I'm aware that this argument comes up often, but I don't think that should be a reason not to critizise it

It's a cute argument, but my point still stands. You're saying that if you just look at things from an artificially high level, their mechanics are the same. I'm sure we can agree that both games are different: It's easy to distinguish Diablo from Minecraft, and that is true even if you were to remove the differences in graphic style. This is because while they may share similarities in its gameplay (and its trivial to find similarities between any two games, if you look at them at a high enough level - I think your earlier post was actually a very good way of showing that point), there is still a difference in the fundamental mechanics. Even though they may simulate the same act (acquiring new equipment by building it, for instance), their implementation differs. And at that level, many small details can add to a different experience.

An additional point can be made that it is unclear anyhow what characterizes games. It's often interpreted as being only about mechanics, and that a good game should be fun even if you were to remove all art, sound and what-have-you from it. But maybe reality is more difficult: art-style, sounds, music, and everything else comes together. Little things in tone make a radical difference in how games are perceived.
In a way, that's almost... beautiful. Many hours of work were put in art assets - and it DOES make a difference. Not just in an artificial factor that multiplies whatever "funness" the game mechanics provide. It's not just a one-dimensional thing, the "experience" works on many levels.
But if we accept that as true, then how can one say that a game is "the same as game XY" (and we all have seen comments on new game announcements that were mostly "this is just like [game name], ill stick to that one!"), if they share similarities in mechanics on some level, but differ on others?

I'm not saying there is no value in discussing game mechanics - there DEFINITELY is. But there is a danger in carrying it too far: It's easy to forget all the other things that come together to form an experience that can be so much more than the sum of its parts.
The first three Ace Attorney games are virtually the same from a game mechanics point of view. They added new features, but I don't think any fan of the first game bought the latter ones because of it. It has always been about the setting and it's story and it's characters. And most people think that the first game is better than the second, and the third game is the best of them. It can't be about it's game mechanics -- those don't differ much. It is about it's setting and story. So those things shape the experience and really can make a difference (In these games, I suppose it can be argued that the story is a major part of the gameplay ("gameplay" - another one of the poorly defined terms) - but where do you draw the line? At what point is story and setting, or any other thing that is not pure mechanics more than mere fluff?)



Pappenheimer, I'm very sorry for hijacking one of your threads. I feel like I do that all the time to you.