It's not needed at all for me. A fun game is a fun game whether it does somthing new or not. Look at boom blox for the Wii. Sure it was somewhat innovative but i have just as much fun with that as say Rainbow 6 vegas games and lets be honest they really dont do anything new. I can most def. appreciate innovation but by no means do i need it.
How necessary is innovation in a game for you?
- Thread starter SmilingKitsune
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It has to innovate up to a certain point to feel different than other options.
Killzone 2 is a good example. I don't think I will get it since I played the demo and it feels a lot like CoD4 with a different setting... not enough to motive me to buy it, specially when there are so many good FPS around.
Killzone 2 is a good example. I don't think I will get it since I played the demo and it feels a lot like CoD4 with a different setting... not enough to motive me to buy it, specially when there are so many good FPS around.
I'd much prefer an tried-and-true concept and theme if it's coupled with good story and gameplay. Innovation doesn't mean much if the game's not any good. QED-Mirror's Edge.
As far as I can tell, games tend to either tread exactly the same ground something has before but use the popular story of the moment [I'm looking at you space marine stories], or go out of their way to be innovative when there was a nice functional system before that didn't need more than a minor tweak. I'd like to see more middle ground between the artsy stuff and the mainstream.
Innovation is the difference between playing a game and playing a game multiple times. If the Skate series had used the same control scheme as Tony Hawk I would have shrugged it off after a rent, but because the controls are so innovative I find myself playing Skate 2 more than just about any other game I own (it probably helps that I was an avid skater for several years, but you get the point).
Im sorry but pacman is not really an inovative game. It's fun, well made, but lets face it, Its a little yellow guy eating dots and runing from ghosts. It was popular and creative, but not innovative.
While innovation can be a breath of fresh air, more often than not it's merely an excuse for the game to suck in other departments. I'd rather have a game with excellent controls, gameplay, story, and visuals than a sub-par game that boasts the title of "innovative".
If developers can keep gameplay solid while making it innovative, I'm all for it.
If developers can keep gameplay solid while making it innovative, I'm all for it.
i'd like to be able to try a new take on a story, or a gameplay style every once in a while. after i've played "Grizzled Space Marine save the Universe/Galaxy/Humanity for the Nth time" it get's a bit samey, which i why i admired Mirrors Edge for what it trued to be, even though it failed pretty badly at it.
innovation is a good thing, but only if you implement it in the reight way. otherwise i'm content to go back and play Red faction 1 and 2, or Red Alert 1, and AoE 2, rather than these new fangled cookie cutter games
innovation is a good thing, but only if you implement it in the reight way. otherwise i'm content to go back and play Red faction 1 and 2, or Red Alert 1, and AoE 2, rather than these new fangled cookie cutter games
Good innovation to me just means that in some way the title has benefited from some original thinking or fresh approach. If people are happy with a game that is nothing but 100% retread and shovelware then go ahead, buy 10 copies of the game for all of your friends and family then tell the rest of us all how we are idiots for believing in that innovation thing. Of course, people who expect a title to be completely revolutionary in every way before it can be called innovative could do with having their expectations adjusted.
I guess the last game I've played that i would consider innovative was Generals (combination of original and expansion). Correct me if im wrong, which i dont doubt as a possibility, but i think it was the first RTS that really incorporated Special strikes (and to date imo, is the greatest game in terms of integrating these abilities into gameplay), and the expansion (again correct me if im wrong) was the first game to introduce split factions into multiplayer. Plus the three teams were quite unique, not just 3 almost identical teams that had different unit models. Then again i guess i could be seen as somewhat bias cause generals:zero hour is my favourite RTS of all time 
Not very. It just has to be fun and well done. Killzone 2 is one of my favorite games of all time, but it's hardly innovative at all. The only thing that can be considered innovative is its cover system, but that's just a tool. The game doesn't revolve around the cover system like in Gears. But what Killzone 2 lacks in innovation and story (although I rather liked the story. Not great by any means, but it did a great job of moving the action along and it conveyed, or at least tried to convey, the horrors or war), it makes up for in everything else. Killzone 2 is just plain fun. The animations, AI, graphics, and sound go hand in hand to deliver one of the most satisfying experiences I've ever had. Not to mention the brilliant multiplayer. Instead of giving players every class from the start, it makes players to work their way towards the better classes, thus forcing them to get accustomed to each class individually. That way, everyone has at least some experience with each class. People may like classes that they didn't even think they would.
As long as they aren't trying to pass it off as something "new" then I'm ok with a lack of innovation. Look at the Zelda series. NO innovation since 1996. Yet every game is amazing as far as I'm concerned. Some games pretend to be innovative when they really aren't. A lot of today's games are constantly boasting about how new and cool they are, when they are just the same damn thing some one else did 5 months ago, and 5 years before that. Look at GTA4. It may have some new ideas in it, but it's still the same damn game as GTA3. You don't even get the option to "play it straight" and be a good citizen. You are still stuck with the mafia like always. My point is, games are just meant to be fun. Innovation is just brownie points for the games that try harder. Usually, when some one innovates, some one else will come along and do it better later. This is fine. It just doesn't mean that the new game is innovative, but possibly more fun.