Slashdot Mirror
Game Originality: Any Left?
Kamalot writes "In a world where 85% of games are solved with a gun, where are the original and innovative ideas? Adrenaline Vault has a telling editorial about the state of creativity in the game industry, the constant re-hashing of sequels, and a look into the future when technical achievements are no longer the driving force. What happens when every game follows a tried and true formula? Where do the new ideas go if we can't have games like Viewtiful Joe, Shenmue, and Jet Grind Radio? Did innovative, rather than mainstream, games send the Dreamcast to an early grave rather than the PS2's more bland, yet conforming, lineup of titles?"
No matter how good it is, it's not going to sell. A certain degree of conformity is necessary. That said, I'm sure there are people out there who are clearly smart enough to be able to combine A Good Time (TM) with Something New (TM) that Everyone Can Enjoy (SM).
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
Did innovative, rather than mainstream, games send the Dreamcast to an early grave rather than the PS2's more bland, yet conforming, lineup of titles?"
Explain to me how Grand Theft Auto is "bland" and "conforming".
Dreamcast had poor selection of games, and equally poor marketing. Sega's prior console went to an early grave too, don't forget.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
You tell the story, not in the story itself. The works of Shakespeare have been re-imagined for hundreds of years now. Hollywood has been retelling the same stories for a century.
The originality comes in your setting, your imagination and adding your own flavor to the game. While the rare original book, movie, tv show, play or story comes out...mostly they are all just different takes on a common theme.
The Magnificent Seven and the Seven Samurai are the same movie, but both are considered classics.
So, is there originality in new games? Yes, but maybe you are not looking for it in the right place...
I'm always wary about comments that seem to reflect the "why aren't things better?" mold of thought. Obviously, there are impediments to producing a novel game concept, but if someone came up with a really catchy idea, I think game execs would sign on.
What if Miramax had told filmmaker Kevin Smith that no one would watch "Clerks" and suggested he develop a marketable teen sex comedy instead?
This is a red herring. Clerks pushed boundaries in several directions. If game designers have not done so, perhaps it's simply because there aren't enough people out there pushing the envelope. Time and patience will result in more games. Complaining won't.
The longer we go, the more things that will be done, the more games will have been done before. It's like the Southpark episode where Butters tries to come up with a scheme for chaos. "Simpsons did it!" The conclusion: Of course the Simpsons did it. They've been around forever. And as Chef points out, the Simpsons stole some of their stuff from others before them. It's not necessarily about doing new things. It's about applying your (hopefully good and sensible) take on those "tired" ways of doing things to put them into new light.
Derivative isn't bad. There are games that are derivative, but a hell of a lot of fun (Civ 2, for example). Games that are derivative crap would have been crap even if they were the first in their fields.
"And this is my boy, Sherman. Speak, Sherman." "Hello." "Good boy."
The Dreamcast didnt die because gamers dont like innovative games. Some chalk it up to its easy no-mod-needed piracy, though I doubt even that had much of an effect, being prohibitave to the mainstream non-techie gamer.
The Dreamcast died because Sega chalked up a laundry list of abandoned systems (32x, SegaCD, Saturn), and customers didnt want anything to do with it. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
I bought a Dreamcast on release day (9-9-99), and was an idiot for doing so. Sega wasnt in any position to back up another console, and to weather the financial drought before it turned profitable. EA's refusal to create titles for it didnt help either.
It was dead before it hit store shelves. And 85% of its library was indeed mainstream boring crap.
Everyone rants about the unoriginality in gameplay. But what do we hype up and get all excited over? Doom 3. Yay now we run around and shoot prettier monsters.
Fun innovative games do come out, and will continue to. And the bulk of the shelves will always be mainstream type stuff.
Thats the way it always has been - just look at the line up for your favorite nostalgia system (c64, NES, atari, genesis). For every standout there were 100 crapfests.
Nothing new here. Just nerd elitism. Sometimes those mainstream trigger finger games are just plain fun.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Games now are any of: 1) jump around to collect coins/stars/whatever 2) pretend to kick box/karate/judo something in an arena 3) FPS 4) hack and slash.
