Jimquisition: Innovation - Gaming's Snake Oil

WhiteTigerShiro

New member
Sep 26, 2008
2,366
0
0
Zhukov said:
I don't think I could disagree much harder.

Yeah, innovation isn't guaranteed to produce something good, but without the failed experiments along the way we don't end up with the good things that innovation can produce.
Which is all well and good, but developers can play around with that behind the scenes without needing to shoehorn it into a game where it doesn't fit just because it's there TO shoehorn into the game. This would be like defending a bad stand-up act by saying that someone has to be telling bad jokes in order for us to get to the good ones. Um... no, they don't. If a comedian writes a joke and decides it isn't funny, he scraps it. Same should go with gameplay ideas that don't work-out in practice as well as they seemed to in the developer's head.
 

qeinar

New member
Jul 14, 2009
562
0
0
Mr.Tea said:
Arrrghhh; Jim what are you doing?

Jim!

Stop making Mirror's Edge look like an example of a bad game!

STAHP!!

Ehrm. Also, Zelda does include some pointless innovations; the last two were on the goddamned Wii, weren't they?
not really, the wii mote sword thing had already been done. ^^ Also even though it was not that great i really like the idea of wielding the sword, will be pretty cool when they can make it work properly.
 

Azaraxzealot

New member
Dec 1, 2009
2,403
0
0
Daystar Clarion said:
This is why I couldn't stand Spec Ops the Line.


I don't care how 'good' the story 'is' if I have to trudge through mediocre shooting gallery after shooting gallery with crappy controls.

yet somehow, this bad gameplay is 'subversive' and 'adds' to the experience.

No, it doesn't, it's just fucking boring.
That's how I felt about Resident Evil 4. I tried to FORCE myself to enjoy it because it seems to be a universally "loved" game, but the controls were just so shitty and quick time events so annoying that it wasn't worth the hassle to get to the crazy stuff everyone praises.
 

dakkster

New member
Aug 22, 2011
141
0
0
Machine Man 1992 said:
I thought Singularity was "Meh" for the same reason I thought Halo was "Meh" and that's the weapons that sound like cap guns wrapped in bubble wrap. The TMD was an underutilized central feature, and the whole game had this eerie uncannyness to it, like I wasn't really there, like I wasn't really part of the game.
Exactly. The gaming blogosphere here in Sweden creamed its pants because of Singularity so I kind of felt obliged to play it. It was just a giant "Meh". Bad level design, boring brown setting, extremely underutilized TMD that just became an autokill thing you used when you were low on ammo. The time puzzles were awful and since the game wasn't open world in its design the audio diaries were never fully realized. The only interesting thing about the game was the Seeker rifle or whatever it's called.

I haven't played Darksiders yet (pile of shame...), but I have friends who have recommended it, saying it's kind of a cross between God of War and Zelda, even if it's a bit drawn out.

Yeah, Jim could really have used better examples. I agree with his premise about polish over innovation.
 

obedai

New member
Mar 19, 2010
82
0
0
Funny that you bring up mirror's edge, since I never thought it was all that innovative. I thought it was very different from most other games, but not necessarily innovative. They just said, "hey let's make a 3d platformer, but with a first person camera instead." The only truly innovative thing about that game was the 'runner vision' idea, which I honestly think is one of the best examples of elegant game design in existence. They didn't utilize it as well as they could have, but it was a brilliant idea nonetheless. People cry out for a mirror's edge sequel because so few games have the emotional tone of that game. It really was BEAUTIFUL, in a way no other game I have ever played is. The problem was that the design team were a bunch of idiots who made poorly designed levels, poorly implemented features (why do I have to pick up a belt-fed LMG and mow down policemen in a game about parkour?) and a poorly implemented story. The thing is, those are all surface issues that could VERY easily be fixed by a sequel. The core of that game was so unbelievably good, and it had some of the best visual design of any game ever made, and it just pisses me off that we are not getting a mirror's edge 2. I get why they aren't making it, mirror's edge didn't sell and this is a business after all, but just....sigh.
 

BreakfastMan

Scandinavian Jawbreaker
Jul 22, 2010
4,367
0
0
Daystar Clarion said:
BreakfastMan said:
Daystar Clarion said:
This is why I couldn't stand Spec Ops the Line.


I don't care how 'good' the story 'is' if I have to trudge through mediocre shooting gallery after shooting gallery with crappy controls.

yet somehow, this bad gameplay is 'subversive' and 'adds' to the experience.

No, it doesn't, it's just fucking boring.
Well, you know, except for the fact that Spec Ops wasn't really innovative, considering the only original thing in the game was it themes and overall message. But, if you want to keep banging on about how much you hated the game and how everyone else should too, even if it doesn't make sense, go right ahead. :D

OT: Good ep. Jim, but I am not certain how I feel on this issue. While innovation isn't necessarily desirable, the same can be said for lack of innovation, and I do think that one needs to make a certain amount of changes to a franchise over time to prevent it from becoming stale. Innovating for the sake of innovating isn't really bad, in my eyes, you just need to actually pull off your innovations for it to work. :\


I just don't get why everyone loves the damn thing :D
I have an idea... Do you like Gears of War style shooters? How about COD style shooters? How important do you think good gameplay is in a game? How many games have you enjoyed solely for the story? Do you typically enjoy games that place story above gameplay? How often do you find yourself enjoying "art" games? And finally, what are your feelings towards atypical narrative structures?
 

sooperman

Partially Awesome at Things
Feb 11, 2009
1,157
0
0
I'm going to have to play Mirror's Edge again. I've never had a problem platforming in the first person, so I must be missing something that causes all of this critical bile. You don't even *have* feet to look down at in, say, Halo, but it doesn't stop people making all of those precision jumping levels.

