innovation/are we running out of (original) ideas?

[Nycto]

the thing about gaming is that you have to innovate in order to survive. if its not original, its not playable. but the problem is that we are fast running out of things to add to our games for it to be called innovative.
only so many times can one fly to planet x, blast alien y, save babe z and still have fun. hell, even bioshock 2 has been claimed ("by many critics"- playstation (official magazine australia)) to having a 50/50 chance of either being a dud or a great game because of two reason's one: the reputation of 2k marin and 2: the game doesn't seem to be innovating beyond the fact that you play a big daddy.

because of the fact that developer's are finding it hard to innovate (in a market with a quickly drying idea's pool) they have had to focus on how to make their game x stand out from game y. be it graphics/design, story, gameplay or just some other random factor, develpor's try to keep themselves afloat with pitching the latest and greatest they have done in one area (which more often than not leads other area's to suffer). take the upcoming red faction: guerilla (of which i have played the demo). its set on mars as with the previous red factions (sensible considering the story), it has a realistic feel to it (i.e. enemies think like humans, vehicles carry the correct weight/feel when piloting, the environment looks like mars and the civilian's look and react like people rather than walking dummies), buildings are actually destroyed realisticaly and come apart in realistic pieces rather than dissapear in a cloud of smoke/dust (their selling point), but then comes gameplay.
the gameplay is that of an open world environment where you get to choose which missions you want to do and when, you get around by stealing/borrowing vehicles, its third person and you can go around being a total badass or you can be the saviour of the underdog's (although the whole storyline will most likely force you to side with the red faction). now all this to me sounds a bit of the same kind of thing we have seen before with GTA and Saints Row... i know as soon as this comes out people will be describing it as grand theft auto on mars (mind you grand theft auto wasn't the first to do open world "shoot-em-up's" where you steal vehicles, they just popularised it).

a good example of innovation is where a developer has gone for the weird but enticing angle. take world of goo, the weirdest concept for a game to date (feel free to argue but im standing by my claim....i mean, goo balls in a physical representation of cyberspace? hows that not weird?), where one is a transcendant builder of structures where the only material available is small balls (sometimes squares) of variously coloured goop that join together to form bridges, towers, supports and various other structural pieces. now this is an original idea, with original gameplay that was designed and presented with the highest production values i've seen in a while(such a shame 90% of players were pirates)...

but my point is there is only so much innovation left in the world of gaming...
there is only so many ideas left in the world and it is going to take some of the greatest minds to expand upon what we already have..... but what will happen when the innovation dries up and we have lost all the originality the industry had when it first started? will we still play games?

 

[Nycto]

We need to start another world war.

Thats what your saying right?

haha not that drastic but pretty much hey, how many times can you do world war 1 and 2 games? but then again world war 3 would just be about nukes/terrorism (cod 4) or robot mech suits (mech warrior)

 

[DYin01]

We need to start another world war.

Thats what your saying right?

The war in Iraq is already being used for games (more or less) but I don't really like that setting. They should have a war here in Europe again. I like forests. Yeah, that would be great for gaming. Maybe a little less for the rest of the world, but hey, can't win 'em all.

 

[twistedshadows]

I pretty much roll my eyes when yet another WW2 game comes out. Nothing against the genre, it just seems like it's been done to death.

That said, I still think there's potential for a vast number of innovative games that are yet unmade or thought of. It's just that the major developers keep coming out with sequels to games that have already done well instead of focusing on creating something new and different. In my opinion, this is why indie developers are starting to gain more recognition. People are beginning to look for games that steps outside the formulaic box that follows the x, y, and z pattern that you mentioned. There's always a new approach to take, as long as there's someone in the developing world willing to take the risks (and pull it off).

 

[Nycto]

There's always a new approach to take, as long as there's someone in the developing world willing to take the risks (and pull it off).

yeah i agree but take a look at mirror's edge, great idea, great concept, pulled of quite well but for some reason didn't go down well.... are we giving developer's the wrong idea?

