Foolproof said:
GenGenners said:
Foolproof said:
Some_weirdGuy said:
Foolproof said:
Some_weirdGuy said:
Foolproof said:
Well, another reason is that no-one usually likes the new IPs better than the established franchises. How many of you think Catherine is a better game than Skyrim? Yeah, thats what I thought
I think Cathrine is better than Skyrim. So you thought wrong.
Are you in the majority opinion? No? Then I'm right. I never said no-one thinks that.
Never? Not even right there, in the quote directly above? XD
..reason is that no-one usually...
It's the whole reason I caught you up on it
Yeah, and did you miss the word that follows it? Usually - a qualifier that here means that while is does happen, it is not common or even likely.
But anyway, as for a game like that - whats Kingdom of Amalurs metacritic score on the Xbox? 80. Whats Skyrims on the Xbox? 96. Reviewers give a 16 point edge to Skyrim despite (or, far more likely, because) its part of an established franchise.
Your Skyrim Vs. Catherine argument seems to fail to take into account the genuine high-quality of Skyrim. Skyrim, on it's own merits, is arguably one of the most well-designed games of the whole generation.
Using Skyrim as the example for your argument is a terrible idea as it automatically beats most competitors by default anyway.
Also, crossing genres tends to make comparison a *****. Rather than comparing an apple and an orange, you're comparing an apple and a steak. There's still a logical connection there, but it's a completely different type of food.
No, it actually proves my point for all those reasons. If it is able to be one of the best received games of a generation and still be a sequel, that proves calls to original IP are irrelevant as being a sequel doesn't make a game worse in any way, and being a new IP doesn't make a game any better.
It doesn't prove anything, because your point is inherently unprovable in any sort of objective fashion. You're trying to take an inherently subjective qualifier such as 'like' and, without using any sort of statistical base or test group, state that one game is better than another due to whether it is liked more. You're not basing your claims on any sort of hard facts, only the most anecdotal of evidence. Not only that, but you're comparing games from completely different genres, with completely different playstyles and mechanics, and different approaches to storytelling.
It's like claiming that How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days is a better film than Requiem For A Dream/Million Dollar Baby because it's a more 'likeable' film.
For what it's worth. I like Catherine a lot more than Skyrim. The writing is far more introspective, thematic and symbolic than anything Bethesda has offered. It tackles ideas that games very rarely go into, whereas Skyrim is standard fantasy-lore in almost every respect.
As for new IPs: encouraging creativity is always a good thing. Skyrim may be a good Elder Scrolls game, but just imagine what Bethesda could have done if they'd taken all the best elements of its design, and created a new IP instead.
We have currently got a very real problem in how risk averse publishers have become in funding new games. That is not a good sign. A healthy industry is one that encourages new ideas and creativity. If an industry is having to rely on a stream of sequels and cash cow franchises in order to make money, then that is not a good sign. New games are a sign that publishers have the money and inclination to risk on fresh ideas.