When Innovation Is Bad

[remnant_phoenix]

So there's always talk of "innovation" in gaming, particularly how there isn't enough of it. It's a hard line to walk: successfully delivering on what consumers have come to enjoy/expect while finding new and different ways to do things.

I've gone back-and-forth on the issue between the two extremes of "You have to please your fans/followers/customers or you'll flounder!" and "You have to innovate or you'll stagnate!" for a long time. But, at long last, I've finally reached an understanding of the issue that makes sense to me.

Innovation in gaming, for me, is best understood through carnal metaphor.

My wife and I have been married for almost 8 years, and in that time we have enjoyed an active and fulfilling love life. For a lot of, if not most, people, when you're with someone long-term, you inevitably want to try new things; to innovate, as it were. Here's the thing: while there are exceptions brought about by specific circumstances, every encounter, as a general rule and expectation, includes penetrative stimulation up to mutual satisfaction. What if I said, "Hey, about tonight. What if we just left that part out? Not because we have to, but because we need to innovate."

Yeah, I don't see that going over well.

To turn this back to gaming: innovation is a good thing, and should be pursued, but if innovation comes at the cost of the core satisfying engagement that you expect from the game/series, it ceases to be what, in your mind, it should be. Some would say that it's not "innovating the series" because if that core engagement is removed, the game is effectively no longer a game in the series; in this case, it could be considered more of a "reinvention" as opposed to "innovation."

Case in point for me would be Final Fantasy XIII. I've recently seen people defend the game on the grounds that it was innovative. For me, that "innovation" included removing the core engagement of the series: exploring an interesting world through a story that I can follow with a battle system that poses a reasonable level of strategic challenge.

Final Fantasy XIII innovated the world by making it as linear as possible. And in doing so, they removed my ability to be interested because the scenery was so repetitive and there was next to nothing to interact with outside of battle. Even Final Fantasy X, for all its linearity, felt like a world that I was exploring. I was never confused about where I was or why I was there; there were people to talk to, mini-games to play, side-areas to explore, and I never felt like any area overstayed its welcome.

Final Fantasy XIII innovated the storytelling by dumping us into things without establishing much-needed exposition. Rather, they relegated exposition to the Datalog, making FFXIII the first game in the series in which I couldn't follow the story unless I read the side-content text-logs (which I never did because that, to me, is boring and I believe I shouldn't have to).

Final Fantasy XIII innovated the combat by extremely streamlining (exstreamlining?) it. When the system opens up with the consistent three-character party and you can choose who to use and how to level them, there were actually some really interesting and challenging fights, especially in some of the boss battles, but most of the game leading up to that felt like an overlong, glorified tutorial.

The core engagement was removed in the innovation process, so, for me, it was not a Final Fantasy game as I had come to understand what a Final Fantasy game was supposed to be.

TL;DR: Innovation jumps the shark when the innovation process removes whatever the core engagement of the game/franchise/series was.

Feel free to agree, disagree with any or every thing I've posted. And/or share your own thoughts about when innovation is good/bad.

 

[sageoftruth]

Well said. I've never played FF 13, but I look forward to seeing how this discussion turns out. For now, I guess the only thing I can think to mention is the challenge of finding out what the core engagement is. Perhaps some devs make the mistake of not realizing what the core engagement is and sticking with something else. Some games might have more than one core engagement. In that case, I suppose you can't satisfy everyone.

 

[krazykidd]

Ehhh. Personally , i just ask myself this. Is it fun. If yes keep playing. If no, stop playing.

Quite a simple concept. I no longer concern myself with brand loyalty. When i was younger sure, anything with the squaresoft ( not square-enix) logo i would buy. Now that i'm older, i don't really care.i buy what i like, and the rest can fall to the wayside and be forgotten.

As for innovation. I don't mind it. If you innovate and i like it i'll buy it. If you innovate, and i don't like it, i won't buy it.

 

[shrekfan246]

[sub][sub]Don't talk about Final Fantasy XIII, don't talk about Final Fantasy XIII...[/sub][/sub]

I feel like we've gone over this before, though I understand the motivation behind this particular thread, I think.

But yes, I do largely agree that innovation for the sake of innovation is bad. With video games, there is a time when "Don't fix what isn't broken" can go too far (See: Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed), but changing things simply because that's what you've always done isn't really that helpful either.

