@Ombus ??? I wasn't saying it was. I was only saying that it was different from most of the core games in terms of mechanics and gameplay. Same goes for gems like Epic Yarn and Mario Galaxy.
If I implied that Other M was bad, I apologize. That was not my intention. :)
@john420420420 And I'd love to see some new stuff too, but like I said, even when Nintendo does that, it doesn't get much credit for it.
Also, though I agree ONE reason people can outgrow gaming is that they feel it's doing the same stuff over and over again, is that the ONLY reason? Don't you think if that were true people would have "outgrown" Hollywood years ago? I believe it has as much to do with people just not enjoying the overall experience--REGARDLESS of innovation--as it has to do with the entertainment form (allegedly) not "evolving."
@john420420420 The same way players justify buying the next Metal Gear Solid, Castlevania, Street Fighter, Mass Effect, God of War, Gears of War, Halo, and Uncharted: it doesn't make a damn bit of difference if it's the same game over and over or the same series over and over; the only thing that matters is if it's fun to play. Not to mention "Sequel" doesn't equal "Same-Old." Try comparing Other M to the older Metroid games. Try comparing Epic Yarn to older Kirby games. Try comparing Galaxy to older Mario games. The differences are not miniscule. Not to mention that even when Nintendo does unique stuff, the entire populace ignores it and claims it ISN'T doing unique things. (See Chibi-Robo, Geist, Odama, Excitebots, etc.) Heck, there was a LOT of unique stuff that showed up on Wii that everyone pretty much ignored cause they just weren't willing to give it a chance or look for stuff that didn't get advertised all over the place: Cursed Mountain, Little King's Story, Muramasa: The Demon Blade, No More Heroes, Zack and Wiki, Madworld, de Blob, Deadly Creatures, Boom Blox, Epic Mickey...
But if you're not interested in their stuff, that's fine. We're entitled to our opinions.
@timmy0001 @shagrath1987 I'll have to agree that it's a big gamble and that it could cause some serious problems for developers, which definitely makes me worried, but sometimes that's the price of doing things differently.
HOWEVER, I think it's important to note that although Nintendo HAS been known for being risky, it has cut back on that SIGNIFICANTLY since around 2008. Many of the most unique titles being developed or released for the Wii were either canned or not released outside of certain regions. Disaster: Day of Crisis never came to North America, Fatal Frame IV is still Japan-only, Project HAMMER never got finished, and three big RPGs from Nintendo weren't even considered for release here until Project Rainfall made a TON of noise, and even then all we're getting is Xenoblade at ONE retail chain, while The Last Story is getting published by someone else. (Pandora's Tower is still MIA.)
We'll just have to see if Nintendo has learned anything from the mistakes it made with the Wii. :)
@DarthLod Yes, I understand what you mean. After all, when players continue to scream about how there isn't enough "innovation" in the industry, they don't mean THEY should have to change to appreciate anything. Nope. All games should play with EXACTLY the same controls so players don't have to do any adjusting. The ONLY people who should have to adjust are developers by creating different things that are somehow also comfortable in the exact same ways as all other games are.
Like it or not, when companies try to do things differently, sometimes "useless" stuff is going to show up. If you'd rather we just keep getting more Call of Duty clones, then fine. But make sure you don't flip the lid and complain about getting "the same old thing" at the same time. You can't have it both ways.
@lazyathew It isn't so much that wired controllers are "better," but more that in the tournament scene, they aren't acceptable to use because of the potential to disconnect and screw up the execution of players. It's the same reason you can't pause in the middle of a match.
@Maxwell I mostly agree with you. The only two things I question are whether the Wii U tablet controller will not be an acceptable choice itself and whether it is reasonable to request a developer create a game that will appeal to all players. I'm pretty sure ZeRo didn't mean it in this context, but A) it's not possible to please everyone and B) TRYING to please everyone leads to us pleasing NOBODY.
