So, better is not enough? Did you present the PS360 and their games with the same challenge? Their main selling point was more powerful hardware. Did these games have to use that in innovative ways for you to consider them? And how many launch games succeeded?
See, i don't get this. When i buy a new product, i buy it because it's better than an old one, not because it's innovative. When i watch a movie, i'd rather have it being good than being innovative. If it's both, that might be even better but that shouldn't be the starting point. Actually, constantly looking out for innovation is rather tiresome and is bound to end up in disappointment. Innovation is only worthwhile if it's better. Else, you just end up with a gimmick. So, if a game uses the pad in an innovative way, will a second game seize to be interesting if it uses the same concept (and not be innovative)? In the same way, is a game that uses a tried and true concept which was innovative when first used on the DS, still interesting for you? If not, you in fact are looking for gimmicks and not true innovation. Or do you really think every game should (or is able to) provide innovation? You quickly realize what you're asking for is not only not thought through, it is simply not possible.
I once made the suggestion games could offer the option to drag and drop which parts of the interface they would rather have on the tv screen or on the pad (minimap, health bar, ammo...). There are so many possibilities to improve upon existing premises, without being innovative. And i refuse to believe someone would rather type his name or manage his inventory with dual analog than on a touch screen/stylus, just because better is not innovative.
Thank you for saying that. That's basically what I think every time I hear "but why does it need to be on platform X." To me that sounds like someone complaining who just does not want to buy a new platform they maybe didn't intend to.
Let's paddle back a bit and look at the start of this gen. Why did Resistance: Fall of Men need to be on PS3? It could've been on the 360 that people already bought a year earlier (or PS2 even). Why did Oblivion need to be on 360? People already had a PC. Why did Twilight Princess need to be on Wii? And so on. It's silly, really.
After E3 there was lot of "but its use of the tablet didn't sell me on the system." Coupled with "I could do that with buttons" or "I didn't like looking away from the TV." So which is it? Do people want the screen to be used or not? If a game relied solely on the screen I bet we'd hear a lot of "so why is this then not on the iPad or 3DS, I don't need a Wii U for that."
It's additive in multiplatform titles, naturally, simply because you cannot make a game for platforms that do not have this extra device and then design a feature that is essential to the game but only works with a Wii U--at that point you're making a different game completely.
So there are the exclusives. "It barely uses the thing that the whole system is based around." (Pikmin 3, P-100) Yup, what's funny is that mostly the same people praised games like Super Mario Galaxy BECAUSE they don't rely too much on the system's core feature. I remember stuff being said like "some of the best Wii games barely used motion control or only in very minor ways." Umm, so why do all these new exclusive games then get criticized for using the touch screen only for features that make sense (drawing the shapes in Project P-100; tactical map overview for Pikmin 3; additional multiplayer character with unique gameplay in Mario Bros U)? It doesn't make sense.
Again, the ZombiU example: "I don't like looking at the screen, I wanna look at my TV." Yea but if you take the GamePad element out, you have another zombie FPS which is usually also among the first thing people bring up "ugh, another Left 4 Dead clone/boring zombie shooter ...yawn." It's central to the "survival" aspect in the game's design. Looking away is essential in the way they increase tension since you could be attacked at any moment, while scavenging ammo from someone's pockets. You leave that out, people complain it's boring. You leave it in, people are annoyed because it takes them out of their comfort zone. (Plus they complain after playing for 15 minutes in a loud crowded place, standing there with a device they've never used before.)
If Random Person On The Internet doesn't know better that's understandable, but I'm always disappointed when the gaming press reacts like that since I think they should be able to contextualize better and reflect on the bigger picture a little more.
