RE4 anyone? FF?

Difference is they change, the genre is kept the same, but the games play differently, and storylines are different, so, yes, they both have levels of innovation, just its only apparent to RPG/shooter fans, people who don't play these games or don't much like them won't notice the difference.

The demo was terrible, it has nothing to do with the concept of the game. The graphics were horrible, the AI was laughable and it just felt bad.

Your point is fundamentally flawed. Compared with the flood of games hitting the market, the actual number of titles that innovate is extremely low. Occassionally someone comes up with a new idea, then a bajillion other games copy it. The most popular games are labeled the "innovators" even though they may have nothing new, just rehashed things from their own or other's games (see Halo 3).

But I will agree that if the game sucks then the point is moot anyways, innovation or no.

You have my vote. I think creators of mediocre games should release the "Guide to Reviewing ______" right from the start. I mean, gamers and game reviewers are really not smart enough to decide when something is a good game, fun to play, well-designed, etc.

There's also a "What did you really expect?" factor to this story. Trying to compete with other FPS games like COD4 or Crysis is just a bad idea. Even an above average FPS (which "Turning Point" is not that) is going to get destroyed in that case, let alone a mediocre one.

"He wants the game to be reviewed for what it is, not what it isn't"

well what it isn't is good, i got that much just from the demo.

I don't think you understand what "fun" is, or even what it means to have said "fun."

well fun means to play a game other than this.

"High Concept" just means they had a really good idea/story, but not the means (read: money) to make a AAA title out of it.

r maybe he was expecting it to be reviewed the way they review Wii games...take the score you give it then add another 10% cause its made by Nintendo.

Damn TG that was funny. Good one, no really (no sarcasm).
Shaggy, I believe it is closer to 20%

Haha no you guys, its more like 30% lol!

You mean M$/Bungee. If I remember right, they're the ones who gave out the $800 'reviewer packages'. Surprised they didn't just give out BJ's to reviewers, but they already hit 10's for the most part anyways... well, here's to hoping ;)

That game exists? Where can I buy?

I know where you CAN'T buy it, and that's Germany. Censor-Nazis!

Lmao, expansion pack

Now you can shoot Arabs and Aliens :)

Man, that series went downhill after #3.

you can buy it later this year when shit-arch (read: Treyarch) releases call of duty 5

oooh! I saw what you did there tmacairjordan87... very.. what's the word? not clever... what's the polar opposite of clever?

Because a badly reviewed movie, or a shit movie in general, will still make a ton of money. Wayan Brothers know this all too well.

What happened to them? In Living Color was soo funny. They just went to shit in record time.

Lair was an experiment that failed, that's the problem. The motion controls were terrible, with no option to change them. You can't have sheer joy using them if they feel clunky and poor. Also the game may have looked pretty but the mechanics were terrible, like how if you hit a wall, you'd merely 'slide' off of it. That is poo.

As for Lost Odyssey, I don't know. Maybe they were expecting something different? I'm guessing the guys who normally review 360 games weren't expecting a JRPG.

The controls for Lair were actually ok. Too responsive, if anything. If you pulled the controller back before snapping it forward to do the dash, for example, you might do the 180. That's because you pulled it back though, which is how you do the 180. They should have left a little more leeway to enter commands. If someone was waving their arms around like a jackass they ACTUALLY WERE playing the game wrong. You can play it without moving your arms at all.

The problems Lair really does have, however, are pretty fucking terrible. Vague mission objectives, bad camera, sudden cutscenes that throw off the game entirely. You know, all the things that were in Rogue Squadron for gamecube, because that's what it was. You even had a targeting computer facsimile. They just took out the x-wings and put in dragons.

Of course, if you mix a game like that with motion controls in the height of the "wave your arms like an idiot for WiiSports and wreck your tv" craze and you DO get something that's damn near unplayable.

I totally support giving Lair shit, but I want to make sure it gets shit for the right reasons. Great graphics and sound, a big pile of lame game elements that would indicate the testers were drunk off their asses, and acceptable-yet-poorly-described controls.

tl;dr version:
Lair didn't suck because of the controls, it sucked because it was actually a bad game. They recycled a six year old Gamecube launch title and pretended it was the second coming.

Trev, you just sold me on Lair.

I never played Rogue Squadron, but people raved about it. I much prefer dragons and medieval fantasy to futuristic stuff. So, now I'll get to play a game that was great, but in a setting I like more and with nice current-gen graphics.

Ah, I see Lair is on sale for $29 bucks now too. Sold!

Great, Lars. I really want you to be lying. I can't tell because its just text, but I really do

The problem is Rogue Squadron 2 wasn't that great. You couldn't tell the gray specs of x-wings from the gray specs of TIEs at a long distance, it had the same sudden cutscenes, the same vague objectives that you needed to use the targeting computer for, the same invisible turn-around "walls". Exactly what's in Lair, except you had pew-pew blasters instead of pew-pew fireballs.

A guy I work with ended up liking Lair for the dragons and setting, but eh. I'm not trying to recommend it to anyone.

Jesus, man. Paying money for and playing Lair; there is shit you just don't joke about.

I'm pretty sure that "High concept" simply means that they were high when they came up with the concept.

ROFL! That was awesome, J!

Ahhh well then, maybe that would better help explain the game.

Thanks! :-p

Good call. Bioshock did innovate though.

Maybe pre-release, but post release Bioshock was a drama. Lots of technical problems (Gamespot even noted it in their review), people getting screwed with their lame Securom activation bullshit, and piss poor support. Their forums were a disaster too.

The only thing remotely nice about Bioshock is its art style. The game itself is as generic as can be. Shooting 3 or 4 infinitely respawning character models in corridors, please...

"Bioshock did innovate though."

In what way?

Serious question... I personally didn't see any innovation at all, but never finished it either. Maybe I should if it's gonna throw an innovation curveball at me.