Gamers DON'T Want Innovation.

[RJ 17]

Or at least that's the notion put forth in the most recent episode of Game Theory:


Yeah, yeah, I know...a lot of people hate his voice/delivery, but what about the points that he brings up? Is he just playing with numbers to support his notion? Or is he onto something here that we're all just a fickle bunch of players (as a collective community) who claim we want new and innovative ideas but when it comes to sales we all really just want to stick with what's been done before and tweaked just a bit?

 

[shrekfan246]

I wonder if we'll be able to avoid all of the "Abluh abluh but I want innovation!" and "GENERALIZATIONS!!!" comments.

I'd say yes and no.

Generally, it's true that what "sells" is what has been tried and tested and proven to work in the past, but that comes with the caveat that it still has to do well what it sets out to do. Call of Duty: Ghosts still sold metric truckloads, but even beyond the normal whinging the franchise always gets, its waning production quality and fear of changing or evolving seems to have tangibly hurt it; We won't know what kind of impact it really had until the next one comes out, but just taking the average and discounting handheld titles or Wii ports, it's the lowest-rated main series CoD game ever released.

Additionally, people tend to praise indie titles for various reasons, but when you look a bit further into it you find that many of the indie titles which gain a lot of traction are the ones that use long-established mechanics and maybe throw in an extra gameplay technique or two, or maybe have a unique method of presentation. Things like Braid, Super Meat Boy, The Binding of Isaac, Bastion, FTL, FEZ, Guacamelee, Legend of Grimrock, Mark of the Ninja, Torchlight II, Trine 2, they're all good games, but when you really examine them they're not doing anything "new" and in some cases they mostly become recognized simply because they're reusing things which used to be found in many games and haven't for the past few years.

But it also comes down to what you want to define as "innovation" or not. There are a lot of specific combinations of game mechanics which I would love to see because I can't think of any titles which do them, or at least do them well, but the individual components can still usually be found between multiple other titles. So if a game came around which did combine those elements, at that point it depends on the perspective you take: Do you say "Eh, I've seen this all before in [List of other games]" or do you say "Cool, I've never seen those mechanics combined in that specific manner"? I firmly believe that there are extremely few ideas which haven't been attempted before, so I don't believe that "innovation" relies solely on the likes of games such as Antichamber or The Stanley Parable, which exist almost exclusively to question the very nature of games themselves. "Innovation" can also be something as simple as Cloudbuilt, which combines the speed-running free-running nature of something like Mirror's Edge with the rock-hard platforming and shooting of Megaman. And I love it for that.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Additionally, people tend to praise indie titles for various reasons, but when you look a bit further into it you find that many of the indie titles which gain a lot of traction are the ones that use long-established mechanics and maybe throw in an extra gameplay technique or two, or maybe have a unique method of presentation. Things like Braid, Super Meat Boy, The Binding of Isaac, Bastion, FTL, FEZ, Guacamelee, Legend of Grimrock, Mark of the Ninja, Torchlight II, Trine 2, they're all good games, but when you really examine them they're not doing anything "new" and in some cases they mostly become recognized simply because they're reusing things which used to be found in many games and haven't for the past few years.

But it also comes down to what you want to define as "innovation" or not. There are a lot of specific combinations of game mechanics which I would love to see because I can't think of any titles which do them, or at least do them well, but the individual components can still usually be found between multiple other titles. So if a game came around which did combine those elements, at that point it depends on the perspective you take: Do you say "Eh, I've seen this all before in [List of other games]" or do you say "Cool, I've never seen those mechanics combined in that specific manner"? I firmly believe that there are extremely few ideas which haven't been attempted before, so I don't believe that "innovation" relies solely on the likes of games such as Antichamber or The Stanley Parable, which exist almost exclusively to question the very nature of games themselves. "Innovation" can also be something as simple as Cloudbuilt, which combines the speed-running free-running nature of something like Mirror's Edge with the rock-hard platforming and shooting of Megaman. And I love it for that.

