[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]...ESPECIALLY when they score a game low for not doing any thing new , dubmest reason tos core a game , low , genres are amde because a bunch of gmaes DON"T do any thing different ...[/citation]
I agree with y'all on almost all of that, but to play devil's advocate, i'll focus on this aspect. I'm not saying a game should lose significant points for new stuff, but a game should score higher if it does innovate. To me, it could be the difference between a 9 and a 10 or soemthing like that... while I often like the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it mentality" My examples of choice would be games like Madden, where some times a year's version is very much the same as the previous year's, only small roster differences, and maybe a few neglible "features"... If games get 10/10 scores without adding something new, then it also can make the developers lazy. When they lose an entire point or something for lack of innovation, it could hurt sales. However, if a company can take Call of Duty 13, change the character models slightly, add 5-10 new maps, add a +1, and get a 10/10 score and sell record amounts of the game, they're less likely to innovate... that's all I would say... most likely though, as this article is intended... pretty much, NONE of this is relevent to Duke Forever... that's a once in a decade/century kinda game, at the moment...