Originally Posted by
Aulayna
The beat 'em up genre in general. I miss the PS2/GC/XBOX glory days where Beat 'em ups had your standard arcade and versus modes but they also had fun little challenge modes and adventure modes and ludicrous rules modes and more unlockables than a vault.
Fast forward to Soul Calibur IV which was essentially just marketting for Star Wars: Force Unleashed and Soul Calibur V which was basically an online VS game with a half-assed offline mode shipped for a full box price. It makes me weep. Playing people online is fun - yes. But damnit I want my Chronicles of the Sword and Edge Master modes back!
On a more general note though this whole idea that developers have to be innovative with each title they release just well and truly knarks me off! Having to "innovate" or "streamline" to appease a bunch of overpaid cynical games critics is probably why games I once loved became so bad.
If I buy a sequel it's because I want more of the same, because I *liked* the first one. Sure if there were any naggling usability issues with the previous game I'll expect them to be ironed out but beyond that I want the core formula to remain the same. Assassin's Creed is the perect example of this, stellar overarching story, first game had a lot of kinks but the core formula was solid - they ironed those out in AC2 and it improved the game as a whole. I happilly gave them more money for both Brotherhood and Revelations and thankfully by Revelations they realised that their "flying" sections handled worse than a bicycle with flat tyres - and subsequently got rid of them. AC3 they're still keeping the core formula in tact there but expanding the world beyond the GTA-esque confines of a city.
Borderlands 2 is a great example too. Borderlands was a fun game but got very repetitive with very little varation in textures etc and the setpieces felt rather disjointed. Borderlands 2 they added some colour to Pandora, made the writing even slicker and comical, nailed the set pieces and generally just tightened the nuts and bolts on the existing package (without really changing anything dramatically) and it was by far a more entertaining experience.
Heck, if Square Enix released a game tomorrow that had a decent story and a Battle System and other gameplay systems similar to VI - I would literally throw money at them. Instead I got lumbered with 50 hours of corridors followed by 20 hours of Calm Lands 2.0 and felt notably shortchanged by it all.
It does my head in when people rail on studios for not being "innovative" if the crux of the gameplay remains largely the same.
Like with this new Fable game that I have to faff around with Kinect and hand gestures and it handles terrible. smurf off Lionhead, no! I want a Fable game - something that I can curl up on the sofa under the quilt cover with and lose hours and hours in the wonder of adventure. Not some bulltrout motion controlled experiment with the Fable name slapped onto it so it can be lauded as "innovation."
If a game is a sequel then it carries with it a set of already established expectations that it's fans want and expect to see fulfilled. Not disregarding and thrown out the window for the sake of being "innovative."
Really I think the gaming community as a whole has really got it's wires crossed and has confused "innovatism" with "iteration." Iteration is a necessity, but doesn't mean demolishing and rebuilding from the ground up - nor does it necessarilly equate to being "good" either.