Sometimes I like it when games aren't innovative.

[itsmeyouidiot]

One of the most common complaints I hear about the games these days is "rehashes," games that reuse a previous formula without bothering to expand much on it.

But to be perfectly honest, I don't really find that to be much of a problem at all. If I like a game a lot, odds are I'm going to want more like it, right? Hell, New Super Mario Bros. U is one of my favorite games released in the past year, and despite numerous complaints of "sameness" I never once got bored with it.

So why do people act like having games that are similar to previous games is such a bad thing? Don't get me wrong, I like it when a game does something new, but sometime you don't need to fix what isn't broken.

 

[sanquin]

True, a remake or a game similar to it's predecessor aren't bad things. The problem comes from a game being so similar to the previous instalment that they might as well have literally been the exact same game. That the changes made might as well have been a slightly larger patch. Case in point: the CoD series.

But like I said at first, a rehash or remake isn't bad in and of itself. Take Torchlight 2, which was basically a remake but with numerous improvements.

 

[King Billi]

If people have an issue with innovation then they should just point to the games that they feel are being new and innovative and give them all the due praise and attention they deserve for doing so.

Don't bother complaining about what you feel isn't innovating enough because you're may just be wasting your time with something that may not have any desire to be "innovative" and quite frankly it isn't I feel that anyone had a right to demand.

 

[Zhukov]

I don't.

A game doesn't need to revolutionize the medium, but I do require some sense of newness or identity.

A little piece of my soul dies every time I see a developer announce a fantasy RPG in a setting a bit like medieval Europe but with magic and monsters and elves and dwarves and some kind of horde-like enemy that my or may not be called "orcs.

Don't even get me started on modern military shooters, the Let's-try-and-get-some-of-CoD's-money genre.

 

[Trollhoffer]

A little piece of my soul dies every time I see a developer announce a fantasy RPG in a setting a bit like medieval Europe but with magic and monsters and elves and dwarves and some kind of horde-like enemy that my or may not be called "orcs.

As an enthusiast of medieval history, what bothers me most about this isn't that it's being done, but that it's being done badly. The medieval Europe angle is more like an aesthetic backdrop over whatever abstractions the developers want to use. There are exceptions such as FromSoftware's Souls games or CD Projekt Red's The Witcher games, but medieval European fantasy games are seldom medieval and seldom European, having more in common with American superhero comics than anything else.

Personally, I think more games that approach medieval European fantasy from an informed and considered perspective would be fantastic; no-one's going to stop making fantasy games anytime soon, after all, so they may as well be done creatively and with some of the amazing historical sources in mind. For example, the modern world has groups of martial artists dedicated to reconstructing medieval martial arts from a large collection of manuals that explain said martial arts in fine detail, and it's come to a point where someone can learn these techniques and become proficient in grappling, swordsmanship and the use of other weapons in various medieval styles. Yet this content doesn't typically make it into games, which is perplexing -- why are game designers and developers ignoring such ripe, ready and perfect historical sources as potential content for their games?

Actual history is full to the brim of absolutely amazing things, but they're so seldom actually used for games.

 

[sanquin]

People don't like to admit it, but they don't really want innovation. Call of Duty and other such games that are incredibly similar to their prequels that are widely popular are evidence of this. Not just that, but when innovation does happen more people than not tend to see it as a bad game.

Take the Witcher 1. Sure it wasn't exactly the best of games, but it did try to innovate in some aspects. Like the combat system. Or the more gritty world rather than the usual fantastical 'happy' world of, say, oblivion. As compared to the witcher, oblivion had a rather fairy tail-like world with gender equality, no truly bad shit happening on screen most of the time, etc. Same with the magic/alchemy system. Yet people trashed all those innovations as being terrible, or at least worse than what more standardized games did.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is if people want innovation they should stop trashing innovating games, buy them more, and buy less of the standard more generic games out there. Yet since the opposite is true, it's clear that people in general don't want innovation. They want the same, but in a different coat.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well most people just throw around popular words so they stay hip, but rarely do they correctly express themselves as a result and actually mean improvement when talking innovation.

Which is what you want in most cases when talking same series, you want the story to get better, more polished mechanics, more content, distinctive content,... so on and so forth.

