When it comes to reviews, innovation can and does matter.

It really, really doesn't

Can you go ahead and name the highest-ratd games for each platform? I think they're GTAIV, Galaxy, Twilight Princess, Halo 3? ...Maybe Bioshock? I know I'm forgetting some

It can be based on your opinion of whether New Super Mario Bros for DS did new stuff.  But in my opinion, with some good new (balanced) level design, the two new powers (that were focused on the new levels) and the new interface, it stands alone as a whole new title.  Even with its obvious retro focus.

New Super Mario Bros Wii however feels more like 'New Super Mario Bros plus'.  Aka, they took the model of the DS title, added two new powers (penguin suit/spinning mushroom) and some new levels and called it a whole new game.  Now, that may sound harsh, but look back.  Aside from getting one coin, can you really say you even needed to use the tiny mushroom in the WHOLE game for NSMBWii?  You could get by the whole game just using either the Spinning mushroom or the Penguin Suit.  And seriously, the majority of the levels, while visually different, boiled down to the same 5 basic designs with little variation.  Even many of the same enemies and traps were overused.  The only real unique levels were the hidden levels and World 9.

As for Paper Mario: Thousand-Year Door, yes, it wasn't as unique as its predecessor.  But it still was a unique game that brought new concepts to both the Mario franchise and the Mario RPG series.  And yes, I have played both (Paper Mario 64 being one of my 5 favorite Mario games).

I would argue that Innovation does matter...but only for Wii and DS titles.

Reviewers don't bring it up for any of the other systems.  But when they go to review a Wii or DS game, they have this extra measure they throw out.  Taking every game and placing it next to the most 'innovative' games on those systems.  Then they downscore the game if it either didn't 'innovate enough' or 'innovated too much'.  Usually tied to the controls or graphics.

If this wasn't bad enough, even if a game passes THAT test, then they take that game and stack it up next to games on the 'HD" systems (even DS games).  So its all just a big popularity contest and pointless.  Reviewers this gen have picked what they think is the best and any game that comes out this gen on the Wii or DS is automatically not going to stack up.  Unless it somehow magically produces graphics and gameplay indentical to GTAIV or MGSIV.

Did i say it counts the most? No. I said it counts. You cannot really argue that.

But hey, Heres a quote from one of the SMG Reviews - "Innovative level design, original gameplay, the best graphics and soundtrack on Wii to date, and the return to form of the first true superstar of videogames" (TVG)

GTA4 - "But perhaps the biggest innovation is the notion that you can create a game that's as valid a piece of art as any book or movie." (Team Xbox)

Should i carry on finding reviews where reviewers talk about innovation?

I can, though. I'm doing it right now.

One can argue that Mario Galaxy has innovative level design, and to a degree that's true, but it as since been pointed as as still being samey - just Sunshine on globes without FLUDD, etc.

And that isn't actually an innovation on GTAIV's part.

My point is that the majority - the vast majority - of 90+ games on metacritic, for all platforms, are rehashes and sequels. We'll take the PS3 as an example:

Now let's see here. From this list of 20, we have 12 sequels, some rehashes, recollections.... the only really original, innovative titles on the whole list are LittleBigPlanet and Braid, and one of those is a port and both of them are platformers. You could make an argument for Arkham Asylum though, I suppose.

The 360 and Wii's lists look much the same.

Innovation is nont one of the primary factors in review scores here, and a lack thereof is not what accounts for New Super Mario Bros. Wii's review scores. Easier to say that reviewers just didn't like it as much as the average Wii owner. That's been the case with plenty of games before.

I think you guys are arguing the same thing, but on different sides. Reviewers are bias against reviews but for different reasons. On the HD consoles, they favor sequels and 'going with the crowd'. On the Wii (and to a lesser extent DS), they buck the trend and downscore games they think do too much of 'the same thing'.

In other words, they're hypocrites when it comes to reviewing HD games and give them high scores but when a Wii game, sequel or otherwise, does the same thing, they chastise it and try to prove a point.

Then we obviously just disagree on it.

I gave examples where reviewers talk about innovation in games. Proving that it can count. I can find multiple other examples too where innovation (Or lack of it) is talked about... While i agree it isn't one of the primary things (Presentation, gameplay, graphics and replayability IMO) it is still there and it does help in reviews.

It's also conspicuously absent in several of the highest-rated games on all systems. Look at Twilight Princess. Or Halo 3. Or MGS4, God help us all.

Isn't it reasonable to say that reviewers just don't like it as much as the average Wii owner?

Red - Definately seems that way.

Then that's all there is! Everything past that, every attributed reason, from bias to innovation to whatever, is pure speculation unless the reviewers try to come up with an explanation as to why their tastes do not match those of their theoretical audience.