Jimquisition: Innovation - Gaming's Snake Oil

The Hungry Samurai

Hungry for Truth
Apr 1, 2004
453
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
Innovation - Gaming's Snake Oil

There's nothing wrong with a game that innovates. There's everything wrong with a game that goes out of its way to innovate without reason.

Watch Video
You make many valid points but use some horrible examples. I loved Mirrors Edge and despite really enjoying Lost Odyssey's opening and trying to play through it twice, that game bored me to tears about halfway through.

To be honest however I prefer a market that's willing to take risks on new things to one that's bland and unwilling to break the mold. Yeah, there will be gimmicks out there but The community as a whole is pretty savvy about that. The UDraws and Virtual Boys of the world will get what they deserve, let's just do what we can to get the hell away from the Call of Duties and Maddens.
 

Sheo_Dagana

New member
Aug 12, 2009
966
0
0
Ya gotta feel kind of sorry for Final Fantasy. Square announced at the PS4 event that they were working on a new Final Fantasy title... and I couldn't have cared less. Seriously, it wasn't even a blip on my radar. It was like hearing that there is a new Call of Duty being worked on, except people will actually buy that game, for whatever reason. Lost Odyssey was amazing, which was what made the Last Story such a bitter pill to swallow. Sometimes, change isn't needed. There's a difference between taking a game in a new direction and making the mechanics as weird as possible in order to say that they're 'new.'

This is actually something that bugs me about RPGs in particular - they get rid of the 'level up' system and call whatever they stick in it's place 'innovation.' They blend action and turn-based combat together and call it innovation. Seriously, they don't have to make me feel like I'm playing a game I've never played before - just give me something with an excellent story, decent graphics, and fun mechanics, 'cause I gotta say, that's a game I haven't played in a long while.

But seriously, RPGs need to stop trying to get rid of the level up system.
 

SoopaSte123

New member
Jul 1, 2010
464
0
0
Love you, Jim. Very good point that a lot of developers don't seem to understand. Thank god for you
 

SlaveNumber23

A WordlessThing, a ThinglessWord
Aug 9, 2011
1,203
0
0
debigcheez said:
It feels like Jim is bashing innovation itself in this one.

Maybe he's sick of all the art-sy fart-sy games but i do believe that innovation is a good thing when combined with brilliant gameplay mechanics, that's what innovation is for after all.
His point isn't that innovation is a bad thing, he isn't criticizing it at all. He is criticizing people who fall back on the concept of innovation as something that is inherently good and give it higher value than the actual quality of a game. Innovation is not automatically a good thing in a game and games should not be criticized purely for not innovating.
 

prouler

New member
Nov 24, 2009
22
0
0
while I agree with everything said here in theory, I think it needs to be said that just because a game is maid for innovations sake, that does not mean it will automatically be bad. this is a trap that many speakers fall into. games that were made for the sake of innovation in the past have been bad, therefor all games made for the sake of innovation will be bad. it's a simple point of clarity that is just missed, just because a game does something that is historically a bad idea, does not mean that it will always produce a bad product. that is to deny exceptions and claim absolute knowledge, which everyone who's been defending mirror's edge here will argue against.

on a more petty note. Singularity as best shooter of our generation is one of the generation. What a statement. I got excited and played that game and hated it from start to finish. I ran headfirst into invisible walls. I saw the vague plot hole covered plot coming a mile away. The gimmick device was crippled and implemented in bizarre ways. maybe getting 2 uses from checkpoint to checkpoint in actual player controlled combat gameplay. Heck I even hated the level design when it decided to be the next game to think suicidal enemies in tight corridors wasn't already tedious and frustrating done in other games. Still, a conflict of opinions here, just thought I would get it out of my system.
 

Vivi22

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,300
0
0
jehk said:
Also, I think I'm the only person who loved Mirror's Edge.
Nope. In fact, I object to his using Mirror's Edge as an example of innovation that didn't work because aside from the few instances of combat, Mirror's Edge is one of the most purely fun to play games I've played this generation. Up there with the likes of Portal in fact for being satisfying to just reinstall and run through the levels again and mess around with the mechanics every few months.

If anything, far too many people seem to blow its few problem areas way out of proportion, pretending that they colour more of the experience than they actually do.
 

arigomi

New member
Jun 28, 2007
20
0
0
I disagree with the idea that an RPG's greatest strength is the story. Almost every video game genre these days at least attempts to provide a compelling story. Many have even appropriated RPG elements such levelinuig up. If every other game on the shelf promises to provide a great narrative, RPGs need to stand out with their unique mechanics.

Whether or not certain changes are considered innovative or gimmicky can be very subjective. Some didn't like the motion controls of Skyward Sword while other did.

Using ideas established in other games can be risky. A game can get lost in "me too" syndrome and become forgettable.
 

TwistedEllipses

New member
Nov 18, 2008
2,041
0
0
Yes, innovation can yield good and bad things, but as an overall force it is good. That is unless, you would love every game to just be pong...