I think alot of indie titles have success with this because they are generally new companies with new IP's, so we don't have a sense of judgement in our heads (say if EA made a cartoonish kart racing game, we'd come in with the expectations of micro transactions on each vehicle/character and multiplayer focus at the forefront of the game, but with a generally new dev, we come in fresh with not much bias.)

and I agree, innovation is a bit of a generalized word, you can innovate MANY different things, and one thing that they keep insisting on innovating is the way we control games (something I don't personally care for changing, unless they can make it more precise and user friendly, screw that noise.)


I really don't want innovation for the sake of innovation, otherwise we have stuff like this:

Spoiler: I liked the jokes they made about it in the movie

Anyways, there is a fine line of how to tiptoe between "innovate/change too much, and you lose your original fanbase" or "do basically the same exact thing, and everyone is pissed they're spending 60 dollars for a slight skin swap upgrade". It seems like devs have been drawing on the wrong line of this lately, but hey, I'm one person, so can't quite speak for everyone here.

(also I don't like how he puts sequels in there that have a clear story arc, obviously the games are going to be similar, I don't want to call him a dumbfuck, but if you change too much then you risk losing a huge fanbase to an unknown market since it is continuing a story.)

 

[veloper]

It's not surprising that most gamers don't really want innovation.

A good thing only becomes tiresome when you repeat it too often and fresh new gamers don't start out jaded. To them the latest clone shooter may be as cool as DOOM was in 1993.
Meanwhile us old farts may be happy with just a remake of an old thing, just as long as enough time has elapsed and there's some minor improvements made, because nostalgia may have kicked in by then.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

i was very disappointed with this episode, it was ful of flawed arguments and cherry picking


COD started to sell truthly well after it took a risk and innovated with COD4, Super mario bros is truthly the best selling title in the franchise but it also was bundled with every NES in north america so is not a valid example, recent entries in franchise can sell better than its predecessors but thats because the amount of people playing games keep growing (for example, the Xbox360 alone sold much more than the NES and the sega master system, COMBINED), not nessesarily because people prefer the newest game in the franchise, also if a resident evil game sell just as well as its predecessors in a market that has grown and using a much bigger budget it means the franchise is doing worse, finally if lack of innovation is so good why rogue warrior and medal of honor havent sold a lot?



brand recognition sells, not lack of innovation

 

[StriderShinryu]

I think you run into an immediate problem when you start trying to pin anything, positive or negative, on "all gamers" simply because, well, gamers aren't just a homogeneous blob. Gamers these days are pretty much everyone and, as such, have a massive variety of different tastes and preferences. The same thing is true of movies, books, music, etc. where there clearly are "popular" titles that make lots of money but aren't always new, innovative or of the highest quality but don't stop other more innovative or interesting titles from also existing.

That said, in gaming it does feel often like innovation is often called for but then quickly dismissed. Talking specifically about a more dedicated set of gamers, such as those who visit The Escapist, it's not uncommon at all for complaints about a new game or sequel to simply boil down to "it did something different from the last one." When a new game is announced it really is instantly slotted into a specific niche and, should it do something not common to that niche upon release (or even before release when no one has actually played it), it gets called down for it. Then in the next thread on the message board you'll see the same people complaining that a new game doesn't actually do anything new and is thus just a cash in. Even more dedicated gamers absolutely do tend to shout out for more innovation in the medium and then are quick to call something garbage or even call it "not a game" when it doesn't specifically line up with their preconceptions.

 

[dyre]

Meh. Generally speaking, gamers want (subjectively) good games. They want to be entertained by the gameplay, immersed by the aesthetics/graphics design, engaged by the storytelling, etc. Innovation isn't good or bad...it's merely different. If innovation leads to more entertaining gameplay, more engaging storytelling, more charming or immersive aesthetics, then gamers want it. If it changes a good, working system for the worse, then they don't want it. If you want to make a case for innovation not selling well, there it is. It's difficult to quickly execute a new idea to be as polished as the old, tried-and-true idea, so even if you have a gem, it might be a gem-in-the-rough, which turns people off. On the other hand, if you keep making the same thing, sooner or later people will get tired of the stagnation. Whether or not your innovation is deemed good or bad depends on the timing and execution of the idea as much as the idea itself.

 

[WeepingAngels]

I didn't watch the whole video but I want to address what I did see.