 

[twistedshadows]

There's always a new approach to take, as long as there's someone in the developing world willing to take the risks (and pull it off).

yeah i agree but take a look at mirror's edge, great idea, great concept, pulled of quite well but for some reason didn't go down well.... are we giving developer's the wrong idea?

I was actually just thinking of Mirror's Edge after I posted; I'm not sure what happened there. Maybe gamers want innovation, but within some boundaries they already know and are comfortable with. Bioshock did incredibly well and was considered innovative, but it still follows some simple rules that are upheld in most games that are similar to it. Maybe we are giving them mixed signals. If so, it would be much more difficult for developers to come up with something new that gamers will still want to play. It probably would make them hesitant to try developing anything interesting if there's even a chance their innovative idea wouldn't be widely accepted.

 

[Seydaman]

We need to start another world war.

Thats what your saying right?

would make for some interesting games!

 

[IceStar100]

We need to start another world war.

Thats what your saying right?

The war in Iraq is already being used for games (more or less) but I don't really like that setting. They should have a war here in Europe again. I like forests. Yeah, that would be great for gaming. Maybe a little less for the rest of the world, but hey, can't win 'em all.

PLEASE WE AMRICANS NEED ANOTHER WAR! WE WANT TO BE HEROS AGAIN AND BLOWING STUFF UP IS ALL WE ARE GOOD AT!

 

[BonsaiK]

There's plenty of great ideas out there, just not many could be bothered. It's the same malaise that plagues the film industry. People have worked out what sells, so they just keep on pushing that, rather than taking a risk. As gaming budgets get bigger, new ideas become a risky thing, because they may work or they may not. A bold new idea might be the best game in the world but if it fails to sell it may cost hundreds of jobs. Whereas if you just churn out ten versions of Halo then sure it may suck but at least people will buy it, it's money in the bank. It's not a risky investment.

The indie scene is the only hope for gaming at this stage of the game. Just like indie films started out rubbish but now have far overtaken mainstream films in terms of quality - watch the same thing happen to gaming over the next few years. World Of Goo is just the beginning.

 

[-IT-]

Just look those online flash games, sure they don't feature the same quality as mainstream games, but some of them have truly great gameplay ideas behind them.

There's always a new approach to take, as long as there's someone in the developing world willing to take the risks (and pull it off).

Agree, every now and then something interesting shows up, like portal or world of goo as Nycto mentioned. But usually developers tend to play it safe by making Gun Battle Slap Fight XXXVII . . .

 

[jebussaves88]

the thing about gaming is that you have to innovate in order to survive. if its not original, its not playable.

Not too sure I agree with this. Whilst I think "innovation" is good, and helps the medium mature and grow as an art or hobby, I don't believe that innovation, or shocking new devlopments are absolutely neccessary to get enjoyment out of a game. If you take a harder look at some of the most popular and widely enjoyed games out there, you begin to question if it's innovation, or perfecting what is known to work that will save gaming.

Half Life It's an FPS. The only difference with this one compared to a few others is that it had a shadow of a plot. It's older brother is often seen as the leader of plot based FPS's, but even then, the script is pretty thin. You're trying to save the world from aliens who're enslaving humans and destroying rebel forces. Sounds a lot like War of the Worlds mixd with Star Wars to me. Oh look, Tripods! It also did away with the idea of levels, making the campaign one continuous slog. It worked very well, but can you truely call this innovation? A huge jump in the way we play games. No, because it was a gradual process that led to Half Life and its fellow FPS's becoming what they were. The genre grew from Doom, a speechless blast-fest split into levels with points and all, to Call of Duty 4, a refined FPS that despite it's repeated themes from countless other games still charms the player through the many improvents made in every aspect of the game over it's inferior brethren. Nothing particular innovative however.

