Poll: Gaming Society

[Savagezion]

Mainstream appeal =/= innovative

Yes, innovation is robbed from a sequel. Doom was innovative with it's weaponry, large and open levels etc. Doom 2 had those same innovations, is it innovative? No it isn't, a neither is Portal for using the same innovations from NDrop.

You are missing the point. NDrop and Portal are the same game. One was a commercial release and one was an assignment. It is the same game, the innovation came from the same place, the same people. It very well could be that the people that made "Doom" made a game before that wasn't a commercial release and was called "Cursed" but then revamped it for a commercial releqase and thus Doom was born. According that argument no game can ever truly be innovated because it is robbed by its very own alpha/beta stages.

IP and HR do play the same, you perform actions based on button prompts that come up on screen as you approach objects, no innovation. See Doom II example again.

I am not well equipped to argue that since I haven't actually played IP but it doesn't sound the exactly the same from what I read on it.

Again for RDR, I wouldn't call a weather system innovative, I call it catching up.

That is a cheap shot. Who did it before them? I could say that Doom was "just catching up".

The quality of RDR has no bearing on innovation so I don't know why you brought it up, unless it was innovative to make a free roaming shooter that could sell. Wait...

I think my problem with you (and others like you) is you throw around the word innovation far too easily. Any small change to you is innovative and cause for celebration in the games industry!

I think my problem with you (and others like you) is that you refuse to admit when a small innovation is still innovation. Small innovations is how you get polish. Call of Duty 4 became a pop culture icon this generation because of small innovations to the FPS genre. But it wasn't innovative to you because you may as well play doom; "it's the same thing". I ain't saying it is a cause for celebration, I am saying innovation is abundant this generation as any other generation except maybe the late 80s but that was due more to the youth of the medium.

Sure, sequels are robbed of the innovation in the premise of the game but not in mechanics, storytelling, or UI. The premise of a game is not the only way to innovate.

 

[Scrustle]

Maybe. The reason we have so many sequels right now is because we are at the end of a veeeery long console cycle. When the new cycle comes around people will be forced to create new IPs, or try something new in some way. But graphics seemed to have plateaued right now though. They can't really get significantly better without some kind of big paradigm shift in the technology, which doesn't seem to be right around the corner right now.

 

[inFAMOUSCowZ]

While this gen for the most part peaked, each generation innovates in one way or another. Story telling, gameplay, A.I things like that.

 

[InfectedStar]

We haven't peaked at all, it's just that our sense of creativity is now lost because everyone is trying to stick with something that sells; honestly it's all too much about politics and it's a shame that we have to suffer for it.

 

[Mr. Omega]

I do generally think the last generation of consoles was the best period for gaming. That doesn't mean I don't acknowledge the advances forward we have made, but there's also been a lot of baggage coming in this generation as well. But I do think this is just a rough transitional period, not the beginning of a long downward spiral.

 

[Vault101]

gaming is a society? I think you mean medium

I dont think we have peaked..who knows where we will go but there will always be somthing good to play

I also hate nostalga worship with a burning passion

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

Nah. Been gaming since the early 80s and this gen is my favorite.

Portal 2, Bulletstorm, LA Noire and I'm sure many others all had lots of innovation this year.

The only bits I'm not a fan of are multiplayer being squashed into everything, annual franchise releases, motion controls and certain DLC and DRM policies.

I wholeheartedly concur. As much as I get all nostalgic over the old halcyon days of the Commodore 64 and Atari 2600, I have to say that I've spend more time "gaming" and being consistently impressed with this current generation. My wife isn't so enamored by that fact though.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I was having a discussion with my friend about new releases, and i began to notice all the sequels and that fresh innovation in games was getting harder and harder to come by. Do you think as a gaming society we've peaked?

No, we've not peaked, you and your friends are typical normal regular mainstream humans thus you don't know of all the unique and creative games out there or you don't like them enough to count them as that.


Play corpse party on PSP and then come and tell me that an anime-like horror game mixed with a twisted dating-sim-like thing is not innovative.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Well I for one have certainly never played a game where running across a certain substance speeds up my movement

So you have never played an ice level? I envy you

I agree with what you said though this gen really doesn't know how lucky they are with fresh ideas and the sheer amount of different game-play mechanics and even art-styles there are.

I picked up a little game called Toki Tori in the steam sale and it was really fun to play and felt fresh. I can't help but think that if they had chosen a less cutesy presentation it would have been more hailed amongst gamers.

Even the more creative indies are available on console now.

We really don't have any reason to complain.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

Portal 2, Skyrim, Deus Ex:HR, Minecraft, all in one year.
I think we're a bit far from losing our innovation.

 

[lacktheknack]

How did Portal 2 innovate?

It took the gameplay of Portal 1 and essentially added a sprint and jump power up, a few more obstacles like lasers and nothing more.

Portal itself was an innovation; Portal 2 innovated by taking that same dynamic and crafting a uniquely fun and rewarding cooperative puzzle-solving experience. No, they didn't re-invent the wheel, but innovation is not necessarily defined as "brand new."

Portal itself wasn't an innovation, it just expanded the concept of Narbacular Drop with a Valve plot.

HE JUST SAID "innovation is not necessarily defined as 'brand new'".

Did you PLAY Narbacular Drop? It was rough around the edges and crappy, relying on arbitrary restrictions (you can't jump, for instance) to make the "meh" puzzles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation

Valve took it and made it better in every way for the global market. Thus, it's a perfect picture of innovation. If you want a unique and new idea, that's "invention".

