What do you prefer??? [Archive]

Canyarion

12-04-2003, 05:09 AM

Let's say there's this game from a new developer and it's REALLY innovative. It has all these cool new things. The only problem is, it was a bit rushed or the developer didn't have that much programming experience, so the gameplay isn't perfect. The graphics aren't THAT great. And there are some bugs in it.

Another developer has just finished the newest installment of it's hit franchise. The game doesn't have that much new stuff, most of it is been-there-done-that. But because the developer knew what they were doing, the gameplay is just perfect. And the graphics are great!

So if you had money/time for only one game, which one would you get? Let's say they both are your favorite type of game. :) Do you choose innovation or 'playability'?

Ginkasa

12-04-2003, 08:49 AM

The "playable" game. Innovation can only get you so far. If the innovative game in question is fun to play because of bugs and gameplay issues, then the innovation is wasted.

Meanwhile, the playable game, while not bringing much, if anything, new to the table, it has "perfect gameplay" which means that its going to be fun. THe good graphics means it'll be nice on the eyes as well.

*shrugs and walks away*

Happydude

12-04-2003, 10:04 AM

i said innovation...

*shrugs and goes back to sleep*

Jonbo298

12-04-2003, 02:16 PM

If its a PC game thats innovative but rushed, updates/expansion packs can fix that:D

But I would prefer a game I can actually play. If a brand new game is innovative like above said, other companies will copy it and use the innovation to advance it, then by the time the company who introduced the innovation releases the sequel, it'll be better. (Jeez did that sound confusing)

GameMaster

12-04-2003, 06:25 PM

Finished but standard.

Canyarion

12-05-2003, 07:09 AM

I prefer revolutionary games that just aren't perfect. Do you know Myth? It's a RTS game with (half) 3D graphics and it was really cool for it's time. But it just didn't play that supergreat so it never got the credit it deserved.
Myth II was a great game, everything the original had but more and better. It's still one of my favorite games.

Of course games that have both things are the best, but those are rare...

Hero2

12-05-2003, 04:45 PM

It would all depend there are too many factors in the question

1. would they be desent new and inovative ideals
2. would the old game atleast be a good series or just a remake of a crappy game

it would all depend on the game some games are really good on gameplay others hae good eyecandy and other just suck but are fun to play for a while

but... I guess I would buy the new innovative game. then go back to the games I know are good if it sux too much

Vampyr

12-05-2003, 06:15 PM

I would choose the standard but perfect game.

Doesnt it just get on your nerves, though, when someone comes up with an innovative idea, and then they rush the game?

Why cant you have Innovative Perfect games, instead of Innovative Rushed and Standard Perfect?

GameKinG

12-05-2003, 10:08 PM

Option #2. What #1 is innovating is in question.

Dyne

12-05-2003, 10:57 PM

I couldn't really generalize about any game genre. It changes for each game, pretty much. Innovation isn't really apparent anymore, though.. it's not like people are creating genres, or new peripherals that enhance the experience (Maybe Sony's Eyetoy). Other than that, I wouldn't jump to conclusions on what to play like that.

Morpheus1

12-06-2003, 04:32 PM

The Germanator

12-06-2003, 07:13 PM

Here are some examples:

Raw 2 (innovative) vs Smackdown:HCTP (standard)
NBA Live 2004 (innovative) vs ESPN NBA Basketball (standard)
Animal Crossing (innovative) vs The Sims (standard)
Fusion Frenzy (innovative) vs Mario Party (standard)
Zelda:WW (innovative) vs Zelda:MM (standard)

Many others but I'll stop here. I chose innovative.

Yeah, but the innovative games in such cases as Animal Crossing and Wind Waker were polished, had good graphics (well..wind waker at least) and didn't have many bugs...Haven't played the others you listed, but I think Canyarion said the innovative games had to be a bit less polished.

