:
Classic != innovative. If a game is good enough that people remember it, enjoy it and still consider it a good game seven years later, it has every right to be called a classic.
|
What? Does that mean that if I had an obscure game that a few people globally has heard of and I still like/play it seven years from now it's a classic? That just means that personal opinions base what makes a game a classic. Games should be considered to be classic by shit they brought to the table.
Like the Prince of Persia: Sands of time. That should be considered a classic even though it's a year older than San Andreas. It brought the element of time control into the gaming industry. It set standards for games that used the time control and have influenced these games possibly to add this feature.
:
Other additions and changes
|
And what, they were new to the GTA series, that's called development. These things have been in the games industry since before GTA. Because it's improved it should be a classic?
And because people bought the game they enjoyed it? Have they told you this. As I mentioned, I think personal opinions should not be counted on whether something should be considered a classic game, sales could have a bit of an influence but at the end of the day it was bought because it was a sequel to a very popular franchise.