Innovative Gaming is done.

[Biosophilogical]

How about, instead of us asking for amazing innovations, we just ask for less blatant rip-offs? Who cares if a game shares or combines elements from other games, if it does it well, and it wasn't designed to be a rip-off cash-cow, then what is the problem? I mean, turn-based combat has been done before, but by introducing different abilities, party sizes, combat details (like elements, resistances, etc) you can make a fun game that feels new, even if every individual element has been done in a different game.

 

[Alphavillain]

Just in terms of the cross-pollination of genres there can be a lot more innovation. Seemingly revolutionary change in videogames in fact only comes through small changes.

OT, I think it's a little misleading to say that people want revolutionary games. People are quite content with subtle twists in the gameplay, setting, and pacing of games, along with reasonably steady improvements in graphics. Take for example the Call Of Duty games. Changing the setting to something new, lengthening the single-player, and creating new set-piece situations would satiate most people's desire for a change in the series.

 

[Thaius]

I'm sorry, any idea for anything ever is inspired by something else. That's the nature of existence. It's not about coming up with something that is entirely different from anything anyone's ever thought up, it's about using those influences to create something new. And that is far, far from over.

 

[Th0ughtful]

I disagree with the OP, and here's why: The explosion that is "casual gaming."

"Casual games" have come a long way in the past 5 years, from minesweeper and solitaire, to Facebook games, Wii Sports, and Angry Birds, but I'm of the opinion that this is just the tip of the iceberg for these mediums: To illustrate: when the NES first came out, it was marketed as a kid's toy. "Casual gamers" were the intended audience. I don't think anyone could have imagined the boom in gaming over the next few decades. As these platforms develop, they too will blossom and grow.

Here's my prediction: Unless we come up with a device that supersedes the smartphone, there will be Quality AAA games for them within our lifetime.

 

[rabidmidget]

What?

There are tonnes of new ideas, video games are still a very young artistic medium and we have still yet to fully take advantage of using gameplay for storytelling, among other things. Although most AAA games have evolved from obvious, genre-defining predecessors, there are still limitless unexplored game ideas out there that are constantly being realised by game designers.

To say we should stop asking for innovation would be like the europeans looking out at the ocean and saying "Eh, what else could be out there?".

 

[Doclector]

The day we stop trying to innovate is the only true day that innovation stops. So no, i don't agree at all. That said, i am sick of good games getting panned because they don't have enough innovation.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

I will never understand why the "everything has already been done" idea is so attractive to people.

Yes, we can only really build ideas from other ideas, but that's pretty much always been the case and the number of combinations possible is unimaginable. It's unlikely we've even scratched the surface of the good combinations.

Re the less absurd idea that things have been less innovative recently, I also don't understand why everyone thinks we're seeing so many more sequels than before just because publishers are looking to cash in. Certainly that's the reason they get financed, but the reason so many more are getting made is probably just because we've finally hit a point where we have games worth making sequels for. We've finally hit a relative point of stability in terms of visual detail so we can be relatively sure that roughly the same art style will continue to work without seeming dated. We've finally got games with enough world-building and effort gone into creating a large continuity. And most of all we've finally got games that have appealing enough characters, worlds, and ideas to create interest.

It's relatively easy to think of old games that were deserving of sequels or that shouldn't have gotten sequels, but think of how many games you've played in the past that didn't get sequels and shouldn't have. Until pretty recently, very few games would have made good sequels. For a lot of old games, it's unthinkable - it's hard to know what a sequel would even be like.

 

[Continuity]

Nothing was new except maybe the RPG aspect within a Shooter game, and the closest Shooters have come to RPG is "Shoot that guy in the head, and he won't get away!".

Deus ex, System shock 2, vampire the masquerade bloodlines to name just three FPS/RPG games that spring to mind pre-dating Mass Effect.

 

[stuka06]

Fun is not enough [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otyXtzLNxoI]
I don't think I could add anything substantial right now.

 

[Bakuryukun]

I don't really know, I don't think NOT asking for innovation from the industry is the answer here. But really I think the big problem right now is that when people talk about innovation in the games industry, they are usually talking about a complete overhaul of a game mechanic. Innovation can be a lot smaller, for instance when I was playing Donkey Kong Country Returns recently, I found myself thinking how cool it was that the game still has the "each level has it's own gimmick" thing that the original trilogy had, but yet they didn't settle for just the gimmicks shown in the past 3 games in the series, they made some of their own, a lot of which could NOT have been done in the SNES era. I would count that as innovation, personally.

It's actually not as hard to find when you take a solid look at the mechanics of different games. I think we've just become innovation jaded because Gaming has become old enough now, that most of it's genre's have become well established.

 

[Hristo Tzonkov]

Innovation in gaming isn't a whole nother genre.Genres are pretty much set but subtle changes in gameplay,gimmicks and stories is innovation in it's way.There's stories to be told etc.What's not innovation is copying a story because you can do it better *eyes Activision with MW3*

 

[Hijax]

Try to come up for a concept for a game. Now most likely that Idea was "Inspired" by a game you have played before.

Contrary to popular belief, there's no such thing as a new idea. What i mean is, the human brain can't just magically create a thought out of nothing, it must be based on something else. The reason you can't come up with a concept for a new game, that is not in some way inspired by one or more games/other media you've played/seen/read/whatever before, is because it is impossible.

 

[nicksdrago0]

I don't expect every single game to be a brand new idea, because it leads to poor game mechanics, poor story or simply a poor game if done badly. What I do want to see however, is improvement. Was halo 3 origonal and innovating? prehaps not, but it polished the mechanics so that you can perfect every aspect of it and at the same time find everything easy to pick up. Because of this, it is pretty much the first game everyone thinks of when they think of a shooter-not because it was brand new, but because bungie looked at halo 2, saw what worked and what didn't and improved on it.


On the other hand, innovation is a great way to start up indie companys. I don't mean cosmetic innovations (I recently saw a game on steam that was set in WW2, where allied forces went against nazis who were assisted by dinosaurs. These dinos could easily have been replaced by buggies, from what I saw from trailers and screenshots) but mechanical ones. A great example of this is the metal gear series, back when stealth games was literally untouched, and a brand new idea. Everyone else found it great, and became the behemoth we know today.

But to say that innovation is dead? Thats a huge no for me. Just weeks ago, portal 2 showed us how gels, jumping plates and vents can all be used in ways never seen before, and as mentioned the universe simulator. Innovation isnt always a good thing, but its still live and kicking.

 

[Chase Yojimbo]

Nothing was new except maybe the RPG aspect within a Shooter game, and the closest Shooters have come to RPG is "Shoot that guy in the head, and he won't get away!".

Deus ex, System shock 2, vampire the masquerade bloodlines to name just three FPS/RPG games that spring to mind pre-dating Mass Effect.

Thanks lol xD still proves my point though, wasn't exactly an innovative title. I'm gonna have to try those games though -.- makes me a sad panda that I havn't.

 

[King Toasty]

Everything is inspired by something else. That DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER. Being vaguely influenced by something doesn't negate creativity.