What do you prefer???

[The Germanator]

Originally Posted by Morpheus1

Here are some examples:

Raw 2 (innovative) vs Smackdown:HCTP (standard)
NBA Live 2004 (innovative) vs ESPN NBA Basketball (standard)
Animal Crossing (innovative) vs The Sims (standard)
Fusion Frenzy (innovative) vs Mario Party (standard)
Zelda:WW (innovative) vs Zelda:MM (standard)

Many others but I'll stop here. I chose innovative.

Yeah, but the innovative games in such cases as Animal Crossing and Wind Waker were polished, had good graphics (well..wind waker at least) and didn't have many bugs...Haven't played the others you listed, but I think Canyarion said the innovative games had to be a bit less polished.

[BigJustinW]

I'd take innovation too

Germinator, Animal Crossing had innovation, and that's all... that game's graphics aren't on GCN's level. So I could see how it would be listed as the more innovative yet rushed game. Methinks the Wind Waker vs MM thing is backward... but then again... I dunno. All I know is I like the WWE game comparisions

[Canyarion]

Hm when I think of innovative games, I think of Half Life, WarCraft 3 and Aliens vs Predator. Problem whith those is that they're too polished!

I was also kinda thinking 1080A vs SSX3. 1080 has cool stuff as speed and nature, while SSX has more balanced gameplay perhaps.
But then I realised that 1080 misses a lot that SSX3 has... like LONG tracks and cool trick system.

[BigJustinW]

Originally Posted by Canyarion

Hm when I think of innovative games, I think of Half Life, WarCraft 3 and Aliens vs Predator. Problem whith those is that they're too polished!

I was also kinda thinking 1080A vs SSX3. 1080 has cool stuff as speed and nature, while SSX has more balanced gameplay perhaps.
But then I realised that 1080 misses a lot that SSX3 has... like LONG tracks and cool trick system.

Well, the poll said unfinished... that doesn't mean that the game has to have bugs or look ugly, just released a bit to fast and lacks features is obviously should have had.

Morph, here's another example, Timesplitters 2 vs Halo... Timesplitters being the tandard sequal thar lacks any type of innovation... and Halo being the innovative game that was rushed out to the Market.

There are planty of examples but only a few pop to mind... I guess you could use True Crimes vs GTA:VC... it's too obvious for me to explain which falls into which category

[Morpheus1]

MM was anything but standard. The mask systems and 3 day time limit were things that had never before been seen in a Zelda game. The only new thing WW had in it was a boat and a different look.

I was thinking the same thing after I posted it. You are right about Sims too, except I was talking about the Console games. I thought it was obvious that any game listed as standard is a sequel or new addition to the game series.

+Rep

[The Duggler]

Here's how I see it.

Innovative but unpolished = casual fans (mainly ps2)
Standard but polished = hardcore gamers (mainly nintendo)

[BigJustinW]

Originally Posted by Nitram

Here's how I see it.

Innovative but unpolished = casual fans (mainly ps2)
Standard but polished = hardcore gamers (mainly nintendo)

I see it the other way around... I think the innovative unosihed games are more for the hardcore, and the polished standard sequals are for the casual gamers. I could give examples if you would like to see them... but meh

[Vampyr]

I also agree with that.

But I would still take the perfect game over the non perfect innovative game, even though I consider myself a "hardcore" gamer.

Put between these two options:
1) Innovative Perfect
2) Standard Perfect

I would MOST DEFFINATLY go for the Innovative game.

[BigJustinW]

Most change Agent games aren't perfect though... and it's standard sequal almost allways proves that

Think of it like this... imagine your dream game and think about your favorite game (that isn't original, like your favorite sequal to somthing)... would you rather have your dream game but not realized 100% due to financial constraints or a sequal to your favorite game?