Jimquisition: Innovation - Gaming's Snake Oil

[Mr_Terrific]

So two videos ago during the PS4 presentation bash, we're talking about too much of the same thing...and now that's a good thing this week? We were complaining about developers not taking risks, and now we're damning games that dare to be different.

So we're just going in circles here? Why do I continue to watch this crap? Oh...that's because Yahtzee and Movie Bob don't show up until later in the week.

 

[lord.jeff]

I agree but could you find better examples, most of your good games are mediocre popcorn games and Mirror's Edge not just a game better then most of those, is a terrible example of innovation for innovation. Mirror's Edge has a very specific goal of being the most realistic feeling free running games out and everything in the game feels like it's trying to achieve that goal, outside of the tacked in battles(the most traditional parts of the game) everything was planned for during development.

 

[Quellist]

I'm reminded of the saying "If it ain't broke don't fix it."

Incidentally you know what JRPG battle system I really liked? The one from the Star Ocean games.

Just curious, which ones? i enjoyed 1 and 2, utterly adored the battle system of Till the end of Time, but hated with a Passion the battle system (and just about everything else) of Last Hope.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

I've had SO much fun with Lost Oddyssey!!!
And it did innovate: the stories/dreams where surprisingly deep and interesting.
Still remember the one about the "Signpost" drug and the one about the waterfall!

Now I wanna replay me some Zelda OoT!

 

[lostlevel]

Also, I think I'm the only person who loved Mirror's Edge.

Trust me, you're not. I love it too. I don't think there are many more experiences in gaming better than going full pelt in that game.

Anyway I agree, Jim. Innovation can be all well and good, but only if it is backed up by quality as well. And like you said, just because something doesn't innovate, doesn't inherently make it bad either. Call Of Duty for example. Doesn't exactly change much from game to game but I still really enjoy them because they are fantastic "popcorn games" to play.

I liked mirrors edge too, although admittedly on occasion playing it did make me a little dizzy.

He's got a good point, the battle system in FF XIII was annoying and some sort of semi-automatic nightmare.

Remember Too Human, if that game had just used sensible buttons it would have been great.

 

[Entitled]

Good games require novelty. It's the reason why new games exist. If novelty wasn't important, then we'd be able to just be able to keep playing the old games forever.

The point I think both I and Jim are trying to make, though, is that novelty alone isn't sufficient.

I think, the bottom line should be that we should trust people to know exactly how much novelty they need.

The problem comes when artsy developers, pundit reviewers, and hipster forum users start bashing a franchise or genre for not being innovative enough, whil it has a stable fandom that is quite content with the level of novelty that they get from new plots, or new levels, or slightly fine-tuned mechanics, or whatever. As if they would have a responsiblity to care about innovation for it's own sake, and succombing to their lowly desire of more of the same would betray the failure of their character as True Gamers.

For example, remember the early Kickstarter Revolution from last year, as the biggest games after Double Fine ended up being sequels and spriritual successors to classics. Remeber the gamer community's self-flagellation about how we were supposed to expect that it was only the Big Publishers that forced tradition and "safe bets" on us, and breaking our shackles would lead to unlimited innovation forever. Remember the outcries, about how much we suck for being attracted to established genres (like "old-school RPGs"), or to basic styles and themes (like "High Fantsy", or "Zombie Apocalypse").

 

[IronMit]

I can't believe I watched so much filler.
All you had to say is innovation can be good but doing it for the sake of it is likely going to fail. Done.

It's that saying; 'Success is doing ordinary things extraordinarily well' whereas doing something (relatively) complicated (innovation) and messing it up is a fail.

I really don't think people give games a free pass if they are innovative; They may add 1-2 point out of 10 to their scores for a boring innovative piece of rubbish but that's about it. Maybe people who like a very different game will accuse others of not buying it because they 'don't appreciate innovation' but that's just people rationalising their fanboyism.

The irony with one or two of your examples is the innovative aspects of those games were fun...it was the parts that were common that drew the biggest criticism.

Mirrors Edge..platforming is fun. People shooting you was a bit off.
La Noire- investigations-good innovation, 3rd person shooting-common jarring rubbish

Imagine portal had some 3rd person shooting sections and QTE's thrown in.

Innovation does not have to be the entire game. The first 3D prince of persia for example; one innovation was running on walls. Platforming isn't innovative in of itself but adding wall running is.

Here's another vid. It's not strictly about innovation, but it touches on the subject far better then Jimquistion

 

[Lunar Templar]

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 still find it kinda sad it needed to be made at all, but given the current state of things :/ I get why.

 

[thewatergamer]

Jim isn't mad at innovation, he's mad at Developers that "innovate" for the worse,
if a game changes and its a good thing than great!
But the "innovation" in mirrors edge just made things worse
and the people that claimed not buying mirror's edge "held back the industry"
are spewing BS

Edit: I don't mean to bash Mirrors edge since I never played it, but I really don't like the new movement system, if you enjoy it thats fine but the problem was the people that got mad that mirror's edge didn't sell better
they claimed it deserved amazing sales just because it's movement system was "different"
Remember people just because you love/hate something doesn't mean everyone ever will agree with you

 

[Ishal]

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.

See, I guess thats where some people diverge.

I admit the gameplay in that was average or even below average but I enjoyed the hell out of it. I know it makes me sounds like one of "those guys" but it was something that was drastically needed in the shooter genre.

