251: Videogames: A Modern Folly

[SonicKoala]

Eh, personally I feel that innovation is a bit overrated. Yes, it is wonderful to see something that is new and refreshing - games which push the boundaries of what was previously thought possible. Then again, another side of me couldn't really care less whether or not a game was revolutionary. Sure, a game like Uncharted 2 is simply a conglomeration of various gameplay elements taken from older games, but does that somehow make it less enjoyable? No, it doesn't - at all. Yeah, the cover-based shooting system came from Gears of War, and the platforming came from Tomb Raider, and yet I enjoyed Uncharted 2 a lot more than both of those games.

I agree that innovation is something which should be encouraged, and I'm glad that it is still a strong force in the Indie game scene, but one must remember that with every brilliant or revolutionary title that is born out of this spirit, there are probably going to be 7 or 8 crap titles which simply lost their way due to the over-ambition of their creators. I suppose what I'm trying to say is don't knock the big-name developers - yes, many of the games they churn out have already been seen before, but don't be so quick to judge. When I look at my current gaming library for my PS3, although it's true I see a lot of re-used concepts, I also see hours upon hours of fun and memorable gaming experiences, and when push comes to shove, it is those games which are going to be remembered by the gamers of today. I think people need to put the elitism aside, and remember why exactly people play video games in the first place - to have fun.

 

[JonnWood]

I think unoriginality is underrated.

If it weren't for The Sims and Madden, where would EA find the money to publish experimental games like Mirror's Edge? If it weren't for Rock Band, would we have Dead Space? I say thee nay.

There are a lot more games out there than there were in 1984, and most indie games are flocking to the iPhone and the downloadable market due to the lower cost of entry, such as Shadow Complex and Splosion Man. Ironically, they're being away from the PC, once their haven, as PC piracy remains rampant. Games like Portal and Team Fortress 2 started out as indie games, and are currently some of the biggest titles in gaming. And there's something to be said for taking the best ideas of other games and polishing them to a fine sheen.

This is the same mentality that sneers at Michael Bay's continued popularity as a filmmaker, as if they have some stake in how many people want to turn their minds off and enjoy a summer blockbuster. It's almost like the critics in question believe that Bay is somehow encroaching on their precious "indie" territory, and they stand over it growling like a mastiff.

 

[Oyster^^]

Uhm. Lots of long and interesting posts here about the state of games and how well/not well they're designed these days. I'd like to point out something on a slightly different tact though.

Whether games are ripping off other pieces of popculture or are made up of of interesting original content doesn't really matter, at least when you're trying to compare them to "follies". Is a folly just a luxury that is grande in appearance and takes many inspirations from other pop culture influences? I don't think that selling several million copies of a product that people use every day could be considered "folly", despite how unoriginal MW 2 is. Folly carries connotations of useless and wasteful to me. Which would fit some rich guy building himself a castle. Providing entertainment for hundreds of thousands of people every day isn't folly....


And uh. I guess OT with you guys: Alan wake looks to be a good example of a game that yesss is inspired by many other books and movies and even games, but does some genuinely original things with the videogames medium and story telling in general. Not as original as some indie games I'll grant, but I think it looks a cut above the usual cntrl C cntrl V FPSs that have been coming out all over the place.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

It is the same cycle as any other media, start with dedicated independent creators, suits smell a market like rats smell cheese then move in creating an "industry". Suits promise creators capital to "achieve their vision" in exchange for their souls, creators with stars in their eyes agree. Suits become more and more conservative about which projects they think will generate a high return on investment. Most projects become cookie cutter rehashes of what sold well last year. Only "big names" can get the investment into "interesting" projects. Independent creators continue to fill the innovation vacuum left by the corps and the suits.

See books, music, movies, tv, books, magazines, websites, etc etc etc.

The beauty of the internet is now there is a ready market for independent creators and unlike the past methods of democratizing financing. World of Goo is the prime example an independent creator generating big name quality.

And even in the big industry sometimes "lovechilds" will appear like STALKER SoC. The power of PC gaming is the industry can release something that is half done and if it has potential fans will finish it, whether or not a dev kit is available.

 

[RestlessDream]

While the article makes only a passing mention of Heavy Rain, I'm curious as to where exactly that would fit as it was more of an artistic/indie attempt at a genre(I'm not trying to interject a discussion about its success or failure, I'm just stating the basics concept) and yet as of now it's a blockbuster title? Was it a matter of a folly or an attempt at something with more substance which is what is being called for?