Darth_Payn said:
Wait, wait, wait: Final Fantasy XIII was a GAME???!!!
Hm? Where did you get that impression?
 

Bocaj2000

New member
Sep 10, 2008
1,082
0
0
Beryl77 said:
This is one of the few videos where I disagree with pretty much everything you said. I personally always prefer change over things staying the same even if it means that it could get worse. I never liked the saying "if it's not broken, don't fix it."
Yes, this produces a lot of crap but I simply get bored really quick of things that stay similar or even the same for too long. To take one of your examples, this is why I've only ever played two Zelda games and was too bored to finish a third one that I had started.

Sure, it produces a lot of crap but good things will come out of it as well and I like that much more than sticking with what works. So yes, I don't think it's bad if they innovate too much just for the sake of it compared to too little.

Also, most of the examples you used for games that are good because they didn't change much, [sub][small]are kinda, not so good games in my opinion.[/small][/sub]
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.
He's not bashing innovation; he's bashing innovation for innovation's sake. Innovation should be a means to an end and NOT the end itself.

The video might be flawed, but the core idea remains the same.
 

rembrandtqeinstein

New member
Sep 4, 2009
2,173
0
0
Innovation is like spice, a little goes a long way. Polish of all features is the "meat" of any game (or product in general).

Nintendo games might be formulaic but each iteration is a refinement of the formula with the a little bit more (innovation/originality) to keep things interesting. Then if the original portion of the previous installment worked it is added to the next version as the new norm.

If things are different than they have always been done there needs to be a reason for it. The rewind time mechanic in Braid is a great example of "innovating" a way around the whole "learn by dying" methodology of most platformers.

Saying its innovative isn't any more of an excuse for poor gameplay than "its licensed". Crap gameplay is crap gameplay, it doesn't matter if you never smelled that particular turd before, it still stinks like the rest.
 

Frozengale

New member
Sep 9, 2009
761
0
0
I agree, Jim.

But your examples of good games that don't innovate are fracking terrible.

Ni No Kuni is a boring game with horrible friendly AI, battles that are either way to easy and simple or way to difficult and complex. Oh and the story may as well have been written by a 6 year old for all the depth it has.

Innovating for the sake of innovation gets you no where. You should only Innovate when it solves a problem or betters a game in some way. That being said I would rather see a game try to innovate and fail then to see a game that doesn't understand how to polish the older systems. So many games that stick to the old systems just make mediocre versions of them, nothing spectacular, nothing to be proud of.
 

Beryl77

New member
Mar 26, 2010
1,599
0
0
Bocaj2000 said:
He's not bashing innovation; he's bashing innovation for innovation's sake. Innovation should be a means to an end and NOT the end itself.

The video might be flawed, but the core idea remains the same.
Yes, I realise that. However, I still don't agree with it.
 

obedai

New member
Mar 19, 2010
82
0
0
I agree with you Jim, but not entirely. Innovation makes a game better by making it something new. There are a lot of very flawed games I enjoy just because they are so DIFFERENT from anything else around. Games like mirror's edge or fez or minecraft. I will say though, that while I think that innovation (usually) improves a game for me, it does not necessarily make it good. It is just a single positive point in the game's favor, and can be outweighed by enough negative points.

Minecraft has one of the best core mechanics of any game I've ever seen. However, it is also unfocused, buggy, has a lot of poorly implemented ancillary features, and takes FAR too long to update. Fez has a brilliantly creative core mechanic, amazing art, and a very relaxing, unusual tone. It also lacks direction, has a shitty map system, and its puzzles are VERY obtuse at times. Mirror's Edge has incredibly fun platforming, and some of the best visual design in game history, but its flaws are so numerous that it is not a very good game overall.

If a game is going to lack innovation, it has to do everything VERY well. It has to be polished. I feel that if you are doing something in your game that has been done in dozens of games before you, you MUST do it well or it is not really worth my time. Also, you should be able to learn from these past titles. See their mistakes, what works and doesn't work. Combine these elements to make them perfect. That is when using old ideas is ideal. Blizzard is known for doing this. Starcraft 2 doesn't really have ANY mechanics that haven't been seen in some other RTS before, but it does these things better than almost any other RTS (at least in my opinion.)

The other time that you don't need to innovate is when the mechanic or system is not central to the game. The example you used was JRPG fight systems. They do not need innovation because they are not normally the point of those games. They are simply a tool used to bring across the core of the game - the story. In that case , you do not want people to even notice those systems. They should just be functional. IF you try to innovate, you will just draw attention away from the core of your game.

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.
 

ex275w

New member
Mar 27, 2012
187
0
0
Moviebob did an excellent video on this topic, while he has some of the same points about not reinventing the mechanics wheel with each new game, you can you know, innovate in graphics style, story, sound design, controls and all other areas, while still having a Dragon Quest or Gears of War clone.

http://blip.tv/gameoverthinker/episode-79-in-praise-of-clones-6469791
 

Chimpzy_v1legacy

Warning! Contains bananas!
Jun 21, 2009
4,789
1
0
Great Scot! Jim has created a hybrid of himself, Sid Wilson and Carrot Top.

And it is pure horror.

Some innovations, no matter how brilliantly implemented, should never be made.
 

uncanny474

New member
Jan 20, 2011
222
0
0
Darksiders failed because it was boring and repetitive, not because it wasn't innovative enough.

And if you'll notice, Mirror's Edge still failed DESPITE its innovation. Because it had a combat focus, and the combat was TERRIBLE.

Nobody hates these games because they're not innovative enough. We hate them because they don't do what they're trying to do well enough.
 

Brad Gardner

New member
Jun 5, 2012
37
0
0
I say you should keep the rubber claws. I hate the whole fps on consoles where nearly every game is an fps. Anyway I don't esept anyone to read this because I didn't read anything.