In Another Castle: Unabashed Creativity

[SavingPrincess]

In this country we encourage "creativity" among the mediocre, but real bursting creativity appalls us. We put it down as undisciplined, as somehow "too much."

I'm going to throw a few names out there; some will be people and some will be games. When you read them, I want you to take an introspective self-aware moment and think about how you feel as the words on the screen dance across that little ball of grey matter of yours. If you don't know all of the names, that's fine, just think about the ones you do:

Tim Schafer
Indigo Prophecy (Fahrenheit)
Hideo Kojima
Halo 3
Little Big Planet
Shadow of the Colossus
Eternal Darkness
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
Hironobu Sakaguchi
Tetris
Will Wright
God of War
Heavy Rain


So... for those who knew all the names, I imagine you're probably questioning some of those names on that list given the title of the post. It's that very contrast that highlights the divide that exists in the world of gaming today.

It seems we live in a world where the cost for creativity is success. With a game like Shadow of the Colossus, which was near-universally heralded as being a bastion of creativity, peaking at just over a million units in sales (according to various internet sources), and a game like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, which arguably does absolutely nothing creative that hasn't been done before in some form or another, smashing sales records across the board, it certainly raises the question of incentive when it comes to risk.

It seems as though as an audience, we shy away from the unknown, while at the same time we beg for it. We are revelers in our own irony; we ask for "cinematic gaming" and blast a game for being "too much like a movie." We complain about games being "too easy," then demand a patch be released to lower a games unforgiving difficulty to make it "more accessible." Each and every time a creative mind tries to give us something new, we complain about how it's not like what we're used to.

I remember back when the Gamecube came out, the launch title was Luigi's Mansion. People were genuinely shocked out of their overalls that there wasn't a "Mario" game to be found on the system at launch. After all, what's a Nintendo system without a Mario game at launch? Retrospectively, Mario games pre-Gamecube have been the gold standard of what games should be, right? I mean thinking back to Super Mario Bros. , then Super Mario World, then Mario 64... all of those games would be on or close to everyone's Top 10 lists for best games of all time. Then I read, "Miyamoto is getting lazy, all he's doing is Mario and Zelda games... where's the innovation?"

It's head-through-a-wall confusing. The Legend of Zelda, A Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, Wind Waker, Twilight Princess; Wind Waker releases and people complain about the art direction; about not having "adult Link" in a "real Zelda game," then Twilight Princess comes out and people blast it for not doing "enough that's new." After which, they ask "when's my next Zelda game?" It's maddening.

Let me ask you this: What if your next Zelda game never came? What if Miyamoto cast of the red and blue mustached shackles and devoted his time to a game that actually does something new and innovative, like Wii Cooking or Wii Bottled Water Drinking, would you give him your money out of appreciation? Would you drop your hard-earned cash (read: allowance) to play Wii Barista, where you make as many cups of coffee as fast as you can, timing the pulling of shots, pumping syrup, etc.; or would you sit back and complain about the fact that Mario Galaxy 3 never came out?

If you want creativity in games, you must be creative with your money. I recently read an article on The Escapist called Going Gold: Why You Need to Buy Heavy Rain [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/going-gold/7211-Going-Gold-Why-You-Need-to-Buy-Heavy-Rain] in which the writer encourages you to purchase a game based on the threat that if you don't, it will kill the future budgets for anything outside of a Halo or Call of Duty franchise-established game. From what I am reading around the world of the internet, I think that's what people want.

For every Sid Meier there are far more David Jaffe's waiting in the wings to capitalize on the success of waters tested; developers willing to hike themselves up onto the shoulders of the fallen and exploit the trials and errors of those who were truly willing to put their standard of living on the line in order to bring you something you've never experienced before. The real question is, "is that what you really want?" Do you want the risk of playing complete rubbish on the chance that something amazing might come through, or do you want your $59.99 to guarantee you a makeover on the same person you've been bedding for years?

-SP

 

[The Real Sandman]

A very true point you brought up there (Wii Barista made me laugh).

A better example of creativity being ignored by the masses would probably be Beyond Good and Evil. Easily one of the greatest games of all time. Aside from the fact that it was a little short lengthed, BG&E was a gaming masterpiece. But despite that and the ridiculously high praise it got, it was a sales disaster. Partly because of Ubisoft's marketing plan at that time and partly because it was such a huge departure from the ordinary for games.

