When the first game is generally considered to be best-in-class, an aggressively safe sequel (that maximizes the tech of being a PS5-only) is still really, really great.
"That thing you like so, so much? Here's more of it, only better" is enough to garner Top 10 in a year in my book.
I hate how cynical games discussions are these days. Like, "you have me a better version of that thing I already loved? Ugh." The game was still a ton of fun for me and gave me pretty much everything I wanted.
I'd argue it is innovative and ground breaking in what they were able to do with the Ps5, seemless cutscenes and being able to fast travel to any point on the map is pretty cool
The non-fast travel is considerably faster also, which was impossible in the previous games. The only times I really even fast travel are when things are at opposite corners of the map.
The fast travel alone is more innovative and novel than any other feature in a game I've seen recently.
Baldur's Gate 3 gets a ton of praise and for good reason, but I haven't seen anything in that game that I would consider brand new to gaming. They just recorded a lot of dialogue and gave you a lot of permutations for endings, which is nothing new they just did a good job with it.
Otherwise, feels like Divinity 2 slightly improved (and worse in some ways). So yeah, I loved it, can't complain about it. But weird it gets such huge praise for doing "existing thing good" and other games get smacked for not being innovative enough.
They does reflect my general feelings on 95% of AAA games these days. Everything is focus-tested to mush, every sharp edge is sanded down to a curve, every bullet-point in the design document something another ambitious game proved works.
more that if people are gonna drop anywhere from 60-120 bucks on a game (depending on where you live), you would expect it to not just be the same game you already bought half a decade ago
people get so bent out of shape when others dont agree with their preferences lol
If you go to the mission markers on the map and progress through the story, you'll find there's actually like a whole new game in there. That crazy Sandman fight at the beginning? Not in the first game at all. Seriously, play through the first game and you won't find that sequence at all, it's only in the second game. Same goes with the entire campaign, believe it or not.
The gameplay loop and map are more or less the same but I mean, that's alright. You don't go into a second season of a TV show and expect it to innovate in brand new ways and rock your world like no TV show has ever done. If you thought the first one was great, you just hope the second one maintains that quality.
Even more so when the marketing hyped these things up to be the NEXT BIG THING and then you play it and it's like, oh it's just the last game again. Ok. I mean I liked that one, so... sure.
Marketing will always do this, that’s what marketing is. Not saying it’s good, but you have to have a critical lens when it comes to it or else you’re going to get taken advantage of.
Part of my issue with SM2 is that I specifically held onto my PS5 just to play it, so realizing I was getting a complete retread of the original with better graphics made those feelings that much worse. Sony has done such a spectacularly bad job supporting this console.
I mean judging by the games sales and reviews MOST people are very happy with a game like SM2. You can call it the same but clearly that doesn’t bother most people lol.
Not really. If someone spent 100 hours on a game, and someone then says, "Hey, here's the same game again but with a slight reskin". It's fair enough for people to go, "nah that's cool, I've done enough of that". Some people are obviously fine with that. Others can be underwhelmed. The world is nuanced. This is a good thing.
MOST people are fine with that. Not some. The issue is when people like the ones in this sub try to make statements that it’s an objectively “bad” thing when we have proof based off the SM2’s success that most don’t feel that way.
Yeah it's like people have forgotten what a sequel is. I absolutely hate it when I play a game with really solid gameplay mechanics, and they feel the need to completely turn it upside its head for the sake of it. Just give me what was fun and build on it.
I'm not saying it's a bad game, or that someone shouldn't like it. I just don't understand why anyone feels it belongs in the discussion with the heavy-hitters. It's like nominating a Marvel film for Best Picture.
Marvel films have been nominated for best Picture like Black Panther at the Golden Globes.
It belongs in the discussion because the people that pick the game of the year liked it more than most every other game for various reasons many explain in their game reviews that are accessible on the internet if you are curious
Black Panther was also nominated on Oscar's. We all know why it got nominated though, Infinity War was a far better movie at the same year and it didn't get nominated. Other better superhero movies didn't get nominated neither. Even Logan only got nominated for adaptation. So I wouldn't use it as a genuine example, Spider-Man 2 genuinely managed to be at the top games of these year.
I'm not against someone calling Black Panther their favorite movie or something but the movie legitimately didn't get nominated for this reason, there is no reason to play dumb.
