Shadow1980 said:
Why? If a game is good, then it should be scored on its own merits. The core mechanics could differ very little from the previous game, but if the core mechanics are good, then there's not much need to reinvent the wheel. If it ain't broke don't fix it. NSMBU changed little from NSMBWii aside from a new power-up (the squirrel suit) and a few new enemies, but it excelled in its level design and challenge, which I (and many others, it seems) consider a step up from NSMBWii. Mega Man 9 not only went back to the classic 8-bit MM style, but it took it even further by eliminating the slide ability and the charged Mega Buster. Despite the steps backward, it was still an amazing game, with great levels, great bosses, and solid challenge, making it perhaps the best classic MM game since MM3. Speaking of Mega Man, MM2 changed very little from MM1 aside from E-tanks and a couple of new support items, but its superior level and boss design make it perhaps the most well-regarded classic MM game. |
And this conversation precisely illustrates the problem with all reviews, and metacritic. Different people value different things, with their gaming experience. What one reviewer finds amazing, another reviewer might see as 'old gameplay'. Frankly, it's why reviews and metacritic need to die in a fire. How can you possibly base any kind of aggregate ratings system on games, when the review process is so completely open ended, and up for interpretation depending upon what you enjoy as a gamer? Seems illogical.
