Samus Aran said:
Money talks you mean. Why are reviewers in general more lax about a yearly franchise that is as stale as old bread than a 2.5D platformer that comes out every 4 years at best? Doesn't make sense. If freshness and innovation are truly as important as you claim then CoD shouldn't score higher than 50% on metacritic. We're not talking about one review outlet here, but over a 100 outlets. That's enough to constitute a trend. |
2D platrformers have been around for decades. Quite a while longer than the CoD franchise. And gameplay haven't evolved much since the SNES days. The last few games in the CoD franchises managed to introduce novel ideas even for its ganre. I don,t like CoD games much. Mind you. But that's the concensus among reviewers, from what I have read.
And DKC isn't 2.5D. The graphics are 3D, but the movements are all in a 2D plane, even when the camera moves around.
At the end of the day, why do you guys care that much about those scores? Why do you care so much about how Nintendo games don't score as high as other games you have never played, cared about, or just dislike? What if, as console sales indicate, people in general just don't really like Nintendo games as much as other games on non-nintendo consoles? It's not like those Nintendo games score poorly to begin with. But it seems like some of you guys can never accept when people don't see the games you love to death in the same way you see them. Even worse, some of you complain about a Nintendo game you have never played scoring lower than an other game you have never played from an other console... ¬_¬
