Do most gamers even care about innovation?
- Thread starter Brawndo
- Start date
Depends, on an existing franchise I don't want something completely different. I want devs to improve on what they had in the previous games and maybe add one or two new features. Innovation doesn't have to be in leaps, I like baby steps so it's familiar yet different. Not to mention if you're not a fan of the series you don't have to buy each one, just get the ones when they added enough stuff to be different.
Now if it's a new series I don't mind completely different, I don't have any expectations for it. If it's good, then we get a new franchise. If it's bad it doesn't kill off or ruin a good series.
Now if it's a new series I don't mind completely different, I don't have any expectations for it. If it's good, then we get a new franchise. If it's bad it doesn't kill off or ruin a good series.
I really don't think gamers are actually seeing how different the next COD will be to the cookie cutter MW franchise. For example, it's featuring an RTS mode that if you lose, it affects the entire campaign and will give you a different ending. Since when has a game with an actual story done something like this. COD's putting in an entirely new mechanic and people are still saying it's a "DLC" or a "Map Pack". They are actively ignoring the new stuff because it's COD, meaning people will hate meaning Treyarch will want to go back to copying whatever shit Infinity Ward puts out the year before them. I think the people hankering for "innovation" are actually putting companies off innovating, because if a company keeps the same formula but adds an entirely new mode or something they'll still call it the same.
I don't really think it's innovation those "veteran" gamers were afraid of. Red Orchestra is a good example of this.
I would have been happy if all they did was create a graphically updated version of Red Orchestra 1, with interrupt-able animations.
No, really.
The "little changes" everyone said to wait and see about- turned out to be massive game breaking changes. The game played much like Call of Duty 2, and nothing like Red Orchestra.
Technically, I guess one could call this "innovation", but it's really not new at all. It's the destruction of a unique game for the purpose of following a current market trend, and it's using old techniques to do it.
I would be extremely skeptical of any changes they wanted to implement in a series like Company of Heroes. Chances are, if you play the game- the changes in the sequel aren't mean to please you. You're already a fan.
I would have been happy if all they did was create a graphically updated version of Red Orchestra 1, with interrupt-able animations.
No, really.
The "little changes" everyone said to wait and see about- turned out to be massive game breaking changes. The game played much like Call of Duty 2, and nothing like Red Orchestra.
Technically, I guess one could call this "innovation", but it's really not new at all. It's the destruction of a unique game for the purpose of following a current market trend, and it's using old techniques to do it.
I would be extremely skeptical of any changes they wanted to implement in a series like Company of Heroes. Chances are, if you play the game- the changes in the sequel aren't mean to please you. You're already a fan.
Sadly, I don't think gamers know what's best for them or the industry. They balk at even the slightest changes or additions to controllers or game hardware. How dare they make a new console that's not JUST the same thing with more power and a couple extra buttons on the controller? How dare motion controls not be perfected right out of the gate? They must suck, objectively, because the inital offerings mostly used motion for stupid waggle and minigame compilations.
We're so DISMISSIVE it's crazy-irritating. Yeah, let's just never do anything new as an industry. Let's all stagnate and never try to achieve new kinds of gameplay or innovations in hardware. Let me know when you're tired of that 53 button Xbox 1080 controller and the same gameplay copy-pasted in Uncharted 14. Yeah, it looks more real than real life. I guess that makes shooting the same hordes of bad guys and climbing rails out of burning buildings for the seventh time more fun, huh? OH NO Drake was in anothoer ridiculously near-death experience for the seventh time in the last half hour after getting shot fifteen times in the face. Of course he just shrugged it off like nothing happened. That's our Drake!
We're so DISMISSIVE it's crazy-irritating. Yeah, let's just never do anything new as an industry. Let's all stagnate and never try to achieve new kinds of gameplay or innovations in hardware. Let me know when you're tired of that 53 button Xbox 1080 controller and the same gameplay copy-pasted in Uncharted 14. Yeah, it looks more real than real life. I guess that makes shooting the same hordes of bad guys and climbing rails out of burning buildings for the seventh time more fun, huh? OH NO Drake was in anothoer ridiculously near-death experience for the seventh time in the last half hour after getting shot fifteen times in the face. Of course he just shrugged it off like nothing happened. That's our Drake!