BigJustinW

12-06-2003, 07:27 PM

I'd take innovation too

Germinator, Animal Crossing had innovation, and that's all... that game's graphics aren't on GCN's level. So I could see how it would be listed as the more innovative yet rushed game. Methinks the Wind Waker vs MM thing is backward... but then again... I dunno. All I know is I like the WWE game comparisions :p

Canyarion

12-07-2003, 07:42 AM

Ginkasa

12-07-2003, 06:06 PM

Animal Crossing (innovative) vs The Sims (standard)

The Sims is no less innovative than Animal Crossing. When The Sims first came out, there was nothing like it before. Its just that now, The Sims has become the standard for its genre.

Zelda:WW (innovative) vs Zelda:MM (standard)

MM was anything but standard. The mask systems and 3 day time limit were things that had never before been seen in a Zelda game. The only new thing WW had in it was a boat and a different look.

*shrugs and walks away*

BigJustinW

12-07-2003, 06:09 PM

Hm when I think of innovative games, I think of Half Life, WarCraft 3 and Aliens vs Predator. Problem whith those is that they're too polished! :p

I was also kinda thinking 1080A vs SSX3. 1080 has cool stuff as speed and nature, while SSX has more balanced gameplay perhaps.
But then I realised that 1080 misses a lot that SSX3 has... like LONG tracks and cool trick system.

Well, the poll said unfinished... that doesn't mean that the game has to have bugs or look ugly, just released a bit to fast and lacks features is obviously should have had.

Morph, here's another example, Timesplitters 2 vs Halo... Timesplitters being the tandard sequal thar lacks any type of innovation... and Halo being the innovative game that was rushed out to the Market.

There are planty of examples but only a few pop to mind... I guess you could use True Crimes vs GTA:VC... it's too obvious for me to explain which falls into which category ;)

Morpheus1

12-08-2003, 12:10 PM

MM was anything but standard. The mask systems and 3 day time limit were things that had never before been seen in a Zelda game. The only new thing WW had in it was a boat and a different look.

I was thinking the same thing after I posted it. You are right about Sims too, except I was talking about the Console games. I thought it was obvious that any game listed as standard is a sequel or new addition to the game series.

+Rep

The Duggler

12-08-2003, 01:12 PM

Here's how I see it.

Innovative but unpolished = casual fans (mainly ps2)
Standard but polished = hardcore gamers (mainly nintendo)

:p

BigJustinW

12-08-2003, 04:12 PM

Here's how I see it.

Innovative but unpolished = casual fans (mainly ps2)
Standard but polished = hardcore gamers (mainly nintendo)

:p

I see it the other way around... I think the innovative unosihed games are more for the hardcore, and the polished standard sequals are for the casual gamers. I could give examples if you would like to see them... but meh :p

Yoda9864

12-08-2003, 04:51 PM

I see it the other way around... I think the innovative unosihed games are more for the hardcore, and the polished standard sequals are for the casual gamers. I could give examples if you would like to see them... but meh :p
Ditto. Casual gamers want the cool-looking games, or the sequels to established series. Hardcore gamers are willing to try new, innovative games.

Vampyr

12-08-2003, 07:13 PM

I also agree with that.

But I would still take the perfect game over the non perfect innovative game, even though I consider myself a "hardcore" gamer.

Put between these two options:
1) Innovative Perfect
2) Standard Perfect

I would MOST DEFFINATLY go for the Innovative game.

BigJustinW

12-08-2003, 10:02 PM

Most change Agent games aren't perfect though... and it's standard sequal almost allways proves that ;)

Think of it like this... imagine your dream game and think about your favorite game (that isn't original, like your favorite sequal to somthing)... would you rather have your dream game but not realized 100% due to financial constraints or a sequal to your favorite game?

GameKinG

12-09-2003, 12:25 AM

Yes, I think MM is more innovative than TWW. Though, I didnt like the time limit.

