View From The Road: Seen It All Before

[Rack]

Fixing broken systems isn't innovation, it's just repairwork. Innovation is improving things that aren't broken so you can't rest on your laurels leaving something alone if it seems to be working fine.

Having a bunch of people with ! over their heads handing out chores alongside reams of horribly written text that no-one reads works as far as it goes, but that's not to say there isn't a lot of room for improvement there. Banks being empty spaces where you can store your junk works, but that's not to say they couldn't evolve into something far more useful.

Realities of time and budget constraints mean that not every game can innovate everywhere but the systems that have been refined to the point where innovation would be difficult are far, far rarer than you imagine.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

TV Tropes is quite manageable IF you don't click on anything...

 

[xscoot]

Innovation moves gaming forward, whether it's something as simple as limiting the number of weapons you can carry (Halo)

I disagree with this right here. Two points:

1) Limiting the weapons didn't really move gaming forward so-much as it allowed an FPS to fit better into the console world where you don't have access to number keys for easy access. Calling it a "tactical choice" just made it sound better. I suppose you can say it moved Console FPS gaming forward though, so touche, and...

2) Counter Strike did it before X-Box was even around (by one year), and at least had a better excuse of being "closer to realism". An excuse that doesn't really work in a game where you have regenerating shields to help protect you from the aliens' laser blasts. So credit where credit's due, eh?

First, you claim limited weapons are only for consoles. Then, you go on to talk about how a PC exclusive did it first.

This is what we call blind fanboyism.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

First, you claim limited weapons are only for consoles. Then, you go on to talk about how a PC exclusive did it first.

This is what we call blind fanboyism.

I didn't say it was only for consoles, I said it was a simple work-around that made it easier for an FPS to control on a console with a convenient scape-goat plastered over it. In other words: Counter Strike did it because it was a design choice, and they didn't need to bother scapegoating anything. Halo did it due to limited resources then quickly came-up with a handy excuse for it.

But I digress. My point isn't really about whether or not it's a good innovation (note how I kinda countered it myself) and more about the fact that someone beat Halo to the punch by about a year.

Edit: Also, l2quote imo lawl kthxbye.

 

[Saskwach]

Cover systems are definitely cool, and can work, but there's something "blergh" about them to me. In MW2, once you really grok the maps there's a lot of strategy to the different firing positions, because not all cover is created equal. Some gives you a good firing line, but leaves you half exposed. Some shows nothing below your gun (or even nothing around it either) but gives you a limited view, only useful in certain situations. So when you find and use a new piece of cover, it's a real revelation, and a new trick to add to your book.
What's more, there's some real tactics to deciding on how much you can use the cover. Are you happy with crouhcing over your second storey window, but not seeing directly below you, or do you want to stand and expose yourself more? How much will you sidle around that fence to see to your left, knowing you're showing more of your chest to a roving sniper?
Shooters with cover systems miss out on this. It's quite clear where the cover is. You don't choose between exposure/visibility except in a very binary way - "in cover, looking around, but can't fire" versus "exposed, but ready to fire". The tactics in these games are different, not worse, but I like my choice of firing position to be left to me.

Edit: That wasn't much about innovation, so I'll just rephrase: sometimes 'innovation' loses something special that the tried and true had. It isn't always a bad thing, but the fact remains.

 

[SomeGuyNamedKy]

Innovation moves gaming forward, whether it's something as simple as limiting the number of weapons you can carry (Halo)

I disagree with this right here. Two points:

1) Limiting the weapons didn't really move gaming forward so-much as it allowed an FPS to fit better into the console world where you don't have access to number keys for easy access. Calling it a "tactical choice" just made it sound better. I suppose you can say it moved Console FPS gaming forward though, so touche, and...

2) Counter Strike did it before X-Box was even around (by one year), and at least had a better excuse of being "closer to realism". An excuse that doesn't really work in a game where you have regenerating shields to help protect you from the aliens' laser blasts. So credit where credit's due, eh?

First, you claim limited weapons are only for consoles. Then, you go on to talk about how a PC exclusive did it first.

This is what we call blind fanboyism.

Just to point it out, the original Counter-Strike was ported to the xbox a little bit after it's release. Don't see how it would change anything. Just pointing it out. P.S. It wasn't a very good port...

 

[Vimbert]

Shit, who doesn't have a TV Tropes problem these days?

 

[Gigaguy64]

I love your Article.

I dont understand peoples need for everything to be "Innovative' these days.

I have an answer for you, we're in the 21th century, they expect things to be new, shiny and futuristic...
Let me tell you something, BACK IN THE DAY, when I was young(er) we just had 2D pixels, game mechanics involving jumping, shooting or both, and guess what? WE WERE HAPPY!

I miss those days.
When a game being fun was more important then it having the newest feature or the most creative combat system.
Now innovation has its place, Metroid Prime took the Metroid in a completely different direction, balancing some really innovative ideas with familiar elements from the past games, crafting a game that really moved me.
Its one of the best games i have ever played.


Innovation is important but, it disappoints me to see people willing to overlook or disregard a excellent game just because it follows a trend.

 

[Gigaguy64]

TV Tropes is quite manageable IF you don't click on anything...

That's like asking a fish not to swim...
[sup]for me at least....[/sup]

 

[Shjade]

Shit, who doesn't have a TV Tropes problem these days?

I'm fine with it. Mostly because I read through pretty much all of it quite a while back, so these days I just check up on new or interesting things now and then. I don't get lost in links 'cause I've read those pages already. ;p

 

[CaptainLudicrous]

its not that people can have a tv tropes problem, its that tv tropes is the problem.

great article btw

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

WoW is a great PvE game, the problem came when they tried to tack pvp onto that framework. Blizzard should know from D2 that it is impossible to balance the same skills for both pve and pvp.

An innovative game would completely steal WoW's pve system which is close to perfect, and make a different, fun pvp system.

 

[Ringwraith]

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
This rings true more often than not, though of course 'fixing' something that isn't broken and making it better and remaining unbroken is of course welcomed, though it is tricky to pull off.
I personally abide by the rule of nothing matters if I'm having fun, even if something's recycled everything under the sun, provided its well-executed I won't care. So what if there's massive plot holes, it's still fun! Even if things don't stand up to careful scrutiny, if I never noticed it in the first place as I was having fun, it's still good in my book.
Nintendo are quite possibly masters of recycling with their games, seeing how they never make new IPs, (last one was Pikmin I think), while still making their new games fun to play. I still buy new Pokemon games, as I always have loads of fun while playing them, it may be that a lot of it hasn't changed much over the years, but if it ain't broke, don't fix it, right?