When you take a bite out of your snickers bar, what are you eating? Are you eating a chocolate coated, array of nuts in a caramel coating? In most cases, you're just eating a chocolate bar. Why should it be any different in video games? Are reviewers that picky? Does a bullet brushing your shoulder necessarily have to make a whizzing sound, or can it just be settled with a shwoosh? To the average gamer it can, to most reviewers it can't...
How is it that with every game in existance, if a single waterdrop isn't crystal clear, it doesn't recieve 5 stars, 10 out of 10 or 100. Why is that? It's just annoying to see a game which deservedly should have recieved full score, lost the extra few points because the sound wasn't perfect or it scrolled to fast with a sharp turn of an analog stick. This didn't just happen to a single game, it happens to countless games over and over.
This needs to stop. People buy these games based off of your ratings. Stop overrating and underrating games because of popularity and minor flaws. Seriously, if you're going to rate a game, rate it fairly. People could be losing their money's worth, or missing out on a great oppurtunity. Even if a game only deserves a 6, don't give it a 1/10 for an emblem or whatever.
Many games, in particular series games and predecessors hold true to their developed formula and never wonder beyond those borders. So, the question remains, how come side scrollers that "screen-push," fighting games that button mash, dungeon games that are weak in story line but developed in gameplay and many other games of the same mindset never near a perfect ten? In many cases, tradition is an impact.
Now, not always do games screw up when they offer the same portfolio of the previous generation or game, but chances are deceiving. One example of a game that pulls through by offering the new and improved is Metal Gear Solid 4. Gamespot member NuKkU wrote in his review and I quote "Everything that was in the last game has improved drastically and everything new is just awesome." Now taking the devil's advocate, it is arguable that games not always mess up. A total remake of the super mario bros. or "New Super Mario Bros." offers the same gameplay mechanics but still manages a 9.0 in GameSpot reviewer Jeff Gertsmann's eyes. Why this game succeeds isn't such a mystery however. For people growing up with Mario, it was exactly what was expected.
Onto the core of the topic, how come traditional gameplay and story lines many time fail as an entirety? Thats because gamers would find it tedious to visit the same temples from the previous game in the new edition to save Zelda from the same exact bosses with the same exact weapons. My point here is that tradition can become tiresome and tedious if the cycle isn't abolished once in a while. Look at the transition, not only between games, but with scores as well for Pikmin and Pikmin 2. Several factors are responsible for the original's 8.9 (great) to the second's 9.2 (superb.) In short, it's just a simple sentence crafted by reviewer Ricardo Torres, "With Pikmin 2, Nintendo has addressed the bulk of the shortcomings of its predecessor by crafting a game that tops the original in nearly every way." This game tweaked with tradition, and look at the outcome.
What makes tedious even worse, is the ever-growing, ever-changing society of community and technology. In the generation of the virtual console, many if not most of the games where hits. What Nintendo did nowadays with the Wii, is charge us to revive those games, but we've far overgrown them by now, and only gamers from way back will buy the points to purchase a set of vc games. While all the greatest hits reigned supreme, many games such as Kid Icarus or Donkey Kong died in the translation from the two console all the meanwhile both games have the same potential. Why? Because many gamers want to relive the memories, but many choose to waste their money on games of this generation: the new brand.
Take a gaming series like Call of Duty for example. They always have the same gameplay mechanics but each game has a distinct difference. For one thing, the graphics for a refreshed feel. Second, the story which in turn also decides the enemies, the weapons, the vehicles, the time frame, the character, the feel and other things as well. Each game are close together, but are also worlds apart.
Who's to say however that games can't affect each other in negative or positive ways. Heres an example. Say someone didn't enjoy a game such as resident evil on the Wii because they thought the sensitivity of the WiiMote was off, or because the Wii didn't have proper posture a gun should have. This might affect their chances of buying Red Steel from fear of the same happening. On the other hand, this might also boost the chances for getting Red Steel because they expected more from Resident Evil.
In the grand scheme of things, traditional value is not something to toy with. If a game was manageable and no one complained on gameplay or story, it's a sign to continue what you were doing. On the other hand, if there was something that could have been altered that ticked or bothered the fans and reviewers, see to it developers. Thanks for reading, hope you enjoyed. Please post your feelings or thoughts on the matter.
GameSpot as you should know by now has started supporting a widespread sheet rather than the older version which was relatively skinnier in respect. Finally, GameSpot has updated itself from the last major change that ocurred 4 years ago. This is just another blog talking about the new GameSpot: GameSpot Wide.
Finally, GameSpot has produced a new level of design that by far surpasses it's older roots. Not just that, it's also offering more nifty features to keep us in the community. It's nice when a site becomes so attached to it's community that it is willing to make the changes GameSpot's made. The Emblems unfortunately, have altered to the more pointy squares and have dissapeared namely to the "only can be viewed by rolling on" section of our profiles.
Personally, GameSpot Wide looks refreshing from what we were all use to. Because I didn't use the beta, it gives me more chances to explore and rediscover GameSpot.