The Duggler

12-09-2003, 09:12 AM

I see it the other way around... I think the innovative unosihed games are more for the hardcore, and the polished standard sequals are for the casual gamers. I could give examples if you would like to see them... but meh :p I disagree, hardcore gamers want quality games. Look at WW, Metroid, FZero, Rogue Squadron, Mario Kart, Golf etc... Not much innovation in those games, but they're quality games and almost bug free. But if you take games like GTA and the like, well they are pretty much innovative in the sense that the possibilities are very large, and you can do so much stuff in the game, but they're full of bugs as well.

BigJustinW

12-09-2003, 04:53 PM

I disagree, hardcore gamers want quality games.

Well DUH!

Everybody wants quality games... the arguement in question is new innovative content that isn't polished vs a standard sequal that is polished. Quality has nothing to do with it, imagine that both games got an equal score from most review places... but one is innovative incomplete and has a few bugs, but the things it does have allows it to have the same score as the standard sequal. We are talking Halo vs Smash Brothers Melee here... not some crappy innovative game vs a great polished game... two games, equal scores, but one not living up to it's potential, and the other living up to it's full potental....

Canyarion

12-10-2003, 06:15 AM

Right said fred.

The Duggler

12-10-2003, 09:14 AM

Well DUH!

Everybody wants quality games... the arguement in question is new innovative content that isn't polished vs a standard sequal that is polished. Quality has nothing to do with it, imagine that both games got an equal score from most review places... but one is innovative incomplete and has a few bugs, but the things it does have allows it to have the same score as the standard sequal. We are talking Halo vs Smash Brothers Melee here... not some crappy innovative game vs a great polished game... two games, equal scores, but one not living up to it's potential, and the other living up to it's full potental.... Well I guess it depends on how you see it. For me a game that is not polished that has bugs and a not so good game play = not quality. Games like GTA, Enter the matrix etc... fall into that category. Those game are cool, but not up to the quality of games like Metroid or Wind Waker.

Yoda9864

12-10-2003, 11:42 AM

Well I guess it depends on how you see it. For me a game that is not polished that has bugs and a not so good game play = not quality. Games like GTA, Enter the matrix etc... fall into that category. Those game are cool, but not up to the quality of games like Metroid or Wind Waker.
I don't know about GTA on the consoles, but GTA on the PC was one of the better games of it's time. One of the better games looking games of it's time and hardly any bugs either.

BigJustinW

12-10-2003, 05:24 PM

[QUOTE=Nitram]Well I guess it depends on how you see it. For me a game that is not polished that has bugs and a not so good game play....QUOTE]

Who said the game has to have bad gameplay?

Plud I'd take GTA over Zelda:WW or MP anyday.... guess that makes me a casual gamer ;)

PuPPeT

12-10-2003, 07:56 PM

This is a bit of a funny one really for the most part I like to play games that add some thing new to the whole world of game's. Lets face it Doom was one of the best games of it's time but I would hate to think what life would be like if people only made FPS to the model of DOOM I and 2. but at the same time I fond it real fun many years after doom to S SAM I and II.

I think what I'm trying to say is all DEV should look at doing more innovative games then most do at this time but it's not the end of the world if some games play like the last one as long as DEV's don't take it too far (No names.........EA).

Canyarion

12-11-2003, 06:52 AM

1080 Avalanche is a very refreshing game that just isn't perfect. It is VERY satisfying to race downhill, find shortcuts, make air and pump out some tricks... then knock over you opponent and finish. The avalanches are really exciting, pretty revolutionary!
SSX expands on the gameplay of the last games. EA is afraid to innovate too much, they stick with the concept that works.

Of course not saying that 1080 is better than SSX3. :)

Myth and Myth II were pretty innovative games. Just because it wasn't WarCraft, AoE or Dune, it didn't get the attention it deserved. :(

BigJustinW

12-11-2003, 04:03 PM

Canyarion, SSX3 is a huge change over SSX Tricky... I guess you haven't played them much if you can see the huge differences.

Now, SSX tricky is an example of NO evolution. I think it had all the same tracks of the original SSX.