My own opinion as a gamer of about 25+ years is that while yes there was innovation in those technological constrained relics of the past, I wouldn't want to give up the games I have today, derivative or not they are fun and I do enjoy them, and in the end that's all that matters to me and only me.

 

[TheXRatedDodo]

Great article.

See, this provides me with yet another excuse to give Half-Life 2 a reach around.

"Dodo!" You may cry, "but, how is Half-Life 2 an outstanding display of innovation in modern gaming when it's just another shooter?"
And I shall reply "Why, I shall tell you!" in a boisterous, over-the-top manner, maybe even with an explosion behind me (which, I remind you, I shall walk away from without looking at it while maintaining a calm, collected, unspeakably badass facial expression!)

The reason Half-Life 2 is so outstanding is because unlike 99% of other modern shooters, the game isn't ABOUT the shooting, it's ABOUT the story. Sure, the story may only amount to "Aliens have invaded the world, are you a bad enough dude to pwn them?" but it's enough of a vehicle to drive the making of connections between characters and the player such as the relationship between Alyx and Eli, between Barney and the Resistance, etc. Sure, this would all fall through if the voice acting and facial animation was subpar; and sure, this is all down to the pursuit of technological advancement and things basically looking nicer, prettier and more realistic, but the difference is that here it was applied in such a manner that the game wasn't about cheap thrills and feasts for the eyeballs, it was about genuine emotional engagement.

This is why I don't "get" Gears of War or Halo or most modern games. I can't connect. It's all very showy and flashy and expensive looking and impressive, but it's the gaming equivalent of a David Cameron movie rather than a David Lynch film, and like a David Cameron movie, these games manage to impress me for an hour before I get exceedingly bored and turn it off because I'm not being engaged in any other way than being told to look at the pretty colours.
Sure, David Lynch's vastly preferred works (Blue Velvet, Twin Peaks, Mulholland Drive..) are just at a glance JUST modern works of noir (like Half-Life 2, at a glance, is JUST a modern shooter,) but that is just a vehicle for making an emotional and intellectual engagement with the viewer/player.

If more games used their showyness as a vehicle to drive the story and the character development, I wouldn't have a problem, but unfortunately this is not the case.

Anyway, sorry for the Half-Life 2 fanboyism, and once again, fantastic article. \o/

 

[TheXRatedDodo]

I suppose where you stand on the subject matter comes down to whether you want to just entertain yourself for an hour or two or to have a more engaging experience in the artistic sense, basically whether you're in the "Games for fun" or "Games for art" crowd.

Terminator 2 was "fun" when it came out but it's now dated and laughable, Citizen Kane still stands up to this very day as a work of monumental genius.

I look at gaming nowadays and for the most part, see squander everywhere I look. I have no problem with games being just for pure entertainment, but I think the ratio of Jurassic Park:Citizen Kane could and SHOULD be a bit more biased towards the latter than it currently is.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

it's the gaming equivalent of a David Cameron movie rather than a David Lynch film

Sounds like someone has election fever. I don't think that the Tories are campaigning on a platform of Na'vi rights and cinema screen modernisation. I don't really think that valve are much like David Lynch either.

 

[Dhatz]

this is like square of folly. they are follies, but they suck at being proper follies at he same time.

 

[ReverseEngineered]

I'm with you in bemoaning the lack of innovation coming from the major studios. I think it's inevitable, because they will always be driven by profits, and as history has shown, you don't have to be innovative to make profits in the games market, you just need the biggest folly. Modern Warfare 2 is definite proof of that and the EA Sports franchise lends a long history to it too.

But I don't think that spells the end of innovation either. Innovation has always been done by the little guy in his basement and the modern indie scene is no different. In fact, it's probably becoming better, because the barrier to entry has been reduced. It used to be that you needed some serious skills in assembly or C to write a game, but modern game developers have entire frameworks to make their lives easier. Flash is now what Visual Basic was in the 90s, but tailored even more to making interactive, graphical applications like games. Programming is no longer the most important skill in making games; artistry and musical ability are now at the foreground. It has allowed the people with good ideas and the talents to see them through to break into the scene, rather than just the programmers. It has lead to a much larger berth of game developers.

Braid [http://www.braid-game.com/] and World of Goo [http://www.worldofgoo.com/] are great examples, but there are many more. Captain Forever [http://www.captainforever.com/], And Yet It Moves [http://www.andyetitmoves.net/], almost anything made by Zachtronics Industries [http://www.zachtronicsindustries.com/] -- there are so many enjoyable and innovative games that have been made by a couple of guys in a basement that it's hard to keep track of them all.

