Exclusive: Critics Admit To Lowering Scores For Attention.

[oniyide]

DanneSandin said:

oniyide said:

eva01beserk said:

Not the same, I got to give credit to nintendo here since they dont rehash the same on an anual basis(aside from pokemon wich is happeninng now to do aanual releases). They at least wait 3 years for another game, some only get one game per gen like smash, zelda, kart and others. Even if they where the same thing, we get a little brake and the improvemnts feel more meningfull cuz we get years acumulated of improobements than a little one every year.

This is how i genuinly feel and it is actually one of the things i do like about Nintendo. Now with that being said, serious question. Are these improvements ACTUALLY meaningful or do they FEEL meaningful because the gap in time between games is so much wider than most? 

I think the answer is, do the improvements ADD something to the already established formula? If it adds something, then I think they're meaningful. Do they enhance your experience? And that answer is gonna be different for everyone that plays the game. For me, the motion controls of Zelda SS was something that added something for me, so that was meaningful for me. Sometimes, it was immerive breaking, but most of the time they were a great addition. The same thing goes for the Silent Realm in the same game; it was nice to change up the pacing and mechanics of the game some times.

fair enough. IMHO i think some series get a pass because they release so infrequently. Ill pick on the NSMB series. The original actually TOOK stuff away. Less items. No Yoshi, more bland worlds(imo) and what it did add was one new item that only showed up in the first wolrd a wall jump and new graphics engine. But it got praised all over. The AC series add more stuff between the original and 3 and it didnt take 20 years but thats up to each person to decide.