecting developers to continuously improve over time.  We rate games within the context of the medium.  After playing through a slew of open world games, it's going to be hard for one to leave an impression without doing something new.


I still don't understand what you mean with "We rate games within the context of the medium".

And not wanting to play through the same experience over and over again? I'm sorry, I can't take this argument seriously when Mario Kart Super Circuit and a bunch of Tony Hawk games are 90+ games. I'm not attacking either, I have a good fun with MK (though Super Circuit is terrible), and Tony Hawk is my favorite sports series. I just fail to understand why for some games, open world games in particular, its mandatory to surprise or "give something new".

Strawman arguments... but w/e.  The Tony hawk games that scored 90+ were 1,2,3, and Underground.  The first three were awesome games, and Underground was the first to take the formula open world.  After that, the series consistently scored lower and lower. What was the common complaint?  Lack of innovation.  So, not a double standard at all.  Just took us longer to get sick of it because there weren't like 12 other skateboarding franchises.

Btw that's why it's mandatory to surprise.  Cause there are tons of other open world games on the market.  There are like 2 skateboarding franchises (I think that's down to 0 now) and maybe about 4 Kart racing franchises apart from things like hello kitty.  And that's also what I mean by within the context of the medium.  How many games are doing what Mario Kart does as well as better?  You could maybe make an argument for Sonic and Sega, but that's about it.  It's an experience that comes along once every Nintendo console.  There is a new open world game every month or two. 

veritaz said:
JWeinCom said:
artur-fernand said:
Oh no, is it gonna be another game that loses points for not being "innovative" or "revolutionary" enough? That's the absolute WORST complaint you can have about a game, what the hell is up with this obsession with "innovation"? Give me a break.

It pisses me off to no end.


The obsession with innovation is about not wanting to play through the same experience over and over again.  It's about expecting developers to continuously improve over time.  We rate games within the context of the medium.  After playing through a slew of open world games, it's going to be hard for one to leave an impression without doing something new.

But the game isn't the same experience. It looks completely different from every other open world game. It's way different than say another mario game that still gets great scores. Countless examples like that exist in the industry.

I've not played the game.  It may be awesome, and I never said it wasn't.  All I said was that lack of innovation was a valid critique.