 

[piinyouri]

Some genres of games I love so much, I don't care if a new entry does anything different, so long as it does things well.

It's like music, you find a lot of bands that are not the first to do what they do, but they damn sure do it well.

 

[Abomination]

Considering how much Impire upset me by trying to "innovate" the Dungeon Keeper series I agree with the OP.

It's one thing to be innovative it's another to apply things in a practical manner. Skyrim wasn't very innovative at all - it was just Morrowind with all the fat (and some of the brains) cut off. Voice acting isn't innovative, talking heads aren't innovative, riding horses isn't innovative, mounted combat isn't innovative, dragons aren't innovative but it's considered a great game because it does so many things in a practical way.

It's crazy almost... it's innovative to NOT try and be innovative. To just do what has been done before (not a carbon copy) applying the lessons learned by developers since the initial innovation of that type of game.

 

[TheCaptain]

I hear you. I'm usually at least suspicious about "innovation", especially since developers occasionally feel so obligated to be "innovative" that they tack a mechanic or gimmic to a perfectly fine game that isn't fun at all. And while I can't cite one from memory right now, I'm sure there are sequels to former un-innovative games that are less fun than their predecessors because of "innovation".

What I think is, this shouldn't be an obligation, but best left to the people who are truly capable of it. Instead of treating innovation as a must-have, developers should do what they do best and use the occasional really good idea to up their game.

 

[BrotherRool]

I like innovation a lot, and I'll happily sing it's praises all day, but you're right, just because new things are cool, doesn't mean the old things aren't as well. Especially since they tend to get a little better on every iteration

 

[Frybird]

Well, i am open to "innovation-less" games and won't ***** too much about samey games (except when it's a company's only output...looking at you there, Nintendo), but i almost always prefer the other kind.


Thing is, i tend to get bored with games. Fast. I'm pretty much unable to play any RPG because i so often get bored in the middle of them after spending maybe 30 or 40 hours with it.

As such, my flame of obsession with a single game burns hot but fast (a few months ago, i spent far too much time with Minecraft, obsessiong about the possibilities, only to be where i am now where i sometimes boot up the game and be bored immediately), and i NEED something different to compensate.

Now i admit, i'm not dependent on innovation per se...it's more like that i can only play one Racing Game per year tops, for example. I like Gears of War, but i won't be buying "Judgement" because i got kinda tired of the franchise by the time the third game rolled around. Genres i specifically like, Shooters and Action Adventures, amuse me easier and i can play more of those, but even those need a bit of uniqueness to keep me hooked for more than a handful of hours.


...and i think that's what it's actually about.

I (and i think many others) don't really need as much pure "Innovation", but games that manage to stand apart from the rest of the genre (be it in setting, story or gameplay) and if needed, from their predecessors. Something unique, even if it may mean that it's objectively "worse" than other games.
This is why Mirror's Edge remains most fondly remembered and why i do not really get all the hate for Splinter Cell Conviction or why i cannot even come close to a new Zelda Game without instinctively letting out a long, mournful sigh.

It doesn't mean that i will shun any and all "safe" games, but that they are still much less desirable.

 

[The Wykydtron]

Yeah I guess. I'm quite disconnected from all these new releases as for Borderlands 2/Halo 4. I've seen nothing interesting come out at all really. I only spent an hour or two on Halo 4 and haven't touched it since. Wake me when Bioshock Infinite comes out pls.

I can just get into one or two games and play them for ages. It's a borderline obsession I swear. I've been playing a shitload of LoL since I think April, I still play a lot of UMVC3 and i'm trying to not suck at BlazBlue. Seriously, you don't even need combos to beat me, just lock me in the corner and press buttons for infinite resets.

 

[Legion]

I don't care about a lack of innovation, but lack of imagination bothers me. Like with Halo 4 they had the chance to start a new series with new weapons, enemies and ideas.

The game added very little to the last three games. The new enemies were actually less enjoyable to fight than the old ones. Most of the new guns were merely the same weapons as the old ones but with different sounds and visuals, and they didn't introduce any new game mechanics.