I think it has to come down more to the implementation rather than the idea itself, though. Innovation isn't inherently good or bad; It's all in how you use it. A good idea can be completely squashed by terrible execution, while something that looks like a bad idea on paper might turn out to be exactly what the property needed. It's not really a cut-and-dry issue, and at the end of the day it's going to differ from person to person. Companies can't please everyone, and everyone is going to have their own impressions and interpretations and expectations out of a product they buy. As evidenced by a certain thread that was made the other day, what comes across as bad ideas with terrible implementation to some people can be viewed as a great move for the franchise to other people. And in my opinion neither side is wrong, it just comes down to recognizing that just because you like/don't like something, that doesn't make it good/bad. As long as you can recognize that other people will like/not like it despite your own opinions, then we can all have happy discussions about the silliness of multi-million dollar corporations and dance and sing and pray that they don't continue to screw up in the future without resorting to name calling like boys in the schoolyard.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Depending on how I understand the definition, innovation is never bad, because it means improvement. That doesn't mean games can't ofcourse get changed for the worse, I just don't consider those changes 'innovation', but rather 'screw ups'.

For example, Resident Evil: Code Veronica and Dino Crisis opted to do away with prerendered backgrounds, and instead have real-time 3D environments. Except that the camera was still fixed, changing nothing to improve the controls, and sacrificing the one benefit prerendered backgrounds had; High detail and atmosphere. That's a screw up.

Resident Evil 4 did away the fixed camera entirely and put it behind the player character. Which meant that now they could aim wherever they wanted and deal with enemies in ways they never could before. Which inturn meant enemies could be faster and more ferocious. That's innovation.

 

[madwarper]

Depending on how I understand the definition, innovation is never bad, because it means improvement.

Then, your definition is wrong.

in·no·vate - ˈinəˌvāt/
verb
1. make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products.

Innovation simply means that changes are made, it does not speak to the quality of those changes.

Just because some "innovation" is received negatively by a fan base, does not mean they want stagnation. It just means that the "innovation" went a bridge too far.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Depending on how I understand the definition, innovation is never bad, because it means improvement.

Then, your definition is wrong.

I suppose.

I just generally like to think of 'innovation' as 'making something more efficient'. Otherwise what's the point of saying 'innovation' and not just 'change'.

 

[Legion]

Depending on how I understand the definition, innovation is never bad, because it means improvement.

Then, your definition is wrong.

I suppose.

I just generally like to think of 'innovation' as 'making something more efficient'. Otherwise what's the point of saying 'innovation' and not just 'change'.

Because innovation implies something that has not been done before.

If I do X, then do Y and then go back to X I have experienced "change" twice.
Innovation would be doing X and then doing Y and then doing Z.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Because innovation implies something that has not been done before.

If I do X, then do Y and then go back to X I have experienced "change" twice.
Innovation would be doing X and then doing Y and then doing Z.

I guess you're right.

Over the years I've just come attribute it to improvement, since that's always the context it's used in.

 

[Legion]

Because innovation implies something that has not been done before.

If I do X, then do Y and then go back to X I have experienced "change" twice.
Innovation would be doing X and then doing Y and then doing Z.

I guess you're right.

Over the years I've just come attribute it to improvement, since that's always the context it's used in.

That's understandable, seeing as there is no real point to innovation if it isn't improving things. Doing it for it's own sake is only really worth it if you are experimenting. When making games that people are buying then if it's not improving them it's utterly pointless (like most gimmicks we see).

 

[madwarper]

I guess you're right.

Over the years I've just come attribute it to improvement, since that's always the context it's used in.

Well, I have no doubt that the person that's making the "innovation" assumes that it is going to received as an improvement.
Because, who, in their right mind, would voluntarily do something they believe to piss off their consumers?

 

[sageoftruth]

I guess even innovation in the wrong direction can be good, as long as the innovators learn from their mistakes. Unfortunately, I'm not very confident that they do most of the time.

 

[Savo]

If a developer has to choose between innovation and keeping things the same, I'd far rather they innovate. It's a lot better to roll the dice and takes some risks than to keep things the same for years on end. Case in point is the Assassin's Creed series. I quit after the third game because the combat desperately needed some massive tweaking. Even if they ended up making it technically worse, I would have rather played something different than enduring that same shallow combat system year in and year out.