Still, people like what's familar. That's why we now have stuff like Avatar and MW2.

 

[SavingPrincess]

A very true point you brought up there (Wii Barista made me laugh).

A better example of creativity being ignored by the masses would probably be Beyond Good and Evil.

Yes! What a fantastic game that was; perfect example of what I was topic'ing. I bought it. I put my money where my heart is (check my Steam game list for evidence of that). I applaud innovation in storytelling and risk-taking where traditional gameplay is concerned.

We can only hope that more games come out that try and do something as creative as Beyond Good & Evil.

 

[SavingPrincess]

So essentially, I agree with you. I'm much more likely to buy something I haven't seen the likes of rather than stick with a series that the only recommendation that it's going to stay good is that the first was pretty good. Neither are reliable, but at least with the former you get to say you tried.

So how do we encourage a mass-market of global people to do the same?

 

[Hiphophippo]

-lots of really important stuff-

As I've said before in your reviews, I really enjoy your work. It's my personal opinion that you need a professional outlet for your musings. Might as well be here.

The Escapist should pick you up for editorial pieces.

Everything you wrote there is crazy true and it's the same wall I've been beating my head on for years. I'm not sure anything will change outside of wallet voting. Heavy Rain is a very high profile release and if it sells well then we might see other interesting projects down the line. Regardless how anyone feels about the game I think we can all agree that it's unique on the shelves. I know I bought it.

Just doing my part.

 

[SavingPrincess]

As I've said before in your reviews, I really enjoy your work. It's my personal opinion that you need a professional outlet for your musings. Might as well be here.

The Escapist should pick you up for editorial pieces.

Everything you wrote there is crazy true and it's the same wall I've been beating my head on for years. I'm not sure anything will change outside of wallet voting. Heavy Rain is a very high profile release and if it sells well then we might see other interesting projects down the line. Regardless how anyone feels about the game I think we can all agree that it's unique on the shelves. I know I bought it.

Just doing my part.

Wow, thank you for your words. I doubt my ramblings interest the masses enough for a pick up from the Escapist though. My most replied to post was a poll where everyone just referenced the poll and no one read the post. C'est la vie. It's all for the best though. Better to be appreciated by few than to poke my stick at the gelatinous blob that is mass-public-opinion only to then lose my stick.

I too hope Heavy Rain does well. I'm actually contemplating picking up a PS3 for it. I was one of the few that actually really enjoyed Fahrenheit (Indigo Prophecy in the States) and the direction that Cage was going in games. I appreciate people like him that really believe in their vision and blast through despite numerous attempts to crush them at every turn. I sadly find myself distancing myself from the "gamer" mentality these days because of the lack of gripping experiences. Most of my "A Princess Worth Saving" write-ups are about games, experiences or concepts that tug at my heart and make me love games... but sadly I have to dip pretty far back for those.

Maybe I'm just getting old.

 

[Howlingwolf214]

Just before my Reply: Luigi > Mario. Ahem.

I feel that anything I say here will be construed as Ironic, so I shall wear the Irony Hat and continue on. It is my firm feeling that in this day and age people are looking for creativity in the wrong place. You can't get any more creativity in the genres we have today. In a First Person Shooting game you will always be shooting hordes of things running towards you. The only creativity is why you are shooting them.

All of the Genres that we have today, First Person shooters, Real Time Strategy and Role playing games, etc, have each had so many games that there can never be something truly creative within them. The only way, in my opinion, to ensure creativity is to try and warp these genders. An example of this a multiplayer game I came across recently called Battleswarm. It is a cross between FPS and RTS. You can either play as the FPS humans, shooting aliens trying to destroy their base or you can play the RTS Aliens where you send hordes to attack the aliens.

This is where the Irony card comes into play because I continuously put my money into the genres I define as uncreative. I remain fully against the idea of Zelda as a franchise, thinking that once you've played a Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time you've played them all, and yet I still continue to buy games like Borderlands which is just the same thing that has come before.