The Wii U isn't innovative, it's a console version of a DS. There is nothing wrong with that, I like the Wii U but the sooner people stop pretending that the Wii U is something "new and exciting" the better. The Wii U cannot live up to those expectations and further, the innovations came on the DS years ago and very little "new" will be seen on the Wii U. That's ok too because neither Xbone nor PS4 have anything really new and exciting either. We have told the industry that we like traditional controls and I am glad that message was received. Even the Gamepad resembles a traditional controller.

As for me, I wish this love affair with indies would die sooner rather than later. Their brand of innovation seems mostly to be about reviving mechanics and looks of old games. I don't see that I need to play a Mario clone when I can play the real thing on a number of devices.

I think many gamers are just getting gaming fatigue and asking for innovation even though that won't fix it. I am shocked that Mario Party 8 sold 8 Million, I was under the impression that it flopped and that is why we only got one game last gen and it went to handheld this gen.

Meh. Generally speaking, gamers want (subjectively) good games. They want to be entertained by the gameplay, immersed by the aesthetics/graphics design, engaged by the storytelling, etc. Innovation isn't good or bad...it's merely different. If innovation leads to more entertaining gameplay, more engaging storytelling, more charming or immersive aesthetics, then gamers want it. If it changes a good, working system for the worse, then they don't want it. If you want to make a case for innovation not selling well, there it is. It's difficult to quickly execute a new idea to be as polished as the old, tried-and-true idea, so even if you have a gem, it might be a gem-in-the-rough, which turns people off. On the other hand, if you keep making the same thing, sooner or later people will get tired of the stagnation. Whether or not your innovation is deemed good or bad depends on the timing and execution of the idea as much as the idea itself.

This post is perfect.

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

Two points I'd like to raise:

Spoiler: Point One

The first is that the reason why a lot "expanded DLC" titles or "Same Wheel, Different Paint" titles tend to outsell their more innovative and unique counterparts is because of who is actually buying these titles.

The first group is the COD kids that got jobs; they're the one's who first graced the uncharted online multiplayer maps with immature and foul-mouthed remarks while simultaneously camping in the corners and noob tubing all the live long day. As they got older and employed, they've been able to finance their own gaming purchases and thus, why those once annoying kids who had no business in an M-Rated game are now fueling the COD franchise for another 10 years.

The second group is the older nostalgic gamer; being from a simpler time where gaming was more of a reclusive hobby, they enjoyed the games that were so simple yet filled their hearts with hours of entertainment and exploration in order to speed run Metroid or find all the Hidden Warp Pipes in Super Mario Bros. They hold these titles on a pedestal and instead of taking a chance, and cash from their wallet, on some IP that is either new or different, they stick to what they know best: re-releases and a new of something old, classic, or retro. It's a safe investments, that is both familiar and enjoyable, because it's essentially "more of the same" without drastically changing the formula.

As these two groups tend to put their money on their safe and reliable horses, they are always seen to be what most gamers desire. Sale numbers aside, it shouldn't define what is successful and trendy; innovation should come from risks and changes to the norm, which has been proven time and time again that the less commercially successful titles are indeed the more memorable.

Spoiler: Point Two

The second point that I raise is the hype/commercialization of popular, reoccurring titles, over new, different IPs.

Seriously now, does there need to be any commercializing for any future COD or Madden title? I think it would be more productive if they made an announcement only when they weren't shelling out for an annual update to the COD or Madden franchise.

Spoiler: Titles like Super Mario Sunshine and Psychonauts got trailers/commercials like these

Titles like Super Mario Sunshine and Psychonauts got trailers like these:

Granted, commercials and trailers aren't everything; however, they will leave a rather bad impression on the gamer that instead of grabbing their interest and following the games development until its release date, they are quick to turn to something more promising, interesting, or safe titles.

 

[War Penguin]

I love Matt Patt and everything, and I agree that the numbers don't lie and that if you want to show you want innovation you need to speak with your wallet. But he failed to touch on one very important aspect: games are butt fucking expensive!