If one of those games came out to every seven CoD clones I wouldn't complain about its gameplay, I'd just be happy its out there. But maybe thats the wrong attitude to have, idk

 

[shadowstriker86]

Good vid jim, but you missed this one:

 

[mjc0961]

Agreed 100%. I'm sick of developers changing things that were perfectly fine just to be different or when some crappy new game comes out and everyone suggests you play it and support the developer because they did something different. No. I refuse. If they did something different and made a good game, then I'll buy it because they made a good game, not because it's different. If they did something different and it sucked, then I'm not going to support it because it sucks. Like that article mentioned at the start of the video where the guy wanted everyone to buy Mirror's Edge. Not a chance, I tried the demo and as expected, first person platforming still didn't work and the game fuuuuuuuuuuucking sucked! And I will not overlook that and buy it anyway just because it was different (especially when it was being so stupidly different; there's a reason platformers are almost always 2D side scrollers or 3D third person views, and that's so you can see where your character is in relationship to the world around him. going first person takes that away and makes platforming nigh impossible, how the fuck could they not know that before wasting money developing that POS?!).

And also yes, this video does lead back to the "Touch Waggle Touch Waggle Swipe" episode nicely because that's another "innovation" I'm damn well sick of being used incorrectly. Stop making your games shitty with "innovative" controls. Either make a new game that works properly with the new controls, or just use the old controls we've had since Sony released the Dualshock controller for the PS1. A bunch of buttons and two analog sticks, that's what you use. And of course the Vita remains the perfect example of this. Escape Plan works because it was built around using the touch screen, and Retro City Rampage works because they said "this is a buttons and analog stick kind of game, so let's just use them and not fuck anything up with any of the other input methods the Vita has". The developers of Gravity Rush, Assassin's Creed 3 Liberation, LittleBigPlanet Vita, and Uncharted Golden Abyss can all form a line behind me and kiss my ass for all the various ways they each broke their games to fit in stupid touch screen, motion controlled, and "hold the camera up to a lightbulb lololol!" bullshit that wasn't fun and rarely worked properly.

Also, I would much rather play New Super Mario Bros 2 than Super Mario 3D Land because despite 3D Land trying something different, it was full of crappy camera angles, had bad controls (why the hell are A and B both jump when A has been jump and B has been run for years and years and years of Mario games?!), and forced you to play the same boring levels through four fucking times just to unlock the final stage. New Super Mario Bros 2 might have been more of the same 2D Mario we've been playing for quite some time, but it was fun goddammit!

...Yeah, can you tell that I just want games that are fun to play? I don't care if they innovate or not: a fun game is one I'll talk up and a bad one is one I'll talk shit about, regardless of how little or how much innovation there is.

Doing the same thing over and over is bad.

This couldn't possibly be more wrong. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And if you don't like the way it is now, just go play something else rather than whine that it needs to innovate for you and fuck everyone who likes it the way it currently is.

 

[TrevHead]

Innovation is a buzzword the industry tends to get caught up in too much even though it can lead to some great gaming experiences if done right.

I just hate the inflexible side of it that had everyone ignoring 2D games 15 years back because it was old tech.

While not gaming A good example would be Microsoft, who are always fucking about with the desktop and folder location of every new OS, like a supermarket moving it's food products around every month.

 

[Ukomba]

Companies are innovating themselves right into a hole. Spending millions and millions on sharper graphics or rebuilding engines and the game comes out empty. Sure it may look amazing and handle different but it also tends to be full of glitches (untested engine), terrible texture pop in, and frame rate issues. Mean while, Chrono Trigger still looks better, plays better, and is more fun than a lot of modern games.

 

[Undeadpool]

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 honestly shocked you didn't mention the Kinect even once (though you seemed to imply it pretty hard)! That to me seems like the very definition of innovation for its own sake and is the PERFECT example to throw back in the face of people who hold up innovation as the mythical panacea.

 

[Athinira]

Funny. I said the exact same thing [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.324784.13292650] back in 2011.

Thanks Jim, you're 1½ years late, but the support is appreciated!!

 

[GryffinDarkBreed]

... Considering what TF2 has become, that was almost a passable Pyro cosplay.

 

[deathbydeath]

... and I just wasted 7.5 minutes of my time to listen to a man who doesn't know what he's talking about. Can I get a job here; I'm good at that.

The definition of "innovation" is making changes, and that is not a bad thing. Making bad games is a bad thing. When you were talking about NNK not being "innovative" yet still being excellent because it "JRPGs harder than any JRPG has ever JRPGed". That's motherfucking innovation. The Path? That's experimentation, because it devolves itself to better portray what it's getting across: symbolism and themes about growing up. Also Darksiders, that game was innovative as hell. It didn't innovate or mess with the dungeon structure or puzzles it ripped from LoZ; it "innovated" on the only aspect that really needed innovation in a Zelda game: the combat.

 

[Bocaj2000]

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.

Fair enough. For a second there, I thought that you misunderstood.

Personally, I don't even see this as an issue. I love Lost Odyssey as well as Mirror's Edge. The industry is still young innovation is rampent in the game industry. This is a good thing for obvious reasons. What Jim refers to is innovation through gameplay exclusively. Personally, I usually don't care about gameplay; bad gameplay is easily excused with good story. What needs innovation is how we tell stories through an interactive medium. We're getting better at this, but too many times I find myself asking, "Why am I fighting these people/monsters right now?"