Sonic Lost World is a perfect example that Sega can innovate in tons of ways, but most of the Reviewers didnt like the totally new gameplay elements Sega added to Sonic Lost World. So I have always wondered. Is sometimes innovation bad?
Examples: Crash of the titans, Metroid: Other M, Resident evil, etc (but they also changed the formula, which is different from innovate)
so your question is if innovative is bad?
well of course look at the Virtual Boy, red Glassesless 3D, headaches and how was someone suposed to play that?
but in my opinion bad innovation is better than going static and unchanging, but the best option is always finding balance between "safe and familiar" and "risky and unknown"
goodbyes are a sad part of life but for every end there's a new beggining so one must never stop looking forward to the next dawn
now working at IBM as helpdesk analyst my Backloggery
3DS Friend Code: 3995-7085-4333 | Nintendo Network ID: GustavoSF
innovation isn't "bad" or "good" it just depends how it's used. Games like the ones you posted had a lot of great ideas, but the games weren't designed as well as they could of been and ended up having issues. Just about every innovative game out there have major issues which can be addressed with a sequel. Look at Scribblenauts, it was fun, but had major problems which the sequels fixed.
Wii code: 3761-1403-5495-2750PSN ID: Nintendodude686
Steam Community ID; Platypus
IMO innovation is good. You'll never know unless you try. And even if its a flop, you've learned something out of it. Then you can take what you've learned and apply it to your next project. Innovation is always a gamble no matter what but without innovation we would never have science and have made any progress in our development as humans. Maybe I'm taking this topic to a larger example then needed but the same thing applys to the world of gaming in my eyes.
People complain about the way it controls and how it don't feel like Sonic should, but what if it was a new character?
Sure it would be called a Galaxy Knock-Off, but the controls might get less slack because it'd be a new character who has no existing past of controls.
Your thoughts?
PS: The On-Rails Grinding and Platform sections where you have to dodge and jump are the best part of the game. They should make 50 levels of that next time.
There's good, healthy innovation, then there's poorly executed concepts, then there's the gobbledygook that is StarFox Adventures. That's an example of completely disregarding a franchise's history, and taking a leap of faith off the empire state building with helicopters flying dangerously close.
[16:08] LordJumpMad Hides his gut with a griddle
[16:08] Reala: what ljm does for cash is ljm's business
[16:08] LordJumpMad: Gotta look good my my next game u_u
No the act of innovation isn't bad, what's bad is if you find yourself constantly trying to "innovate" because you keep failing and it comes to the point where you don't even know how to do the one successful formula you had anymore. This is the situation Sonic is in right now. I haven't played SLW yet and likely won't for a long while but I'm pretty bummed that it seems like clumsy execution is going to undo some of the positive steps Colors and Generations made.
It depends. Innpvation should be looking to solve, or at least simplify, a problem in a new fashion. Innovation is a step in evolution, a new, better way of looking at a problem. So, for the most part, innovation is a good thing. It's when innovation is forced and impractical when it's "bad", but is that innovation or a gimmick? The Wii and DS are considered innovative, as they approached gaming in a very different fashion. They both adhered to their creative visions, and the result was success. The Wii U and 3DS haven't really innovated, but instead defaulted into dedicated traditional gaming consoles. Until Nintendo shows these consoles provide something unique, they won't stand a chance in the mass-hyping advertisement-run business world we live in today.
Just Someloggery
You have the right to disagree with me and the ability to consider anything valid that I say; Please exercise both.
The results of ambition and innovation can be disastrous. There are plenty of examples of that, which OP acknowledges. Is innovation inherently bad though? No, of course not.
My main criticism of PS4/XBO actually is lack of innovation. They're certainly more powerful than their predecessors, but I'm not quite willing to call added social functions and TV integration innovative. At least not enough to justify the cost. Not counting obvious increase in power:
PS1 -> PS2: DVD compatibility, online service, backwards compatibility
PS2 -> PS3: PlaystationStore, built-in harddrive, blu ray compatibility, media hosting, social networking, web services such as Netflix and Skype...
PS3 -> PS4: A button to share a video on YouTube, cloud service, removed backwards compatibility
Damn, I love Sony consoles. The PS1 converted my from a Nintendo fandork to a Sony fandork. The PS2 and PS3 both kept its stranglehold over my attention. I didn't even buy a Wii until like 2011, because I was too busy playing my PS3. But the lack of innovation on the PS4 seriously has me bummed.
On the plus side though, the software library for the Vita is starting to grow and may finally convince me to buy one soon. First, they gotta fix that compatibility issue though. Can't play all my PSP/PS1 games on Vita = nope.
So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.
Forums
Topic: Is sometimes bad innovative?
Posts 1 to 15 of 15
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.