BORING
The good thing about Atari in the day was one of the basic requirements: A new game had to look like nothing else that had come before it.
If only more companies would do that today...
I own a gamecube because I enjoy creative, challenging games. I see most PS2 and XBox games using technical merits to sell (more polygons! looks better!) rather than gameplay.
On the gamecube, you get a game like Pikmin. That is a really cool game, and certainly well done. Metroid Prime is a great example of something that really hasn't been done before (first-person adventure, not FPS). I think Nintendo has always been about quality over quantity.
To me, having to get the latest fighting game is just wasting money (more complex death moves!). Or getting the new NFL 2003 or whatever just because it has the new stats. I guess that's entertainment for some. But it's not what I look for. Even though I'm supposedly in the target PS2 and XBox demographic, I just don't find those games interesting.
--- witty signature
> What if Miramax had told filmmaker Kevin Smith
> that no one would watch "Clerks" and suggested
> he develop a marketable teen sex comedy instead?
They did, it was the unwatchable "Mallrats."
> Or if Artisan had told the creators of "The
> Blair Witch Project" to drop the film in favor
> of directing a Friday the 13th sequel?
Well, they were pressured to make the even-more-unwatchable "Blair Witch II". Innovation comes in first-generation movies and games, poor sequels are just to be expected.
modern choral music...
Oddly enough, I could swear people were making the same complaint in the '80s and early and mid '90s, and the games mentioned still came out. There will always be novelty and it will always stand out against the background of knockoff blackjack / deer hunting / FPS games.
Incidentally, I tried, really tried, to give Shenmue a chance, and it's certailnly beautifully executed, but waiting all day for it to get dark so I could look for sailors again ("Sailors? Not here. I'd try looking in bars.") just wore me out. Of course, I still play Doom because Quake is just too sluggish, so...
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Bullshit it does. The PS2 has nothing but crappy remakes and sequels of games that weren't that good to begin with.
I think one of the things that 'ruined' the gaming industry like this, is the fact that in the days of wayback there wasn't such thing like a First Person Shooter. I remember playing all Keen episodes, Cosmo, Dune, Monkey Island (great games!), Duke Nukem 1 and 2, etc. Then suddenly there was Wolfenstein.. I remember me and my friends copying it to 1.44MB disks and passing them around like madness, only playing it when our parents weren't at home.. Ah.. memories.. anyway, I think that the invention of the 3D shooters, changed the world's look at game. After so many years looking at the playing character from the side (platform gaming), you could suddenly see the game through the eyes of the playing character, like you were there! In my opinion, most 3D shooters look the same, it's basicly the same concept over and over again, with slightly engine and quality enhances here and there.. Before there was something like the Doom and Quake era, the game developers just *had* to be creative, if they wanted to sell anything. Nowadays, shooters are a winning formula, and why change a running system?
In need of reliable and affordable server monitoring?
It seems to me that a lot of the games I find myself most into get attacked for being different.
One easy example is in fact a very popular game, but one that has endured some of the stupidest arguments in the history of video games: The Legend of Zelda: The Wind-Waker.
It's cell shaded; it frequently looks like a hand drawn cartoon. It recaptures the art direction of the classic SNES era Zelda game, seamlessly into a 3-d environment.
And it was attacked without mercy for being "kiddie".
Just yesterday I was at a Gamestop, playing through the demo of Viewtiful Joe. If you don't know, it's a 2.5-D beat 'em up, similar to Capcom's Strider 2 (for the playstation 1), except with bright colors and a unique take on the cell shading trend. It really stands out among the endless stream of tactical, deadly-serious games that are flooding the market.
And while one of the staff was really into it, the other guy working there couldn't accept that there was a helicopter flying around inside of a large cathedral, and that as Joe, I was jumping high into the air and punching said helicoptor in slow-mo to blow it up. As if the idea that a game could possibly be amusing and light-hearted was alien to him.
Viewtiful Joe is definitely my most looked forward to game of this year; I payed $10 for a Gamecube demo disc, solely for the 15 minute demo, which is really a ridiculous sum. It was worth it. I've played through this demo 5 or 6 times already and if the rest of the game lives up to this potential, it will likely be the best game of the year. (Like last year's Ikaruga).
