Shareefruck
Registered User
I think that these things might have historical value, but I wouldn't factor that in as a part of the quality of the game, personally.While I see your point, I think there is an intrinsic value in novelty, uniqueness, and innovation. This is especially true in the gaming industry where everybody tends to clone what's popular, i.e. open world RPGs now, or CoD or WoW clones a few years ago. In hindsight, games that gained popularity because of how unique or new they were no longer seem very special after they have been cloned or copied so many times.
I've said it before, but I think one of things that helps hold up a game like Mass Effect is the incredibly detailed and interesting world that BioWare built around the game - something that only gets stronger over time with more sequels, and doesn't really fade. That said, if you were to go back and play the original Mass Effect now for the first time, you might not be able to get over the dated game play to even get to the point of appreciating that world.
This might be my problem with the BioShock series as well. The only real criticism I feel qualified to give BioShock is that I didn't find it in any way gripping at the time, partially because of the pseudo-horror atmosphere that I'm not a big fan of in general.
What I'm interested in considering a great game is something that's good enough that its uniqueness is difficult or impossible to replicate, not something novel but spawns copy-cats that are able to easily outdo it.
The Beatles wouldn't be a fraction as admirable as they are if their influence resulted in a ton of bands tried the same thing they did, out-did them, and made their music redundant.
Last edited: