How necessary is innovation in a game for you?

[SmilingKitsune]

I recently finnished playing Killzone 2 and thoroughly enjoyed it, but as has been stated many times before the game doesn't really break much(any) new ground.
Innovation is required to move the industry forward, but a game can still be great even if it doesn't do anything all that new.
Which leads me to my question, when deciding whether or not to buy a game how much does a game's innovation, or lack thereof affect your decision?

 

[cherimoya]

innovation is so rare in the videogame industry that i've come to separate it from my "criteria of goodness".

outside of the "innovation" of new lighting and particle effects, new game engines, etc, i'm at a loss to remember gameplay innovations of the last few years.

i judge games based on how they play, how much fun i have while playing them, how well they tell their particular "story" or how well they immerse me in a particular game-world, not based on "innovation".

 

[Thewolfman]

Innovation in the story of a game, is one of the more important thing in a game. It's nice to play a game without a plotline that has been used a million times before. I.E. Botched super mutants or aliens from hell.
But what really matters is if a games fun. Pacman isnt exactly innovative but its fun. So innovation is important but if a game is highly innovative but sucks big monkey nuts then it still is a bad game.

 

[Jarc42]

If a method of gameplay is fun, I don't care if its been used before or if its innovative.

 

[BubbleGumSnareDrum]

As long it doesn't feel like I've already played a new game before that's usually good enough for me.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

In order for a game to get 10 IT MUST innovate something. I mean why would it get a 10 if everything that the game does has been done before and maybe even better?

 

[Nivag the Owl]

It doesn't affect my decision at all. I do have a few things in mind but they're mainly based on concepts.

 

[Foolish Mortal]

Innovation in the story of a game, is one of the more important thing in a game. It's nice to play a game without a plotline that has been used a million times before. I.E. Botched super mutants or aliens from hell.
But what really matters is if a games fun. Pacman isnt exactly innovative but its fun. So innovation is important but if a game is highly innovative but sucks big monkey nuts then it still is a bad game.

Pacman... not innovative. Check up on your gaming history young man.

Anyway!
I honestly don't mind if a game isn't truly innovative. While it's good and healthy that the industry tries new things, I don't think that a particular game being rated down because it doesn't Shock and Do Something Incredibly New is logical. If I enjoy something - say, BioShock - then I'm not particularly bothered if it's essentially just another FPS with magic hands and an underwater city.

 

[cherimoya]

In order for a game to get 10 IT MUST innovate something. I mean why would it get a 10 if everything that the game does has been done before and maybe even better?

videogame journalism's dependence on "9/10" "85%" shorthand for reviews is very annoying. the idea that a reviewer's impressions, insight and experience while playing a game is mathematically quantifiable in a tidy number (that coincidentally looks great and authoritative / definitive on adverts and game promotional material...) is ridiculous.

overlooking that irritation and back to the point of this thread, i'm curious about what you (and everyone else here) considers "innovation".

i mean, what is the last gameplay element, design decision or (for lack of a better word) macguffin that made you pause while playing and go "wow, not only was that new, but it was awesome,"?

i'm STILL thinking about my answer to that and i'm still drawing a blank.

(possibly the online / offline, a-life scripting system that ALMOST worked and ALMOST innovated in stalker + clear sky?)

 

[Talendra]

It does not matter so much to me. I will buy a game that's been done to death if I find it fun. However if a game is innovative and does it well then it certainly gets bonus points.

 

[SomeBritishDude]

If a method of gameplay is fun, I don't care if its been used before or if its innovative.

This.

 

[Strong Intelligent]

I don't terrifically like the Wii, guess I don't teriffiacly like innovation.

Or maybe that's just because anything new scares me and I run to the nearest safety cupboard to escape.

DAMN AUTISM!

 

[Wilfy]

I'm all for innovation, but not if it ruins gameplay by doing so

 

[Ancientgamer]

All games can't be innovative, there needs to be many games in between that perfect each Idea.

 

[cherimoya]

All games can't be innovative, there needs to be many games in between that perfect each Idea.

there's no reason that all games cant *try* to be innovative, tho.

i fear that the cost of making games circa 2009 might be too high for innovation to be considered a primary development goal; especially when taking a look at our replies.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I care about 2 things: is the game, and do I have fun with it. So I second the following:

As long it doesn't feel like I've already played a new game before that's usually good enough for me.

If it's innovative and good, great, if it's innovative and crap, nevermind.

 

[meece]

Innovation if good but I doubt it can ever make a mediocre game anything other than mediocre.

If it's good however and the innovation just brings it from good to excellent then full steam ahead tho.

 

[Nutcase]

I'll give anything that's unique a shot. I prioritize games that break new ground so that I can maximize my diversity of experience.

This, almost.

I have an ulterior motive (gathering experience relevant to game design) to prefer innovative games more than I would otherwise. But innovation is also a major component of fun for me. Pretty much all games I have ever liked had distinctively original elements or combinations of elements. I have very little interest in whole genres like sports and driving; even the most distinctive games there tend to be much like every other game of the genre.

This is not to say I won't play "the same thing" again as long as it's actually made better, but usually the generic clones/ripoffs/sequels emphasize graphics technology (which, in a vacuum, I don't particularly care about) while watering down or neglecting things like UI, mechanics and art direction which were the reason the earlier games were good.