No the majority of gamers don't want innovation they won't buy anything without a number on the end of it and it is a shame because new ideas never manage to fulfil their potential because of it.
Do most gamers even care about innovation?
- Thread starter Brawndo
- Start date
I find that most people who complain about lack of innovation and 'sequelitis' are really just complaining that the genres that they like aren't getting made as much nowadays. Hell, the last game that tried something drastically different was L.A. Noire and everyone crucified that, despite it really being pretty okay. Just a personal observation, I'm sure some of them actually mean.
There are always people who will yell and scream if their favourite game gets a sequel and they change things.
But those are only a small group of peoples. The majority doesn't care much.
For instance, (and yes I'm gonna use CoD as an example) CoD hasn't really changed anything besides some balance things in the perk system right?
On 1 side you got people screaming "ITS JUST A MAP PACK!!"
On the other side you got several million folks going "TAKE MY MONEY!!"
Now really really change the game, screw regenerating health, bring back oldskool healthpacks.
Let the player carry every gun instead of just 2. Stuff like that.
I ensure you that you hear the same amount of folks going "THIS IS BULLSHIT"
And the rest still "TAKE MY MONEY!!" (although they will be in for a surprise when they start playing).
But that's not really innovating now is it? (though the perk system itself was a nice touch)
That's just screwing up a perfectly good game.
What is innovation?
from Wikipedia (the most reliable source ever
)
"Innovation is the creation of better or more effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas that are accepted by markets, governments, and society. Innovation differs from invention in that innovation refers to the use of a new idea or method, whereas invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself."
Taking that into account, innovation in games, a few examples.
-The AI actively using cover and/or flanking methods instead of coming straight at you (works in FPS/RTS.
-The parcour system from AC
-ETC (End of Thinking Capacity (just woke up, need more coffee))
Nice article here 50 Greatest Game Innovations
From gameplay, to presentation to input devices, videogames are a hotbed of innovation. Here are some that have already made their impact?and others that will shape the future of the medium
Hope this post makes sense, my brain on 2 cups of coffee isn't the most stable thing in the world
But those are only a small group of peoples. The majority doesn't care much.
For instance, (and yes I'm gonna use CoD as an example) CoD hasn't really changed anything besides some balance things in the perk system right?
On 1 side you got people screaming "ITS JUST A MAP PACK!!"
On the other side you got several million folks going "TAKE MY MONEY!!"
Now really really change the game, screw regenerating health, bring back oldskool healthpacks.
Let the player carry every gun instead of just 2. Stuff like that.
I ensure you that you hear the same amount of folks going "THIS IS BULLSHIT"
And the rest still "TAKE MY MONEY!!" (although they will be in for a surprise when they start playing).
But that's not really innovating now is it? (though the perk system itself was a nice touch)
That's just screwing up a perfectly good game.
What is innovation?
from Wikipedia (the most reliable source ever
) "Innovation is the creation of better or more effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas that are accepted by markets, governments, and society. Innovation differs from invention in that innovation refers to the use of a new idea or method, whereas invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself."
Taking that into account, innovation in games, a few examples.
-The AI actively using cover and/or flanking methods instead of coming straight at you (works in FPS/RTS.
-The parcour system from AC
-ETC (End of Thinking Capacity (just woke up, need more coffee))
Nice article here 50 Greatest Game Innovations
From gameplay, to presentation to input devices, videogames are a hotbed of innovation. Here are some that have already made their impact?and others that will shape the future of the medium
Hope this post makes sense, my brain on 2 cups of coffee isn't the most stable thing in the world
Pro/wannabe pro gamers are a special case because they spend hundreds and thousands of hours learning maps inside out so saying that a new game will have all new maps is like telling them to start learning how to play again from the start.
But in general I think that gamers have been trained to hate innovation because what game publishers sell as innovation is mostly things that make games worse for them in the name of selling to people other than them.
But in general I think that gamers have been trained to hate innovation because what game publishers sell as innovation is mostly things that make games worse for them in the name of selling to people other than them.
I don't care for innovation. It's good when it is actually innovative but by and large, what I've seen recently in video games has been far from innovative.
Skyrim is a perfect example. That game, is not innovative. It's TES-Lite.
Sometimes, formula's work. They work for a reason. So why change what ain't broke?
Skyrim is a perfect example. That game, is not innovative. It's TES-Lite.
Sometimes, formula's work. They work for a reason. So why change what ain't broke?
