Bad example. Most of the Innovation in Portal was done as a student project. Valve hired the whole team after the concept was proved.Doug said:
Innovation a.k.a. Why Many Gamers Are Hypocritical Ass-hats - Essay warning
- Thread starter RYjet911
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I mentioned Madden '04 specifically because I limit myself to one sports game iteration per console (two if the developer makes a quantum leap forward one year---I had Madden 2002 but the addition of Owner Mode in '04 was worth the buy). Since I tend to play games in Franchise Mode over a simply ungodly number of in-game years it's kind of a letdown for me if I have to give up my franchise to get the new year's rosters. By the time I've played a game for awhile none of the original players from the game are even still in the league.orannis62 said:
If I cared about playing with the latest rosters I'd probably be one of those "buy it every year" types, but I just don't play sports games that way. My "background" is in management/strategy gaming ("tycoon" and RTS games) so that tends to carry into sports.
Funny - all the reviews and comments I have been hearing of Mirror's Edge say it should have had *less* combat. In other words, the bitching was not because the game was innovative, but because the company watered down their innovative vision by sticking the same ol' mandatory beating and shooting in a game that did not really need it at all.
Since patience isn't one of the core virtues of the internet, that makes a lot of sense.Hardcore_gamer said:
I generally agree but just because a game is innovative doesn't make it immune to criticism. Regardless of whether it's innovative or not, the flaws can still be criticised; to be honest the flaws with innovation are no different in the videogame industry than in any other industry. Generic female pop songs still shoot to the top of the UK charts despite sounding exactly the same as each other and every top song for about 10 years; it's just that 75% of the world are completely afraid of trying anything new.
Aside - Left 4 Dead doesn't have 'awful balance issues'. Most of the game is extremely well-balanced (and even with 4 Hunters at the same time it's very difficult to get every player at once), and Versus isn't easy if the Infected team know what they are doing.
Aside - Left 4 Dead doesn't have 'awful balance issues'. Most of the game is extremely well-balanced (and even with 4 Hunters at the same time it's very difficult to get every player at once), and Versus isn't easy if the Infected team know what they are doing.
*restarts slow clap*MistahFixIt said:
I'm sorry, but this deserves it.
I also could not have said this better myself.
Innovation to me is one of those buzz words that I cringe at, why? You can;t always have innovation, if you do the "well runs dry". Innovation for the sake of innovation is NOT a good thing and makes them into "gimmicks". I see innovation as a kick in the ass, or a push for when the industry has gotten far too samey. Formulaic games and those that stick to the tried and true templates are not bad, I get tired of the "generic" complaint since generic does not mean the same as bad. If it aint broke don't fix it, or just makes it better. As long as something is fun and enjoyable it shouldn't matter if something is innovative or not, as innovative does not always mean good, just like formulaic and generic isn't bad.
I welcome innovation, but only if it's well executed. Innovation for the sake of innovation, which seems to be the common case with "innovative" games, is just as bad as any other terrible game. Innovation is not something that needs to be constantly done, or else we soon lose sight of it and see it as samey as the other games we called un-innovative. When it comes along, and is done well it's great, but if it comes along far too often I have a feeling gamers will complain about that too. After all, gamers are the most pickiest customers on the planet who will nit pick about anything, so the blame lies with us as much as it does with devs.
just my two cents.
I welcome innovation, but only if it's well executed. Innovation for the sake of innovation, which seems to be the common case with "innovative" games, is just as bad as any other terrible game. Innovation is not something that needs to be constantly done, or else we soon lose sight of it and see it as samey as the other games we called un-innovative. When it comes along, and is done well it's great, but if it comes along far too often I have a feeling gamers will complain about that too. After all, gamers are the most pickiest customers on the planet who will nit pick about anything, so the blame lies with us as much as it does with devs.
just my two cents.
If only this one forum thread could somehow cause ever gamer in the world to start buying innovative games....
Unfortunately, the one message publishers have been seeing again and again is that "innovation don't sell". And I don't think many publishers are going to sacrifice all their profits for the sake of "moving the games industry forward".
The only reason EA could release a game like Mirror's Edge is because they've got games like Madden that are guaranteed to sell.
Unfortunately, the one message publishers have been seeing again and again is that "innovation don't sell". And I don't think many publishers are going to sacrifice all their profits for the sake of "moving the games industry forward".
The only reason EA could release a game like Mirror's Edge is because they've got games like Madden that are guaranteed to sell.
