Noname55 said:
Katana314 said:
They came up with a new story, made unique revisions to their renowned multiplayer, had co-op missions that just from what I've seen moved beyond standard shoot-fests, etc. There are definitely plenty of games in this genre milking the same old stuff over and over, but I'm not ready to put MW2 in there just yet. Maybe something like Crysis though; all that does is take Battlefield 2, FarCry, and every random shooter feature made in the last few years and bundle it together into something that didn't really work.
But how has any of those "innovations" not been done before?
I respectfully point you to a game called Just Cause; an open-world GTA-style game that made a hundred innovations in transportation through mechanics like a grappling hook and a parachute. Just seeing those in action I knew they could be taken somewhere. But overall the game was horrible due to a lack of polish and the fact that the most basic elements; taking an assault rifle and shooting up a base; did not feel natural at all.
There are much more subtle innovations in a game you never know about. That intern who says "Hey, I came up with a more effective animation transition system so if there's empty space between the keyframes it'll interpolate and look more smooth. Furthermore, we can still allow user input while it's doing it." actually makes the game more fun. But can you put that stuff on the back of a game box? No.
Some game, yes, follow a lot of innovations that were made a long time ago, but just do them much better. Super Mario 64 wasn't the VERY first 3D platformer, but the previous one, (Geograph Seal by my research) got no recognition because it didn't do anything very well.
Sometimes just changing a lot of numbers, and little game rule changes that are too out-there for a 1.7 update, can completely fix a game.