Game reviewers: "lack of innovation" is not a valid criticism.

One thing that kind of bugs me about game reviewers is how quickly they'll deduct points from a game for being similar to a previous entry in the franchise.

While I do agree that innovation can be a good thing in many cases, that doesn't mean that lack of innovation is bad.

For one thing, giving a game a low score for being the same as previous entries in the franchise assumes familiarity with said franchise, many people might be buying the game without any previous context, and they might not be familiar at all with the franchise.

In short:

Game reviewers should review every game as though its the only game in the franchise. If the game is fun when you remove all outside context, then it is a good game. PERIOD.

edited 29th Nov '11 5:56:51 PM by Zennistrad

It depends. If things are new and fresh enough — whether via plot, level design, new abilities, whatever — to make the game enjoyable despite being basically the same as previous games, then that's one thing. If it's just like playing the same game over again, though, then it's a legitimate criticism.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

If they really took "lack of innovation" seriously as a criticism, many long-running franchises wouldn't have such high scores by professional reviewers.

edited 29th Nov '11 5:56:02 PM by VutherA

In my eyes, fun games never really get any less fun. If a sequel is released that has identical gameplay but different levels, characters, stage designs, or otherwise has a different scenario, then it as just as fun as the previous game. The only time where "lack of innovation" is a valid criticism is when the new game is completely identical in terms of level design, i.e. an HD reskin.

edited 29th Nov '11 5:58:54 PM by Zennistrad

I think this criticism is most often levied at games that tend to rip-off trends from other, more popular, series (i.e all the Call of Duty clones).

Sorry, I can't hear you from my FLYING METAL BOX!

I agree with you, but really, this is only ONE problem with professional non-gamer hacks. Hence why we have Reviews Are the Gospel.

In the end, nothing matters, or mattered. So endulge yourself now, your legacy means nothing when humans are extinct.

Yeah, i get sick of people putting down games for being samey as much as i hate people putting undeserving games on high horses just because they're different. Different =/= good.

I prefer "refinement" over "innovation". If a game is good, make the good parts better instead of throwing in another feature that might not be so good. Ninja Gaiden was good, so in Ninja Gaiden 2 they added more levels, more combos, more weapons, more enemies. Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 fixed the gawdawful bow, toned down the cheaper enemies and threw in some new characters. This makes each iteration superior to the earlier one, since they're not doing anything that messes with the core concept of slashing dudes in a very stylized and bloody way. And it's awesome.

However, some games shoot themselves in the foot trying something new. Red Faction: Armageddon for example seemed to noticed that 95% of all enemies in video games today are composed of "Dude with an assault rifle" and "Alien dude who acts just like a dude with an assault rifle". So they filled their game with Big Creepy-Crawlies that hop around on walls like ninjas. They where often just incredibly annoying to fight, and they where there throughout the whole damn game. The two times you actually do get to fight dudes with assault rifles ends up being a lot more fun.

Innovation is important for the industry as a whole, and can lead to some amazing games. But just because a game is innovative doesn't mean it's fun to play. My current roommate staunchly defends The Elder Scrolls IV because "Nobody ever tried anything like that when it was around". He seems to ignore the broken skills, the sluggish combat, the spectacularly ugly people, the recurring landscapes, the illusion of freedom, the stilted animation, and the worst leveling system ever. But it's okay. Because it's innovative.

edited 29th Nov '11 6:26:47 PM by ShirowShirow

No it's the long running franchise that aren't currently paying their ad budget that get it.

I think they're just scared of popular backlash.

There is a difference between maintaning familiarity of a series and becoming stale.

Long runners need innovation, or else the latter happens.

For example, the infamous Call Of Duty series. I admit that the latest release was a step in the right direction, but the series has lacked anything new to keep it fresh, no evolution of the core gameplay.

That's an example of when a series should start innovating.

Either way, professional non-gamer hacks have proven time and again that they are fuckwits who don't know the first thing about gaming. They know it exists and that's about it.

