It is sad, I won't even bother giving 1up the traffic. It's pretty obvious now Nintendo will never escape having some sort of bias against them no matter what they do.
Yes, and its even more obvious now than ever before.
City Folk gets bashed for being an updated sequel with some improvements and additions. While I agree that more could've been done technically all sequels offer very little in terms of innovation.
Let's take a look at some sequels:
Gears of War 2: Plays exactly like the first game, save for new scenarios, improvements in graphics, sound and game mechanics and of course, it shows the next part in the story.
Resident Evil 5: From all the trailers it looks to play nearly identical to RE 4, save with some slight improvements, new main character, story and setting. Hell, even the enemies look the same, except they are African now.
GTA IV: Its pretty much a hi-def version of GTA III, except it doesn't completely improve on it and even takes some of the things that made the earlier game beloved, like expanded wardrobe features.
Halo 3: Was praised as the best multiplayer game ever. Yet, the single player campaign mode was shorter than in the previous games.
These games were highly praised sequels but are guilty of not really evolving the core gameplay and ideas. City Folk gets bashed for doing this when in reality is an expanded sequel in which old and new ideas are explored, expanded, polished and presented to the audience and makes the game better than in its earlier iterations.
So if CF gets bashed for doing this why don't any of the games above get their criticism? Is it because they offer improvements in story and graphics? So if CF looked extremely different from the earlier games and offered a deep story would the reviews be better even if the game plays exactly like the older games?
In that case, the Pokemon games are IDENTICAL to each other, yet gets praised for the content. Again, what's up with that?
Topic: Animal Crossing: City Folk (Read 504719 times)