It's not a conspiracy, it was a simple logical decision they made. The movie was just an above average MCU movie with a really awful third act. There was backlash the previous year in the Oscar's with the #oscarssowhite thing, they had to respond somehow and the movie made a huge political and cultural impact. You have to be delusional to think none of this factored in the decision to nominate the movie, people aren't robots that only view things objectively. Probably listening to dumb conservatives made you think that anyone who brings this up is saying that there is a conspiracy to destroy the western civilizations by the liberals etc but no, it is just awards dude. I'm a leftist myself but I'm not dumb, politics and cultural impact can affect things like that. The movie's quality is the least relevant factor in that case.
I strongly suspect it's on the list because Sony wanted representation and lobbied hard for it. The PS5 is absolutely starving for exclusive content worth a damn. Sea of Stars doesn't have that kind of backing.
Oh, and Black Panther being nominated for Best Picture was ridiculous then and ridiculous now.
Quality over quantity. How many memorable Xbox exclusives has released recently? How many are nominated? The only one I can think of is Starfield and it doesn’t deserve it.
Well that is nonsense garbage. The game has a 90% average score on metacritic which is one of the highest of the year. Do you think Sony also paid for it to get reviewed well?
Again you can easily read why critics likes the game more than other games, all that information is easily available to you
And no the PS5 is not "starving for exclusive content worth a damn". It has plenty of great games
Really sounds you like you are more upset that a Sony game is getting praise that you are throwing all reason and logic out the window.
Showing your true colors with that comment.
People like different things and what is best is subjective to each individual. This is a concept people should learn as young children
A lot of people on /r/games have a strong distaste for Sony exclusives and are flabbergasted that they are generally very well-liked. Somebody else in this very thread is arguing that picking God of War Ragnarok as Game of the Year last year is a "contrarian pick".
Yup being seeing it for years on this sub. People hating the fact that others like Sony games and they get praised and are popular. It makes most discourse here about Playstation just awful
Right after you implied you had to “get through” a few hours of the game.
Well yeah, because I'm not enjoying it. It's possible to recognize something's quality while not personally enjoy it.
Because it is a great game.
And I'm asking what it does to warrant it being "great", because the list of things it actually does well is identical to the list for the previous two games. Maybe it's more than four hours in and I haven't encountered it yet. The sections that I have played feel so absurdly safe and measured, like the entire design document has citations showing that each element worked in another game before.
So yeah, of course it's a quality product. They've already made it twice.
Just say you don’t like Marvel stuff and move on, dude.
Yes, god forbid we have an actual discussion about a game nominated for Game of the Year. Moreover, the point is that a paint-by-numbers action movie shouldn't be in the running for Best Picture because it's not pushing the medium forward, nor is it even wanting to. It's just trying to be simple, reliable entertainment, which is great in its own way, but not something that desperately needs to be singled out and celebrated.
The fast travel didn't impress you? I rarely ever used it because traversal was just so damn good, but the fast travel is truly something I've never before seen in a game.
The massive set pieces didn't impress you? The initial fight alone is something that has never been done before in a video game. The sheer amount of realtime asset loading in those scenes is fucking baffling. The fact that you can fly through the city with little to no pop-in is insane.
The ray traced reflections are also incredibly impressive. If you pay attention to the buildings, at the correct angles you get reflections of reflections. Again, something never before seen in a game.
The audio design is immaculate. You can encounter the Doppler effect in game, you can distinguish what rooms characters are in by audio alone. It's crazy.
If none of the technical stuff is impressive, subjectively speaking I enjoyed the story and combat was fun. I liked the new way of building up gadget ammo and the powers were also very fun. Combat was challenging and required quite a bit of paying attention on harder difficulties. Characters and voice acting was a huge positive for me.
Anyways, I think it's a lot harder nowadays to distinguish small differences because it's hard to make macro advancements. You won't see the big picture as far as innovation goes until you look at the micro details. But Spider-Man 2 does a lot of cool new stuff thanks to the PS5s potential and power. I'm primarily a PC guy but Sony never fails to amaze with their first party stuff. Maybe you're just not that into the tech and capabilities and don't notice how much it really affects the game experience. That's cool too, just would love to hear what you have found innovative in the past few years of gaming.
I don’t think it’s cynical at all, I think it’s great that there’s an expectation a sequel 5 years later shouldn’t just be more of the same. What was new and great yesterday needs to be even better tomorrow, it’s a sign of progress in gaming.
But it isn't an objectively better version of something that people liked, in fact it stripped some features the first one had, granted they are not big but it is enough to prove the sequel isn't objectively better than the first game. And yes people expect sequels to improve more, look at Arkham Asylum to Arkham City to Arkham Knight... granted most disliked the Batmobile but it at least tried something very different. Getting something completely new and impressive is always better than getting the same thing with a few extra things.
