mZuzek said:
You know, just stuff like... a different game engine, different controls, different feel, different mechanics, different physics, different stages? Different themes, different music, different sounds, different art style, just different aesthetic in general. Different game balance, different difficulty, different AI. Different multiplayer. The moment your gameplay boils down to "it doesn't have items, which one less feature, so nothing to boast about" is the moment you basically state how little you understand (and likely, how little you care for) gameplay. Games aren't measured in how many individual features they have, they are made from the ground up with a gameplay concept in mind and if that concept is well executed and well balanced, it doesn't matter how many features it does or doesn't have. Even within the same genre. You can't measure them in absolutes like that, it's just silly. F-Zero and Mario Kart have a wholly different feel to them, both in aesthetics and in gameplay. |
I mentioned art style as the main difference. How a game feels as I move left, right, or forward is extremely minimal. Music certainly, but I don't buy a game that plays very similarly to other games that also involve racing in said directions with similar controls just because it has good music. None of what you mentioned are what I'd consider features. Give me some specific features that distinguish it from other racing games and I'll be open minded to those. If it's just racing around tracks to win, that isn't innovative or unique to me, even if it has a different engine or art style or music or aesthetic.
And I don't need items, I just used that as an example. But thanks for insulting my understanding rudely even though I've been polite in my replies to you. There is a way to disagree with someone without degrading them.







