Why is that some people act like game that don't innovate aren't worth playing?

[Eldarion]

while for example my friend enjoys a game just because it´s fantasy.

Like me. I like elves.

 

[Thaius]

I don't think other games did the Gears of War cover system before Epic did.

I agree with everything else though.

Okay, having checked that out, I partially retract my statement. Gears of War could definitely be credited to popularizing the cover system, though I now know it's not responsible for creating it. Still, props to them for doing it well, and props to Kill.Switch for creating it.

Depends on the innovation. Some people say Shadow of the Colossus is innovative because of it's art style. But that game bored me to tears. A lot of people also say the Wii is innovative, but that also did not strike me as fun.

If it isn't fun, there's no real reason to bother with it. Innovative or not.

Actually, I've never heard anything about the art style of Shadow of the Colossus. It was beautiful, sure, but not particularly groundbreaking. If I were to point out something innovative about that game, it would be... well... I don't know, maybe the fact that the entire game is made up of insanely epic boss fights which require literally climbing up gigantic creatures to kill them. Yeah, that's probably it.

 

[Thaius]

Halo did something new, and was totally beaten down for it because everyone else copied it. And then people have the gall to insult the sequels for not bringing anything new to the table.

Blame the wankers who copied Halo, not Halo itself.

Many apologies for the double post, but you sir, deserve a cookie. Screw it, you deserve a freaking bakery.

 

[squid5580]

People will ***** either way. There is no pleasing everyone. Play what you like. Like what you play. And FTW!

 

[SimuLord]

Who are these people? I LIKE my games simple, straightforward, and rooted in the tried-and-true.

 

[NeutralDrow]

I'm not entirely sure. Personally, I've never had much of a problem with such things, and games that use long-tested methods and styles have no inherent impact on my fun (other than making me feel more at ease).

It's confused me for a while why "cliche" has become so trite and overused as to be essentially meaningless.

Spoiler: Appropriate image for this concept.

 

[knight56]

I like to see variety in my games but I'd rather have a good predictable game with every trope in the book than something original that fails.

 

[LiteraryLitany]

Well, it's not so much that people don't think it's worth playing if it's not innovative, it's just that people don't think it's *necessary* that you play it. There are a bunch of games gamers add to their list because it's innovative and the newness alone is shiny and attention-catching(and one must be able to say they've played it to add their voice to the opinions of whatever new thing it gives us) but with games that are simply more of the same you don't HAVE to own it, because... well... You've already played it somewhere before. That's not to say it isn't fun. Just that it isn't going to top everyone's must have.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Because gaming is full of elitist and saying that your game sucks because it's popular and doesn't do anything new makes them feel good. Oddly, gamers tend to buy what they know rather then striking out at something new and untested so games that don't do new things do better. Why can't people just accept all games and learn to try new things?

 

[crusha_aa]

Many of the games that we cite as being "The first to do X" are actually not.

GTA 3? Officially the SECOND freeroaming open-world game, after something in Japan that very few people bought. And possibly carmageddon.
Doom? The SECOND first-person shooter after Wolfenstein 3D.
Do you know that many people who played Guitar Hero 1 or 2?
I actually just got Elite Beat Agents. But apparently it had a Japan-only prequel called "Osu!" While I'm sure it has its own followings in a way, I would guess there's a reason EBA is famous.

But these games actually did things BETTER by polishing and making sure the experience was suitable. That's far more important than people realize in game design. There really are innovations in "the way your mouse moves for camera control" that not even all games get right. In very simple terms, I probably couldn't set Modern Warfare 2's multiplayer apart from Generic Modern Shooter 7, but it's all the details, minor features, and tiny things that matter so much.

Completely agree with this post. The Uncharted series, for example, doesn't really do anything new but it is so well polished that it really doesn't matter because everything it does, it does well (at least imo).

 

[Vault boy Eddie]

OP: Halo is popular. It innovates in NOTHING. Your question has big holes in it.

 

[NickCaligo42]

Psychologically, we associate digital games with technology at the most fundamental levels. Every game company--whether they know it or not--is half game developer and half R&D for the latest in computer technology, their twofold mission being both to deliver fun in a box and to find new ways to use the hardware they're given. Sometimes this just doesn't work for the better, such as in the case of Star Wars: The Force Unleashed--a game whose developers incessantly brag about cramming three middleware physics engines into it when they could've just faked two of them with a tiny bit of scripting here and there, or Sonic Adventure, a game which had the unfortunate distinction of both bringing Sonic into the 3D age and serving as a big tech demo for the Dreamcast. For those of you who don't follow that last example I'm referring to the multitude of playable characters and the unwelcome inclusion of a fishing game in the middle of a platformer.

The attitude that this tradition has given rise to is that each game should do something new. Raw technological innovations in gaming are becoming less impressive so more and more we're expecting innovations in interaction. The problem is that innovations like this, unless they're incredibly appealing at face value (motion controls), are really difficult to sell to the executives in charge of gaming these days, so innovation in interaction is an incredibly marginal thing. Personally I don't think developers try hard enough at it, but I do think that critics--Yahtzee in particular--come down a little bit too hard on them. Uncharted may be really similar to Gears of War and Tomb Raider, but it lacks the blatant sexism that's rampant in Tomb Raider and for my money represents a much more positive and appealing atmosphere than Gears of War. What's more, sometimes I'm just in the mood for a particular game but don't want to re-play the same levels, which is why I'm actually glad that franchises like Ratchet and Clank keep coming back.

It's got nothing to do with wanting to see stagnation or being overly attached to familiarity, it's just that sometimes people genuinely are just in the mood to play a little Mega Man every now and then the same way other people are in the mood to play basketball, cook, or build something every so often.

 

[Hiphophippo]

See, I've been playing games for a very long time. At some point, you've just seen it all (mostly) and really get excited about new ideas.

That's not to say I'm the person you mention in your thread title of course. I love good games as a whole, but I get far more excited about innovation that sequels.