I am a die hard Dreamcast enthusiast, and yes, most of the best games on the DC are unusual and edgy. Typing of the Dead, Rez, Samba De Amigo, Sega Bass Fishing, Bangai-O!, Shenmue, Chu Chu Rocket, Space Channel 5. Really, who knew a fishing game could actually be FUN.
In fact, the DC also hurt in the market for catering to old school gamers as well. Classic gaming styles such as 2-D fighters and top down, vertical scrolling shooters (like Mars Matrix, Giga Wing 2, and Ikaruga) just aren't as popular as they once were.
Perhaps Sega would have done better to cater to current trends instead of trying to invent their own, but I'll take innovative and intuitive gameplay over the trends of the week any day.
Special mention to the development teams at Sega, Treasure, Capcom, and Nintendo for making awesome, innovative games, at least now and then.
.
Personally, I thought Ico for the PS2 was a great game that didn't resort to inane violence or scantily clad women to get attention.
:)
I don't think it was the most original game made, but fairly innovative in that you have to drag the girl around with you all the time, and try and figure out ways to get her places. Had to use my brain there for a bit. Fun stuff.
Also done in by the fact that people weren't buying games for the system, instead doing things with NES emulators, Sega Master System emulators, VCD playing and game piracy.
Funny, this article comes up right after the weekend I get WarioWare and am floored by it's insane blending of micro games into a cohesive whole. If this game isn't original, I would like someone to tell me what it's based on.
And yes, I know that the individual games themselves are not original.
There are thousands of game releases every year. Some are amazingly cool, but most of them are rehashed old themes or just plain crap. How do we know which ones to buy?
Simple...marketing. Which games get the TV display at Electronics Boutique? Which ones have cardboard cutout displays?
Most people can't afford to buy any game they want. They have to rely on others to tell them which games are genuinely good. Occasionally a game will get by on its own merits, but most of the time, it succeeds based on a costly marketing campaign. Just like music and movies.
And this marketing costs money, too, so companies decide to market the games that they are relatively sure will benefit the most from it. They don't bet on the little guys with no track record, they bet on the tried-and-true formulas. So, in the end, even an incredibly smart, interesting new title will sit on the shelves because it wasn't marketed well.
There are plenty of original games out there. Most of them simply don't do well, and those which do are copied and cliched into oblivion. Take for example:
Uplink: Every Slashdotter's dream game. Very innovative idea, properly executed, as well.
Escape Velocity Series: While the series is not exactly new, it is still an excellent idea. Completely open-ended, and quite fun. Windows port coming soon.
Wulfram II: Multiplayer only. Free. Interesting combination of strategy and FPS. The graphics are a bit dated, although community-funded development work has begun on a new graphics engine. Addicting as hell.
Black and White: Never played, but very innovative from what I've heard.
The Longest Journey: While it's very similar to the LucasArts adventure games, this game plays like a novel. That being said, if all novels copied each other, we would have stopped writing them thousands of years ago. Recycled concept, AMAZING plot.
Planescape: Torment: At first glance, this appears to be nothing more than a hackneyed D&D game/Diablo clone. Upon playing it, you begin to unravel a superb plot. Very little hack and slash.
Dance Dance Revolution: Never played it, but it's popular as hell (you don't get much more original than THIS)
Morrowind and GTA were both somewhat revolutionary in that they were completely open-ended, and created two of the most original games in two of the most hackneyed generes.
Frozen Bubble/Snood/etc. More proof that such simplistic games can still become wildly popular. Revitalized a dying genere.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
That was a hell of a lot easier to do back then for a variety of reasons.
When films first appeared, the very idea of editing was radical; to cut the film into chunks that somehow approximated a jilted eye-movement that had narrative power. Then the rules about editing -- breaking the axis, 90-degree flips, screen-facing, etc. Once we had a credible language for the format, there was a period of stagnation, when we thought this is how films would be... lots of locked-off tripods, static shots, clearly framed heads speaking to the camera, etc. Sound, a technological innovation, pushed the format in new directions ("Who on earth wants to hear actors talk?). Now, look at what we do in films: swooping cameras, crazy filters, surround-sound, virtual cinematography... not to mention the arsenal of tricks given to us by the Leans, Hitchcocks, Spielbergs, etc. of the world.
