| Veknoid_Outcast said: I don't think it's as simple as power vs. innovation, or graphics vs. gameplay, another dichotomy that pops up every now and then on the forum. I want to look at a case study if you'll permit me. Let's go back in time to 2013. Sony launches Tearaway on Vita and Nintendo launches A Link Between Worlds on 3DS. Tearaway is innovative, it's creative, it's endlessly inventive. It uses the microphone, camera, and touchpad on the Vita. It's overflowing with new ideas and concepts. And it's kind of a dud. A Link Between Worlds basically imports its entire overworld from a game from 1992. Heck, it looks like a game that could run on SNES. Apart from some nifty Streetpass functionality it basically conforms to the Zelda mechanics and tropes set by A Link to the Past, 20+ years earlier. Yet it plays like a dream. Innovation and creativity without strong design to back them up is kind of shallow, just like great graphics and physics without strong design to back them up is kind of hollow. New features and inventive mechanics can give a boost to a well-designed game, just as great graphics and lighting can enhance a well-designed game, but they can never stand on their own. I think that some folks have a difficult time articulating exactly what it is they like in a game, and so they fall back on buzzwords like "gameplay" and "innovation" without really unpacking what those words represent. People aren't buying PS4s and XOnes to gawk at the graphics. They're buying them because they love the freedom of Grand Theft Auto and the visceral action of Call of Duty. People aren't buying 3DSes and, now, Switches, because they support so many innovative games. They're buying them because they love the thrill of the hunt in Pokemon or the sense of adventure in Zelda. |
you sir, are a meanie.
tearaway was excellent both times i bought it regardless of its sales.
