(Note - Please don't let the title insult you. If you have been insulted at all by the title, please kindly step outside and shoot yourself, as you can't learn to take a joke and don't deserve to live, you humourless dick! Moving on...)
"The term innovation means a new way of doing something." ~Wikipedia
Okay, that quote was pretty pathetic, but it at least states quite clearly what innovation is. It is also something that much of the hardcore, and even the casual gamers now, are pining for in their games. Something different, something new, something that doesn't feel like generic shooter 2032. Yet, whenever a game like this emerges bleary eyed from the swamp of current generation game design, why does the gaming community go into uproar about it?
Let's look at the biggest of these supposed sins against games, the Wii. Now, I have a Wii and a 360, and love them both to bits, and if I had a PS3, I'd love that too, since from what I've seen all three are pretty strong in their own ways. Of course, not as strong as my PC but that's beside the point.
Where as 360 and PS3 have pretty standard games, specifically in their controls, the Wii took an entirely different approach by employing a new (POWER GLOVE DOESN'T COUNT) form of motion sensitive controls. These featured various forms of accelerometre that can detect the angle the Wii is held in and if and how hard it is being swung, and an infrared pointer system to allow such communication in the game aswell, especially useful in the increasing library of rail shooters for the system.
Now, the setup itself was experimental. Like the DS which merged a touchscreen into its controller setup, the Wii uses these motion sensitive controls to add a level of interaction that few games have had before.
So why do so many people berate the Wii for being utterly useless? People act like the Wii has 'betrayed' them (A thread posted only today about Nintendo's betrayal to someone inspired me to write this entire article) by focusing its attention on more simple, accessible games that make use of the Wii's mostly innovative controls. And despite the Wii's lineup of Zelda, Mario, Metroid, No More Heroes, House of the Dead Overkill and Madworld (A list which I'm sure so many people following my train of thought are getting sick of hearing/typing up by now, I know I am) these so-called hardcore gamers still choose to attack Nintendo's lack of hardcore games, or a lack of acknowledgement to such gamers?
Why do Nintendo fans of the past feel that Nintendo should grow with them? This was one arguement I've seen recently, and basically people wanted the Wii to become just another console competing with 360 and PS3, but then that would entirely defeat the point of the Wii. It was designed as a counter against the hardcore fanbase, the whiny, self absorbed elitests of the 360 and PS3's underground commity of supergamers, fighting for honour, liberty, and whatever bullshit their generic space marine shoot 'em ups do. Instead of focusing on TRYING to please their hardcore fanbase, 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. They just want to play the game, perhaps with a mate or two, to have a little social brawl between them for a bit of amusement. That's all. But since Nintendo have done this perfectly acceptable business venture, hardcore gamers who didn't give a shit about the N64 and Gamecube despite both of those having a similar stream of casual games with a few SUPERB hardcore games thrown in, feel as though Nintendo has betrayed them somehow, as if Nintendo owes them for past loyalty which, if I'm not mistaken, when the Playstation came out, 90% of Nintendo's fanbase switched sides, then expected Nintendo to follow suit.
Too bad businesses don't work like that.
Now onto the games themselves. One big release that came somewhat recently was Mirror's Edge. For years, a lot of gamers have wanted a different kind of FPS, one which doesn't follow the suit of giving you a gun, putting a bunch of obstacles or enemies in your way and sending you on your merry, pseudo-invincible way as you mow down platoons of computer generated baddies. Instead, you are forced to use platforming skills to escape your enemies, occasionally getting pulled into the action side of things. I know Yahtzee has already gone on about its experimental attitude, and I have the exact same opinion. At least it was innovative.
However, once it was released, so many people blamed it for being different. I've heard all over the place (Not specifically here though, surprisingly, considering some of the kind of people I've seen frequent here a whole bunch) people getting angry that it wasn't just another generic shooter, saying things like 'they should have done it right'. But isn't that the idea of an experiment? You don't know if it's going to work out well, so you test the waters to see if it does. If it doesn't try again, if it does, roll with it.
Even some basic changes to gameplay can spark the innovative charm people want, lighting the flame of success in a franchise, and no game showcases this phenominan more than Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Call of Duty as a series has never really interested me. A few short plays of the older games made it feel pretty generic as shooters go. Maybe if I got the games myself and played them through I might feel different, but eh. However, Call of Duty 4, from what I understand, had much tighter controls, an incredibly unique form of storytelling that can keep even the most dullminded player hooked on it, and some of the greatest FPS gameplay I, and many others, have personally experienced. It was also nice to see a change from World War 2 to a more modern setting.