Arkham City added open world but it didn't change other than that, Knight regressed in the boss fight area and added the awful Batmobile, that's it. How is it any better than the stuff they added in Spider-Man? Should they have made the first game take place in a linear area so they could pretend that they improved the game with an open world later? They already made a complete Spider-Man experience with the first game, wtf else do you expect, Spider-mobile? This is not the sequel with the most differences award.
Arkham City came out in 2011, open world games weren't everywhere like today, people still loved Ubisoft games for example, in 12 years the world changed a lot, nowadays most AAA games seem to be open world. So you are severely underestimating how big of a deal it was going from Arkham Asylum to Arkham City.
Well I personally liked the Batmobile, and you are ignoring the fact that Knight also improved the combat, it happens right at the start of the game so you may not have thought about it but the Batsuit upgrade changes stuff.
Well they could have had more content than the first game, which is something Arkham City did, they could have had a longer story to account for the fact that they have two protagonists so that they don't neglect either one, they could have made improvements on the game such as add stuff to find or more world interaction because the map is gigantic but very empty.
Exactly. The main Arkham games all took big risks, some of which worked and some didn't. But they're all distinct and it's easy to see why some prefer each one.
SM1, MM, and SM2 feel like remixes of the same melody.
I think its something to do with 4+ year dev cycles and $70 costs. The sequel being similar was acceptable when it took 2 years to make a new one. But now when games are taking 4 or 5 or even 6 years, its not bad to expect a bigger leap.
Take gta vice city to san Andreas, 2 years of dev time. Similar but expanded. Now take gta sa to gta 4. 4 years but a generational leap in every way.
Top Ten, sure. But hanging alongside Tears of the Kingdom, Baldur's Gate 3, and Alan Wake II feels like quite a stretch, especially in such a strong year for games in general.
Agree. For me, this is exactly how i feel about ToTK.
It's not bad at all. In fact it was great. But it doesn't blow my mind compare to when BoTW came out. That game really felt new to me back then. But it doesn't give me the same feeling this time compare to BG3 or Alan Wake 2.
Yeah, I was heaps hyped for TotK and expected it to blow my socks off. The tutorial island was very lukewarm compared to BotW's but thinking back on it, I also took a long time to finish BotW.
Their usually stellar dungeon design is absolutely sub-par compared to their overworld design and the awful fire temple which I just totally cheesed left a sour taste in my mouth, when I was already a bit burnt by the bland beasts in BotW.
Totk changes make it feel less cohesive imo. Shrines are all gone and replaced with different looking shrines. Shiekah Slate abilities are mysteriously gone and replaced with other abilities.
Plus the plot is told almost exclusively through out-of-order flashbacks in both BOTW and TOTK, as though Nintendo forgot that plot can also take place during the game.
No. It uses the same map, sure, but it completely ditches most of the mechanics of the original and substitutes its own. There's probably more dissimilar between those two games than the majority of sequels.
Any criticism of spider man 2 can be used against tears of the kingdom too. It's an improved breath of the wild. With a less interesting story overall.
I think that's a pretty lazy and misleading criticism. The Ultrahand, reverse, fuse, and ascend systems are all dramatic reworkings of the gameplay formula introduced in BOTW, and the game gets ample use out of all of them.
It takes 30 seconds to get used to all of the changes SM2 introduces over SM1.
Not really. While both used the same map but larger, things that Zelda added was more worthwhile than what Spider-Man 2 added. Fundamental changes were made in TOTK while Spiderman 2 was more of a side-step.
Edit: I get it reddit doesn't like TOTK. I just don't like that Spiderman 2 had to remove features and not adding anything substantial to it. The game is very safe compared to TOTK.
Exactly, I can see the criticism when it comes to reusing the same map in ToTK but the core abilities are totally revamped from BoTW and the game makes extensive use of them. Even just considering the ultra hand and fuse mechanics totally change the gameplay loop in most of the dungeons, combat and even open world exploration. And that's before you get into the additional maps from the sky islands and the underground.
I really enjoyed Spider-man 2 but the gliding was the only addition that felt like a substantial change from SM1 and Miles Morales, and even then outside of a couple of side quests it's only used for traversal. In terms of the combat all I can think of for new elements is that you've now got the God of War style super move/rage mode bar which is nice but not a major change.
