Mazty said:
I didn't think much of Halo 3, however it does the FPS genre justice with multiplayer and a through storyline.
To a person who's not into shooters, they're all the same. You shoot and you stay alive, that sums it up for me. Halo might have only 3 games, but they got released in a quick period of time when you balance out the consoles. XBOX and GameCube were released pretty much at the same time. Mario got 2 real consoles games with Sunshine & Galaxy, we got 2 new and real Zelda games (Phantom is handheld and Four Swords was not much of a Zelda game) with WindWaker & Twilight and we got 3 Halo games, I say it's pretty much even.
Nintendo usually makes 1 or 2 games per IP during a console's life cycle, EA on the other hand releases 1 title per IP every fucking year. EA holds the record to the most of titles in a franshise, not Nintendo.
Mazty said:
Also it's only a trilogy compared to Mario's 14 games, which has only really ever changed by becoming 3D half way through...As for Zelda just see Yahtzee's review on Phantom Hourglass.
Halo didn't change as much as you trying to convince yourself it has. I know many Halo fanboys who know that the the series didn't change that much since the first one. Why, because it's a bad idea to try to improve on a formula that works. Although Yahtzee's review on Phantom Hourglass was funny as hell, the point remains that when Nintendo goes around and change the concept of Link defeating Ganon and rescuing the Princess, fans don't enjoy the game as much. Do you think Halo Fans would love it if Halo 4 was a war fought against mutants or robots instead of Aliens as the main enemies, of course not.
Franchises stay the same, that's it, that's all, end of story, if you can't accept it, to bad, you're a fanboy living in your own little world. The only time that I will ever accept someone using the "It's the same game defense" to put down a title is when that person never plays a sequel. Yahtzee said it himself that Half-Life EP2 was more of the same, so how can he justify renting about Nintendo doing the same thing when Valve does the same thing? He can't! Why? Cause he's a Valve fanboy and with the "Valve employee wanking on his face" joke, that's a not a secret.
Mazty said:
The Grand Theft Auto releases are the same genre, not the same game. They all changed location, storyline, time period as well as modifying game play quite significantly.
And Zelda games are set in different land settings of Hyrule in most games and not one element of the story is ever the same besides the role of Link, Zelda and Ganon. You have no point there either.
Mazty said:
Gran Turismo is a racing simulation and so any improvement to physics and the incursion of new cars changes the game dramatically eg. the rally system between 3 & 4. For racing enthusiasts this presents a brand new challenge.
That's a pathetic excuse that EA came up a while ago. They're the same game, live with it. This is 2008, if sports or racing title that can't get their new rosters or cars via d/l content, it proves that it's still a marketing scheme to release the same fucking title every year.
Mazty said:
Medal of Honour seems to have died due to its repetition of the same game play. Whereas Call of Duty mixed things up with number 4 by taking it into the modern era, as number 3 - almost a clone of 2 - didn't live up to the hype.
Maybe people just got fucking sick and tired of WW2 games, I mean how many times can you reenact an historical event before getting tired of it. Or maybe the war in Iraq is a bit closer to home for current gamers.
Mazty said:
End of the day every game is going to be similar to it's predecessor. However they should all meet a certain threshold of innovation and improvement from one generation of game to the next. Nintendo is terrible for this, repeating games just under different titles, and with a game like SSBB there is not even an opportunity for the inclusion of a new storyline, thus limiting the possibility for innovation and improvement before it goes into development.
Man, now there's an oxymoron for you. Nintendo, Bungie, RockStar, they're all the same, they keep making sequels with just enough differences to qualify them as a new games. But if you seriously consider Mario 1, Mario 2 (USA), Mario 3, Mario World, Mario 64, Mario Sushine and Mario Galaxy to be the exact same game, this means that you're either:
a)Blind, which would raise the question of how can you play games in the first place
or
b)You're a new generation gamer (PSX era) who finds any old franchises to be repetitive just because they're old but in reality, you buy sequels of your favorite "more recent" franchises