The indie scene will continue to innovate and the major players will eventually integrate the ideas that work. That's what brought us Portal, among other games, and it will continue to bring us new ones. The people with the money aren't innovating, and that's a shame, but as long as the indie scene continues, we will always have an influx of new ideas.

 

[Neotericity]

Fantastic article, I used to rarely stray from the AAA titles, but when you do I've found gems like 'splosion man or Shank

 

[Mysnomer]

Terminator 2 was "fun" when it came out but it's now dated and laughable.

You wanna' say that to my face, punk? (Not sayin' it's perfect, though)

OT: I disagree with people who say this article is a vehicle for venting, and then bring up exceptions to what Ryan is talking about. He's focusing on what he sees as a problem (which is by far the rule, rather than exception), keeping the article focused and maintaining its impact. If he went off on a tangent to list the exceptions, it would detract from his point, even though it doesn't actually counter what diminish his argument.

Anyway, I'm not going to go all-in with Ryan, but I do agree that I see a lot of stagnated ideas. My perspective is that it comes from a glut of releases. To much flash and flair, crammed into bite-size chunks for convenient digestion and subsequent expulsion. It used to be the "bite-sized chunks" were levels, but now they're entire games, designed to be experience and forgotten by the time the sequel comes out. If they were innovative and lasting, the publisher couldn't profit from the next release they milk from the developers within the next 12 months.

Edit: Yeah, yeah, "Bioware blah, blah..." Let's shoot this down before it comes up. RPGs are diametrically opposed to this design scheme and thus are more resistant to infection and decay, but slowly they are being chipped away at.

 

[Steve the Pocket]

You know, it's kind of true. It's not that there aren't innovative games being produced nowadays; it's just that people don't pay a lot of attention to them anymore. Not like in the old days where innovative games got a lot of attention.

Imagine going back in time to the 1980s and describing Katamari Damacy to a gamer. They'd be impressed that the technology will have advanced that much in 15 years, but they probably wouldn't consider the gameplay mechanic odd at all. They'd probably be itching to play it. Now show the same game to someone nowadays who's never heard of it (assuming such a person can even still be found) and they'd be like "That's hella weird, man. What, were the creators on acid or something?" They might still be interested in playing it, and even like it once they do, but they'll still crack wise about it being "trippy".

I think Powerup Comics (a parody of badly written gamer comics) brilliantly satirized this attitude with their early strip where the creator of Super Mario was portrayed as a stoner. It's Super Mario! Hardly anybody thinks twice about the fact that he's a plumber who jumps through green pipes, stomps on weird gremlin things, and eats giant mushrooms in order to rescue a princess from a dragon. It's just how it is. But make a game that's even remotely that odd nowadays and it's all, oh, you must have been on drugs or something. Either that, or you're trying too hard to be offbeat or copying some other offbeat game. Unless you get really lucky, the best you can usually hope for is to become a cult classic.

So besides Katamari (and even that is debatable), what games have been produced in the last decade that featured dramatically original gameplay concepts and also got a lot of mainstream attention? Grand Theft Auto III and Portal are the big ones I can think of.

 

[blarghblarghhhhh]

I dont have much to add to this accept that in 30 or 40 years people will be saying "whats a call of duty" or "who is master chief"

 

[Terrorpaw]

Natural Selection started as a little half-life mod, grew to a huge half-life mod which rivaled Counter-Strike in its heyday, and now a full fledged sequel is in the works. The first game was NOTHING if not innovative, and managed to also be extraordinarily fun to play. The second looks to combine that fun with innovation and today's high-end graphics.

My point? The innovation is certainly happening, its up to us consumers to stop motivating companies to continue to churn out Madden 67, 68, 69 and 70 instead of giving us what we really want. As gaming moves into the mainstream I think we'll have to work harder to find the diamonds in the rough. Consider the movie world. Everyone watches movies, and for every good movie there are 10 archetypal clones beside it.

 

[kintaris]

Strange choices, Braid and World of Goo, as examples of indie innovation. While I agree they are great games, they themselves draw heavily (Braid in particular) on games of the past.

I agree with a few of the previous comments - its not the mainstream developers' faults, its ours. Like the film industry, gaming has become about quick and glossy gratification, relying on tried and tested formulae that are sure to score the easy points.

But we keep falling for it, even those among us who profess to be against it (the author himself admits that one of his main targets, Uncharted 2, is a 'great game' - questionable, but that's another argument). If the games industry doesn't want to become like Hollywood (which it really doesn't, because Hollywood is now rife with problems as recent news stories have shown), the audience has to rebel.

