DonFerrari said:
If he took 5-15 points because of lack of pushing the genre in a meaningful way ok. And if he doesn't put issues or errors you could understand as "perfecting the genre" if you want.
But he took 30 points, that is exaggerated. Unless they usually take 30 on average just on that it already points a grave error on their score. |
First of all, that implies that every game starts out as a 10/10 and then gets reduced points from there. A game has to work to get a certain score. A 7/10 isn't 3 points from the base score, it's 7. You don't start a game assuming it's a 10/10. Don't look at it like it got deducted 3 points, look at it as if it earned 7. I guess it's whether you're a glass half full or glass half empty kind of guy.
There is actually quite a lot of complaints in the review, a few of which have nothing to do with innovation. So again, you're wrong. A summary is supposed to give you the most basic idea of what to expect from a game quality-wise. That summary is pretty good because the main gripe the writer had was not just the lack of innovation, but the consequential repetition as a result. If you do not want to go and read the review, at the very least do not assume every negative detailed is tied in to some pretentious notion of innovation. Because the points made are actually good. I and many other people might not agree with them, but it is far from an unconvincing review.
