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.