I always thought the quality of the game is what mattered more, and the quality can be raised if the innovation is done right. I haven't played Mirror's Edge, but I am getting sick of the "I" word. Why is innovation so important? It's kinda like the EA haters...if you hate the games they make, then just avoid them. If you hate cliched games, then don't buy them. Our games library is not in a sorry state, people just don't notice innovation when they see it. Example, Uncharted was known for "playing it safe", mixing 'gears of war' and 'tomb raider' gameplay elements together. It seemed rather innovative to me. Who would have thought those gameplay elements would have worked so well together? If the developer was actually 'playing it safe', then they would have gone with what they knew worked and just left out platforming altogether, only having shooting. But as a result of their change, it felt fresh and new. For once I was playing a shooter game that didn't feel anything like a shooter. Although it seemed that everyone else just didn't realize how it did things differently from other shooters. I bet those are the same people who think that games now-a-days lack innovation, when they really don't.
A game doesn't need to be un-fun to be innovative, it just needs to do things a bit differently. No one can call a game innovative (or not) and have their opinion as fact, but too many people think they can anyway. When I first played Halo, I thought it was a copy cat of Golden Eye because its gameplay was too similar to it. But then I realized its innovation lay within the way its plot was presented, making it a more cinematic experience. That made me realize innovation was in every game. The people that are denying it just aren't looking hard enough. Some games will be similar to others, but they will always do something differently.
A game doesn't need to be un-fun to be innovative, it just needs to do things a bit differently. No one can call a game innovative (or not) and have their opinion as fact, but too many people think they can anyway. When I first played Halo, I thought it was a copy cat of Golden Eye because its gameplay was too similar to it. But then I realized its innovation lay within the way its plot was presented, making it a more cinematic experience. That made me realize innovation was in every game. The people that are denying it just aren't looking hard enough. Some games will be similar to others, but they will always do something differently.
Great points and I know where your coming from and i understand the point your trying to make and its a valid one. Though if i may. I don't agree with everyone abandoning nintendo as soon as the ps came out. I myself and im sure alot of other ppl that bought a ps from the escapists have put some SERIOUS time and love into the N64. One of the greatest systems ever. nuff said. As for the Wii yes it's different as it should be and Nintendo is winning the war because the other two consoles are too busy splitting hardcore titles along with sales, slugging it out with each other while the little toaster that could is taking an entirely different approach and sucking up 100% of its target audiance. Do i wish it had some more umph in it, sure i do. DO i own one? yes. DO i play it? no. It's just not for me and i can accept that. You said it best in that we shouldn't expect nintendo to grow with us. Thats like hoping that one day nickelodeon starts running southpark marathons. It's just not going to happen.
My only other problem is that WaW wasn't as good as you say it is. Cod4 was so near perfect of a game that every single fan that picked that up (all of us) was hoping for something amazing. And it just fell short. But we should know by now the only Cod games worth playing are the infinity ward ones. (will they ever learn). Really what it comes down to it is some people just take videogames way to seriously and some to an extreme personal level. These companies, these franshices don't owe you shit. So get over yourself. Individual customer loyalty means piss on a global level. It's the herd that counts. It's that simple. But there will always be trolls, and in the distant future when this is all over and there is but One console and we look back and laugh about these meaningless trivial debates. We stop and tell our children "you know when i was your age...."
Ps. THE POWER GLOVE SO COUNTS! >.<
My only other problem is that WaW wasn't as good as you say it is. Cod4 was so near perfect of a game that every single fan that picked that up (all of us) was hoping for something amazing. And it just fell short. But we should know by now the only Cod games worth playing are the infinity ward ones. (will they ever learn). Really what it comes down to it is some people just take videogames way to seriously and some to an extreme personal level. These companies, these franshices don't owe you shit. So get over yourself. Individual customer loyalty means piss on a global level. It's the herd that counts. It's that simple. But there will always be trolls, and in the distant future when this is all over and there is but One console and we look back and laugh about these meaningless trivial debates. We stop and tell our children "you know when i was your age...."
Ps. THE POWER GLOVE SO COUNTS! >.<
Can't really disagree with your post, but:RYjet911 said:
This leaves a rather large group(group1) that has a wii with 4 or 5 games that hasn't been touched in months. Those people at least expected more 'hardcore' nintendo titles than...
Something is wrong here...
...why the hell am I trying to defend idiots that are crying because they pre-ordered a console without actually waiting for it to get a decent amount of games?