As for the examples, they were poor choices. Singularity was a shooter in a sea of shooter, where you do need to be special to stay afloat. As for mirror's edge, it was fun and not as flawed as you make it seem. Heavy Rain is a better example of a cul-de-sac, especially when you compare it to The Walking Dead.

A better example of measured use of innovation is the Portal series. It started with a brand new mechanic, the use of portals. When it came to a sequel they considered ditching the portals and GLaDOS, but instead kept them and expanded on them. New I.P.s should innovate, sequels should build on what they have.

EDIT: Thinking about it, this sounds like a partial re-hashing of Jim's anti-art games rant...
 

TJC

New member
Aug 28, 2011
398
0
0
heh, usually I tend to whole-heartedly agree with Jim but here? Not so much. Of course, innovations for innovation's sake is dumb and no one disputes that. (Personally, though I think it's fair to overlook some faults created by experimentation)

Seriously, though, the thing I disagree with is the implied statement that blatant copying deserves some kind of extra praise only because it's not quite as shit. I felt Singularity was quite boring and nothing I've never seen before. If you're not going to innovate at all then better polish that shit to a mirror shine because it will inevitably have to measure up to every game that it copied from. And that's, in my humble opinion, completely fair criticism.

I mean, technically is Darksiders alright but it's just Legend of Zelda with a bit of "EDGY" spray paint and for that, it's just not alright enough. (also, War was annoying as hell, hur hur)

But yeah, innovation for innovation's sake is shit. Best example (while we're at it): Skyward Sword. The shoehorned waggle controls just diminished a lot of the impact it had on me. Still, for all its faults, I will praise that particular Zelda for some of the most amazing game design the series had so far. Sure, it failed on quite a few levels, but I'd rather see shit crash and burn than stagnate any further.

tl;dr: I agree with you, Jim, but I also disagree.

PS: Ni No Kuni's combat can go suck a flaming cock. >:C
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
Three points:
I) Every single idea. Effective, popular or stupid, starts somewhere. It's rather rare for a new idea to be executed well on the first try (or first generation even).

II) "Necessity is the mother of invention", isn't always true either.
There were points in human history where invention was considered frivolous, childish or even foolish. (China lost its position as a world superpower for nearly 400 years because of exactly that).

Jim, you wouldn't even be able to preach to us, online, about the pitfalls of innovation were those ideologies not challenged and new necessity established in the first place.

III) Innovation in gameplay in AAA gaming is at an all time low. Stagnation reigns. This enhances the appeal of Independent development.

This isn't to say every new idea leads somewhere good: I remember the horrors of FMV games, or more recently, the illusory usefulness of "waggle-motion controls". I agree that we shouldn't give new ideas a free pass just for being new as there are infinitely more bad ideas than good ideas, but neither should we discard innovation for fear of failure or mediocrity.

To summarize my rambling:
Experimentation is not pretentious; equating it with brilliance is.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
Good show. People take this kind of thing for granted. You don't do it just because you do it, you do it to improve an experience. Lots of companies "innovate" by adding adhoc ideas so they can say it's different. I'll user Metalgear Rising: Revengence as an example. It took a combat system that is nothing special and added that really cool slice and dice mechanic. That was awesome. The rest of the game, however, was just boring. Every reviewer gave the fact the levels are flat 2 dimensional unexciting romps through very boring run of the mill material, a pass because of that slice and dice stuff. It was fun and some of the boss battles were epic, but if not for those things it would have been a 3 out of 10. Those things were innovative and fun, but the overall experience was still not very good.
 

WindKnight

Quiet, Odd Sort.
Legacy
Jul 8, 2009
1,828
9
43
Cephiro
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
I think the problem I have with your defence of darksiders and singularity is that whether something is comfortable and fun, or is tired and dull, is very much a matter of personal taste. I tried both demo's and was very much underwhelmed by both. by the same token, flaws and all, I loved mirrors edge. it did something fun, different, and interesting. not perfectly, and it caused me to have a few hissy fits at the screen, but I loved the ideas and the gameplay (when it wasn't screwing up).

Its kinda like the guy who's played every halo, and when he got to reach screamed and raged that things like the armour abilities and differences to the other games were ruining it for him, and the others who found the additions added a touch of spice that ultimately needed to be mch much more.
 

Stryc9

Elite Member
Nov 12, 2008
1,294
0
41
Jimothy Sterling said:
alphamalet said:
Jim,

I don't think many people are on the other side of this issue.

Innovation for the sake of it is bad. It will usually lead to something frivolous that is not properly implemented within the system it exists.
Doing the same thing over and over is bad.
Finding a good balance between the two to keep something fresh yet familiar is usually good.

If people praised innovation for the sake of it, like you postulate in this video, then gamers everywhere would have praised the Wii for its "innovative" controls. That obviously didn't happen.