In the end, nothing matters, or mattered. So endulge yourself now, your legacy means nothing when humans are extinct.

That's the thing though, despite my loathing of the series i can't call the Call Of Duty games bad. And I don't see their lack of innovation as a terrible thing. Look at the Legend Of Zelda series for example: It's a holy grail of gaming, for sure. But has anything really changed since it went three-dee? Skyward Sword has the neat looking swordplay i guess, but Wind Waker and Twilight Princess aren't fundamentally different from Ocarina Of Time.

I think the biggest problem with Call Of Duty internally (That is, not including the ridiculous effect its had on gaming as a whole. Dear sweet jesus.) is the release schedule: A game a year leads to rapid burnout. Legend Of Zelda has lasted as long as it has and has remained as beloved as it has because it take its goddamn time. This means it has more of that magic word in each iteration: Refinement!

edited 29th Nov '11 6:39:43 PM by ShirowShirow

That still sounds like not taking the concept seriously to me.

No, I think there is a bit too much emphasis on polish instead of innovation. Look at Brink: the developers put in a smart movement system into what was already a class-based multiplayer-capable shooter and tried to shake things up.

Also,

Right, like that would make Tiberian Twilight a good game.

edited 29th Nov '11 6:54:30 PM by RocketDude

"Hipsters: the most dangerous gang in the US." - Pacific Mackerel

On that point, I'd wish reviewers would update their reviews in the event of patches. They can do enormous things to a game, but reviewers never ever mention them in their reviews.

While I dislike the word "innovation," I criticise books that fail to do anything new with the ideas they've taken from older books. Why should games be any different?

It's a reasonable point, but I think developers should take some degree of punishment for the infuriatingly common practice of pushing out Obvious Betas and patching away the glitches players complain most about.

edited 29th Nov '11 6:57:41 PM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Well, uh, that's not going to be very convincing on my end because i sorta hate Brink. I basically consider it the hipster of games: It did everything exactly the opposite of what was mainstream, and ended up sucking for it.

The funniest thing about that game for me was that i was interested in the idea of a floating manmade island that was currently at war with itself in a Gray-and-Grey Morality situation... So i couldn't wait to play the single player campaign. Which, y'now. Didn't exist.

Yeah. No. Patches can be a great thing, but I expect a full-fledged game on release. And updating a console game with a patch is just... Infuriating for me. Urgh.

edited 29th Nov '11 6:59:49 PM by ShirowShirow

Well, it did, technically. After all, if Left 4 Dead can let you play the same stuff in both multiplayer and single-player, it works for other games.

Also, I never had any technical issues anyways, but I always run Nvidia cards, so...

edited 29th Nov '11 6:59:41 PM by RocketDude

"Hipsters: the most dangerous gang in the US." - Pacific Mackerel

It's a reasonable grievance, but reviews largely do note that and I think it's punished quite so already. My problem is that if it's fixed later, the damage is done to the reviews and only particularly interested people will look into it enough to realize that. A sale on Steam is unlikely to make up for reviews saying "It is a buggy mess that will frustrate you." when it happens to not be at that point.

As well, timeframes just happen. Publishers can demand games going out regardless of whether it's fully ready, and they pay you, so you gotta do it. Or you ran out of money, so if you don't want to find another job, you'll have to release it and hope enough people will buy it so you can perfect it.

That wouldn't be a problem for you if reviewers tended to update their reviews. You can avoid the bad times and easily hear about the good times. The fact it was badly buggy at one point is pretty irrelevant if it isn't anymore.

edited 29th Nov '11 7:07:46 PM by VutherA

I can understand being sympathetic to developers, but... Well, that doesn't make the game better. And it doesn't ease the frustration of all the hyped-up fans that pre-ordered it and ended up having something horribly unoptimized.

We're customers, and we gotta stick up for ourselves. If we don't want to wait a month after release for a game to be playable we damn well better make ourselves heard. And I, for one, don't want to wait a month after release for a game to be playable. Hell, by then many people have already beaten it.

