Innovation has been one of the most controversial topics over the past generation and even before. I'll admit, we all love to see groundbreaking experiences, but does every game need to be one? Some games are criticized for being too similar to other games in their respective series or genre. Notable examples include the Call of Duty series, New Super Mario Bros. Series, and many others. On the opposite side of the spectrum you have games that are slammed for being to different. Paper Mario: Sticker Star, Kirby's Epic Yarn, and Star Fox Adventures come to mind. Obviously the perfect mix is a game that brings new things to the table while still keeping intact what makes the series special. In my opinion though, games should be judged as they are, not compared to previous entries. Some of my favorite games, such as Super Paper Mario, are drastically different that their predecessors but still great in their own right. But just because a game plays it safe and sticks with an established formula doesn't mean it can't be great as well. Sorry for the wall of text, but what are all of your thoughts on the matter?
I'm okay with little innovation, though I do get most of that Nintendo magic when I play a riskier game (excluding Starfox Adventures, that's an abomination). For example, I'm fine with NSMBU, as it fine tunes the mechanics of the series quite a bit, and adds a little makeup here and there, but I'd definitely pick TW101 any day. So while innovation and creativity aren't necessary to make a game good, it's certainly appreciated when it is present.
[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
While I suppose a case can be made for games that are (essentially) Comfort food, the "paying 60$ for an experience that you could've gotten out of a game you already had" issue is where I start questioning it.
Although that could very well go away with people like Nintendo making sequels like 'New Super Luigi U' into DLC and not a full-on 60$ game. I guess I'm for "Video Game Comfort food" as long as you're not constantly having to pay 60$ for the same game with minor to noticeable tweaks.
My general opinion is that video games as a whole needing to all fit any demand of any gamer beyond working properly is a bad idea.
That being said, the problem isn't innovation as much as way too many people only buying the same games from the same series and much of those series too often relying on what people liked on the past without adding enough to justify consistent 60 dollar price tags. And of course companies being too extreme and ridiculous and focusing on what the big games and trends are instead of understanding any other different audience (probably the main reason for the rise of indies tbh).
One of the reasons I've always liked Nintendo is that they are the masters of taking what could be overdone franchises and finding a perfect balance between being samey, familiar titles but also changing enough to still feel like a brand new game, and one of the reasons I bash them when they fail to do so. In terms of sequels, I tend to think that type of balance is probably the ideal one.
But again, none of these ideas are always true or anything like that. I can only really say that I'd like to see (insert game here) do (insert idea here) for a sequel but if you want genuine innovation, play a new game instead of one from a series. You don't have to buy sequels.
In my opinion, if you want to create something new, a good way to do it is to take two (or more) ideas, and put them together in a way that's never been done before. A good example that comes to mind is Plants Vs. Zombies. Took plants + zombies, and created a brand new kind of tower defense game. That is what I intend to strive for when it comes to game design.
No not every game needs to be a groundbreaking experience, As long as a game actually does what it's trying to do WELL, then I think... Well, it's good enough. My favourite games are actually old-styled cartoonish 3D platformers because I enjoy the simplicity and charm, and I don't need a gimmick to enjoy one if it's plain good. If a game does innovate well it's great and makes it stand out, but a game can be polished- if not as memorable- without needing "a unique feature". A retro-style 2D platformer isn't likely to stand out because those have been done to death now, but people can still enjoy them if they like retro-style 2D platformers that much, and the game actually focuses on being like a retro-styled 2D platformer and is good at it. Plus, in the case of sequels more of the same can still be enjoyable, if you really just wanted more because you liked it that much(though like I said, adding more new ideas would help make a sequel stand out). Like @kkslider5552000 said, if you're sick of a franchise then just take a break from buying or playing it for a while.
I think games within the same series shouldn't have to innovate. Just work as hard as you can with what you got, changing bits of the formula where necessary, and run with that until it stops being fun for most people. Then start a new series, and try something different with it so it stands out.
You see, a lot of companies forget that last step, and unfortunately it's probably the most necessary. Does F-Zero need a new sequel if it's just going to be the same game but prettier? Do we need a new Assassin's Creed if the sub-games they keep adding to it are becoming so much more fun than the main game, that they probably deserved their own game instead of being shoehorned in?
What we need aren't exactly new ideas, but fresh franchises to proper utilize these ideas. I'd say the same thing for TV, Movies, and comicbooks as well. Media in general is becoming so reliant on a few key franchises that they're afraid to let go of them and try something else. The people who refuse to buy into something they're not familiar with, instead keeping to these small sets of franchises, are no better, either.
Games just need to sell well, that's literally all that matters
Call of Duty? Terrific franchise. Has dominated the sales charts for so long and is just now slowing down (while still outperforming 99.9% of games)
Should they have tweaked with the franchise and tried to 'innovate' after their initial success? Of course not, people that say so are crazy. There is demand for the game as is, why risk all of that demand just because some people want change?
Devs that do 'innovate' (definition of which is certainly questionable) deserve credit, but in no world is innovation necessary.
I'm fine with a game in a series changing as long as it works. Look at the Ys games. They haven't been afraid to change over the years, with combat systems changing a lot entry over entry over the past 25 years. Yet, they all felt like Ys games. I'm also fine if the game turns out to be good, even if it's a total departure. Look at Resident Evil 4. Change for the better.
What I'm not fine with is when innovation is used as an excuse to replace a game's mechanics or structure with a vastly inferior one. Case in point: Paper Mario Sticker Star. That game sucked. It's like all of it's ideas contradicted each other, making me as a player feel like everything I did was pointless. I keep going on, but I think we have enough Sticker Star hate threads.
For someone like me who's planning on making games for a living, what I really want to do is make games that are fun. I want to make games that are super fun, super colorful and super flashy - that's my idea of what games should be like. I maybe won't necessarily be "innovative", but I want to be quirky and fun enough that using old ideas together in new ways will feel like brand new ideas. That's how I think games should be made.
Is this for me? I'll assume so and answer it anyway because I like you: To expand upon or alter pre-existing gameplay elements in such a way that a game introduces new experiences into its respective genre, or to introduce completely original elements unseen in similar games.
The problem with this? 99.9% of games are not innovative under this definition. A lot of people use the definition of 'new stuff' which is much different.
That's perfectly okay though, because innovation should be hard and often times not worth the risk, thereby making it seldom in occurrence. Making subtle changes to a pre-existing formula is soooo much easier and more practical from a business perspective. Asking every developer to innovate would lead to a lot of unemployed and bankrupt developers.
No......Games do not need to innovate. That would require people to buy original games and get into original ideas. That is not possible if a company actually wants to stay a float in this industry. A lot of great games have been made in the name of innovation they just have never sold compared to their by the numbers counterparts. Innovation is a high risk there is no room for error, and unfortunately a majority of the masses prefer the same thing over again because it worked the first time around. History shows this.
Yes......Games need to innovate because that would lead to new genres, bring new experiences to the audience and may lead to better ways to play games. Also if that one game is innovative enough it may be a smash hit that has no competition and has it's own uniqueness. It also keeps franchises fresh sometimes.
When its all said and done if a game company can afford to take a risk go for it, but they should be prepared that more than likely their game might sell worth jack despite their time and hard work. People prefer the same thing more than they want different. Innovation can be done but they are usually in small doses, so the game companies don't lose their target audience and lose their jobs.
It makes me sad that the game forced really bad trial and error non-sense into it, because if it was less annoying Zack and Wiki would've been a classic.
Forums
Topic: Do Games Need to Innovate?
Posts 1 to 18 of 18
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.