However when World at War came out, despite its similarities to what is arguably the best of the series, it got slaughtered by the gaming community. I've played World at War, and it seemed like a perfectly fine game. Not as good as the fourth, but definately not worth some of the comments some players have made about it. The innovative features of CoD4 were present in WaW and it still worked perfectly well in both the campaign and the multiplayer. Of course, one aspect of multiplayer did steal quite a bit from Valve.
Which of course brings me to Valve, a very well known developer from their Half Life series, Portal, Team Fortress and Left 4 Dead. Day of Defeat and Counter Strike aside, which all have places in pretty familiar territory, Half Life did a great job of linking a great, subtly displayed story within a series of physics based puzzles and great action sequences that keep players on their toes. Portal does away with shooting altogether and focuses entirely on puzzles and incredibly hilarious comedy. Team Fortress, the original one, really helped put class-based gameplay on the map, and Team Fortress 2 took a new direction with some incredibly well designed levels and wonderful balance between the classes, and a unique graphical style. (Yes I know Serious Sam was cel shaded. No, TF2 isn't cel shaded, and as far as I know, no other game has used the same art style, it is actually the opposite of cel shading, before you tell me otherwise.) And Left 4 Dead took a zompie apocolypse and turned it in to one of the greatest multiplayer games of all time.
So apparently, Valve is one developer that gets innovation right. Despite the fact all their games have flaws, such as TF2's continuing problem with glitches, Half Life's currently repetitive nature with its puzzles and Left 4 Dead's glaring problem with difficulty on versus mode being horribly easy in some cases and in need of an option to make it harder, and some awful balance issues that can allow four hunters to spawn at once, allowing all survivors to be taken out by a semi-compitent team of boss zombies. Yet, when games that gleam with innovation like Mirror's Edge come out, the flaws are the first to be pointed out, but when Valve make a somewhat innovative game they get out with full marks...
So there's my issues with the whole innovation part of gaming. Games aren't going to get innovative if all people do is ***** about a particularly innovative game because of its flaws, rather than praising the good bits about it and hoping another game will follow the same lines, but fix the problems. It would also help if people would stop buying any totally generic shooter that gets shoved infront of them. It's not like when you were five and your mother forced you to eat your brocilli. 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. That's how I got into Metal Gear Acid, a series I adore my getting a PSP for my birthday for.
End note - quit bitching about the Wii, you anti-fanboys. (If this thread gets somewhat read, I might write something about my views on that, the 'anti-fanboy'.)
"The term innovation means a new way of doing something." ~Wikipedia
Okay, that quote was pretty pathetic, but it at least states quite clearly what innovation is. It is also something that much of the hardcore, and even the casual gamers now, are pining for in their games. Something different, something new, something that doesn't feel like generic shooter 2032. Yet, whenever a game like this emerges bleary eyed from the swamp of current generation game design, why does the gaming community go into uproar about it?
Let's look at the biggest of these supposed sins against games, the Wii. Now, I have a Wii and a 360, and love them both to bits, and if I had a PS3, I'd love that too, since from what I've seen all three are pretty strong in their own ways. Of course, not as strong as my PC but that's beside the point.
Where as 360 and PS3 have pretty standard games, specifically in their controls, the Wii took an entirely different approach by employing a new (POWER GLOVE DOESN'T COUNT) form of motion sensitive controls. These featured various forms of accelerometre that can detect the angle the Wii is held in and if and how hard it is being swung, and an infrared pointer system to allow such communication in the game aswell, especially useful in the increasing library of rail shooters for the system.
Now, the setup itself was experimental. Like the DS which merged a touchscreen into its controller setup, the Wii uses these motion sensitive controls to add a level of interaction that few games have had before.
So why do so many people berate the Wii for being utterly useless? People act like the Wii has 'betrayed' them (A thread posted only today about Nintendo's betrayal to someone inspired me to write this entire article) by focusing its attention on more simple, accessible games that make use of the Wii's mostly innovative controls. And despite the Wii's lineup of Zelda, Mario, Metroid, No More Heroes, House of the Dead Overkill and Madworld (A list which I'm sure so many people following my train of thought are getting sick of hearing/typing up by now, I know I am) these so-called hardcore gamers still choose to attack Nintendo's lack of hardcore games, or a lack of acknowledgement to such gamers?