This sort of seemed like a non-issue to make a video out of.
Considering the pundits and devs I named in the video, not to mention the notes I've already received from watchers disagreeing with this episode, I don't believe the video's as worthless as implied, m'good chap!
It most certainly is NOT a non-issue. Nothing fries my balls more than people slamming a game because it "failed to innovate", using shitty excuses like, "Every game should bring something new to the table or else it's just showing how stagnant the industry is." and then the second a game DOES do something new being all pissed off because it's not exactly what they wanted the change to be.

This holds particularly true for sequels. If a sequel to a popular game doesn't "innovate" enough from iteration to iteration people will pile heaps of hate on every sequel in the series until it does change and then blow their stacks when the developers finally do implement some new features. There are notable exceptions to this like COD where there are people who whine about how it doesn't change it's formula enough from iteration to iteration but it still sells well. However more than once "failure to innovate" has killed popular franchises because the developers took a tried and true formula and fucked with it until it stopped being fun.
 

Kinitawowi

New member
Nov 21, 2012
575
0
0
obedai said:
What would help publishers learn how to innovate properly is if they were willing to create smaller, cheaper games. Fund a game on the scale of Fez or Braid or even Amnesia. That would allow publishers to test out new and unproven ideas without having to worry too much. I sympathize with them. You can't take too many risks when your game costs dozens of millions of dollars to make. You just can't. Those AAA titles should be the super-polished ones, the ones that take proven ideas and perfect them. Smaller titles have room to innovate.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

When Jim started on about The Path, the thought that came to mind was that the best innovators at the moment are the indies. Innovation for innovation's sake is normally actually an okay thing if we're allowed to accept that not all innovations work perfectly at the first attempt; and it's allowing those missteps that gets translated to that "free pass" that Jim hates so much. Unfortunately, lack of innovation results in COD.

Developers should be allowed a certain amount of wiggle room to test out new ideas. Obviously not all those ideas are going to work, and as you implied it's the smaller games that can afford to suck up the losses.
 

Tombfyre

New member
Feb 7, 2008
33
0
0
Lost Odyssey was easily the last truly amazing JRPG I've played of the recent generation. I still adore that game, and I'm due for another replay. The story was fantastic, it was easy to get into, and the gameplay was simple but rewarding. The same folks made Blue Dragon, which was another damned fine entry if I do say so.
 

joshthor

New member
Aug 18, 2009
1,274
0
0
JIM YOU S.O.B. i love you. but dis mirrors edge again and i will take it out on jonathan holmes. one of my favorite games ever despite the terrible terrible shooting.
 

scorptatious

The Resident Team ICO Fanboy
May 14, 2009
7,405
0
0
DRTJR said:
Whilst I agree with Mr. Sterling's thesis, with out frivolous innovation we would have never got the absolutly off the combat system in Chrono Cross, which is awesome.
I also really liked Chrono Cross's combat system. The pretty much took the whole elemental weakness thing used in other games and gave it a really interesting twist.
 

Flunk

New member
Feb 17, 2008
915
0
0
I loved Mirror's edge, but it really seemed like they ran out of money part-way through and had to finish up really quick. As a result we ended up with a stunted half-finished game.

Oh well, worth a few bucks anyway.
 

Dustin Crump

New member
Jun 23, 2011
2
0
0
It's kind of hard to agree with this one. Yes, it's dumb to pan a good thing just for treading a well-worn path, but the medium only evolves if people try new things. And a lot of times the reason why things get praise despite being problematic is because they're still really good despite the problems (or they didn't. The path got pretty mixed reviews for having long stretches of nothing, and Mirrors Edge mostly got reviews in the 8's with a few 7's which is positive, but not mind-blowing. I liked both of those games.) Of course, there's little true innovation in games anyway. David Cage twice made adventure games and claimed that they were an entirely new genre (possibly three times, did anyone play Omikron?) When he could have avoided the whole "Does he have a gun? No, does he drive a car?" scenario by saying it's like Dreamfall or Monkey Island. Deadly Premonition was awsome and really unique (and heavily technically flawed) but none of the individual elements were actually new. Even the FFXIII battle system you called failed innovation was just some minor tweaks to the existing ATB system.
 

sageoftruth

New member
Jan 29, 2010
3,417
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
alphamalet said:
Jim,

I don't think many people are on the other side of this issue.

Innovation for the sake of it is bad. It will usually lead to something frivolous that is not properly implemented within the system it exists.
Doing the same thing over and over is bad.
Finding a good balance between the two to keep something fresh yet familiar is usually good.

If people praised innovation for the sake of it, like you postulate in this video, then gamers everywhere would have praised the Wii for its "innovative" controls. That obviously didn't happen.

This sort of seemed like a non-issue to make a video out of.
Considering the pundits and devs I named in the video, not to mention the notes I've already received from watchers disagreeing with this episode, I don't believe the video's as worthless as implied, m'good chap!
I'm not sure about that. Maybe I missed some of the comments you're talking about, but most of the people here who disagree with you seemed to have misunderstood what you were saying in the first place. You acknowledge that innovation is good, just as long as it's not a free pass. Most of the people I've seen so far who tried to disagree with you only ended up saying the exact same thing because they thought you were denouncing innovation as a whole.