One word that this website throws around like it's going out of style is "innovation" which dictionary.com defines as "something new or different introduced" People always seem to be complaining about. I can understand the mindset of not wanting the same game rereleased over and over again, but something often happens that drives me up a wall. 90% of the time today, whenever a game says that it is going to change something, people through a hissy fit about it because it isn't "keeping true to the original" People complained that ME2 and 3 had cover based shooting and weren't like the first one, people have complained about every single change ever made to Halo since the first game and if the reactions to Halo 4 are anything to go by this is a trend that isn't dying anytime soon. People complained about Fallout 3 not being like the original two and then proceeded to cuddle New Vegas to death simply because it was set in the same setting as the first two with the exact same engine as 3, people whined when metroid prime was a first person shooter. Some people complained that Bioshock Infinity will be taking place outside of Rapture despite the fact that the biggest complaint for Bioshock 2 was that it STILL was in Rapture...you get the point, people complain when there's no innovation and then complain when there actually is innovation. So what do you think? Do you think that games actually should change or that they should stay "true to the original"? Also what is your opinion on people never being satisfied no matter what publishers do, be it change things or keep them the same?
Poll: Innovation, yes or no?
- Thread starter Erttheking
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think you need to rethink your wording on your poll question. It's a bit confusing. Also your post could use a bit of fragmentation. It wasn't the easiest thing to get through.
But nevertheless it's something that I agree needs addressing. Firstly I don't that the people who complain about lack of innovation are the same people who complain about something changing too much. They are both very vocal parts of a fanbase but don't often overlap I think. You just have to accept that whatever you do you can't please everyone.
I also think that people who complain about too much change are being a bit short sighted. They seem to act as if the changes to a sequel will somehow erase how the previous game did things. If a new game does things in a way you don't like then just stick to the old game that you do enjoy. The experience you love isn't going to go away. It's still there.
New doesn't necessarily mean better, and iteration is good for refining a formula, but innovation is still very important. If you don't ever innovate you will eventually get to a point where you have done all you have with a certain set of ideas and you will be stuck in a dead end. Progression of the medium is essential. Games can't rest on their laurels, or else the medium will stagnate and become irrelevant and die off.
So although I appreciate refining games through iteration, innovation is more important in the long run.
Oh and also, what was that about the Halo games? They all seem extremely similar to me. People really get worked up about the minor changes made to that series?
EDIT: I see you changed the wording of your question while I was writing this post!
But nevertheless it's something that I agree needs addressing. Firstly I don't that the people who complain about lack of innovation are the same people who complain about something changing too much. They are both very vocal parts of a fanbase but don't often overlap I think. You just have to accept that whatever you do you can't please everyone.
I also think that people who complain about too much change are being a bit short sighted. They seem to act as if the changes to a sequel will somehow erase how the previous game did things. If a new game does things in a way you don't like then just stick to the old game that you do enjoy. The experience you love isn't going to go away. It's still there.
New doesn't necessarily mean better, and iteration is good for refining a formula, but innovation is still very important. If you don't ever innovate you will eventually get to a point where you have done all you have with a certain set of ideas and you will be stuck in a dead end. Progression of the medium is essential. Games can't rest on their laurels, or else the medium will stagnate and become irrelevant and die off.
So although I appreciate refining games through iteration, innovation is more important in the long run.
Oh and also, what was that about the Halo games? They all seem extremely similar to me. People really get worked up about the minor changes made to that series?
EDIT: I see you changed the wording of your question while I was writing this post!
Some mutations make you immune to cholesterol-induced heart disease. Others give you hands for feet. Same principle.
I think the Halo series actually has done a pretty good job with innovation so far. Each game introduces new elements, and the new elements always seem carefully considered re: how they fit into the game as a cohesive whole. Sure, they don't re-invent the wheel each time around, but the don't really have to.Scrustle said:
This, listen to them! Considering I first looked at the poll question and thought "Innovation? Who doesn't want that?", but after reading your post I selected the opposite answer.Scrustle said:
Games should keep to the same basic formula, definitely. Pokemon should always have the turn-based combat, the collection of all the lil' critters and the 8 Gym leaders, just revamp almost everything else. If you "innovate" too much, the series is no longer the one you fell in love with.
I don't think existing series should change things, but they should add and improve on what they have. Disgaea does a good job of adding new things in each game but still staying true to the core gameplay.
Above all else it has to be done well, if you have a great idea and execute it poorly it will look bad. Look at the DMC series, 2 adds the bloody palace, dodging, the control scheme, switching guns on the fly, and mission select. They're just not done well and they're let down in many other aspects of the game. DMC3 takes all that improves it and is considered the best game in the series.