I believe one way to do this is to encourage more gamers to become game designers - promote how simple it is to learn the techniques to make indie games for yourself. Once gamers get their hands on a toolkit they can work with, they realise that their own innovations are often far more imaginative than the mainstream offerings. Then they begin to question why and quickly get bored of the £45+ blockbusters that empty two months' worth of games budget.

I believe the mainstream market will eventually crash when people realise (as they are) quite how much they're spending on these repetitive titles, and how much less they have to pay for indie developers' games (between free and less than £10, for the most part).

 

[skittlepie345]

My first gaming experiences go back to Tetris and Crash Bandicoot 1, 2, and 3 on the original playstation, so I haven't seen as big of a difference in gaming, but it is definitely there. And as much as I miss Crash, and his weird hatred of boxes, I like the games that are coming out now. Because even if games lack the innovation shown in the past, they still have a story, and if the story is influenced by other games it really doesn't matter.

If it manages to suck you into the game, than it shouldn't matter if any aspect of the game came from anywhere else.

 

[pdyxs]

Strange choices, Braid and World of Goo, as examples of indie innovation. While I agree they are great games, they themselves draw heavily (Braid in particular) on games of the past.

I think you have to distinguish between drawing on artistic styles of the past and innovation in the method of storytelling. Braid is a revolutionary game, not just because of its amazing gameplay, but in how it integrates gameplay into story (it actually utilises the form of its gameplay in its attempt to tell story, which both makes for a deeper point and further immerses you into the game world).

I've just finished an (admittedly rather long) look at the games as art debate where I dissect the nature of the medium (here and then here), and found that this utilisation of gameplay to tell story (or vice versa) leads to more interesting and immersive games than other approaches.

I think this article points out a lot of the current issues with gaming innovation in a gameplay sense, but if we look at games as a whole, they are also severely unbalanced in the 'gameplay over artistic intent' aspect. The games we make at the moment may be gratuitous in their overuse of stylistic aspects, but so are movies like Iron Man (haven't seen the sequel yet), and that's an awesome movie. So the games we have have their place, but they're just a fraction of the space that we could (and should) be exploring. And if we take an analogy to film: yes, action movies (like fps') haven't changed in their basic structure for a while, but that doesn't deter their ability to be interesting works with their own unique perspectives (Kick Ass is an amazing example of this).

The lack of innovation in AAA games is definitely true in the gameplay realm as it is in Hollywood's genres, but is particularly true in the artistic realm (and here, Hollywood, while still fairly narrow, still serves up a lot of interesting content): I've seen so many arguments that games are art, but in most cases, games don't stand up to anywhere near the same level of scrutiny as any other pieces of art (for example, Kick-Ass vs GTA). Even movies that we simply see as 'fun' will often have deeper and better developed ideas in them than most games.

I think it's important for us to realise that becoming better at integrating ideas into our gameplay structures will not only improve the games we make for current markets, but will open up entirely new markets to explore (which, from a commercial point of view, should make a lot of sense). I'd argue that in terms of risk, this is pretty much a no-brainer: a better alignment between gameplay and story creates better immersion and better games (sure, the story and the style needs to be good, but it had to anyway).

The games I've played that do this best are Portal, Braid and Bioshock - I don't think there's any doubt as to whether these were commercially viable ventures or worth the so-called 'risk'.

Ok, so that's gone a bit off-topic... in essence, yes, AAA games tend to be a bit gratuitous in their use of stylistic aspects, but its because of this excess in style that they are so expensive, and thus have to advertise heaps to make their money back, thus becoming AAA games... At the end of the day, style is not going away. The proper and interesting use of style: that is where your awesome games will come from.

 

[K1dDread]

Well this is a given situation that follows suit through the ages. Artist has original idea, big company ''borrows'' elements of said idea and it sells big, mass production and cookie cutter follow soon after. Rehash, resale.
good example of this is Nintendo (wii more specically) and their competitors borrowing elements of their ideas, like motion control. Now what was said to be their weekness ended up being what set them apart and drove sales, and now the other companies are following suit in hope to gain bigger profits. we'll see if they can rememeber their consumers when developing game content. look how many rip offs came after super mario and look who's still here more than 20 years later! Original ideas will always be mimicked, and mimicry is the sincierest form of flattery but is often reduced to gimmickry.

 

[Sirron Kcuch]

People keep forgetting indie games
*Sigh*