But I agree with everything else. The next Smash needs to have better balancing in addition to the endless treasure trove of unlockable content we're used to getting from it. The tripping needs to be removed completely, and the Smash Balls need to be toned down. (Personally, I'm of the opinion that there should be some additional requirement to getting it akin to the meter-building that is necessary in Capcom fighters. Perhaps players have to land a certain number of hits before they can obtain the Smash Ball?) And, of course, online play must be better than it was in Brawl, though I attribute that as much to cumbersome Friend Codes as I do to problems with lag.
@Crossel777 I apologize for the generalization. As a Sonic fan myself, I know that description I gave doesn't fit all players.
Personally, I'm one of those fans who never lost his love for Sonic. I honestly think Sonic Adventure, SA2, and Heroes are absolutely incredible experiences. Shadow was only okay, 06 was terrible, and Secret Rings was excellent. All of these games had their downsides, but I felt they were totally worth it for the style they brought to the table. Just something about the way the games are put together that isn't like anything else out there.
Either way, I don't think Sonic Team gets as much credit as it deserves. They may not be a powerhouse developer like Nintendo anymore, but they've gotten SOOOO much better in the last few years, and many of the fans seem stuck in either "hate mode" or "nostalgia mode" when it comes to what they make. I find it somewhat frustrating.
@Chaos_Dante_456 We shouldn't even give them credit for trying to do things differently? Not at all? It HAS to succeed for us to give a company ANY praise? Regardless of whether it succeeds, risk taking is something we should be encouraging, and given how often gamers complain about the lack of risk taking, to constantly condemn risks that don't work is to DISCOURAGE that risk-taking.
Believe me, you analyze all the crap Sonic Team gets and the products they've put out recently and it becomes rather apparent they've got strikes against them before the game is even reviewed. At least, that's my opinion.
"He has no real part to play on his own, and aside from a few obvious puzzles here or there, no levels feature or even require his skills."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the inclusion of other gameplay styles with other characters that led to so much complaining about the 3-D games? Now they're complaining that Tails doesn't play enough of a role on his own? Last I checked, players demanded the gameplay focus solely on Sonic. What an interesting reversal...
Hence why I continue to argue that Sonic fans seem to be a bunch of whiners who don't actually know what they want and are totally unapologetic about blaming it all on Sonic Team. As I've said before, you can't ask your mother to make you a grilled cheese sandwich and then get mad that she didn't include mayonnaise when you didn't even ask for it.
@Drkirk08 @acer7x Well one of the reasons they moved away from that was because a lot of gamers complained about having to unlock the content. Prior to the release of MvC3 I even had a unnecessarily heated debate with some friends about unlocking characters. I was the ONLY person who thought it was a good idea. Everyone else essentially had the position, "It's a fighting game, so it's about fighting, not unlocking funzie bull$#!%!" UGH! I mean seriously, is it any wonder stuff like this happens when the fanbase complains about EVERYTHING?!
Sorry, that wasn't necessary. I was just trying to explain why there aren't unlockables in fighters anymore, and I think it's a shame. MvC2 took me 10 years to unlock everything. Today, whether because of laziness, greed, or consumer complaints, I've unlocked everything worthwhile after a half hour. 'Sigh' :(
Fourth, you've stated the moldy old argument that the reason games are unprofitable and horribly expensive is because the developers just copy what other people did right. I don't know where to begin with this outdated, not-entirely-provable claim. First of all, I question the claims by everyone that games are "horribly expensive." Yes, they cost $60 a pop nowadays when they first release, but within 2-6 months that price is usually cut in half. For gamers to complain about the cost when all it takes is a little patience to get the game at less than half the price--which is what I always do--is blaming a company for your own lack of willpower. And if it happens to be one of those games that DOESN'T go down in price (like Nintendo titles), that just shows that people still value the game enough to pay that higher cost to obtain it. Also, anytime I hear people complaining about how expensive games are, I want to ask them if they've bothered to count how many releases there were 10 years ago when games cost $50 a pop compared to today...when there are roughly half as many releases. For those who can't do math, I'll spell it out: paying $50 a pop for 20 games is MORE EXPENSIVE than paying $60 a pop for 10 games. Granted, companies are compensating for this with DLC, but I doubt it's leading to greater profitability than it did last generation, especially for the heavyweight everyone loves to hate, EA. Count how many yearly releases they had 10 years ago and compare it to their releases today. I can almost guarantee it's a number less than half of what it was. To back up, if for whatever reason someone CAN'T wait to purchase a game, they can A) rent before they buy at a fraction of the cost, B) try out the demo, or C) go to a friend's house who DID buy it. Furthermore, being so lost in gaming that you can't wait a few months for a price drop is indicative of a psychological dependency, and believe it or not game developers are not responsible for fixing that; therapists are.
