How necessary is innovation in a game for you?

[Benj17]

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.

i agree, its not whether or not the new game engine can iron you clothes (though i must say i do get a clean press when i run my 360 over anything made of cotton) its a matter if its fun

halo for example, the first wass a big success yay woohoo, the second one was a big success due to the change in graphics and the direction the story was going so again yay woohoo, halo 3 was a big success because it looked and felt like halo 2. bad times. being classed as a good game because nothing really changed is like getting given a donut that looks perfectly fine but the filling is cyanide covered manure.

As the Wolf man said, pac man wasnt innotive it was fun, and i totally agree. it's the same with super mario and sonic. turning super mario from 8 bit to 64 bit (aka 2d to 3d) was one of the best innotive ideas ever. Turning sonic however into 3D has never seemed to work (flickies island anyone?) and his most recent outing just looked like someone got crash bandicoot, painted him blue and gave him some hair gel and deprived him of coffee.

So innovation is important if it helps e.g. story development but if the innovation is a certain chief of the master varietys armour just looks dirty and scratched then i'll just bite my thumb at it

 

[IsoNeko]

Honestly, I'd much rather settle for a balanced multiplayer. Than one that includes an awesome feature in Single Player, then leaves multiplayer to rot in hell. See: Anything that tries to be better than Halo, and fucks everything up.

 

[IsoNeko]

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.

i agree, its not whether or not the new game engine can iron you clothes (though i must say i do get a clean press when i run my 360 over anything made of cotton) its a matter if its fun

halo for example, the first wass a big success yay woohoo, the second one was a big success due to the change in graphics and the direction the story was going so again yay woohoo, halo 3 was a big success because it looked and felt like halo 2. bad times. being classed as a good game because nothing really changed is like getting given a donut that looks perfectly fine but the filling is cyanide covered manure.

As the Wolf man said, pac man wasnt innotive it was fun, and i totally agree. it's the same with super mario and sonic. turning super mario from 8 bit to 64 bit (aka 2d to 3d) was one of the best innotive ideas ever. Turning sonic however into 3D has never seemed to work (flickies island anyone?) and his most recent outing just looked like someone got crash bandicoot, painted him blue and gave him some hair gel and deprived him of coffee.

So innovation is important if it helps e.g. story development but if the innovation is a certain chief of the master varietys armour just looks dirty and scratched then i'll just bite my thumb at it

Your Donut Analogy is just strange? A more suitable one would be getting a Chocolate Sprinkled Donut everytime you play. Sure it's good the first time, but you want a different flavour after a while.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Your Donut Analogy is just strange? A more suitable one would be getting a Chocolate Sprinkled Donut everytime you play. Sure it's good the first time, but you want a different flavour after a while.

This would be why Pac-Man was not innovative. He eats the same dots in every game.

I'm starting to understand this innovation thing now thanks to this thread.

 

[LeonLethality]

Well since I love classic FF games I suppose its up to story since simple gaming (turn based) can be good (LoZ ocorina of time) innovtion can be hell (mario... its still okay but i miss classic) opinionative I guess

 

[Benj17]

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.

i agree, its not whether or not the new game engine can iron you clothes (though i must say i do get a clean press when i run my 360 over anything made of cotton) its a matter if its fun

halo for example, the first wass a big success yay woohoo, the second one was a big success due to the change in graphics and the direction the story was going so again yay woohoo, halo 3 was a big success because it looked and felt like halo 2. bad times. being classed as a good game because nothing really changed is like getting given a donut that looks perfectly fine but the filling is cyanide covered manure.

As the Wolf man said, pac man wasnt innotive it was fun, and i totally agree. it's the same with super mario and sonic. turning super mario from 8 bit to 64 bit (aka 2d to 3d) was one of the best innotive ideas ever. Turning sonic however into 3D has never seemed to work (flickies island anyone?) and his most recent outing just looked like someone got crash bandicoot, painted him blue and gave him some hair gel and deprived him of coffee.

So innovation is important if it helps e.g. story development but if the innovation is a certain chief of the master varietys armour just looks dirty and scratched then i'll just bite my thumb at it

Your Donut Analogy is just strange? A more suitable one would be getting a Chocolate Sprinkled Donut everytime you play. Sure it's good the first time, but you want a different flavour after a while.

true but i was trying to get across that halo 3 did'nt change but it looked nice like the donut does from the outside, but once you start getting into the game it just gets worse and worse in terms of unanswered questions. In my mind unanswered questions in an excellent franchise leads to bad situations much like obtaining a good looking donut (the franchise) but having it filled with cyanide covered manure (the crap that the game spouts out instead of answers)

Though i do agree with your analogy partly, the only time i actually play halo 3 is for the multiplayer now, but i think the DLC for multiplayer counts as a new flavoured donut

god after saying that im hungry

 

[IrrelevantTangent]

In some cases? More than anything.

 

[caelanarcher]

I don't really think about going out and getting the "most innovative" games, but at the same time, all of my top favorite games are fairly "innovative", at least in gameplay. Sands of Time, Okami, Beyond Good & Evil, Psychonauts. I guess generally it's the factor that takes a game from good to great (for me).