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...

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.

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*

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PuPPeT

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.