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.
In the process of creating the next best seller, the freshest graphics or the console of the generation, many companies in the gaming industry are forgetting simple logic and replacing it with something basic, something simple, something... non-practical. With so much appraise, Nintendo royally screws up by trying to appeal to a group of people out of it's reach. The PS3 makes it's debut, only to introduce nothing new but exclusive games that turn out to be not-so-exclusive when Final Fantasy spreads to Microsoft's Xbox 360.
We would think that Nintendo would have the vantage point, so to speak, for it's innovative control scheme and promising line of games. But when the Wii becomes a bit too much user-friendly for everyone, it's not for the better. At E3 2008, where we surprised to see minimal games that proposed to the hard-core gamer, or were we expecting the games to appeal to people who ironically enough, never play videogames and in that sense wouldn't even be watching E3? People always say that Nintendo shouldn't be blamed for trying something new but they are taking it to the extreme where nobody wants to be. In the end, Nintendo is completely liable for falling flat on it's face and is as we soon discovered "lie-able."
Next we have Sony, with the cutting edge graphics that it brings to the table. Sadly enough, the difference between the PS1 and PS3 was that and only that... well that and the box. A hidden tactic Nintendo has forced upon us that nearly no one seemed to notice was the stopped production of Gamecube games. By stopping the production of the predecessor console's, it truly changed the course of Nintendo to focus on the DS and Wii, all the meanwhile Sony launches it's next phase of "different" gaming consoles whilst the PS2 is alive and kicking. You're basically paying a four hundred dollar difference for improved graphics.
Point through, we now have Final Fantasy, a series that seemingly never disappoints. When the PS3 announced the arrival of a new, exclusive, Final Fantasy game, it was a big factor for the growth of the PS3. Soon enough, Final Fantasy sought for more than just the PS3 and Sony shrunk back down to original size. In an attempt to rule system wars, each company displays a lot of effort, but also make many boo-boos at the same time.
Lately, brainstorming too fast was the result of horrible ratings that in turn portrayed a dunce-faced visual of the company as a whole. Big Beach Sports, Anubis Two, Open Season, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, Beijing 2008, Hour of Victory, History Channel: Battle for the Pacific, Bladestorm: The Hundred Year's War, Viking: Battle for Asgard and Q*Bert are all examples of what-were-they-thinking games brought to you by your favorite gaming consoles. For one, gaming consoles should stop focusing so much on their past and look to the future. Rather than charging for a game you played sometime when you were five, make a sequel with graphics that match the present and gameplay that is suitable for this generation's hardcore gamers.
Games with potential are often the most annoying thing about gaming if they turn out to be a waste of time. When someone wants to enjoy their game, chances are they aren't looking for online as much as single-player mode gaming. To further irritate several religions and social and political groups, recent games call for real time ethnicity that is plainly unnecessary. Why are Americans always the "good guys" in Call of Duty? Why are Germans and Arabs always a threat in Call of Duty? Heres a topic to think about.
With all the spotlight games out there, gaming is slowly becoming a past time rather than a hobby. If you have the recent AAA games your company has to offer, their is relevantly nothing left unless of course you're a fan of a particular theme or show that happened to turn into a game. Too many games nowadays are becoming too hard for children, too childish for adults or too mature for children, not popular with adults such as Dewy's Adventure, Final Fantasy Fables: Chocobo's Dungeon, Iron Man (psp), Hellboy: Science of Evil.
Wrapping everything up, things just don't make sense anymore as the title suggests. Stating the obvious here, appealing to non-gamers on a gaming console means FAIL. Nothing new, overpriced with slightly better graphics means FAIL. Games that are too easy, too short, too mature, childish or too hard takes the fun out of games. Gaming is a great, if not the greatest hobby, that spells out innovation, art and anything else good, but things are getting weird on behalf of the gaming industry.
