I would like to pose a question

king masters

king masters

CAG Veteran
You know how some reviews say things like "its more of the same" or "you've played this game thousand times before" and the game gets a lower the score because of it. What I was thinking is that the new game should not get a lower score than the frist one just because it's just like the first one.

A few Dynasty Warriors games have actually gotten lower scores than the first game in the series because its more of the same. My thinking is if it is the same as the last game it would get the same score, but it doesn't beacuse the frist one was new and you never play anything like it.

Which brings me to my next point, people that have played bejeweled to death were not so happy with puzzle quest. I have never played bejeweled, I own puzzle quest and I think it is the best game for the psp bar none. So I guess I'm saying someone that is not exposed to an over use gameplay macanic will mostly like alot more just like someone who has never had a 360 but does have a ps3 will get much more enjoyment out of the ps3.

very sorry if didn't even ask a question through all that I just post somthing I thought up and though was interseting, I await people to tell me "well duh"
to all of that thank you.
 
More of the same does not deserve a similar score to its predecessor for a number of reasons.

1) it ignores technological improvements/changes over time
2) you're either ignoring the innovation in the score for the first game or scoring people for copying someone else's idea in the subsequent games.
3) time. Would a "Space Invaders" game, sold for $50 on Blu-Ray for PS3, deserve the same score that it would on a 2600 cart 25+ years ago?
4) value. See #3.
 
thats actually what I was trying to get at does the first game get a better score just because you have not played 10 of them before
and for the sake of arugment lets say all of them cost the same, and yes of course $60 space invaders deserves to be smashed on sight.
 
What about GTA? It's "More of the Same" but the scores on those games have only gotten higher since GTA3. ( Speaking of GTA 3, VC, and SA )
 
well yeah of course GTA, Halo, zelda, every world war 2 frist person shooter

the argument for gta is that they added more places to see and things to do
which can be applyed to almost anything really
 
Pretty much everything released is "more of the same" in one manner or another. A game should be reviewed on its own merits.
 
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']Pretty much everything released is "more of the same" in one manner or another. A game should be reviewed on its own merits.[/QUOTE]

I dunno. I agree with Dynasty Warriors getting lower games. The pop out the same game every 8 months just with a different name. Dynasty Warriors 17 1/3: Save China from Jimbo!
 
yes would be wonderful if all games were judged on there own merits, but theres always somthing like it not as good as this or better than that.

I think its PLAY magazine that actually prides it self on telling you that this game is not as good as this game over here , agin I think its PLAY magazine might be another one but in their review pages they have a picture of the game they are revewing between two games that are suppose to be better and worst.

So they are locking themselfs in right there saying that there is for every game they review somthing better and worst
 
Is this one of those topics where the OP asks a question, then answers his own question with his opinion, then denies everyone else's answer that is contrary to that opinion, but still tries to maintain that he's open to the possibility of an answer contrary to his opinion?
 
I love cheap ass gamer because every post so far has been a nice honest anwser, I put this also on gamespot as a experiment to see once and for all which one is the better board and the post on the gamespot version of this thread are like it "dude halo 0wns joo mom!!11!!11"
 
I think it depends on the genre.

"More of the same" isn't really a fair claim to levy against games like Phoenix Wright or Sam & Max, as their value lies in their story and not necessarily their gameplay. I heard a lot of "more of the same" about PW2, which I found innacurate.

When you watch a TV show, do you say each episode is "more of the same" because they reuse the same characters, or the same backdrops? Each episode should be considered as a unique part of a whole, based on their story.

Either way, the validity of the "more of the same" complaint is questionable and subjective.
 
[quote name='Strell']Is this one of those topics where the OP asks a question, then answers his own question with his opinion, then denies everyone else's answer that is contrary to that opinion, but still tries to maintain that he's open to the possibility of an answer contrary to his opinion?[/quote]
.....yes I.... supposes it is.... sorry
 
[quote name='evilmax17']I think it depends on the genre.

"More of the same" isn't really a fair claim to levy against games like Phoenix Wright or Sam & Max, as their value lies in their story and not necessarily their gameplay. I heard a lot of "more of the same" about PW2, which I found innacurate.

When you watch a TV show, do you say each episode is "more of the same" because they reuse the same characters, or the same backdrops? Each episode should be considered as a unique part of a whole, based on their story.

Either way, the validity of the "more of the same" complaint is questionable and subjective.[/quote]

I guess it was just echoing wombat's statement that more of the same can be bad but more of the same can the next season of your favorite tv show.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']Either way, the validity of the "more of the same" complaint is questionable and subjective.[/QUOTE]

Depends on your side of the issue. The issue open-ended enough for several different viewpoints to have their own validity.
 
Any reviewer that says that and gives a lower score without solid proof that the game experience is less than the previous is lazy and not worth their salt. The Wii version of RE4 got a lower score than the original GC release because it was released two years after the original and graphics have gotten better, EVEN THOUGH they mention that the game is superior in every way to the GC version. That is just garbage because when people go by reviews then they will be buying the game what has the higher score (supposedly) and that makes the ultimate version of RE4 a lesser game than the...lesser versions of the game.

It's unacceptable and irresponsible from a reviewer/legitimate media outlet. If graphics are that important then every Wii game shouldn't get above a 7 with that kind of thinking.

More of the same is good only if the total entertainment package is minimally on par or above the previous version. If it's on par then I can see a score getting slightly lower for lack of progression. If this were the case every FPS would get a 2.5 out of 10. Bottom line is how good is the complete entertainment package of the game? Also two scores wouldn't be a bad idea. If you've played this series before it's a 7 but if this is your introduction to the series/gameplay it's a 8.5. So basically a Veteran score and a Noob score. :D
 
I enjoy having 'more of the same' when I like a game.

If another Tomb Raider or Doom game came out, and were exactly the same as the originals but with different levels, I'd still buy them because I like the gameplay formula.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top