Do most gamers even care about innovation?

[Brawndo]

I'm closely following the development of Company of Heroes 2 on another forum, and the community of CoH veterans there is extremely hesitant about any new gameplay mechanics. They complained about everything and were so worried about innovation upsetting the current metagame to the point that one user simply said he'd be satisfied with "CoH 1 with updated graphics", and a lot of people agreed with him.

This got me to thinking about other game series like Call of Duty where players happily shell out $60 for what amounts to a map pack and a new campaign, with hardly any change to gameplay mechanics. From what I can tell so far from Counterstrike: Global Offensive, it will be almost the exact same game as CS: Source, only with new skins and a few new weapons. They're even rolling out the same maps like de_dust, just slightly altered for balance reasons.

Do most players really just want more of what they like as opposed to trying something new?

 

[Zhukov]

It's not a mutually exclusive thing. Someone can want new things while also enjoying what they find familiar.

Also, be aware that all your examples are sequels. For reasons I don't quite understand, gamers tend to ***** their little hearts out when sequels attempt to make even the most minor changes or adjustments. See: thermal clips.

 

[CrazyBlaze]

I think that innovation is something that game companies should strive for in some titles but not others. A new title for example is a prime target to try something new. In an established franchise however a complete change of how the game plays makes little sense. A sequel should try to improve on its previous mechanics well the core of the game remains the same. A good example of this would by the first Ratchet and Clank game and Going Commando. RC gave us good weapons and a useful weapon wheel along with a useful health system and various different gadgets. GC improved on the weapons not only in terms of control but power and how they evolved. The health system was similar to the first but now you got armor to protect and you could increase your health on a regular basis unlike the first game where there were only certain points to do so.

A more recent example would be the difference between Assassin's Creed and Assassin's Creed II. ACI was a good game but it was repetitive and a bit boring at times. ACII took steps to remedy that with various different things to do. The combat system in ACI was pretty good and it worked but ACII built on it and made it smoother with a few more options.

So really there is nothing wrong with a sequel improving on the previous mechanics but they shouldn't be changed so much you wouldn't be able to tell it was the same game. Leave that to new IPs and let them experiment well sequels improve. And improving on its mechanics is something I feel CoD has failed to do.

I guess more OT that people like what is familiar so innovation doesn't really mater all that much to them, especially when they like something a lot. In the case of something like CoD though I think why most people buy it year after year is because it gives them something to play with friends (I do demand MOAR SPLIT SCREEN! I mean its so much fun to sit in a room with friends, cracking open some beers and making inappropriate jokes)

 

[Vault101]

I am AAA whore who does not play indie games

so no...probably not

 

[Indecipherable]

I could play old school isometric RPGs until the end of time.

That doesn't mean that new things don't interest me but 'a well written story' is not innovative, it's been around since the dawn of time.

 

[Supertegwyn]

Innovation for the sake of innovation is pointless.

There should be a reason for it.

 

[Racecarlock]

You are aware that the god damn FPS genre does not represent the entire industry, aren't you? I'm getting seriously tired of this shit. Seriously. you don't even have to look on the indie menu in steam to get innovative titles. Have you even looked on the Xbox Live Marketplace? Hell, have you even gone to a freeware site, or even just looked on the successfully funded projects page of kickstarter?

 

[Sean Hollyman]

I don't really care, really

 

[Indecipherable]

but nobody could take video game seriously if all they did was the same stuff again and again for decades.

a) Why do you care if people take the industry 'seriously', it's about entertainment. Who even decides when it is now being taken SERIOUSLY. Will you know? Will it even matter?
b) What 'innovations' has the book or film industry had, because apparently if you do the same thing again and again you won't be taken seriously.

#@*_!@

 

[Reginald]

Innovation for the sake of innovation is pointless.

There should be a reason for it.

What if the reason... is innovation?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

We need more developers like Sid Meier, who are innovative by thinking about what would make a good game and then making it, and less developers like Johnathon Blow, who see innovation as a goal in itself. I don't care if a game is innovative. I do care if it's good. If it happens to be good because it's innovative, great. But if it's good simply through excellent execution of old ideas, there's nothing wrong with that, either.

 

[Lunatic High]

YES! so long as they don't have to wave their arms about or stand up while playing, and the webcam things a little too much also.

 

[ultrachicken]

A lot of people want new things in new IPs. Often, you'll see people getting very excited over a proposed feature.

With sequels, you get many more people who fear change, yet simultaneously complain if the new entry is too similar to the previous. You also get people who want a game that's different.

If looking at a new IP (e.g. Dishonored) I'll get excited at new ideas, but with sequels, I just want an improved version of the previous game. That means smoother gameplay, better writing, more content, better graphics. If a sequel is done right, I never touch the previous game again.

 

[Dendio]

Nintendo needs innovation. Badly.

I'm done with the recycled iterations of mario kart and mario party. I haven't even played the latest zelda and im a fan. I've also given up on pokemon, until they finally add a bonifide triple A rendition of the games that put them on the map.

 

[Ryank1908]

Some games don't need to innovate. Your example of Company of Heroes, for instance - the game is fantastic, and one of the most unique RTS games on the market. CoH2 doesn't need to innovate, as such (though even without innovation the most basic of sequels will have new features,) because it doesn't need to change too much to be a great game, still.

For me, innovation is for new IP's. When I get excited for a new game it's because it's doing things that I haven't seen done in a game before. If I'm excited for a sequel it's because it has a lot of the first game in it that the sequel has adapted and improved upon in a direction that is good for the series. Some games don't need to change much to keep going in the right direction.

 

[Ryank1908]

snip

Bugger, you said it first.