If a game's been patched to be less buggy, it's the publishers or developers jobs to inform potential buyers. Not reviewers.

Plus, like I said, not everyone even has access to patches. I played Alpha Protocol after it had apparently been patched up a bit, but fuck if that made a difference for me and my wifi-less 360.

edited 29th Nov '11 7:15:04 PM by ShirowShirow

I dunno, such a standard sounds pretty unrealistic to me. I'm expecting this stuff to happen now with the way the market is. As much as people and reviewers make it don't like it, it still happens all the time. Thus, I'm thinking it's a part of gaming that just isn't going to go away. Reviewers doing this would make the best of it (tell everyone to avoid it on release if it's terrible, but it becomes enjoyable later, why not hear about it? Mistakes were made, but they were rectified.).

I don't see why shouldn't reviewers do this when it happens. Reviewers try tell you what you should and shouldn't get. If there's more reason to get something later, why ignore it?

...isn't wifi wireless? Which, last I checked, the 360 could use wires? Regardless, that's something which reviewers going back should say if they did - it's good because of patches. If you can't get patches, it's the same for you as it was before (bad).

edited 29th Nov '11 7:21:12 PM by VutherA

Polish over innovation is why all the games worth actually playing are either new, indie releases or legendary series going F 2 P.

Game reviews are to give gamers insight into the products that they may purchase. The basic, pragmatic reason why lack of innovation is a valid criticism is because there is no reason to purchase a newer title over an older title when they play exactly the same, but the newer title costs more. The more esoteric reason is because polish over innovation causes stagnation in the video game industry as a whole, which harms gaming as a medium.

(Disclaimer: It's perhaps hypocritical to list Mech Warrior and Tribes in this post due to their Long Runner status, but every release of Mech Warrior has pretty much been a completely different game from the other, and Tribes is just so completely whacked compared to anything else that exists that its repetition can be forgiven. Especially when, like Mech Warrior, said repetition comes every 5 years instead of every year, as per AAA Shooter 903.)

edited 29th Nov '11 7:24:05 PM by Barcode711

Worshipper of Ahura Mazda, as proclaimed by Zoroadster http://twitter.com/bpglobalpr

Huh... I think you hit the nail on the head there.

I think, then, that it comes down to the numbers. The numbering system used to rate games nowadays has gotten ridiculous Rank Inflation as of late. Look at the score in this one. I remember Wild Arms 2 getting 3/5's and 5.5/10's and people calling it a great game that was worth your time.

A game that's a Mission-Pack Sequel getting a 6/10 while it's predecessor got an 8/10 just seems wrong seeing as the numbers are set in stone and unmoving. If there was no number, and the reviewer just said "It's great but just like the last game" then there's no all-powerful number god quantifying the game as worse due to imitation.

Maybe reviewers just need to assume their viewers are capable of thinking on a basic abstract basis. Maybe some viewers need to remember they are capable of thinking on a basic abstract basis.

edited 29th Nov '11 7:26:14 PM by ShirowShirow

Cave Story didn't really innovate a thing and it's the gold standard for indie games.

Touhou doesn't re-invent the Bullet Hell or Shoot 'Em Up genres, it just does them well.

I pretty much only read non-number reviews for that reason.

(Addendum) I will definitely agree that customers need to stick up for themselves, but innovation is a factor of quality on par with, if not surpassing, polish. Sure, you can buy COD MW 3 and get the polishest polish that ever polished (at least, in multiplayer), but it's just because it's MW 2 with (some) new weapon models (which you can buy for much less than MW 3).

On the other hand, if someone tries something new but the game is kinda rough around the edges, you can usually still enjoy it more than a run-of-the-mill shooter because in the end you're playing a game whose gameplay is, despite glitches, more fun than the other.

edited 29th Nov '11 7:28:03 PM by Barcode711

Worshipper of Ahura Mazda, as proclaimed by Zoroadster http://twitter.com/bpglobalpr