The only noticeable things they added were things from other established multiplayer games.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Innovation doesnt have to be gameplay or graphics. It can just be a great story tied to a standard genre. Like Spec Ops The Line is a standard FPS but the story around it is what makes it stand out. Other FPS like CoD just do the same thing year after year, its boring, atleast when they made WW2 shooters there was historical connection to them - which is why all this MW game suck.

So i agree, innovation isnt needed so much. A game can be awesome and satisfying in its self. But, when your making sequels, you have to add something to each one, and not just rehash. Regardless how much you love an IP, no one wants to spend £40 on the same game. AC adds new settings, or like Ezio - has a character you just enjoy playing as. Although with Elder Scrolls games, as much as ive loved them since Morrowind, they seem to be going backwards, getting less interesting and less stuff like armour/magic etc as the series goes on. We all no about Cod/MW and how they never innovate at all. Then you have sports titles released every year when a dlc patch updating changes to teams would do the job.

So yeah, like many here, i love games. But it seems with each generation thats released, there is less originality in games. This i would put down to increased development costs due to the graphics. Gone are the days when you had to use your imagination to turn a few pixals into a car and other group of pixals into an enemy truck. An that pixals that you shoot are bullets. ;-)

 

[Zipa]

Not every game needs to innovate, sometimes its just as fun to release something that is established. As long as it is fun I don't see the issue. Same as how all the Cod/sports game that release pretty much the same thing every year are not doing any harm though they haven't innovated in a long time if at all. People still play and enjoy them so companies are going to keep making them.

 

[Proverbial Jon]

I'd say the problem is half and half.

We have these things called genres which determine, to a certain extent, how a game will play and features it will have. The problem is when some elements inevitably line up across game franchises there are always those people who will cry foul.

- Any game daring to have an open world where you can drive cars is instantly a GTA clone.
- Any FPS set in space/the future is a Halo clone.
- Any game with a cover mechanic is just copying Gears of War.
- Any game with zombies is clearly cashing in on Resident Evil/The Walking Dead/L4D/COD etc...

Whereas I appreciate any game that tries to do something different, sometimes I just want more games that allow me to shoot things in space.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

If it's a sequel then fine, innovation isn't really the objective but when it's a new title...let's call out dishonoured on this one since thats what i played last...i expect the game to be significantly different to games that have come before...let's say thief.

Fair enough, all games have similarities and features that pretty much have to be the same but when you basically copy something that has gone before and then add a few extra breasts on it to distract from it's blatant theft from elsewhere then i call out the lack of innovation.

Call me Garret not Corvo and who put whale oil tanks on the back of the robots instead of an open furnace hatch? The only new thing was the magic powers and they made the game so fucking easy as to be pointless to bother playing.

 

[[REDACTED]]

A little piece of my soul dies every time I see a developer announce a fantasy RPG in a setting a bit like medieval Europe but with magic and monsters and elves and dwarves and some kind of horde-like enemy that my or may not be called "orcs.

As an enthusiast of medieval history, what bothers me most about this isn't that it's being done, but that it's being done badly. The medieval Europe angle is more like an aesthetic backdrop over whatever abstractions the developers want to use. There are exceptions such as FromSoftware's Souls games or CD Projekt Red's The Witcher games, but medieval European fantasy games are seldom medieval and seldom European, having more in common with American superhero comics than anything else.

Personally, I think more games that approach medieval European fantasy from an informed and considered perspective would be fantastic; no-one's going to stop making fantasy games anytime soon, after all, so they may as well be done creatively and with some of the amazing historical sources in mind. For example, the modern world has groups of martial artists dedicated to reconstructing medieval martial arts from a large collection of manuals that explain said martial arts in fine detail, and it's come to a point where someone can learn these techniques and become proficient in grappling, swordsmanship and the use of other weapons in various medieval styles. Yet this content doesn't typically make it into games, which is perplexing -- why are game designers and developers ignoring such ripe, ready and perfect historical sources as potential content for their games?

Actual history is full to the brim of absolutely amazing things, but they're so seldom actually used for games.

It's at times like these that I really wish I could just type "This" and leave it at that. The standard fantasy setting isn't based on the middle ages so much as on Dungeons and Dragons.