what like the 3 nintendo fans said

How many times are you gonna say that?

And what are these new techniques Ready at Dawn supposedly invented?

I don't see what the big deal is. The game looks great. It looks fun. The setting looks amazing. The weapons look boss. Does it need to be innovative? No, it just has to be fun.

Although the usual haters will come and try and dismiss or knock this down, this is actually a very very accurate and great piece. And resonates with how I have always felt with the criticism levied against this game.

The simple truth of the matter, is that if you ask anyone to mention a game that is truly in its entirety innovative, they will not be able to do it. Every single game out there is borrowing a majority of its core elements from another game that can,e before it. However its the combination of these elements that lends every game their innovation. Some games however are just pure clones.

So I ask, what game is truly innovative? and if anyone can mention any, will they be up to 3? What shocks me is how anyone will say the order sucks cause its not innovative yet there are on average 6 FPS games that are released every year. Can anyone tell ,e what about all those FPS games make them innovative and exempts them from this kinda criticism? Or let's look at racing games, at its core, every racing game is spent getting from point a to be as quickly as possible. And they are divided into 3 types, arcade racing, combat racing and Sim racing. What is innovative about them too?

I really can't wait till the next gears of war game is announced, and let's see what then is innovative about it.

I am not saying and can't know if the order will actually be a fun game to play, that will boil down to how well they nail its gameplay mechanics and level design amongst other things, but I do strongly believe that if the major criticism on this game is a lack of innovation, whoever is saying that might as well just come out and day he/she is trolling.

Just to be clear, I am NOT saying "it will suck cos it's not innovative".

I just hardly think the things described in the OP are innovative.

One would be the soft body physics system

"It goes hand in hand with a new physics engine, entitled ABEL, which uses soft body physics as its basis, compared to the current standard of rigid body physics. Materials will have their own specific properties, such as the deformability of metal or the buoyancy of a ball.

It’s worked in such a way that destructible objects are able to break apart and stay within the world with ease. The demos showed a wooden fence being blown to shreds and a teddy bear being taken to pieces. In both cases, what was initially a single physical body within the physics system would easily break apart and continue to exist in the world separately. No shards of wood disappeared and everything stayed interactive for further bullet impacts and forces.

Further to this, they showed off their metal deformation systems, and how a single force of wind in an area would affect hanging flags in an individual and different manner."

Ok, two questions. 

1. what is your idea of an innovative game, and by that I mean a game that is doing a majority of things that's have never been done before in games released in the last 10 years?
2. Let's assume that the points pointed out in the op doesn't qualify as innovation in your book (which is perfectly fine) with a thorough understanding of what it ,means for a game to be innovative do you feel the games criticism is justified? 

It is admirable that they are trying to push boundaries, but its not the first game to use soft body physics.

It all depends on HOW they end up using it, in my opinion. If it really changes the gameplay for the better, that will be innovative. If it's just for eye candy, that won't be.

Ugh this again nothing will go anywhere. >.>