Games like Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty, and Super Mario Bros/Mario Party have been around long enough and received enough critical praise that they're more or less guaranteed quality amongst gamers. They're essentially household names that are safe investments in quality. Now compare that to other games that are "innovative." They're a little more foreign and different than what you might be used to. Maybe they're critically acclaimed and maybe people from your favorite gaming forum love it, but it doesn't answer the big question: will it be right for you?

Now, here comes the big problem. New releases are priced at $60-$70. That's a hefty ass investment for your average gamer. Since games are priced as what they are, what do you buy? The game series that's shown to be good in the past and is something that you're familiar with? Or the new game that is a gamble whether or not it'll fit your tastes? Shown by the numbers, it's a safe to say that many people choose the former.

I believe that if games were significantly cheaper we wouldn't have this problem. People would be much more lenient and be willing to try out new things, purchasing new games that they'd feel comfortable exploring, especially on release. It would be much less of an risky investment for your average gamer as well as your new and aspiring developers who want to do more. Too bad I don't see that happening any time soon, considering how economics actually works... *Sigh* :/

Also, while this isn't really exactly relevant to my argument on pricing, I still think it's worth mentioning. I believe another problem that this arguments suffers is that quality is subjective. Just because you like shooters doesn't mean you'll like turn based RPGs too. Just because you like realistic and *snickers* "lifelike" graphics doesn't mean you'll like simplistic and retro art styles too. While I agree with him that people should always try out new things in gaming,[footnote]Hell, in ANYTHING really[/footnote] it doesn't necessarily mean that people are gonna make a sudden discovery of a new genre and encourage more expansion of ideas from doing so. God knows that I heard people praise Oblivion to bits and pieces, and I was bored to bits and pieces when I finally tried it out. Does that mean the game is bad? No, of course not. That means the game isn't for me. Exploration doesn't mean success. People want different things. And in this case, people know what they want, so they buy it.

Also this:

The problem is that some of the new ideas such as wiiu are simply not good. Game companies present poor ideas, like that trackpad on the ps3 controller and say "look how innovative we are", but real innovation requires a point. You can't just do something weird for the sake of being weird and then demand that people to like it.

I feel like Matt Patt gives Nintendo waaaaaaaaay more praise than he should for the WIi U. It might be something new, sure, and it might be something worth trying out. But we've hardly seen anything worth while for a controller like that. Hell, Nintendo themselves haven't done anything innovative with that thing. If they had had a few good games demonstrating it's use for something cool and interesting, then it might work. But if they themselves, the people who made the damn thing, can't think of anything to showcase the Wii U's use, then I think Nintendo really needs to do some serious rethinking on their part. It's a shame, because I don't want Nintendo to go the dreaded Sega route. Oh god, I don't wanna think about that... D:

 

[lacktheknack]

People fear change in general.

When Fallout 3 was announced, people flipped. Then they loved it. When Lara Croft was revealed to be a weepy teenager in the new reboot, people flipped. Then they loved it. Heck, looking back further, I remember a freakout happening when Age of Empires III was announced... and people STILL play it.

 

[Vault101]

people like to stick with what they know and like

however

I also think people don't really know what they want untill you sell it to them

 

[LegendaryVKickr]

I will say, watching that episode was extremely distressing to me. I mean, really, saleswise it's shocking Galaxy and 64 were on the low end, in terms of sales. And Mario Party 8 selling so much? I tend to find Nintendos games lately are very samey, and I've gone so far as pointing out similarities between COD and New Super Mario whatever, but seeing that the same old crap sells the best, I guess I can no longer criticize Nintendo for churning out the same Mario game every six-eight months.

But at the same time, it makes every innovation they do, as well as every big gamble like Psychonauts or even Portal or new IP like Dishonored, so much more noteworthy for existing. It's just sad for those original games, which are often known as being some of the best games around, the payoff isn't as big for the developers.

For me as a gamer personally, I tend to want fun new "innovative" experiences in gameplay, but I want those experiences on a traditional gaming console. I can tell you I got a 3DS for Xmas, and I've used the 3D like twice ever. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I would much rather have a console without a bunch of bells and whistles like touch screens, 3D, motion control, etc. but offers a variety of fun gameplay experiences.