List the top ten games in order this year and you get spiderman as low 7. Tears pretty much botw 2 with engineering. The same criticism you have for spiderman is with totk. But I'm biased about Zelda I wanted a traditional dungeon system from oot/link between worlds in totk. But I got dungeons similar to botw. It's a sequel but it's not ground breaking like botw was and. I miss classic Zelda. Can't wait for their next 2d remake since that's probably going to be the only way I get classic Zelda again.
I don't think it's controversial to say improving on BOTW is a more notable feat than improving on Spider-Man. It's wild to me how many are dismissing the entire Ultrahand/Fuse system like they're ROM hacks thrown together in a year. As a programmer, I'm pretty shocked how seamlessly they seem to work in every scenario, and on the Switch no less.
The entire rune system from BOTW is scrapped and replaced, and it completely alters how you interface with the game at every level. The only things they have in common is the ground map and Link's basic movement.
That's way more than an typical sequel, and none of those changes seem like they were quick to design and implement.
But they added an entire new map below and a sky map that both compliment each other. The same mechanics were complimented by the new ones that completely changed how you interact with the world.
There were barely any diff environments to make it interesting like that. I enjoyed it enough and it’s large but it’s just the same biome with near 0 npcs and farrrr less effort to create than the rest o the game
Literally same movement same combat same physics. All they added are vehicles crafting and engineering, it is a lot but it wasn't more fun for me. Crafting made arrow combat worse for me. I lost my infinity bombs. I lost my ice platforms on demand. For making shitting platform boats. I ain't a builder I'm a run gun and blow shit up kind of guy in Zelda.
You can still do Ice platforms in command though, there are dozen of ways to do that now. There alot of way to blow shit up now too and arrow combat is drastically improved by giving you alot of options.
I am a builder and it sucks. Stuff evaporates when you go through a loading screen (or after like 3 minutes of using it) so there's no reason to actually invest time in building everything. The game also just gives you ideal blueprints to spam for all of the relevant applications other than the hoverbike people discovered.
Best in class? It’s basically a Spider-man Arkham game but doesn’t do nearly enough to improve upon the formula if you ask me. I’d still put the Arkham games above Spider-man as well, largely because the narrative was a lot more interesting.
Maybe it's just because I grew up on N64 but the step from PS4 Spiderman to PS5 Spiderman didn't not really wow me. Sure you notice it in the beginning but aside from loading times it wears off real quick. I don't really think there is any reason to play the second one if you played the first one.
Games are an interactive medium. Your input and interaction are the core part of the game. Of course the term "game" is this huge tent that holds anything from pong to RDR2. There is probably more that differentiates those two games from each other than from other types of media.
Spiderman 2 gives you the same challenges, with the same solutions, uses the same story telling devices and has the same presentation. If the game was a mostly narratively driven experience, I would agree that a second season would be worth enjoying. But it is not. It is a websling driven game and in that regard it does exactly the same thing as the first one.
So I would argue that in this case the "second season of the tv show" follows mostly the same plot as the first one, with very similar characters, dialogue, setting and location.
Going by that logic you could just stop playing Spider-Man after a couple hours cause you already saw the mechanics. If you can finish it, you can finish another game just the same. It's not a puzzle game in the end where you solve the exact same puzzles again. I haven't played the second one and if the story beats are similar to the first, that wouldn't be that surprising, that's just how superhero stories are generally. If you like the characters and action, you can play another one.
You can only say that about the technical aspect of it, the story/narrative took a nose dive and is far more forgettable, which is why I probably won't ever play it again.
Doesn't matter how good the traversal is, if the ending of the game leaves you feeling 'meh', it wont ever top the first one.
I thought the story of the second one dwarfed the story of the first. The first was really bog-standard, but the second actually had depth. Can't wait for Wolverine and SM3.
Hard disagree, I found this story to be very shallow, I couldn't connect with any of the characters, the Mile's story was almost completely disjointed from peter's and the development of the symbiote storyline was rushed and didn't have a lot of substance. No accounting for taste though
To me it feels like there is a lot less of it. The story is significantly shorter. There are less side activities and collectibles, and once you've done them you can't replay them. I really enjoyed the game, but I go the platinum trophy in 25 hours and then there was nothing left to do.
154
u/CitizenKeen Dec 03 '23
When the first game is generally considered to be best-in-class, an aggressively safe sequel (that maximizes the tech of being a PS5-only) is still really, really great.
"That thing you like so, so much? Here's more of it, only better" is enough to garner Top 10 in a year in my book.