The medium is so young, and there’s so much that hasn’t been explored yet, that to retread the same settings/themes/mechanics over and over and over again seems like a waste of time.
There’s some truth there but there’s also the idea that if your customers are only going to buy games where you shoot terrorists then those are the games you need to make. :-/
Well, this is a legitimate thing to want, but is it sensible for reviewers to tilt their scores based on this particular slice of the market? I mean, I agree with Tom that scores are a crock anyway, and what I want from a review is description and analysis that will help me decide whether I would think the game is the bee’s knees. But if you are working within the confines of the 7-9 system, why should a game that is perfectly competent and functional, but utterly derivative in its central mechanics, get a 9? If you start playing and within half an hour realise that “I’ve played this exact game, many times before, but this has marginally better graphics”, then… it’s generally pretty tough to raise more of a reaction to it than “meh”. So, sure, by all means tell your audience that if they’re looking for an unofficial sequel to Knights of the Jade Effect, here it is, but save the big numbers for games that actually do make you sit up a bit, since they’re probably the ones your audience will get a bigger kick out of, too.
Actually I was hoping to hear your interpretation of it.
Is good execution providing familiar mechanics? Is it making the game easy to play? Is it providing fewer options so that they don’t confuse you? Is it reducing the learning curve? Is it adding lots of Hollywood quality cut-scenes? Is it having enough strategy and tactics to make a wargamer squeal in glee? Is it the elimination of DRM? Is it the utilization of new computer technology? Or is the lining up of developers in front of a firing squad?
/ˌeksɪˈkjuːʃn/? No way! It’s totally /'eksəkjuːʃən/!
I simply meant the way the game is put together. How the controls feel.
It’s a touch thing. A solidly executed game “feels” good in your hands when you’re playing it. And that can pretty easily overcome any lack of innovation for me or not-so-advanced graphics engine or whatever.
I remember when I was growing up, I used to cite games as having “good controls” when they felt this way to me. It’s sort of my personal measuring stick. For example, Gears of War and Crackdown feel great to me, while Bayonetta feels loose and unsatisfying (calm down, kids).
It seems to be pretty genre-dependent. If you were to read a review of Street Fighter 4 and then one of Madden 10 with the game names removed, the only difference between them would be the score. Fighting games are praised to high heaven for being exactly the same as the ones that came before; sports games are criticized for not changing much, even though football hasn’t changed much in the last thirty years.
You obviously haven’t heard of a somewhat unknown game called modern warfare 2.
True. I guess I wasn’t really addressing the OP, more my personal outlook on innovation obsession.
Reviewers usually go easier on sequels of (successful) franchises. If its completely new IP, they start complaining about how its clone of another video game or how “archaic” that game is.
I don’t really read reviews, so I don’t have a strong opinion as to what should go into one. Also I’m not really sure what “save the big numbers” means.
But, you basically just said that nobody ever wants to play more of the same. I don’t believe the people who want a drastically different experience every time are an overwhelming majority. So while your reaction might be “meh” I don’t think it’s fair to assume everyone else’s is. Or certainly they wouldn’t continue to buy the same games over and over again.
Also playing a factor: dudebro herd-mentality.
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/darwinia?q=darwinia
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/modernwarfare2?q=modern%20warfare
So, yeah.
I’m not really sure what you’re insinsuating here. I disagree with your overall assumption that non-innovative games get lower scores. I can think of many sequels that scored higher than their predecessors (Fable 2, ME2). While the developers may have tweaked some things, they certainly didn’t bring anything new to their respective genres.
I may be naieve, but I like to think that every game stands on its own merits and while comparisons are made during the course of a review, I doubt that many scores suffer just due to a lack of innovation.
This is about time for someone to find the pennyarcade comic about the reviewer that got fired for giving kane and lynch a bad score when it had some huge advertising campaign on their site.
Too lazy to do it myself.
It doesn’t.
Most high-scoring games in recent years have been retreads and sequels that didn’t deviate much from the formula. Modern Warfare 2, Grand Theft Auto 4, Dirt 2, Left 4 Dead 2, etc… All popular, successful, high-scoring games that focused more on execution than innovation.
Best game experiences for many people are fun and enjoyable in and of themselves (rather than philosophically revelatory due to bold innovation). In other words, well-implemented, well-crafted version of tried-and-true formula with high production values, good control scheme, smart online options, intelligent save system, clever dialogue and characters, etc. are considerably more attractive to many audiences, including many reviewers, than ambitious-but-potentially-broken “innovative” game.
Next up at 11: Water is still wet.
Innovation is overrated. Especially since most of the time, by its very nature, it’s crap.
The depressing thing is that most of the innovation is coming from the indie development scene, yet they obviously don’t have the budget or the manpower to plow as much time and resources into making it a blockbuster game. The big names don’t really stray from the formula that brings success, and you can’t blame them for that really as what works, works. Should a reviewer praise a game based solely on it and nothing else, or should external factors be taken into account?
Personally I’d love to see a publisher round up a few indie developers that have made some great games, throw some money at them and see what they come up with. They’d have to be managed properly, but my money would be on something new and interesting, rather than C&C4/Modern Warfare 2/The Sims 3/Left 4 Dead 2/Tiger Wood’s Golf 17 Billion.
Some of them came up with Portal. Flower would be another exemple.
Some publishers know how to foster promising indie developers, everything isn’t bleak.
In the movie industry a lot of big directors started as indie… Think Peter Jackson or Sam Raimi… Unfortunately I often feel they lose something in the transition, well at least most of them…
Some of them came up with Portal.
That’s an interesting one for me. How closely does Portal resemble the original indie prototype/idea? People like to rail against the big developers/publishers, but I think Valve’s input and work on that game was invaluable.