Examples of new genres require some thought however. My thought is about a Second-Person perspective game. You can see a character, and your camera follows this guy around, but you don't control it or indeed anyone. All you can do is influence natural phenomena to try and get the character to continue on it's way. This can be argued to be like The Sims, but then you do appear as a God-like figure.

Anyway, im rapidly going off topic so I'll just say that you made good points in your post. Right, I'm off to play Wii: Grocery Shopping.

 

[Hiphophippo]

As I've said before in your reviews, I really enjoy your work. It's my personal opinion that you need a professional outlet for your musings. Might as well be here.

The Escapist should pick you up for editorial pieces.

Everything you wrote there is crazy true and it's the same wall I've been beating my head on for years. I'm not sure anything will change outside of wallet voting. Heavy Rain is a very high profile release and if it sells well then we might see other interesting projects down the line. Regardless how anyone feels about the game I think we can all agree that it's unique on the shelves. I know I bought it.

Just doing my part.

Wow, thank you for your words. I doubt my ramblings interest the masses enough for a pick up from the Escapist though. My most replied to post was a poll where everyone just referenced the poll and no one read the post. C'est la vie. It's all for the best though. Better to be appreciated by few than to poke my stick at the gelatinous blob that is mass-public-opinion only to then lose my stick.

I too hope Heavy Rain does well. I'm actually contemplating picking up a PS3 for it. I was one of the few that actually really enjoyed Fahrenheit (Indigo Prophecy in the States) and the direction that Cage was going in games. I appreciate people like him that really believe in their vision and blast through despite numerous attempts to crush them at every turn. I sadly find myself distancing myself from the "gamer" mentality these days because of the lack of gripping experiences. Most of my "A Princess Worth Saving" write-ups are about games, experiences or concepts that tug at my heart and make me love games... but sadly I have to dip pretty far back for those.

Maybe I'm just getting old.

You probably are. I attribute my changing taste in games to my advancing age (nearing 30). As for Heavy Rain, it's gripping, has a few sizable plot holes, but is still told very well. Generally, if you know what the game is and still want it, you'll be blown away.

To help you with your potential ps3 purchase, recall that Team ICO has Last Guardian coming down the line.

 

[Kollega]

Sometimes, the first duty of intellegent men is the restatement of the obvious.
- George Orwell

And i cannot really say much more. If people want creativity, they should vote with their wallets - buy such games as Psychonauts instead of Modern Warfail 2. We cannot force entire world to do this, but "games-are-art-hippies" can still make a slight difference.

 

[SavingPrincess]

Just before my Reply: Luigi > Mario. Ahem.

Are you sure that's not why I choose to avatar myself as Mario?

Mind... blown.

Moving on:

(Everything else you said)

I believe that some may mistake genre-blending for creativitiy as a whole. I had an idea for an RTS/FPS mix back in the Unreal Tournament/StarCraft days. One where you had a "General" giving "commands" (by way of waypoints on a HUD) to soldiers in the field... but after playing online games like Battlefield and the like, I realized that it would take too much organization and training to be fun on a consistent basis. I didn't really see this idea as "creative" as I did more "wouldn't it be neat if," as all elements were based on pre-existing ideas that were already established.

All of the Genres that we have today, First Person shooters, Real Time Strategy and Role playing games, etc, have each had so many games that there can never be something truly creative within them. The only way, in my opinion, to ensure creativity is to try and warp these genders. (Please tell me you meant "genres")

I do have to say that I fundamentally disagree with this point. If you play games like Earthbound, which came out well after RPG's were established as a genre, you will see an intense amount of creativity within. The same can be said for games within various genres. Silent Hill and Fatal Frame brought an incredible amount of creativity to survival horror even though it doesn't stray from the pre-defined formula that much. Resident Evil 4 turned the entire genre on its ear by straying away from the "survival" part and making it more "frantic-action-y horror." Psychonauts is an incredibly creative platformer in terms of setting and narrative, but does relatively nothing new (or very good) as a platformer in and of itself.

Even games such as Fahrenheit and Heavy Rain are elaborations of the genre defined by Dragon's Lair way back in the day. The point being is that you can be creative within confined parameters, but few people try. It's like writing a haiku or Shakespearean Sonnet; those forms of poetry have incredibly strict parameters, but that kind of restriction can breed creativity. The problem that we run into in this world we call games is that few people even try, as it's just not that profitable.