I think what I'm trying to say is all DEV should look at doing more innovative games then most do at this time but it's not the end of the world if some games play like the last one as long as DEV's don't take it too far (No names.........EA).

What are you trying to say? EA changes too much or too little? In the sports genre, EA has evolved much more over the last few years than it's competitor (Sega ;))... heck, as a developer in general EAhas probably made the biggest jump forward to this generation from last generation.

Canyarion

12-12-2003, 06:35 AM

Fifa is all the same... now they have off-the-ball-control... :unsure: But I wonder how much you can innovate with sport games. :confused:

Actually I haven't played any SSX game :p. Yet, cause I wanna buy SSX3 when it's cheaper. :)
The combo of 1080A and SSX3 would be AWESOME. :drool:

The Duggler

12-12-2003, 10:28 AM

Who said the game has to have bad gameplay? Well I guess we should define "unpolished" a bit more, but that's just how I see games like GTA or enter the matrix.

Plud I'd take GTA over Zelda:WW or MP anyday.... guess that makes me a casual gamer ;) Exactly. You're learning fast! :)

What are you trying to say? EA changes too much or too little? In the sports genre, EA has evolved much more over the last few years than it's competitor (Sega )... heck, as a developer in general EAhas probably made the biggest jump forward to this generation from last generation.
hehe see? I'm sure you prefer EA's hockey titles to sega's.. but a hardcore gamer knows that Sega's hockey is much better than EA's.

thatmariolover

12-12-2003, 12:51 PM

Exactly. You're learning fast!

Uh oh... Hide, little one, hide. The revenge of Justin will be swift and merciless.

BigJustinW

12-12-2003, 12:58 PM

Did I say EA's Hockey game is better? lol

And I doubt I could be classified as a casual gamer... seeing that I have almost 10,000 posts at this forum, and have purchased over 50 games this generation for all three consoles... and have a subscription to IGN insider Game Informer, and EGM... and over 1,000 posts at Gamefaqs... plus I worked at a game store and have a membership there where I get 10% off of used games... I doubt a casual gamer would go that far for information on games ;) (am I wrong?)

I haven't even had a chance to play the hockey games this year, and all I know for sure is that Sega's has better graphics.... and I can't that be my judge because if I went off of graphics alone, ESPN games would be better than Madden, NCAA Football, NBA Live, and NCAA March Madness... and this is not the case. At least not in my opinion (and these games I have played).

I simply thought MP was a crappy game, and I played GTA enough to beat WW 3 times over.... I purchased all three, so I think I have the right to my opinion. (Even though I got MP for free with my 2nd GCN, and I took it back within a week because it was so crappy)

So I guess me liking EA sports over sega sports, and the fact that GTA is one of my favorite games of all time makes me a casual gamer, and the fact that you love MP and like WW more than GTA... and you like ESPN NHL more than NHL 2004 makes you hardcore... give me a break.

BigJustinW

12-12-2003, 01:02 PM

Uh oh... Hide, little one, hide. The revenge of Justin will be swift and merciless.

lol, you called it... this post wasn't up before I started typing.

thatmariolover vs BigJustinW-Famous of their pointless system spec battles at an early version of FXB ;)

thatmariolover

12-12-2003, 03:32 PM

lol, you called it... this post wasn't up before I started typing.

thatmariolover vs BigJustinW-Famous of their pointless system spec battles at an early version of FXB ;)

True Dat. :D

Heh. Yeah, I saw you were replying to the topic and decided to see what it was all about. Then I stumbled upon his post and just knew what was coming :D

I smell a new rivalry cooking.

Canyarion

12-12-2003, 05:33 PM

With unpolished I'm thinking 'not-ready' graphics and small things that start to annoy you, like some detailed movement that doesn't work as it should..

It also depends on what kind of game it is for you. I bought Soul Calibur 2, because I don't really like fighters. So I don't need the newest stuff. A good polished fighter is better for me. :)