Hiku said:
What goalpost did I move? Did I not say from the start that my definition hinged on the fact that new Smash games have always been built on new engines, up until (seemingly) now? |
The problem here is, its not up to you or me to define these things based on our tastes.I mean, we can have discussions and even have "unofficial" agreements rather something is really this or that, but what defines wether a game is a new entry or a port, or a remaster is what the company that made defines it as so.You or I may call BS if there is one to be called, but we are not the final word.You may have your own opinion about the merits of the game, but its your preference, not a fact or anything.Imagine if people thought that the 2016 Doom wasnt a real doom because they thought it didnt play like the old doom games and thus what shitshow it would be every time Doom was brought up in the forums?If you think something its not good or official or whatever, thats fine.More than fine really.But dont spread it as it were the truth.
As for me, I define a new game as a new game when it delivers an experience that is different enough from the source material that it is based on.From what i have seen already, the graphics/gameplay/items/characters seem and look different enough to call it a new game(talking about smash).I could care less about what engine it is running and how much asset it is borrowing as long as the experience feels new.And mind you, we dont even know what new modes it will have, how deep or how much content the single player will have, what other newcomers will come, etc.
My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.
https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1