 

[Eggsnham]

-Snip-

Keep in mind that I only read about half of your post (Don't flame me for it, I gathered the gist of it from what I did read).

Alright, so you're pissed that gamers aren't reasonable or accepting in any way? Get used to it. Because that's not only how gamers are, that's how people in general are. In any case, I sort of agree with you, that we're all stupid about the new ideas. What I disagree with you on is the idea that only MW2 seems to be the one title that's not very creative, you see I don't judge gameplay creativity on controls, mechanisms and such, I base my opinion off of things like story, design and things like that. Now MW2 isn't a game bursting with creativity, you're right, but it does seem to be pretty unique to the console shooter world (you PC elitists bastards gamers are bound to have a completely unique and obscure shooter that's utterly amazing). Think about it, what other game used perks before CoD: MW? There also weren't many shooters out there that used weapon customization and variation like CoD MW did (yes, I know there were some, but the original MW was one of the first shooters to do it). So forgive Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 for using design elements that made it's brother(s) (if you count World at War as a relative of Modern Warfare) famous, and for using similar story elements, cause', they weren't trying to carry on a story or anything like that.

Oh jeez.. I'm a fanboy now; aren't I?

 

[SavingPrincess]

Think about it, what other game used perks before CoD: MW?

Counter-Strike would be the closest I can think of off the top of my head if you're specifically referencing shooters.

There also weren't many shooters out there that used weapon customization and variation like CoD MW did (yes, I know there were some, but the original MW was one of the first shooters to do it).

What MW did was take concepts established by the PC-Modding community and integrate them into the game engine. The things you're referring to have been around since the Quake days (circa 1996).

Oh jeez.. I'm a fanboy now; aren't I?

Lil' bit... but don't worry. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 isn't a "bad" game, it's just a very "safe" game. It does a very good job of taking established concepts, polishing them up, and making them accessable. For gamers that haven't been around in the PC shooter days of yore, a lot of these things are new and exciting, so good on Infinity Ward for making those tried and true concepts into something obnoxiously profitable; but to say Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is "new" or "innovative" would be quite a stretch and difficult to prove, as it's barely detached gameplay-wise to its predecssor (Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare).

On that note: Read the whole post.

 

[psychic psycho]

I don't know, but this post seems a bit condescending. You describe it as if everyone thinks that way. I sure never complained about the things. I guess I agree with what your saying, but it sounds like your blaming the reader.

I don't think it's as bad as you describe it though. There will always be people that are willing to take a risk and create new things because they're passionate not just to make money. I mean what's the main reason people want to get a career in the video game industry? I doubt it's the money that interests them, rather the chance to make their ideas into a video game.

 

[SavingPrincess]

You probably are. I attribute my changing taste in games to my advancing age (nearing 30). As for Heavy Rain, it's gripping, has a few sizable plot holes, but is still told very well. Generally, if you know what the game is and still want it, you'll be blown away.

To help you with your potential ps3 purchase, recall that Team ICO has Last Guardian coming down the line.

I'm with you in the age bracket; PS3 it is then... damnit. I still don't have a 360 and I have an unopened copy of Blue Dragon sitting in my glove box (I'm a Uematsu fanboy, sue me) that I've been dying to play for about a year now.

 

[SavingPrincess]

I don't know, but this post seems a bit condescending. You describe it as if everyone thinks that way. I sure never complained about the things. I guess I agree with what your saying, but it sounds like your blaming the reader.

I don't think it's as bad as you describe it though. There will always be people that are willing to take a risk and create new things because they're passionate not just to make money. I mean what's the main reason people want to get a career in the video game industry? I doubt it's the money that interests them, rather the chance to make their ideas into a video game.

It's all your fault.

Anyway... I guess the issue is that risks are rarely well-funded with some exceptions. I would rather umpteen million dollars be pumped into something new and never-before-seen than Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, so yes, while there will always be developers like 2D-Boy and people like Tim Schafer, they will always bring their creativity to the table with shoe-string budgets.

... unless Heavy Rain does well.

 

[Eggsnham]

Think about it, what other game used perks before CoD: MW?