Could be because I like arguing, but I can't think of any argument for the people that think nintendo 'betrayed' them.
This is true. To put a Halflife 2 analogy out there: A gravity gun does not a game make. Even Garry's mod, who's basic premise is moving stuff around with a modified Grav gun realises this and gives you a whole box of toys to tinker with.SimuLord said:
Oh, just a note. What glitches are we talking about with regards to Team Fortress 2? I'm aware there are some exploits still available on the PC version, but these get stamped out pretty quick. Although, I've never played a console version, so I'm guessing that's what you were referring to OP.
You bring up some fairly good points about there being degrees of innovation in games and how innovative a person thinks a game is quite subjective. How innovative a game is to a person is determined by the other games they have played in the past and what they have heard about other games. I also think quality is important and can be improved with innovation. However, I personally think that combining "safe" game elements in the case of Uncharted is only sort-of innovative; it lacks new ideas that come from the developers minds. Even if innovation is very important, if the game isn't enjoyable/fun... the developers missed the point of making a game in the first place. I think part of the problem with some innovative games, (in addition to being something new and scary), they aren't properly tested/play tested enough before the game is released...creating additional problems and frustration for the player.Rational-Delirium said:
Eh. The problem isn't that Nintendo is innovative, but that it's bad. I've played the Wii, and there's not a game on it that I didn't think would have been better on the gamecube. Innovation by itself should be encouraged, but if the innovation isn't good it's not magically better than an less innovative game that is fun.
No one "blames" Nintendo for being innovative, or blames Mirror's Edge for being different. We blame them for sucking. Mirror's Edge had so much wrong with it (including unintuitive controls, poorly designed levels, and a rejection of the very things it should have been) that unless the last screen of the game cured several types of cancer, or that all of the running in the game translated to real-world weight loss, it wouldn't have been worth playing past the first few levels. The Wii was intended to be true motion control, but the controls are so finicky most of the time that it's easier to just plug in a normal controller. We're finally getting a 1-to-1 attachment, years too late. And aside from the motion tracking, everything else is basically "use the wiimote like the old duck-hunt gun".
Throw in the shoehorning of wii features (or DS features) into basically every game, and it becomes really frustrating. Even without the shouting into your DS for Phantom Hourglass, you still have a fidgety wiimote feature in almost every wii game I've played, or a crappy DS feature. Bold effort, I accept, but they should have said after launch "okay, here's what worked about the wiimote: the motion control (sometimes), and the feeling of interactivity. Now let's get rid of the point and click crap, and see where we are)". Instead, they seemed to say "everything works great, let's make sure to put it into every game we can. And no need to make the point and click part work, it's fine if the cursor jumps and twitches since the little pointer strip is so tiny".
I do agree that one can't claim that Nintendo "betrayed" anyone, but the change in its target fanbase is somewhat jarring. All the way back to the SNES, they still had games that appealed to an older demographic. Smarter, funnier, more difficult, games. Super Mario RPG, Chrono Trigger, Link to the Past. On the N64: Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Ocarina of Time. Even through the days of the Gamecube, they had games for both sides: Fire Emblem, Metal Gear Solid, Phantasy Star Online. But, now think about the Wii. Where's the balance? They've got SSBB, but there are plenty of people (myself included) who see most fighting games as inherently simplistic party games. Mario Party/Tennis/Kart/Golf/Underwater Basket Weaving? Sure, Paper Mario is nice (but not as nice), and even Fire Emblem is hamstrung by the crappy wii controls (same with Mario Galaxy and Twilight Princess).
So, it's not a feeling that Nintendo should mature with us, but the feeling that where they once had something to offer even a more mature demographic, they've become so invested in mining for coins from the young and elderly. Nintendo was never particularly immature until they decided that the best money was in crappy casual games (and in allowing any bedroom programmer to release terrible shovelware).
No one "blames" Nintendo for being innovative, or blames Mirror's Edge for being different. We blame them for sucking. Mirror's Edge had so much wrong with it (including unintuitive controls, poorly designed levels, and a rejection of the very things it should have been) that unless the last screen of the game cured several types of cancer, or that all of the running in the game translated to real-world weight loss, it wouldn't have been worth playing past the first few levels. The Wii was intended to be true motion control, but the controls are so finicky most of the time that it's easier to just plug in a normal controller. We're finally getting a 1-to-1 attachment, years too late. And aside from the motion tracking, everything else is basically "use the wiimote like the old duck-hunt gun".