Halo Not the two sequels (which were just that- sequels) but the first one. Now the argument has been made many times that Halo wasn't innovative in any way. And they're right. Other than a few adjustments to controls and the perfection of integrated vehicular combat along with a plot that didn't make you wretch, Halo brought nothing new. But it was these things that made it the killer app for the XBox, and one of the most fondly remembered games for all those who played it back in 2001-2003. Bungie didn't create anything monumental (other than some bigger areas to fight in, neccessary for vehicles to be needed and not a novelty). It is for this reason that its sequels went on to have record breaking sales; Bungie saw what they wanted to do with the FPS genre, and did it, refining where they saw fit. Not innovating; refining.

GTA III GTA was fairly innovative in one way alone; it gave you a city to play in. This alone enhanced the gameplay above any other 3D adventure/shooting game, because it was something new. You had a city to play in. To do what you wanted with. How was this achieved? Rockstar made a bloody big level. That's all. Nothing big. They'd done it five years previous with GTA 1 but no one payed attention because it was in 2D, and didn't feel like a ajump over other 2D top down games of the time (which were becoming fewer, thanks to 3D having recently become mainstream). GTA has devloped in baby steps ultimatly, with each game taking the natural course. Quite what people were expecting of GTA IV, I don't know, but more realism and story were exactly what I was expecting. And that's what we got. ANd it sold like hot cakes and was critically acclaimed by all but us forum dwellers, with whom it seems GTA IV is mud.

What do people really see as the last innovative game to be released? Portal? It had humour and Portals. Thousands of games had humour (though to give Portal its dues, it was very well executed) and Prey had portals, and all other kinds of mindfuckery. However, you don't see Prey being raved about here there and everywhere, because ultimatly, it played out rather similarly to Doom 3, but with puzzles. Portal cut out the stuff that detracted from the puzzles (combat etc) and refined it. No huge jump ultimatly.
Braid? Braid can be described as a cross between Super Mario World, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time and a painting. The art direction and music make the game fantastic, and it is a joy to play, but all that Mr Blow has done is borrow a coupe of concepts, one four or five years old, the other about 30, and glued them together with pretty things.
World of Goo? Felt a lot like I was playing Lemmings if it had been made by Tim Burton. One of my favourite games of 2008, don't get me wrong, but the idea of reaching a goal through sacrifice and building is hardly a new one. All that was new was the theme and art style.

Maybe rather than innovation and all that, it is art direction that should be focused on. People say graphics quality shouldn't affect the game, but whether you like it or not, it does. WOuld World of Goo been even half the game it was if it wasn't for the often chilling, sometimes techno bgm? Wouldn't Braid have simply been another clever Flash game if it wasn't for its brilliant orchestral soundtrack and liking painting art style? Isn't what makes Half Life 2 what it is its level design, it's bleak indoor and dilapidated buildings, deserted prisons and villages what it is? Who the heck would want to play Halo if it had been set in huge cavernous building with very little detail (disregard the Library level to take that comment seriously).

 

[twistedshadows]

Just look those online flash games, sure they don't feature the same quality as mainstream games, but some of them have truly great gameplay ideas behind them.

There's always a new approach to take, as long as there's someone in the developing world willing to take the risks (and pull it off).

Agree, every now and then something interesting shows up, like portal or world of goo as Nycto mentioned. But usually developers tend to play it safe by making Gun Battle Slap Fight XXXVII . . .

Haha, that title hurts me, it really does. Especially because it's so true.