Agreed, I hate it when people call Nintendo's games the same because well, they're fucking well not. The difference between Super Mario Sunshine and Galaxy is IMMENSE, one's based around cleaning up things with a water hose whilst the other's based around platforming through a ton of amazingly made planets. The people who do this just see the same basic elements being used again and automatically think "it's the same". The same thing happens with COD, Black Ops 2 is introduing a TON of new things and changing up all of multiplayer, but people will still call it the same because you still shoot people with guns. What do they expect them to do, make it into a fucking RTS (oh wait, they're adding in RTS levels).Anoni Mus said:
I've said this about a hundred times here.
People don't want change. Then some complain how nothing has changed.
I like change. And practically every newest edition of a game is my favorite one. Dawn of War 2 kind of screwed it with having no base-building. And that is such an essential part of RTS' that I didn't like it at all. That's pretty much the only example I can think of. Otherwise changes, improvements and streamlining (when it's done well (Civilization V)) are all good.
People don't want change. Then some complain how nothing has changed.
I like change. And practically every newest edition of a game is my favorite one. Dawn of War 2 kind of screwed it with having no base-building. And that is such an essential part of RTS' that I didn't like it at all. That's pretty much the only example I can think of. Otherwise changes, improvements and streamlining (when it's done well (Civilization V)) are all good.
Well, it really depends on the type of game....
Fighting games need little innovation, just enough to make them play differently to others, for example.
Platformers need innovation between environments to keep gameplay interesting and enjoyable. A truly innovative one doesn't recycle the icy level, the underwater level and add nothing.
But some games over-innovate. If you ever played Xotic, crazy, beautiful game....unique, no game like it before, but things just didn't work. The HUD was jumbled, the items and powerups seemed to have little bearing on anything and shooting stuff feels very unresponsive. It was a game I really wanted to like, but couldn't.
But if gamers aren't positive what they're getting in a game, they tend not to go for it, sadly. This is why we don't have TS4 yet. But it still makes me wonder how a mash-up of genres like Xotic got published, if something like Timesplitters 4, which is much more stable, AND with a dedicated fanbase, can't be.
Fighting games need little innovation, just enough to make them play differently to others, for example.
Platformers need innovation between environments to keep gameplay interesting and enjoyable. A truly innovative one doesn't recycle the icy level, the underwater level and add nothing.
But some games over-innovate. If you ever played Xotic, crazy, beautiful game....unique, no game like it before, but things just didn't work. The HUD was jumbled, the items and powerups seemed to have little bearing on anything and shooting stuff feels very unresponsive. It was a game I really wanted to like, but couldn't.
But if gamers aren't positive what they're getting in a game, they tend not to go for it, sadly. This is why we don't have TS4 yet. But it still makes me wonder how a mash-up of genres like Xotic got published, if something like Timesplitters 4, which is much more stable, AND with a dedicated fanbase, can't be.
You don't need to fix what isn't broken. Company of Heroes, like Starcraft, is a game which doesn't need anything new added to the core gameplay because frankly it's damn near perfect. Dawn of War 2 innovated within its series and while that was good too it also alienated older players like me. Personally I'd rather have them not changing the formula and improve the balancing, add new factions and etc.
So yes, I wouldn't mind 'CoH 1' with new maps, factions, improved graphics and etc because that's all that needs to be done really. I think with THQ's current situation, playing it safe is the best idea. Besides, I'm sure more people want the CoH they know and love rather than a new needlessly 'innovating' one.
An example of innovation I like is for Dawn of War
ark Crusade when it introducted a Total-War style Campaign. It made the Singleplayer much more enjoyable, in my opinion anyway. It didn't change the core gameplay because it didn't need to. I expect Relic to try and implement it into this game too and if they do, that's enough 'innovation' for me.
Don't get me wrong, I like innovation but I just don't like it when it's not needed. Whether or not Dawn of War needed it is arguable but I'd rather not discuss that.
So yes, I wouldn't mind 'CoH 1' with new maps, factions, improved graphics and etc because that's all that needs to be done really. I think with THQ's current situation, playing it safe is the best idea. Besides, I'm sure more people want the CoH they know and love rather than a new needlessly 'innovating' one.
An example of innovation I like is for Dawn of War
ark Crusade when it introducted a Total-War style Campaign. It made the Singleplayer much more enjoyable, in my opinion anyway. It didn't change the core gameplay because it didn't need to. I expect Relic to try and implement it into this game too and if they do, that's enough 'innovation' for me.Don't get me wrong, I like innovation but I just don't like it when it's not needed. Whether or not Dawn of War needed it is arguable but I'd rather not discuss that.