A game it self doesnt have to be innovative for it to have innovationsSoopy said:
The quest mechanic for instance. If you have been to a dungeon before, a quest giver would never send you to that dungeon. Ok, the quests themselves were pretty mediocre (kill this guy) but the mechanic is pretty innovative.
What would you define as innovation?
Its true, 'innovative' games often do fall by the wayside. The System Shock games, despite beginning awesome wrapped in cocaine, were pretty much ignored when they were released.
Innovation wise, things like Kinnect could be considered innovative. Not very good gaming-wise, true, but still innovative. I think we should continue to make innovative things - but we have to make sure the rest of the game is well made if we don't want the innovation to be overshadowed by the flaws of its presentation.
Its true, 'innovative' games often do fall by the wayside. The System Shock games, despite beginning awesome wrapped in cocaine, were pretty much ignored when they were released.
Innovation wise, things like Kinnect could be considered innovative. Not very good gaming-wise, true, but still innovative. I think we should continue to make innovative things - but we have to make sure the rest of the game is well made if we don't want the innovation to be overshadowed by the flaws of its presentation.
The quest system isn't even particularly innovative though. They were randomly generated quests assigned to a random static dungeon.LordMithril said:A game it self doesnt have to be innovative for it to have innovationsSoopy said:
The quest mechanic for instance. If you have been to a dungeon before, a quest giver would never send you to that dungeon. Ok, the quests themselves were pretty mediocre (kill this guy) but the mechanic is pretty innovative.
I was leaning more towards the character building system. Its just... "wut?". I'm probably really biased, as Daggerfall and Morrowind were my introduction the series. But Skyrim strays SO far from the the TES norm, as to borderline actually being a TES game.
In my opinion the lore is so thin is Skyrim, that it almost isn't.
So to that extent. "Innovation" in this manner is not a good thing.
Well you are mixing all sorts of different community parts here.
"most gamers" would be the mindless consuming masses who only expect moving pictures, no they do not care much about anything else.
Competitive veterans and innovation... usually don't mix well, because they have learned and groomed their precious game to the point it is and they do not want anyone to mess around with it.
Now for the sensible middle ground, yes you can innovate but within the franchise limits, people come back to your name for the shit you did well and if you decide to stop doing it then they have no reason to buy your game.
With CoH they really can't go that far because the game was very nicely put together, no doubt they still need new factions, units, melee, better AI, more detailed cover, maps, story,...
But overall the game was brilliant, so don't go spitting in that pot.
Edit: And most importantly not all changes are for the better, you can do some real damage to a game if you aren't careful.
"most gamers" would be the mindless consuming masses who only expect moving pictures, no they do not care much about anything else.
Competitive veterans and innovation... usually don't mix well, because they have learned and groomed their precious game to the point it is and they do not want anyone to mess around with it.
Now for the sensible middle ground, yes you can innovate but within the franchise limits, people come back to your name for the shit you did well and if you decide to stop doing it then they have no reason to buy your game.
With CoH they really can't go that far because the game was very nicely put together, no doubt they still need new factions, units, melee, better AI, more detailed cover, maps, story,...
But overall the game was brilliant, so don't go spitting in that pot.
Edit: And most importantly not all changes are for the better, you can do some real damage to a game if you aren't careful.
I kind of like the balance we have now. Let the indie developers do all the innovation, and let the AAA developers make the familiar but highly polished stuff. Then the AAA developer can take the innovative indie game and AAA-it-up. It's basically what Valve does with mods.
Me personally, I prefer context and enjoyment over something new. A safe success over an ambitious fail. Of course I have nothing against an ambitious success *mentally hugs Bastion*, just that the success trumps the innovation.
Me personally, I prefer context and enjoyment over something new. A safe success over an ambitious fail. Of course I have nothing against an ambitious success *mentally hugs Bastion*, just that the success trumps the innovation.
The most important thing is quality, but even the best of things get old at some point. DOOM was great and all, but I'd probably be tired of playing DOOM clones by now. You must eventually change to conserve.
So yeah, I think everyone wants new gameplay mechanics now and then, just not at an equally fast pace. A game can be "indie" as all hell, with completely new and alien gameplay, and still be and play like shit. So retaining quality - in the form of a working and enjoyable gameplay - is the most important thing in the process, and what the goal of any innovation should be.
Anyway, there's plenty of room for both major titles which are playing it safe, and more risky ones with more of a niche appeal. You won't get nearly the same production values on the latter as on the guaranteed sales, but that'd really be asking far too much, considering what a game with modern graphics and physics cost to make.