 

[Gladion]

What do people really see as the last innovative game to be released? Portal? It had humour and Portals. Thousands of games had humour (though to give Portal its dues, it was very well executed) and Prey had portals, and all other kinds of mindfuckery. However, you don't see Prey being raved about here there and everywhere, because ultimatly, it played out rather similarly to Doom 3, but with puzzles. Portal cut out the stuff that detracted from the puzzles (combat etc) and refined it. No huge jump ultimatly.
Braid? Braid can be described as a cross between Super Mario World, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time and a painting. The art direction and music make the game fantastic, and it is a joy to play, but all that Mr Blow has done is borrow a coupe of concepts, one four or five years old, the other about 30, and glued them together with pretty things.
World of Goo? Felt a lot like I was playing Lemmings if it had been made by Tim Burton. One of my favourite games of 2008, don't get me wrong, but the idea of reaching a goal through sacrifice and building is hardly a new one. All that was new was the theme and art style.

Valkyria Chronicles or LittleBigPlanet

Those just mixed different gernes - they're not complete innovations like Metal Gear or The Sims were back in their days. I think the same way as Jebus - maybe you don't need completely new ideas, maybe it's enough if you style it nicely (No More Heroes) use a fresh setting (God of War) and some minor ideas (Gravity Gun) to make the EXPERIENCE fresh and new rather than the whole game.
Condemned is a prime example in my opinion: Monolith put the gamers into the first person without making it a shooter; that would have just undermined the concept of having horror at all (like it had happened with FEAR). They took the survival horror genre and figured "okay, how can we make the player not too powerful, since that would make the game far less scary than it should be?" and they found a solution.

Edit: Yeah, I edited multiple times sorry.

 

[jebussaves88]

Valkyria Chronicles or LittleBigPlanet

I'm not too familar with Valkria Chronicles, but from what I know, it's a turn based combat role playing game which allows you to physically take control of your units once you have selected an action. Its a good idea, but is it really a huge jump? Is it really what the OP would consider industry saving? Or is it something that should have been done a while ago anyway? It's not really for me to say. Seeing as I enjoy RTS's and RPG's the idea behind it sounds very good. Whether or not it's innovative is another thing. Again, if the same idea had been applied to a game with rubbish art style, as opposed to the anime stylings this game has, would it be that big a deal.
As for LittleBigPlanet, the whole idea behind it ultimatly is user generated content. Again, this is hardly a new thing, with Timesplitters and Tony Hawks and many others allowing users to make their own maps. The thing that is different about LittleBigPlanet is its scale (from what I've seen, there are millions more options over those last two examples) and its art direction, along with its genre. If you look at it objectively, Media Molecule have taken Map Makers, blown them up to have more options, changed it to side scrolling platformer type gameplay, and created a very appealing look. Is it innovative, or is it finally an example where console gamers can be bothered to create their own content, because the stuff they're working with is much more appealling than the bland metallic levels of Timesplitters, the hopelessly bland and fenced in parks of Tony Hawks, or even the beautiful maps of Far Cry Instincts that, no matter how hard you tried, ended up looking like a thousand other maps, user created or not. I reckon the success and appeal of LittleBigPlanet is down very largely to its presentation.

 

[Telperion]

Africa is the new playground for everyone and their dog. The continent is so big and gloriously complex that you can put pretty much anything in there, shade it brown and dump in average AI. Presto!

I played through Farcry 2, and it was fun. Nothing innovative about the game, but it had a basic storyline that didn't bug me all the time and lots of things to shoot at with different guns. Guns that kept jamming on me! Whoa, now there's something I haven't seen before! Funny thing how those guns never jammed when in AI hands ;o)

The sandbox was also nice and big, but also peppered with "teleport & save game" spots called bus stations, if you didn't feel like driving through yet another half a dozen check points filled with gun-toating idiots with a single-mindedly murderous disposition towards yours truly.

After a while I got very fed up with the game, but not long after the end jumped at me out of the blue, and I was left wondering how fast I could blow myself up & get to the finnishing texts? As it turned out: only a few canyons filled with the most horrible "complete this checkpoint and new enemies will spawn all around you" away. It was so disgusting that I nearly walked away from the game right there at the end.

So, yeah, there's tons of stuff that could be done better with innovative additions that would blow the current era run & gun FPS games clear out of the water.