Well, how often can you make a game and put something in it that’s new before it seems utterly superfluous? Or anything else for that matter?
The argument that art should always bring something never seen before I think would bring some strong rebuttals from most artists that I know.
It’s what Oppenheim’s fur tea cup was really all about. The demand to be constantly shocked and surprised by art, if you do nothing completely new then there is no value in it.
To a lot of people art is a conversation most of the time. It’s a riff on things that go before it. It evolves slowly. It only ever appears otherwise because critics suddenly decide that things are worthwhile because they’ve now seen them.
I get that as a review, it’s an opinion etc. I just think that in this case it’s a real stretch to expect an indie developer releasing a game at an indie price, who is actually delivering visuals at a level that we’ve never seen on console, and animation at a level we’ve only seen in the movies, who has also delivered a game that does a good job of being a game and then suggest it brings nothing new to the table.
I agree criticism is valid. Always. But crucially it’s not then immune to criticism itself. If a person is prepared to judge something as harshly as that, then they need to be prepared to have their work judged in the same light.
Personally I’ve grown tired of the default Edge-style mask of negativity that some reviewers cling to. To me it seems overly dismissive, and I find it tiring, and joyless, and I believe it can make it hard for anyone who makes anything to stick their heads above the parapet.
Again though. That’s a subjective opinion. Which is the real joy of art. It creates discussion and conversation. 🙂