So yeah, I think everyone wants new gameplay mechanics now and then, just not at an equally fast pace. A game can be "indie" as all hell, with completely new and alien gameplay, and still be and play like shit. So retaining quality - in the form of a working and enjoyable gameplay - is the most important thing in the process, and what the goal of any innovation should be.
Anyway, there's plenty of room for both major titles which are playing it safe, and more risky ones with more of a niche appeal. You won't get nearly the same production values on the latter as on the guaranteed sales, but that'd really be asking far too much, considering what a game with modern graphics and physics cost to make.
There is a distinction to be made between how innovation works in a competitive game series, and how innovation works in every other kind of game.
Competitive game series are built around very well defined mechanics that don't allow a lot of room for innovation.
You mentioned how Counter-strike Global Offensive is almost identical to previous CS games. Consider what would happen if they'd introduce a gameplay-changing feature in the game, such as vehicles. It would require for the game to have significantly larger maps that would undermine the majority of the weapons and tactics that usually go into a match of CS, and any sort of close-quarters combat would be thrown straight out the window. That's no longer Counter-strike, that's Battlefield.
That's just one example, but the same notion applies to most competitive game series.
As for what the general sentiment among gamers is regarding innovation, outside of that genre, I'm not sure. I'd like to think that most gamers want for the medium to evolve and move forward, although, the staggering success of certain stagnating franchises seems to prove otherwise.
Competitive game series are built around very well defined mechanics that don't allow a lot of room for innovation.
You mentioned how Counter-strike Global Offensive is almost identical to previous CS games. Consider what would happen if they'd introduce a gameplay-changing feature in the game, such as vehicles. It would require for the game to have significantly larger maps that would undermine the majority of the weapons and tactics that usually go into a match of CS, and any sort of close-quarters combat would be thrown straight out the window. That's no longer Counter-strike, that's Battlefield.
That's just one example, but the same notion applies to most competitive game series.
As for what the general sentiment among gamers is regarding innovation, outside of that genre, I'm not sure. I'd like to think that most gamers want for the medium to evolve and move forward, although, the staggering success of certain stagnating franchises seems to prove otherwise.
Innovation is everything. It can be the tiniest facet, or a major shift. Either way, this is what pushes gaming forward.
I'm all for innovation if it's done right. Innovation can be done wrong and create an unpleasant experience. It's rare, creative gems created by really talented people that can pull it off. But how can you really predict that without playing the game and risking a waste of $60? Add to that, you really can't return games once they are open unless you throw such a huge fit at the retail store you're like the rest of the 2 year old's screaming around the store.
So people are very hesitant about changes. People who have been burned by changes to their favorite series in the past tend to oppose changes much more strongly.
For me though, I think I'm getting to that point were I'm not going to buy a game first day ever again, even from series I'm familiar with and love that are popping out cool special editions. I would rather hear other consumers feedback and no more game review sites before I buy a game. I'd rather wait till the price drops to something more reasonable anyways.
Video games can still be enjoyable, but the choices are pretty bad right now. Too many bad innovations and too many of the same old crap.
So people are very hesitant about changes. People who have been burned by changes to their favorite series in the past tend to oppose changes much more strongly.
For me though, I think I'm getting to that point were I'm not going to buy a game first day ever again, even from series I'm familiar with and love that are popping out cool special editions. I would rather hear other consumers feedback and no more game review sites before I buy a game. I'd rather wait till the price drops to something more reasonable anyways.
Video games can still be enjoyable, but the choices are pretty bad right now. Too many bad innovations and too many of the same old crap.
Not really. A piece of crap game that's innovative is still a piece of crap. Let's take, for example, Nintendo's 3DS. Sure it's the only handheld with 3d, but that doesn't suddenly make up for all it's faults, it still makes the user's eyes bleed, and in the end, it's still a gimmick. Sounds to me you prefer crap as long as it has its own gimmick, rather than stuff that's really high quality. Both indie developers who innovate and AAA developers who make familiar experiences have their place, and one of the most respected game companies does both.Brawndo said:
But good job ignoring the point of my post, I'm glad to know your the sort of person who only reads what he wants to see. If getting games from both indie studios and AAA is "overwhelmingly" risk-averse to you, then your view of the world is seriously messed up.
I don't care about innovation much, either. It's nice, but takes second place to actual quality.