Throw in the shoehorning of wii features (or DS features) into basically every game, and it becomes really frustrating. Even without the shouting into your DS for Phantom Hourglass, you still have a fidgety wiimote feature in almost every wii game I've played, or a crappy DS feature. Bold effort, I accept, but they should have said after launch "okay, here's what worked about the wiimote: the motion control (sometimes), and the feeling of interactivity. Now let's get rid of the point and click crap, and see where we are)". Instead, they seemed to say "everything works great, let's make sure to put it into every game we can. And no need to make the point and click part work, it's fine if the cursor jumps and twitches since the little pointer strip is so tiny".
I do agree that one can't claim that Nintendo "betrayed" anyone, but the change in its target fanbase is somewhat jarring. All the way back to the SNES, they still had games that appealed to an older demographic. Smarter, funnier, more difficult, games. Super Mario RPG, Chrono Trigger, Link to the Past. On the N64: Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Ocarina of Time. Even through the days of the Gamecube, they had games for both sides: Fire Emblem, Metal Gear Solid, Phantasy Star Online. But, now think about the Wii. Where's the balance? They've got SSBB, but there are plenty of people (myself included) who see most fighting games as inherently simplistic party games. Mario Party/Tennis/Kart/Golf/Underwater Basket Weaving? Sure, Paper Mario is nice (but not as nice), and even Fire Emblem is hamstrung by the crappy wii controls (same with Mario Galaxy and Twilight Princess).
So, it's not a feeling that Nintendo should mature with us, but the feeling that where they once had something to offer even a more mature demographic, they've become so invested in mining for coins from the young and elderly. Nintendo was never particularly immature until they decided that the best money was in crappy casual games (and in allowing any bedroom programmer to release terrible shovelware).
RYjet911, post 1.
Instead of focusing on TRYING to please their hardcore fan base, they instead turned towards the easier-to-please casual gamer, the gamer who plays not to win, or not for the artistic side of games, but to have some fun.[/quote]
I just wanted to point out that when you say "easier-to-please", that means, according to the Wii, that this fan base only needs to get a new Mario and Zelda game every year and it will shut them up for a while. The Wii reaches out to the whole family, granted, but that means that even the cat can play. And win, based on the community.
Oh, but there I go, being an anti-fanboy troll. We don't need that, do we? No, I should focus more on the innovation aspect of the Wii.
There are big buckets of innovation here, but none of them really shine. Seldon put it well; that all of the innovation mars itself and all of the features of the Wii don?t play nicely together. The controls all jumping up and down wanting me to use all of them all at once make me wish almost ever game was on the 360 or GameCube. Like SSBB: I always use a GC controler because it picks up input, something the Wiimote just doesn't feel like doing right away.
One last point: ?It would also help if people would stop buying any totally generic shooter that gets shoved in front of them. It's not like when you were five and your mother forced you to eat your broccoli. You have a choice whether to buy a game or not. Make the better choice, and try a game from a genre you haven't played before, or buy a game that takes an interesting spin on an old franchise/genre.? Mario, Zelda, and Mii-based games. End of.
Instead of focusing on TRYING to please their hardcore fan base, they instead turned towards the easier-to-please casual gamer, the gamer who plays not to win, or not for the artistic side of games, but to have some fun.[/quote]
I just wanted to point out that when you say "easier-to-please", that means, according to the Wii, that this fan base only needs to get a new Mario and Zelda game every year and it will shut them up for a while. The Wii reaches out to the whole family, granted, but that means that even the cat can play. And win, based on the community.
Oh, but there I go, being an anti-fanboy troll. We don't need that, do we? No, I should focus more on the innovation aspect of the Wii.
There are big buckets of innovation here, but none of them really shine. Seldon put it well; that all of the innovation mars itself and all of the features of the Wii don?t play nicely together. The controls all jumping up and down wanting me to use all of them all at once make me wish almost ever game was on the 360 or GameCube. Like SSBB: I always use a GC controler because it picks up input, something the Wiimote just doesn't feel like doing right away.
One last point: ?It would also help if people would stop buying any totally generic shooter that gets shoved in front of them. It's not like when you were five and your mother forced you to eat your broccoli. You have a choice whether to buy a game or not. Make the better choice, and try a game from a genre you haven't played before, or buy a game that takes an interesting spin on an old franchise/genre.? Mario, Zelda, and Mii-based games. End of.