 

[MaxwellEdison]

How did Portal 2 innovate?

It took the gameplay of Portal 1 and essentially added -snip-.

That's how. It took previous ideas, and added on to them to make them more fleshed out.

 

[Harkonnen64]

With a lot of franchises having hit their third installments last year, I'm looking forward to seeing new franchises this year. Could introduce a lot of new stories and game mechanics.

 

[Jadak]

No, we'll have peaked when Spore comes out. By that, I mean a game fitting the concept of what spore should have been, a true "everything sim", not the lame kiddie game that reality has so far provided us.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

No, we'll have peaked when Spore comes out. By that, I mean a game fitting the concept of what spore should have been, a true "everything sim", not the lame kiddie game that reality has so far provided us.

You know my biggest disappointment in that game? I watched what apparently was an early build presentation that had in it a sea level where you didn't just go from being a microorganism into having legs at land but actually played as a fish for a part of the game as well and it looked AMAZING. It gave me echo the dolphin flashback chills.


Sadly, something happened to it and it wasn't included in the finished product...which basically killed my fun right away.

 

[iNsaneMilesy]

Gaming is weird. Thesedays there is less chance of companies taking risks on new ideas and innoations to instead go fo r the easy sequel and make some money. There have been many games I have played over the years that while werent successfuor had massive budgets or advertising campaigns, had unique designs, gamplay and mechanics that if remade now would be nothing short of amazing. One example I perally would like to see taken inspiration from is Hidden and Dangerous 2. A small WW2 PC game that hado much customisation and forthought from the company, had it had the cash and time, could easily competed with battlefield othe multiplayer front and more than excelled with single player. But that is just one game from my personal list of many. Also, there have been many series I love that had great potential for the sequel years that were totally ruin due to the quick cash grab mentally of now, one of my favourites in particular was Brothers in Arms... the 4th one to be released looks rediculous.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

I wholeheartedly concur. As much as I get all nostalgic over the old halcyon days of the Commodore 64 and Atari 2600, I have to say that I've spend more time "gaming" and being consistently impressed with this current generation. My wife isn't so enamored by that fact though.

Glad someone agrees. And yes, my poor girlfriend has the felt the sting of games like Skyrim this gen too hah!

 

[ElPatron]

Mainstream appeal =/= innovative

Yes, innovation is robbed from a sequel. Doom was innovative with it's weaponry, large and open levels etc. Doom 2 had those same innovations, is it innovative? No it isn't, a neither is Portal for using the same innovations from NDrop.

You are missing the point. NDrop and Portal are the same game. One was a commercial release and one was an assignment.

No he is not. NDrop was innovative. Portal is said to be innovative because it was the first commercial release of it's kind.

Your argument is like saying that you have a band with a lot of talent that plays good songs, and then a year later record songs that the public already heard and call them "innovative".

I think my problem with you (and others like you) is that you refuse to admit when a small innovation is still innovation. Small innovations is how you get polish. Call of Duty 4 became a pop culture icon this generation because of small innovations to the FPS genre.

Call of Duty 4 plays exactly like Call of Duty 2 would be played in a modern setting.

I mean, I could make a Dead Space... underwater. It wouldn't be innovative, the mechanics are already there before I even start making that game.

 

[GonzoGamer]

It depends on the perspective. Games now are more popular than ever and are making more money, but that also means taking less risks and if people are willing to buy the same repackaged shit why would you change it?

The past isn't better either. Sure they are a lot more creative games but some old graphics are hard to look at unless you grew up with them. Not to mention we spend the last 10-20 years ironing out kinks in game play to make it smoother, but also decided to iron out too much and some things are missed such as health bars in certain games.

Gaming seems to be more of a waves. There isn't a set peak but some eras of games are better than others. I would say we are on the downslope where we put technology in front of the gaming and fun aspects but that just means the next peak will be even better.

I?ve been thinking the same thing. Hopefully, it hasn?t peaked for it?s last time but we definitely hit A peak with the PS2 generation and seem to be on a down slope now.
But it might not go back up. Sure, some games make more money now than others of the past but it doesn?t change the fact that there is a smaller base of consumers for AAA games at this point than there was at this point of last generation... They?re just paying more and some franchises have gained more momentum. If you look at the sales records, when the ps2 was as old as the 360 is now, it had sold a hell of a lot more units than the 360 & PS3 combined. It?s not too surprising, the consoles this generation aren?t as rewarding purchases as the ps2 was. And the games themselves are mostly overhyped eye candy rather than compelling gaming experiences.
I don?t blame most of my friends for not getting a console this generation: it?s pretty hard to choose to spend hundreds of dollars on a toy, a machine that has a 50/50 chance of turning into a brick with a fee, and a machine that loses more features than it gains & gets the sloppiest ports ever made.
Sure, there may still be big selling franchises that gain more and more followers every year but overall the base market for gaming has become stagnant when it should be growing a hell of a lot faster (considering the industry?s age) as old non-gamers die off and new potential gamers are born.

 

[wooty]

In a stance on technology and ideas, no we've not peaked, we are climbing, but at a slower pace of recent.

In a stance in terms of community and "socially", I find gaming sometimes brings out the worst in people, trolling, platform wars (seriously, this shit needs to be taken out back and have its head staved in), rage, "I hate x so your all fags for liking it". That, could do with some serious tweaking.