Innovation doesn't mean changing the entire thing. No game is perfect and innovation should be correcting the weak spots while polishing the part that everyone loves.
Above all else it has to be done well, if you have a great idea and execute it poorly it will look bad. Look at the DMC series, 2 adds the bloody palace, dodging, the control scheme, switching guns on the fly, and mission select. They're just not done well and they're let down in many other aspects of the game. DMC3 takes all that improves it and is considered the best game in the series.
Innovation doesn't mean changing the entire thing. No game is perfect and innovation should be correcting the weak spots while polishing the part that everyone loves.
Does it really matter if it changes away from what you first fell in love with? You might love something new they come up with just as much. And even if you don't is it really the end of the world? You'll still be able to go back to previous games you love. And it's just one game series. There will still be other similar stuff around.bojackx said:
Every game needs some innovation, or at least a curiosity to try different things to make it stand out - there seem to be so many games that just think "Let's copy what they did, that made money" without any further thought behind it than thinking Ctrl-C + Ctrl-V = 5 million copies.
Even if a game is bad, but is different in an innovative way it at least makes it worth a purchase. Who knows, maybe someone might just see it and think, "You know, that might be a good game in there" then actually make a game that lives up to the innovation.
Yes, games as a whole need innovation - it would make them change and improve. They need innovation in the sense of "the 65535-th spin on a game/setting". Example: Middle ages, knights and mages fight orcs and goblins. How many games like this we have already? A shitton? A metric shitton? More?
But innovation within series better be contained. "If it ain't broken, don't fix it" is both good and bad. People would want at least something new in a new game, otherwise why would they want to play it if it's exactly as before? But the formula that made it work the first time should undergo dramatic changes.
So yes, we need innovation but that doesn't mean a constant change. Games just need some fresh new ideas. Well, and some of them have it. But the scene doesn't have to stagnate.
But innovation within series better be contained. "If it ain't broken, don't fix it" is both good and bad. People would want at least something new in a new game, otherwise why would they want to play it if it's exactly as before? But the formula that made it work the first time should undergo dramatic changes.
So yes, we need innovation but that doesn't mean a constant change. Games just need some fresh new ideas. Well, and some of them have it. But the scene doesn't have to stagnate.
Yes, yes, always yes. I would rather studios take chances on weird ideas, and release games that don't go over well. Then have a stagnant industry who just put out the same 5 games over and over. I don't even care if the games are good or not, new ideas need to get out so other people can work with them
Yes, though innovation has many forms.
For instance, a series can and should innovate by simply adding simple, new gameplay mechanics and expanding the scope of the game ( even if such treads ground already trodden by other games). Many of the series' that are considered stagnant don't even do these simple things.
Then there's the creation of new IP, which usually involves a combination of influences and new ideas to create a fresh, new game.
Finally, theres the truly great leaps forward. Rare, and good. Not necessary by any means.
captcha: Toyota Prius c. I'm pretty sure they don't sell those around here.
For instance, a series can and should innovate by simply adding simple, new gameplay mechanics and expanding the scope of the game ( even if such treads ground already trodden by other games). Many of the series' that are considered stagnant don't even do these simple things.
Then there's the creation of new IP, which usually involves a combination of influences and new ideas to create a fresh, new game.
Finally, theres the truly great leaps forward. Rare, and good. Not necessary by any means.
captcha: Toyota Prius c. I'm pretty sure they don't sell those around here.
I think what games need is a healthy balance between the two.
Some of the best games that have ever existed are not overly innovative. They are, instead, really just refinements of things that came before whether that be earlier games in the series or other similar titles. That said, of course, there wouldn't be anything to refine if there wasn't some sort of innovation to start things off.
I suppose the simplest way to put it is that games that focus too much on innovation may not actually be entertaining or satisfying as games, but games that don't focus on innovation can feel generic and cookie cutter. Games do need innovation but simple innovation can't be the sole focus.
Some of the best games that have ever existed are not overly innovative. They are, instead, really just refinements of things that came before whether that be earlier games in the series or other similar titles. That said, of course, there wouldn't be anything to refine if there wasn't some sort of innovation to start things off.
I suppose the simplest way to put it is that games that focus too much on innovation may not actually be entertaining or satisfying as games, but games that don't focus on innovation can feel generic and cookie cutter. Games do need innovation but simple innovation can't be the sole focus.
The important thing about innovation is knowing when to use it. Take the paragraph for example. A paragraph is a great way to break up text into readable chunks, with each paragraph talking about a certain idea. But you wouldnt want to create a new paragraph after every sentence, or word. The same principle applies to innovation in games.