It's right in their tag line: "Sony delivers a fittingly epic and savage PlayStation 3 debut for God of War, even if it does little to evolve the formula established by its predecessors."
That's a euphemism for "lack of innovation".
Hahadouken
Is it?
From reading the body of the review, it seems to be a euphemism for "redoing the same experience with marginal refinements".
While the technology has advanced, the relative shortage of meaningful changes and refinements to God of War's vivisecting gameplay formula means that it's not quite as thrilling as the first (or second) go 'round. Some of these last-gen holdovers make the experience feel less cutting-edge than it might otherwise, though it's still plenty brutal enough to earn the God of War name....
It's all the stuff that you expect from a God of War game, which I suspect is the very reason why parts of the game feel kind of perfunctory. It's like the developers had a mechanical understanding of the beats they were expected to hit, and focused more on nailing that stuff than pushing the experience somewhere new.Review
Innovation doesn't mean "making changes". Innovation means doing something entirely new that hasn't been seen before. What he's trying to say is that GoW 3 could have been much more if the developers had built on the formula they had rather than refining it.
Maybe the formula they have is perfect, but that doesn't mean it can't be expanded on. SMB 1 was just about perfect, but Nintendo didn't go on to make two more games that were just like it. They took it to a completely different level with Mario 3, and they didn't even have to change the genre or even the core mechanics to do so. To use a more recent example: you mentioned MW2? It built on CoD 4. People like to say it's the same game, rehash, etc., but you'll find no shortage of people complaining about how much they changed the multiplayer. They did more than just add a few guns and some perks, and that's why it got 5 stars.
Log in to comment