Video games will go forward once we begin to truly master the art of nonlinear storytelling. I often suspect that our film past, while necessary to arrive where we are now, hamstrings us a bit in terms of expectations. People like to just turn their brains off and be entertained, and any sort of interactive medium is bound to be more work than that.
I once had an idea for a DVD 'film' that would just be scraps of video, selected at the user's whim, constructed in just such a way that you could do your own sleuthing and piece together the film in your own way. That's much more amorphous than what people are willing to go through. It smacks of work to many people.
Don't worry. We'll get there eventually. I do agree with the poster in terms of lamenting the current period, though. The video game industry now makes more money than the film industry and sequels to hit games will sell. It's a given. However, sooner or later, someone will come up with the video game equivalent of something like Memento or 2001, and things will shuffle again.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
The following is a broad generalization of gaming. I ignore lots in the interest of getting back to work ASAP. Please look at the point and not what I failed to mention.
First there was 2D with a few colors. This let us do lots of basically animated board games. There were good ideas because people had been making board games for centuries.
Then we got to the scroller era and every game was the same. Run around, collect stuff. Some were better than others, but within a few years, the genre had run its course and most were just bad coppies of the few innovative ones.
Then we hit the 3D era. Everything now looks like Doom with a gimmic. Some of the gimmics are good, but most are just copies. These games always have lots of guns and flash because the other part of the game can't stand on its own.
What's the problem? There is no shortage of good ideas, the problem is that we can't code those ideas. Any game that doesn't rely on running around and blowing stuff up needs another goal. That goal always revolves around the need for some good AI. The only other successful major genre that I have ommited so far is the RTS game. These work because they are from a macro perspective. The individual AI sucks, but the whole scene behaves mostly ok. Anything that needs an artificial person to behave in a strategic or clever manner just can't be done yet.
When we can do an game where harder doesn't just mean bigger and faster but smarter, the market will explode with "I've always wanted to do this" ideas.
I remember back in the day (back when NES was king and gas was just under a buck a gallon here in CO) when game publishers were not huge media conglamerates, but programmers who loved the games they created. Final Fantasy, Crystalis, Star Tropics, etc. all came from relatively small companies (at the time).
This is important, because it means that the resources required to make the game were in the best place they could be, in the hands of the people making the game. All the super-popular games of that time (even to date, occasionally) came from environments like this.
It's not that the creativity and innovation is gone (look at ICO, Fatal Frame), it's that the resources needed to afford such aren't where they're supposed to be.
Of all the Universal Constants, here's one I know: Nice guys finish last
really should make true gamers think about the future of videogames, with Sony and Microsoft wanting to create entertainment hubs, and Nintendo's demise looming, I guess we're not very far from a Holywood Syndrome. Once Nintendo is out of the picture, the "true games" part of the equation will sucumb to more "interesting" business models such as "In-game advertising", more FMV, more pop music soundtracks, more movie-game translations, more "let's do what's in..." a.k.a "Bullet time on every production" etc.... it's the Industry's second death, and there will be no NES to save us....
What tripe. Popular games = what people want. No one is forcing people to buy anything. They buy what they want/like. FPS is cool, on occassion, with the likes of the original Doom and later improvements like Quake and Halflife. DeusEx? Damn-frickin-good. And, sorry, but RTCW is/was kickass fun...and there are plenty of Germans who play/enjoy that "nazi glorifying" game. Check out the network game servers...you will find plenty out of Germany and just about every other country in the world. It isn't about glorifying nazis. It's about teams fighting against teams in a really nicely rendered "world" with great graphics quality. It's just fun...I have played both nazi side and allied side, simply depending on which side needed players. There's no nazi glorifying going on (in single player mode, in case you missed it, the nazis were the BAD GUYS).
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
For example, why would someone buy Unreal Tournament 2010 if the graphics technology peaked in 2006? The same goes for Counterstrike, Warcraft, Everquest and the rest of the games whose sequels are mainly technology upgrades.
