Well I was going to say pretty much what Deguello just said.
Except I was going to ask who cares abotu innovation! god damn that word gets thrown around like its the end all be all ingrediant for good game. Serioulsy SO WHAT if a *sequel* doesnt change the formula and only changes the story, thats what sequels are, a continueation of an existing game. You dont need to change anyting.
I know I am not alone here and others who agree oughta speak up cuz I am tired of looking lieka lunatic. I HATE the word innovation with a passion, especiialy sicne those who tout it often don't even know what it means or what *they* mean when they say it, all they know is whatever game wasn't *innovatinve* enough for them just means that they didnt like something about it and thatw as the only word they could come up with.
TP not *innovative* hell even arguing that a game doesnt need ot be innonavtive I wont say TP *WASNT* because thats ludacris.
I don't get it. What does a game *have* to do to be considered innovative? Or when is it so essential to innovate that a good game is torn down because it failed to innovate in some area? Holy **** I hate it when people say a game wasn't good cuz it didnt innovate, or say it is just "more of the same" thats what NIntendo *WANTS* you to think.
When is it ok for a sequel to stay within the formula of its predacessors and when it is manadtory to change everything up? I dont get it, EXPLAIN IT to me, what is so dag gum improtant about effing innovation? *HUH!* I don't get it. If a game is good who cares if it didn't do somethign that hasn't been done before. I mean its DEBATABLE if it is even *POSSIBLE* to come up with new ideas in the first place. Because human histroy goes back a long time and as far as I have been told, and can see from my own observations, everyting we see today has been thought up by someone else at one point in time or another.
All I know is I hate it when people use that word and dont understand what they are saying. all i ask is explain to me what is so friggin improtant about being innovative, and *start* with giving me a workable edifnition of the damn word cuz I m sick and tired of it being used when there are beter words to use. Did you find TP repetivive? *SAY THAT* instead. Was it boring? was it because it was too easy? was it because you've played all the previous Zeldas, knowing that they are all basically the same game, and somehow expected this one to stary form the formula in some way? WHAT! I really wanna know.
and before someone chimes in with "rat calm down" or a mod thinks I am flaming, just listen to all the arguments that go on here, it gets old when peopel compain aboug games needing to innovate, but when you mention doing something new like adding multipalyer to a single player game, peopel get all bent out of shape. which is it!?
The discussion started because someone things Miyomoto isnt innovative, yet everytig he does seams to sell millions, so whast the complaint? Was Nintendogs innovative? Did it *have* to be? I dont get it.
I understand needing to make changes between sequels andI think TP had enough new stuff to qualify it being innovative, and in no way was it "more of the same" or did Link turn into a wolf with an Imp on his back in all the previous Zeldas and I missed it?