What do you prefer???

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

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

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.

The Germanator · 12-06-2003, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morpheus1

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

Canyarion · 12-07-2003, 07:42 AM

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!

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.

Ginkasa · 12-07-2003, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morpheus1

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morpheus1

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*