We should also look forward to the eventual plateau of graphics/sound technology in terms of video games because it will become cheaper and cheaper for people to make games - the longer the tech is available, the cheaper it is. Already we have individuals who do 3D modeling for ZERO money (unless Valve or Id or whomever buys their mod) and there will only be more of those folks in the future. For Neverwinter Nights, there are people out there writing ENTIRE GAMES for nothing because the tools are available to them.
In short, I believe technology will advance until it reaches the point where incremental sequels will not be able to compete with their predecessors and innovations in gaming will become more common again.
Bitch, bitch, bitch. Moan, moan, moan.
Bitch, moan, whine.
I'm sure people were complaining in 1979 about how Galaxian was just a Space Invaders clone, and how surely that indicated that originality in the video game medium was dead.
Why aren't there any original games being made? That questions is logically flawed. Why aren't original games on the best-seller lists? Simply, because people would rather play something more familiar.
Even at the cost of being a bit off-topic, I found one exceptionally insightful part in that editorial.
[John Carmack] believes it won't always be necessary for programmers to pump out new engines for each successive generation of releases. This could mean that it might not be long until technical innovation is no longer a driving force in interactive entertainment - at least provisionally.
I am personally eagerly waiting for this to happen in games. It has already happened in the niche area of computer demos. Just marching eye-candy and stunning visual effects on screen no longer gets the group nothing more than a few yawns. The real works of art with concept and possibly even *gasp* plot get all the appraising - and for a reason. There was a time when computer demos pushed the limits and showed what quite rudimentary setups were capable of. I really, really wish the trend saw a comeback.
Originality is, however, dangerous. It takes a certain kind of genius to design and device game with new ideas and working plot. They are far and wide apart, which means that 99% of all the games will, for the forseeable future, remain sequels of sequels and rehashes of the lowest common nominator.
There is no such thing as good luck. There is only misfortune and its occasional absence.
True piracy was a concern, but originals always ran a bit better and smoother I thought.
I don't count NES Emulators, etc against the system though, they were one of the reasons I got one.
As far as I know though, being able to burn games came along after the Dreamcast had been on the market for sometime. They had a great lead over their competitors when compared pricewise.
This thing was selling $100 and then $150 less than the PS2 and the xbox and you got great quality games, no one ever knew about it.
-- taking over the world, we are.
I have felt the exact same way about DC and PS2. When the DC came out, it seemed that every week, some completely original game would be released. Remember Seaman? Where you spoke to the artificial fish through a special microphone? Or the way Space Channel 5 gave a new spin on the memory type games (no, it was very different than Parappa). Or Soul Calibur, the best fighting game ever released (yes, it pwns Tekken). The list goes on and on - the mentioned Shenmue and Jet Set Radio... some memorable RPG's, great multiplayer games, sports games that quickly rivaled anything that the lame EA franchises have come up with, Crazy Taxi, the innovative Samba de Amigo with REAL maracas (yes I have a pair, and it's fun)... Virtual Tennis, the best tennis game EVER made, Phantasy Star Online, one of my favorite online RPG's (not massively-multiplayer), which had FULL support for ethernet connections, including a great port of Quake 3 Arena, with an easy to use DC mouse and keyboard to go with it! The accessories were also as innovative as the games.
Hopefully that covered almost everything. I own GC, PS2, and X-Box, and they mostly gather dust, except for using my X-Box as a media player. Since the demise of the DC, there have been nothing but sequels, and it seems that even Sega has lost its flair for video game perfection. Hopefully there will be another era in video games that isn't driven by profit margins, movie licenses, and sequels. This hasn't just been related to Sega, even Nintendo's proven franchises are becoming more and more lackluster. Please people, stop buying Wrestlemania games and try something new for once. The DC proved that innovation is still possible in a crowded market.
I have two friends that I know back from the university. We are always in discussion of our next gaming project. Well, we have not been able to make anything!!! anytime we started, we found out that someone else has done the same before us!!!
3d Shooters ? done to death.
Online rpgs ? too much work for 3 bedroom coders.
Puzzle games ? done to death. We even tried 3d battleship!!!
