Josh H

For those that don't read the editorial in the begining, they are going to start being harder on sequels and franchises in general, that don't add much new to the previous installment(s). They say they hope this will help spur innovation (naive as sequels are guaranteed money) and don't care if it pisses of publishers.

This is the reason NCAA 2007 for the 360 got scores in the 7.5 range, even though they say it looks great and has solid gameplay.

I give them two big thumbs up for this even thoug hit won't have any impact on the sequelitis that is dragging the industry down in terms of quality, fresh, innovative games.

They were already my favorite review source as they seem to be the harshest and thus I tend to agree with their reviews much more often than other sites and mags. I can't stand yearly sequels and gradually start rating them lower and lower myself (even if the quality level is the same) when they don't offer anything substantively new, so this policy falls in line with my views there as well.

Groucho

However, the people buying sequels don't want a huge departure or innovation. They want more of the same. This is one reason why games like Majora's Mask and Mario Sunshine underperformed.

jonw9

Now if they would start doing this with movies as well

Breakfast with Girls

Major innovation is always a gamble--most of the time people either love the changes or hate them. For my part, I love Zelda II: Link's Adventure and Majora's Mask over some of the more traditional Zelda games like A Link to the Past.

The Mega Man series suffered for this starting from about IV on. People realized they were adding almost nothing new or innovative and sales fell with each new game as a result. Only when they started changing up the formula did people come back to it, like with Battle Network.

Castlevania is another case. Symphony of the Night dramatically reinvigorated the series, but every 2D incarnation since then has basically been a slightly modified version of that.

Really, the Mario series is the only really innovative series I can think of off the top of my head. Nearly every game in it has tried to add something new.

Josh H

I don't think the necessarily are requiring huge departures or innovation in their policy, just that it offer more than say just new Rosters and graphics like NCAA 2007.

As long as it adds some worthwhile new features, it doesn't sound like it will get penalized much.

Time will tell as they review more sequels though. But as I don't buy the yearly franchises, it doesn't matter much to me.

And also, people that buy the yearly franchises probably don't read reviews of them first anyway, which makes it moot and another reason why the policy won't have their stated impact.

maxfisher

I don't read EGM, but this sounds like a stupid policy. A new franchise that treads old ground should be penalized just as much as a franchise that's been going for 6 or 7 years. The way it sounds, something like a new Madden game could get a lower score than a lower quality football game that just happens to not be part of a franchise. If you want to give a game a lesser rating for not having much innovation, that's great, but don't base it upon whether or not it's a sequel or part of a series.

PixyJunket

Word. I hate it when people complain about a new Mario game (or whatever) as if it was the EXACT same game simply called something else or had a different character it'd be some amazingly fresh experience. Some of these petty complaints are mostly made against Nintendo and the "Holy Trinity" (Mario, Zelda, Metroid) failing to see that as series, they've all three grown and expanded more than most companies WISH they could do with their properties (while failing to see new franchises like Pikmin, Animal Crossing or Wario Ware cropping up while the mainstays continue to run).

james2025a

As with all reviews its down to individual choice at the end of the day. A game may produce a sequel that doesn't really advance the genre, but that might be still a lot of fun. I can see that God of War II will be more of the same...but i am not complaining about that. As long as the original game was good...whats the problem. As long as they don't totally screw a sequel up (Deus Ex anybody) then i think they should be judged on their own merits.

Josh H

I think that's totally off base. The games they mentioned were things like Tony Hawk, Madden, Ratchet and Clank, etc. that get games every year with little to no changes other than some new levels and a new gun or two etc.

Not franchises like the Nintendo ones, as Mario, Zelda, etc. get games every 3 years or more and add a lot of new stuff every year. The editorial didn't even mention Nintendo.

The only people that bash Nintendo games for being deriviative are biased net geeks that support other consoles.

Josh H

That's a fair point. Though it does seem that EGM has generally deducted points from games that were, say, GTA ripoffs for being deriviative.

So they may well already take care of that issue.

PixyJunket

My post was more in response to maxfisher's comment that "new" franchises that tread familiar ground should be looked under the same glass as continuing series. Making a game that's exactly like Mega Man with a new character and title does not make it any more fresh than Mega Man 6. I really don't care about EGM's new policy. Reading their magazine makes me violently ill.

Josh H

Totally, and hopefully the reviews will treat said ripoff game the same way as MM6.

I personally have no desire to ever play another game that plays just like MM 1-6 or however many their were as long as I live. And if I did, I could just dig out one of the old MM games.

xmiyux

And when i get a Wii and can download them to play them again i will be ecstatic.

Breakfast with Girls

I would play that game.

Personally, I think ratings should be broken down into areas, with Innovation being one of the categories.

Josh H

I agree wholeheartedly. The ideal review for me would have three categories:

Gameplay/Fun Factor
Controls
Innovation

Those are the three things I look for in a game. It needs to be fun, it MUST control simply and precisely, and while not an absolute must, being innovative is a HUGE plus in my book.

Give a score for each, average them for an overall, and I'd be set.

In reality a 4th category for graphics/sound is probably required since most care about those.

Joe Molotov

So does this mean the streak of each new Madden winning Game of the Month for the past 7 or 8 years running might finally be over?

Josh H

Possibly. It ended for NCAA (thought that streak was much shorter as the series reached it's current level more recently).

Michael Corvin

I agree. Good for them, but I also think it is naive of them to think with all the gaming mags, online sites and forums that their reviews have that much pull.

fujishig

Just curious, what was Game of the Month?

To me, fun trumps innovation, though I can see why they're implementing this. We've had this discussion on the boards before, but do people really want true innovation, or further tweaking to already good franchises?

Take Madden. I'm not sure what you'd want to innovate there. They tried a new thing last year with the QB cone of vision, and I absolutely hated it. Never liked all that owning a stadium stuff. The one change I do like is that the 360 football games use the trigger for turbo, but that's hardly innovative. What most people want is improved AI and collission detection, but even if they improved that significantly, I don't think anyone would call that innovative. In the end, it's a football game... what can they do?

I also love every single one of the 2D Metroid-like Castlevanias. I love Advance Wars DS, even if it's basically Advance Wars 1/2 with another screen.

Josh H

LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth II (360)

Josh H

It's a tough issue.

But in general, I definitely have more fun with something that is fresh, rather than something that is retread, even if the retread is in a series I love.

I love the metroidvanias, but I just can't get excited for the next one any more. There's one coming this fall for the DS, I'll buy it for sure. But I'm not at all looking forward to it, unlike say the new Zelda which looks to add a lot to that series.

With Madden, you're right, there isn't much room for innovation. I simply buy 1 Madden a generation (usually the 2nd or 3rd one when they get the hang of the hardware) and just play that until the next gen for my football fix.

It's not worth the $$$ to me just pay for roster upgrades and a bunch of useless new features (usually stuff in the dynasty mode I don't play). I'd rather just break out the Madden I have when I feel like a game of pigskin. Same with other sports games for the most part.

Gallant Pig

What innovations are in LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth II?

gimmepilotwings

You mean from the previous LOTR games?

Noonan

It's the first RTS released on a console that's actually playable. That alone makes it innovative. As a game it's just another RTS but I can't imagine the controls being any better using a controller rather than a keyboard & mouse.

Josh H

It didn't get a high score either. Barely any higher than NCAA 2007. In the 7.5-8 range. Just barely edged it out.

It was a very weak month of reviews, as is typical as aside from the football games there usually isn't shit that comes out worth playing over the summer.