If it's the same old formula, why do the press score the game so high and so consistent ? I thought some of them look for new surprises and innovation even for sequels ? Perhaps there is something new upon closer inspection ?
So after so many posts, no one answered why the second game is reviewed highly ?
As a parachute lurking monster of bibliographic proportions come in to rain fire onto this amazing thread of derailed excellence I would recommend going back and reading the thoughtful replies from AzBat and then Scott and follow their link recommendations if their 1-2 paragraphs didn't offer enough insight. But essentially they answered the question.
So what do you mean by formula? Mechanics? Story theme? I mean, Mario has been jumping on bad dudes heads and saving the same princess for DECADES now, so the formula is "dated" and yet the new titles often get amazing reviews. Why? because they are amazing games! As Scott said:
Isn't that pretty much the same for every sequel? Halo, COD, Gears, Uncharted, Killzone, Infamous, GTA, Mass Effect, Ratchet and Clank, Lego Star Wars ... Whatever game you want to pick. Sequels are almost always a refinement of the predecessor. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And if the game is a hell of a lot of fun to play, and well crafted, why not give it a near perfect score? Are games like Geometry Wars and Stardust not worthy of good reviews because they aren't innovative at all?
Batman AA was an awesome surprise. It is a very popular and well-liked game, because it was fun to play. If the sequel is an improved evolutionary step, then I don't see any reason it shouldn't be well reviewed. Hopefully I will like it just as much as the original, if not more.
AzBat gave more specifics noted:
For one, the main hub is now the city & not just the Asylum on an island. Second, you get to play against all the rogues that you didn't get to in the first game. Third, there is now a nice portion where you can play as Catwoman in the single player. Plus, you get all the normal stuff you get with a sequel: new weapons, moves, story, challenge maps etc. So I can see how the same old formula could still garner high praise.
More weapons, more enemies, a bigger world, new playable characters, and just a ton of new content and refinement on a good game formula that people are wanting more of is a pretty good place to start.
Based on how they reviewed some PS3 games, I don't think that's how those reviewers work. I remember a few reviewers took a point or half point off for "same as last one" according to their explanation. ^_^
Or it could be: the sequel in question had some broken aspects of the formula and, in retrospect, the formula had grown old in the previous title, so the new twists may have helped give some new legs, a couple hours in when the freshness wore off it was apparent it was more of the same. That has happened a LOT this generation. A sequel indisputably better than the predecessor but due to a) the quality march of the industry and b) a rehashed formula running long in tooth, failing to build forward and better, and not addressing core issues often results in scores going down, not up.
Indeed, if a game comes out 2 years later and is "same as the last one" they are lucky to get only a 0.5 point off! As much as people love to complain about CoD or Halo if you have played those games it is really obvious how many incremental steps those franchises take. Yes, more of the same, but more of everything in the "same" new way.
In the same way of Batman:AC was still basically in one building/complex, didn't have Catwoman, had marginal gameplay changes/refinements and a smaller list of new gadgets and such, it would probably rate as a 7.5 game. THAT would be more of the same--it could even be a much, much better core experience, but one gamers already had. Which isn't always bad, but when you are playing a 6-12 hour game you don't want to fall into the same routine of gameplay over and over again.
Btw, I have no interested in this game. I got a "free" game with a buy 3 get 1 free promo, and I picked up 2 copies of FM4 instead of Batman. I felt hand held like Renegade said and as batty as I am for Batman it just did not do it for me.
This game is feeling overrated because so many people simply want a great comic book game.
I hate when people twist my words....
No, I didn't say Batman:AC was overrated....
Yes, on the interweb we drive large aircraft through the chasm between a game "feeling overrated" and saying a game is "overrated." Excuse me while I get out my English-to-VBulletinboard translator.
Hey, I am not a Semantic Philologist in real life, but I play one on the internet. I would have that one looked at before the interweb spiders bite