Adventure games ? well, no one had the talent of storytelling. But this is a field that shows more promise than any other. Basically, you can do whatever you like.
So, what you can really do ? even big companies don't have the resources to pull cinematic experiences. It's not that the hardware does not allow it. It's time and resources. The current market simply does not justify too high costs.
Even if you think about any other type of game, its been done to death. The only real innovation is combining formerly separate categories.
About the Dreamcast, all I have to say is that I love it. Today I read about the PowerVR tile engine: super pretty smart architecture for 3d rendering. It's a pity SEGA did not have the marketing hype. Because it's the PS2 hype that killed the Dreamcast: the big anticipation of the uber console that could do emotional experiences in 75 million polygons per second...damn lies by the Sony PR department. But it worked.
And by that standard, NOTHING is original.
If you can't tell the difference between Tony Hawk Pro Skater and 720, you're trolling or lack any appreciation for detail.
Look at the movies - we've had them for a long time, and technology is still one of the main driving forces. If you believe this will change for either games or movies, you're just being narrow minded.
sig sig sputnik
Since getting into MAME recently, I have played over 1,000 classic arcade games. They are almost always based on an existing game format.
Galaga is based from Space Invaders, and games like 1942 are based on Galaga, just that the terrain moves vertically.
Then games like Shinobi, are just like Double Dragon, Kung Fu Master, and many others where you navigate horizontally.
It goes further in gun based games like Operation Wolf, Duck Hunt, and Terminator. Also, with the many driving games, on to STreet Fighter game.
So, all in all, there have only been game format changes. The differences between games have been marginal and usually just in appearance/style.
If I were to somehow distill the inner workings of my mind and figure out the process my brain goes through when determining whether or not I enjoy a particular game, these criteria would be on the checklist (in no particular order). A Yes answer to each of these makes it a winner in my book.
There are more criteria, I'm sure, but that captures a large chunk of them. There are very few games I've played that meet those criteria (this includes non-FPS titles):
I don't know about anyone else here, but I still love playing the old Infocom text adventures which can be obtained from eBay or from other places.
They have no need for fancy 3D graphics cards or the latest speedy processors.
It's very relaxing to play the games. They are quiet. They keep my mind stimulated.
It would be nice if there were a game manufacturer who made new text adventures; I am not aware of any that currently do.
The Sims, Wolfenstein 3D, Unreal Tournament, Mario Kart, Pokemon, Myst, Parappa the Rapper, Super Mario 3d, Ninja Gaiden, The Legend of Zelda...
Let's see:
The Sims was released in 2000 or 2001.
Wolfenstein 3D was released in 1992.
Unreal Tournament was heavily "inspired" by Quake 3: Arena, much as Unreal was "inspired" by Quake.
Mario Kart was released circa 1992.
Myst was released circa 1993.
Parappa the Rapper was released in 1997.
Super Mario 3D (aka Super Mario 64) was release in 1997.
Ninja Gaiden was released circa 1990.
The Legend of Zelda was released circa 1987 (and if you mean the 3D version, that was released in 1998).
So essentially you've listed zero games released since 2001, and all but three were released in 1993 or earlier. You've proved the point of the article!
and a red herring. As a film buff and former filmmaker I bought into the "non-linear storytelling" hype that was coming from various projects that purported to combine the best of hollywood and games, but all fell flat. Michael Crichton was a huge booster for this concept for a while. Several crappy games later I don't hear much from him about this anymore. Anyone want to fire up "Trespasser?" Didn't think so.
The basic problem is that compelling storytelling requires the storyteller to be in control. The more you add interactivity, the less good the storytelling.
It's like trying to combine the best of democracy with the best of totalitarianism.
Syntax error: loose != lose, affect != effect, then!=than
Actually, there DOES seem to be an emerging market for 'Art house' games. It's the direct download stuff that's being sold straight from websites.
They are usually lower budget, with lower production values, and even lower tech, but often with really good game play, and with original ideas.
An example of this is 'Uplink', or anything released by Ambrosia.
A couple of people can produce a game like this on nights and weekends over a couple of years. They can do this with almost nothing invested but time.
