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:
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.


I'm not quoting the same post multiple times. It's just another guy who coincidentally quoted your post at the same time.

 

But anyway, I strongly disagree with it being basically the same meal. Out of all the major open-world games, pretty much all of them play differently from each other. I'm gonna exemplify with the ones you've mentioned in a previous post:

RDR and GTA are kinda similar, only the former is more serious and on the Wild West. It's the same dev, so it's only natural. inFamous gives you super-powers, AC puts a lot of emphasis on free running and climbing, the Arkham games are about the combat and the gadgets, Just Cause is about over-the-top action and LA Noire's status as "open world" is questionable, imo.

Those are the ones I've played anyway, and all of them felt extremely different from each other. And if you look at the scores, they are pretty fair (how AC3 was kind of a disappointment and AC4 a surprise, for example), and none of them complain about "lack of innovation". But there are a bunch of Second Son reviews out there who list lack of innovation as a flaw for the game, giving the impression it would have scored higher if not for it, and that's my issue with it. Granted, I haven't played SS, but I can only assume it plays similarly to the first two inFamous - naturally, since it's the same series.

Now, maybe Watch Dogs is indeed a generic open-world game that tries to be GTA too hard, who knows? But if it's just a game that follows the GTA formula with a relatively small twist to it, and does it in a competent way, then lack of innovation is not as valid as it is for Arkham Origins for example.


I wouldn't call a change in setting to the west a really significant change.  Infamous is hardly the only open world game to give you powers.  Prototype obviously comes to mind, as well as a slew of super hero games.  Incredible Hulk Ultimate Destruction, Spider-man 2, and a bunch of other super hero games of various quality.  

Regarding Assassin's Creed, here are a few quotes about the game...

"Four titles in five years appear to have taken the shine off the series.


Revelations via Digital Fix: "Four titles in five years has taken some of the shine off the series"

XBox Achievments on ACIV: "Six games in, and you'd have thought the series might have attempted an overhaul, but Black Flag is by and large, business as usual."

So yeah, they do complain about that.  I'm sure I could find more, but those are just the first couple of reviews I read. Seems like there might be some sort of confirmation bias clouding your judgment.  Lack of innovation is a common complaint levied against games.

But to sum it up, we get bored of things.  If a game doesn't do anything new, it's perfectly justified for a reviewer to call them out on it.  Whether reviewers do so with consistency is another matter entirely.