>>30996396Alright, I'll give a tripfag a benefit of the doubt and bite.
1.) How do you objectively rate a game? Video games have objective qualities, but enjoyment and value, at the end of the day, are subjective.
2.) A lot of game series have games within them that have similar gameplay. Super Mario Bros has different obstacles and abilities, but at the end of the day, you run, jump, throw fireballs, and step on things (that aren't hazardous). Call of Duty has changes and tweaks, but its a twitch shooter at the end of the day. PMD has its tweaks, experimentations, additions, and other shit. While I disagree with the "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" argument, innovating too much can screw with consistency, intuitiveness, and control of design.
Examples: Pokemon AI in Super are more proactive and will briefly deviate from you to collect items. In most cases in Super, you can also switch leaders within the dungeon instead of just before going in. Super has set missions instead of randomized missions, and it is possible to actually "recruit 'em all". Explorers introduced outlaw missions where you defeat a special enemy. It also gave you something called "Exclusive Items" that buff certain Pokemon, along with a trader that can swap acquired exclusives for others.
3.) One game can be preferred over the others if someone:
-enjoys the changes to the gameplay of one of them more
-likes the story of one of them more
-music and other aesthetics of a game appeals to that person more
-nostalgia factor
4.) To sum up the above for:
>what determines how good a game is beyond opinion when all games pretty much play the same way?Even if gameplay was all the same (which I argue it is substantially different, especially when you compare Rescue with Explorers), there are non-gameplay factors that can influence how enjoyable a game is to someone. Music, graphics, sound, background, plot, and other things can affect one's experience with a game.