The model of direct only sales works pretty well for them. You can sell for $20, and see almost ALL of the the $20! And because the focus is on the game, not the technology, the games tend to sell for years, not for a few months.
However, console games can't be sold this way, since you can't release a game unless you get permission from Sony, MS, whoever. They take a big cut, and pretty much force you into the mainstream marketting model.
This means you have to compete based on the pretty pictures and mainstream appeal to get enough sales to be able to break even. A small game company is lucky to see $5 a copy per game sold, and probably has 3 million invested by the time to game goes to market.
plus-good, double-plus-good
Back in the days of Commodore 64 (never had an Atari, but I think we're talking about the same era) I was pushing it to the full extent. I was drawing sprites and doing 2D gfx, creating "music" that was "good enough" for something that wasn't even a PC squeeker (speaker), and I had multiplayer - two joysticks! And that was just me. Even my pathetic drawings couldn't look bad in 320x200x16 color (CGA). I knew every command in the manual almost by heart.
/rant
Let's say I want to create a game - any game - today. 3D engine (for anything but a platform game, and you'd want even a "platformish" game to be 3D today), textures, model, bump mapping, shaders and whatever. Music at CD quality or better, and catchy tunes too. Not to mention sound effects. Free choice of resolution (much harder than hardcoded) and with detail level of 1600x1200 you'd want some talent too. Network code and multiplayer. Try to prevent exploits and hacks, deal with dropped packets, out of order packets (UDP), guesstimates of what's happening (to reduce "jumpyness", real AI code and game balancing and more. Not to mention you usually need replayability on whole new level, none of the games back then had "mods" that I could think of.
Anyway, I think there are just as many "obvious" ideas to take from today. They weren't that obvious until anyone did it back then, and they aren't now.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Sturgeon's law: 90% of everything is crap.
As soon as an "industry" moves from a cottage/craft industry to big business, it will start degrading into conservative blandness until it too is 90% crap.
It costs lots of money to make games. Now would you, as a game company manager, rather spend $$ on a guaranteed hit sequel to your last game and have it out by September, or spend $$$$$ on a new, unknown, novel idea that may or may not make dollar #1 in profit, and won't be out until next spring at the earliest?
From a business point of view, creativity is dangerous and foolhardy. From a craft point of view, it's the very reason for existing.
We need to build up the infrastructure for a gaming cottage industry underneath (or beside?) the existing commercial gaming industry. That's where creativity will come from.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
When companies try to "innovate", it usually doesn't involve any truly new gameplay. They merge genres. Deus Ex merged an FPS with an RPG (most of which were watered down features of System Shock 2), Warcraft III merged an RTS with some half-hearted RPG elements, and a bunch of shooters have tried to become semi-adventure games (talk to character to find item to get to area, repeat).
There has been some real innovation though. Rainbow Six (the first two at least, the 3rd appears to have been butchered by Ubi Soft) created a first person shooter *simulation*, whose gameplay was defined by reality and not the other way around (which is what most military-themed shooters are today). Medieval Total War was similar in its emphasis on realism, an RTS in which you control groups of dozens of units who have moral, stamina and varying degrees of skill.
Which brings us to a common fact; none of those games were hits. Sure, they all received critical acclaim (Medieval Total War won RTS of the year from Gamespot and Gamespy), but they weren't top sellers, compared to games like Quake 3 and Warcraft III. Innovation is risky to profit-driven companies and unfamiliar to the constantly growing number of new gamers. Developers stick with the tried and true because it's what sells (see Warcraft III).
Innovation, when done right, can sell millions, like Half-Life. That kind of innovation though actually requires real game development skill, which is what most developers lack.
I have thought about this a lot, being horribly addicted to video games and having woken up at the end of many a fourteen hour binge feeling empty like I had wasted precious life. Boy wouldn't it be great to become completely immersed in a game at the end of which you wound up speaking fluent Chinese or having acquired some other skill useful in the real world? I know that there are plenty of kids' learning games out there to teach phonics and stuff like that, but that's not what I'm talking about. Those are too pedantic.
