[Originally Posted on Nintendowned.com, April 2006] 

I'd be lying if I said I don't enjoy playing devils advocate. Because I do. I love it. However, in this particular instance I'm not. Anything but, as a matter of fact. On the other hand, I'm not claiming that what I'm saying here is fact, or a representation of what my own beliefs. It's simply an idea. We all need ideas. And we all need to think for ourselves. That's the important part.

 See, if we weren't thinking for ourselves, we'd be mindless drones, wouldn't we? We'd do exactly what we were told, and we don't want that. I for one refuse to do anything just because I'm told to. I'm not going to follow a point of view I'm told I should have. Which is why I'm arguing for repetition.



I've been playing Sonic Rush for Nintendo DS recently. It's a good game. Particularly the main levels. They're more or less the same sort of thing that appeared in Sonic 3 and Sonic & Knuckles as a matter of fact. Sure, some things have been changed, but here's the thing. What's most obvious is the stuff which hasn't. And that same stuff is what's good about the game. What's not so good is the boss fights. They're sorta 3d, and sorta rubbish. Particularly the Final Zone. I know final bosses are meant to be tough, but that's just ridiculous. But who cares? It's Sonic.

Time Splitters: Future Perfect follows a similar playing style to Timesplitters2. In fact as far as game play goes it's almost identical. Not quite, but almost. It's a great game though. No-one's denying that.

I can pick up any Mario Kart game, and play it straight away. I don't need to relearn anything. regardless of the platform, regardless of the controls, it's still Mario Kart. Heck, even a lot of the imitators are. Diddy Kong Racing, for instance, was almost the same game. And it was just as easy to pick up. Superficial changes maybe, but it's the same thing.

What do all these examples have in common? The answer is, of course, repetition. It's the same thing. Now, here are two points of view. As you read them, I want you to weigh both up and decide for yourself which is better. Lets see if we agree.



Point of view number one. Graphics and flashy hardware don't matter. What matters is the gameplay. The fact of the matter is, if we continue with the same basic game play all the time, we're going to become bored of it. It'll stop being fun. Graphics can't cover up the fact we've played the same thing before. What we need is new and exciting game play. Totally unique ideas. Things that haven't been seen before. To hell with fancy graphics. Game play is what matters, and repetitiveness is bad. Fact.



Point of view number two. Graphics et al are the important point. What people want are realistic looking games. The game play matters, sure, but the looks are just as important. And keeping the tried and tested formula gain the big bucks, because people want the same again and again. And besides, there are always new kids being born. When they discover a new game, they want the best looking one. They won't be bothered with the old ones. Just like gamers always want the latest and best. Fact.



Well? Which didya pick? If you decided they were both a load of drivel, welcome to the free thinking. You're right. Both arguments are flawed. Yes, graphics and the like are just candy, game play is just meat. No, throwing out the old and bringing in new will not do any good whatsoever. We need both. Sure, new ideas are good and fun but the fact remains that repetitiveness is good. When I sit down to play generic FPS, I know what I'm doing. When I play Sonic, I know exactly what's going on. I'm comfortable with it. I can just sit and play. Give me something totally new, I'm stuck.



By all means, give us totally new ideas. Give us new ways of playing the same thing if you have to. But for goodness sake don't take away our repetitive games. We need them, and they need us.



Stephen Whitehead
April 2006