Really though, wasn't the Wii only innovative in order to help market it to families? That's why it was so financially successful, I thought. If it doubles as a family activity and an exercise kit, parents will want it, and parents are the ones with the wallets.

 

[FancyNick]

Didn't Jim do an episode on this awhile back?

Anyway, I think its a case by case basis. There is no black and white on this subject. Do I want an innovation on controllers? No. Do I want an innovation in my favorite series? Within reason. It would have to stay true to the spirit of the first or whats the point. Might as well name it something else. Do I want new IPs with new ideas? Yes but not every idea is golden. A lot fail in an effort to innovate. That's just the way things are. Also, Innovation for innovations sake is ridiculous.

 

[Vigormortis]

I take issue with a few of his samples.

Quite a few times he showed larger sales figures for more current games in a series, compared to lower sales numbers for older entries, as an example that gamers don't want innovation.

However, he doesn't seem to be factoring in the actual growth of the games industry and the player base.

Put simply: there are a LOT more gamers today than there were when, say, Final Fantasy 3 came out.

So some of his samples are...skewed, at best.

 

[Therumancer]

The problem as I see it is that the game industry tends to act like an evil genie, twisting everything around beyond comprehension and then laughing and making it look like your fault when it doesn't work.

In general when it comes to franchises what people want is more of the same but with improvements, increased depth, complexity, etc... They don't want you to pretty much re-invent the wheel here, they want more of the same but with extra options and things you can do with it. People get irritated when sequels instead dumb down an ongoing property, change the inherent formula, or whatever else. The passage of time also matters, if your turning out a sequel quickly, then a few more levels for something that is already out (for all intents and purposes) is fair as long as there is enough of it to justify the asking price. However the longer it takes for a sequel the more people expect from it.

When it comes to new franchises and such half the problem is that the game industry doesn't support them, a lot of these "critically acclaimed games that didn't sell" simply were not promoted well. Things like "Beyond Good And Evil" or "Psychonauts" flopped largely because when they first came out nobody knew they were out there, it took years after the fact for word of mouth to do what a proper advertising campaign could have. That said when someone is asking for innovation the key is positive innovation, it seems like the game industry loves to use "evil genie" logic here where it's idea of say innovation is to throw out some pretentious artsy garbage, or say create a control scheme based on the position of your nose hairs being read with a sensor. Anyone with half a brain could tell you it was a bad idea, and honestly with some of the things the game industry has done it seems like they are actively trying to be dumb a lot of the time. Of course it doesn't help that the game industry likes to keep all of it's cards close to it's chest, and not reveal anything about games until a lot has been invested in them, by which point when games tell them "that's the dumbest thing we have ever heard" it's too late to abandon the idea or make radical changes... not that game developers listen much anyway, nowadays they are more likely to just ignore their forums as being "toxic" and do whatever the heck they want to do anyway.


To be honest there is plenty of room for these tried and true franchises, I like some of them myself. The thing that irritates people is that you don't see much effort made to satisfy niche audiences as well. It's all about greed, and pursueing the biggest possible payday. You don't see game companies willing to make *a* profit by say designing a lot of decent crunchy, turn-based RPG games for that rather large niche market, instead they all want the monster profits to be made from ultra-casual games, shooters, or recycled 2D platformers. The result being that you see tons of this garbage clogging the industry, including a lot of "follow the leader" attempts that are just awful, and a lot of very unhappy gamers.

Yes, gaming is a business, the industry wants to make money. This is why greed comes into it so often. Nobody begrudges the industry making a profit, but when it becomes about doing nothing but chasing the biggest possible profit and ignoring almost everything else, even when there are lesser amounts of money to be made, well that's when people start to have an issue.

In short the game industry needs to have more transparency and get feedback from the community at large (as opposed to focus groups) earlier in the process when they are working on a product, and it also needs to be more willing to spread itself out into other areas instead of focusing on a few areas like lasers and only occasionally branching out.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I wouldn't call a lot of what happens in games innovation. When we get augmented reality widespread, that will be innovation. In the mean time we tend to explore familiar genres and mechanics in new ways, and that's enough. But there's a difference between making good content with a known toolset and making tired content because you're risk-averse.