Counter-Strike would be the closest I can think of off the top of my head if you're specifically referencing shooters.

There also weren't many shooters out there that used weapon customization and variation like CoD MW did (yes, I know there were some, but the original MW was one of the first shooters to do it).

What MW did was take concepts established by the PC-Modding community and integrate them into the game engine. The things you're referring to have been around since the Quake days (circa 1996).

Oh jeez.. I'm a fanboy now; aren't I?

Lil' bit... but don't worry. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 isn't a "bad" game, it's just a very "safe" game. It does a very good job of taking established concepts, polishing them up, and making them accessable. For gamers that haven't been around in the PC shooter days of yore, a lot of these things are new and exciting, so good on Infinity Ward for making those tried and true concepts into something obnoxiously profitable; but to say Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is "new" or "innovative" would be quite a stretch and difficult to prove, as it's barely detached gameplay-wise to its predecssor (Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare).

On that note: Read the whole post.

I was under the impression that CS hadn't used perks? From what I've read, a lot of people love CS over CoD because CS doesn't use perks. Anyways, I'm tired. I'll go take a nap now.

 

[psychic psycho]

I don't know, but this post seems a bit condescending. You describe it as if everyone thinks that way. I sure never complained about the things. I guess I agree with what your saying, but it sounds like your blaming the reader.

I don't think it's as bad as you describe it though. There will always be people that are willing to take a risk and create new things because they're passionate not just to make money. I mean what's the main reason people want to get a career in the video game industry? I doubt it's the money that interests them, rather the chance to make their ideas into a video game.

It's all your fault.

Anyway... I guess the issue is that risks are rarely well-funded with some exceptions. I would rather umpteen million dollars be pumped into something new and never-before-seen than Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, so yes, while there will always be developers like 2D-Boy and people like Tim Schafer, they will always bring their creativity to the table with shoe-string budgets.

... unless Heavy Rain does well.

Ah okay, I definitely see what the problem is now and you're right. Ah, now I'm obligated to get Heavy Rain. I'm not even really interested in it; trying too hard to be artsy fartsy. I guess it can't be too bad though, It's not like I'm looking forward to any other game.

 

[D_987]

The main issue with your post is that you assume all people should buy these game, indeed and almost act appalled that they haven't. Regardless, you seem to forget that people like routine, they don't enjoy, no matter how much they scream about it, something new - it's scary.

So vastly creative ideas scare people, in the case of video games it scares them from buying the game because they have no idea if they'll like the game or not - it's why games like Heavy Rain (which foolishly limited its consumer base by going exclusive) need to use marketing to great effect.

This is a big problem with games such as those you've mentioned - Beyond Good and Evil being one such example; on paper the game doesn't sound all that fun, nor interesting at all - so why would you expect mass amounts of people to buy the game, no matter how new and creative it is? After all games cost a lot of money when they are first released, and as a result a consumer has to pick carefully which game to buy. Then there's the issue of time - most games take at very least a good few hours to beat - as a result the player needs to be sure they will enjoy those hours spent playing the game - should they really be so willing to waste a great amount of time on a creative product that they don't enjoy?

I understand the whole "Mario and Luigi" debate and why you act so disapproving as that itself is quite ridiculous, but you can't try to force the masses to buy a game like Beyond Good and Evil due to its creativity - it's quite sensible that they won't want to buy it.

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

YOU have to realize that there isn't one person who represents us gamers. Gamers are different people, thus they want to play different things. Some people want creativity in their games, some people as foolish as it is, don't want to shy away to unfamiliar territory. Some want a combination of both.

 

[hittite]

*sigh*

I have an obsolete PC, no console, and what meager income I get is funneled into such things as tuition and food. I am effectively not able to contribute to any of this. That being said, I probably wouldn't buy Heavy Rain, even if I could. The sad fact of the matter is that everything I've seen of it so far has completely failed to capture my interest. If I were to buy a recent game, I'd go for Bioshock 2. It just looks like a lot of fun.

As for innovation in games, here's my two cents: I think developers are going in the exact wrong direction by making sports games more realistic. If I want to play football, I'll go outside. If I want to play this

Spoiler

I'll turn to video games.