Second, when companies emulate what others do right, there's a pretty good chance it's because THAT'S WHAT CONSUMERS WANT. Imagine if Goldeneye had been released and companies making shooters had responded by just continuing to make their games just like Doom. Would gamers praise them for not copying Goldeneye? I highly doubt it. In fact, I'm almost certain they'd be complaining they WEREN'T copying Goldeneye. And that's the problem with this claim that everyone copies everyone else. WHY is it being done? Is it because developers are just lazy? Or could it be because that's what the gamers WANT? Or better yet, is it being copied because it's just a better way to do things? "But why copy the other guys instead of innovating?" Because believe it or not innovation doesn't just grow on trees. To create truly innovative titles takes a lot of time and money, and the reason for that is innovation by it's nature is EXTREMELY HARD TO COME BY. You can't blame a farmer for continuing to farm the same land when he's already used up all his property. Until he finds a way to purchase additional land from his neighbors or find a fresh patch he didn't think to plant crops on, he's stuck replanting in the same soil.
You might say this is irrelevant to the consumer, and you'd be correct, but given how thin-skinned most gamers are anytime anybody with even Harvard degrees tries to suggest there is even a remote link between games and aggressive behavior, I'd say gamers would handle the insults they dish out to developers MUCH less maturely than the people working in the industry do. That's what I call bullying: a refusal to be considerate of other people's feelings. If I worked for the industry and had to endure being called "lazy, greedy, selfish," and everything in between all the time, I'd probably rage a fair bit, just as most gamers would. Yet they demonstrate that all they really care about is themselves when they STILL insist on throwing out insults without any evidence. If you want to be part of that crowd that decides, "These pricks are evil because I say they are," just remember that you can't get upset when a psychologist turns around and says, "Gamers are aggressive psychopaths because I say they are!" it's hypocritical.
Finally, your claim that game companies don't need anyone to defend them is IMO an attempt to turn this situation into a black and white one where you don't have to face the implications of how complex the situation is. I don't care if we're talking about Nazis, the KKK, homosexual rights, abortion, who stole my pizza, or whether DLC is an awful thing: THERE ARE ALWAYS TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY! To try and make me stop defending them by saying they don't need it is trying to get me in line with everyone else so there's no dissent on this comment page. Sorry, but I don't follow the leader; I think for myself. And what I think is that people need to remember that our world isn't simple and straightforward. We as consumers might not like having to give companies a chance to speak--and we may do everything we can to condemn them when they DO speak--but all that shows is that we're closed minded and refuse to listen to others. From what I've seen, there is very little dissension on this page about the practice of DLC; everyone just screams about how awful a practice it is and how companies should be bombed with nukes for it. (Figuratively speaking) That is not conducive to intellectual debate nor to open-mindedness, and telling me to shut up is the OPPOSITE of either of those. If it makes you so angry to read these comments I'm posting, it might be because there's something uncomfortable about what I'm saying that you don't want to consider. Then again, maybe it's because I'm just wrong. But either way, people should hear both sides of the story, and that's what I'm trying to provide here. If it makes you angry, I apologize, as that's not my intent, but I'm not going to stop writing what I right just because it makes a few people angry. In fact, that's arguably an indication that you're on the right track.
If you've made it this far, thank you for reading my entire comment, and thanks for the reply.
cachinscythe's comments