Why do Nintendo fans of the past feel that Nintendo should grow with them? This was one arguement I've seen recently, and basically people wanted the Wii to become just another console competing with 360 and PS3, but then that would entirely defeat the point of the Wii. It was designed as a counter against the hardcore fanbase, the whiny, self absorbed elitests of the 360 and PS3's underground commity of supergamers, fighting for honour, liberty, and whatever bullshit their generic space marine shoot 'em ups do. Instead of focusing on TRYING to please their hardcore fanbase, 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. They just want to play the game, perhaps with a mate or two, to have a little social brawl between them for a bit of amusement. That's all. But since Nintendo have done this perfectly acceptable business venture, hardcore gamers who didn't give a shit about the N64 and Gamecube despite both of those having a similar stream of casual games with a few SUPERB hardcore games thrown in, feel as though Nintendo has betrayed them somehow, as if Nintendo owes them for past loyalty which, if I'm not mistaken, when the Playstation came out, 90% of Nintendo's fanbase switched sides, then expected Nintendo to follow suit.
Too bad businesses don't work like that.
Now onto the games themselves. One big release that came somewhat recently was Mirror's Edge. For years, a lot of gamers have wanted a different kind of FPS, one which doesn't follow the suit of giving you a gun, putting a bunch of obstacles or enemies in your way and sending you on your merry, pseudo-invincible way as you mow down platoons of computer generated baddies. Instead, you are forced to use platforming skills to escape your enemies, occasionally getting pulled into the action side of things. I know Yahtzee has already gone on about its experimental attitude, and I have the exact same opinion. At least it was innovative.
However, once it was released, so many people blamed it for being different. I've heard all over the place (Not specifically here though, surprisingly, considering some of the kind of people I've seen frequent here a whole bunch) people getting angry that it wasn't just another generic shooter, saying things like 'they should have done it right'. But isn't that the idea of an experiment? You don't know if it's going to work out well, so you test the waters to see if it does. If it doesn't try again, if it does, roll with it.
Even some basic changes to gameplay can spark the innovative charm people want, lighting the flame of success in a franchise, and no game showcases this phenominan more than Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Call of Duty as a series has never really interested me. A few short plays of the older games made it feel pretty generic as shooters go. Maybe if I got the games myself and played them through I might feel different, but eh. However, Call of Duty 4, from what I understand, had much tighter controls, an incredibly unique form of storytelling that can keep even the most dullminded player hooked on it, and some of the greatest FPS gameplay I, and many others, have personally experienced. It was also nice to see a change from World War 2 to a more modern setting.
However when World at War came out, despite its similarities to what is arguably the best of the series, it got slaughtered by the gaming community. I've played World at War, and it seemed like a perfectly fine game. Not as good as the fourth, but definately not worth some of the comments some players have made about it. The innovative features of CoD4 were present in WaW and it still worked perfectly well in both the campaign and the multiplayer. Of course, one aspect of multiplayer did steal quite a bit from Valve.
Which of course brings me to Valve, a very well known developer from their Half Life series, Portal, Team Fortress and Left 4 Dead. Day of Defeat and Counter Strike aside, which all have places in pretty familiar territory, Half Life did a great job of linking a great, subtly displayed story within a series of physics based puzzles and great action sequences that keep players on their toes. Portal does away with shooting altogether and focuses entirely on puzzles and incredibly hilarious comedy. Team Fortress, the original one, really helped put class-based gameplay on the map, and Team Fortress 2 took a new direction with some incredibly well designed levels and wonderful balance between the classes, and a unique graphical style. (Yes I know Serious Sam was cel shaded. No, TF2 isn't cel shaded, and as far as I know, no other game has used the same art style, it is actually the opposite of cel shading, before you tell me otherwise.) And Left 4 Dead took a zompie apocolypse and turned it in to one of the greatest multiplayer games of all time.
So apparently, Valve is one developer that gets innovation right. Despite the fact all their games have flaws, such as TF2's continuing problem with glitches, Half Life's currently repetitive nature with its puzzles and Left 4 Dead's glaring problem with difficulty on versus mode being horribly easy in some cases and in need of an option to make it harder, and some awful balance issues that can allow four hunters to spawn at once, allowing all survivors to be taken out by a semi-compitent team of boss zombies. Yet, when games that gleam with innovation like Mirror's Edge come out, the flaws are the first to be pointed out, but when Valve make a somewhat innovative game they get out with full marks...
So there's my issues with the whole innovation part of gaming. Games aren't going to get innovative if all people do is ***** about a particularly innovative game because of its flaws, rather than praising the good bits about it and hoping another game will follow the same lines, but fix the problems. It would also help if people would stop buying any totally generic shooter that gets shoved infront of them. It's not like when you were five and your mother forced you to eat your brocilli. 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. That's how I got into Metal Gear Acid, a series I adore my getting a PSP for my birthday for.
End note - quit bitching about the Wii, you anti-fanboys. (If this thread gets somewhat read, I might write something about my views on that, the 'anti-fanboy'.)