What I had in mind was something more in the direction of Cyberchase, were the skill being learned was important, but almost incidental to the game play. For example, take all those Everquest-y RPG-y games out there where you're an ancient Greek warrior or a spy or something, and gradually require the player to understand what the characters are saying in their native tongue in order to advance, and after that require the player to speak back in the language. Presto at the end of the game you come out with basic understanding of French grammar and a vocabulary of 1000 words.
I know it wouldn't be easy to walk the line between educational and fun, but if someone managed it I'd be a slavishly devoted fan.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Originality in video games is always possible, but then again, the same holds true for TV and all we get is reality TV and sitcoms...
Since the discussion topic at top is somewhat open-ended, I'll just babble on a few points:
If every commercial game is made from a cookie-cutter template, I don't think it'll be that huge a blow. There are always independent shareware and freeware programmers ready to make something original even if it doesn't make a huge profit. If it really shines, it'll even have some viability on the commercial market. Look at Counter-Strike. Sure, it's another team-based fps, but it was so addictive, that now it's one of (if not THE?) most popular multiplayer game on the Internet. It was free when it started, and it's even free now, but you can still buy it in stores packaged with Half-Life (the game it runs as a mod for,) and it's even coming out for the Xbox in a while! I really don't think we're going to see a total death of originality in gaming... ever.
Video games are just like any other form of mass media. When they came out, they were all new and original (you wanna see some unique games? Get an old Intellivision or Atari!) but now that they've been around for a while, they've stabilized to the point where just like TV, movies, music, or any other mass media, they're 90%+ cookie-cutter fodder for the masses, and a few real gems that gather cult followings, or even widespread attention and longlasting recognition.
While it is true that the Dreamcast was a haven for original games with titles like Crazy Taxi, Shenmue, Jet Grind Radio, and a real model of originality, Seaman, I don't think that's what killed it.
[HISTORY CHUNK]
Every time Sega made a system, there was an achilles heel that dragged it down. The Master System competed with the NES and it's myriad of games and already widespread acceptance. The Genesis had few colors and terrible FM-synthesized sound compared to the SNES (and it's leagues of game developers from back in the day of the NES!)
The Game Gear, compared to the GameBoy of the time, had lush color graphics, awesome sound, and some nice titles. The GameBoy was cheap at around $100 (CDN), and as grainy and colorless as the games were, with their bleepy sub-NES (stereo!) sound, they had some exceptional gameplay to them, and some winning developers licensed to make them. It also didn't hurt Nintendo any that while the Gameboy would use 2 batteries for a week, the Game Gear would use 6 batteries for a couple hours! More playing is more fun. 'nuff said. 11 years later, Nintendo finds it can make a color screen that doesn't need a hydroelectric dam to power it, and they OWN the handheld market, competing with truly nonthreatening offerings like the GP32, NeoGeo Pocket (and hastily-released Color version,), and the Bandai WonderSwan, which to my knowledge, didn't even make it to these shores (unlike the first Internet-ready console system, the Bandai/Apple "Pippin.")
The Saturn was a 2D 256 color (?) system that was tweaked at the last minute to compete with the PSX's 3D prowess. Truth told, it probably would have amounted to the greatest 2D system ever, beating out even the Turbographix 16 and the Neo Geo. However, they chose to instead make grainy-looking off-color versions of Playstation titles, and leave all the titles that really showed off the system's strength in Japan.
Wait, where is Nintendo now? Well, with the N64, they pulled a Sega and built in an insurmountable flaw. Being cartridge only, the games could be either low-detail, low-content, or expensive like Neo Geo games. Contrary to what you'd think though, that wasn't what killed them.
You see, they were working on a sort of CD-addon for the SNES to match the SegaCD. This system would include an additional processor to handle the next-generation CD games. However, they got partway though development, and decided it wasn't worth their while. They were working with SONY on this project, and legend has it, it was even going to be called the PLAY
The .hack games would be more interesting if there were non-linear sidequests that you could uncover (Either that or there ARE non-linear sidequests you can uncover and I just suck at finding them :-) I much prefer Grand Theft Auto due to its greater wealth of side quests and the player's ability to ignore or follow them as he sees fit.
To some extent, MUDs also fill this vision of people making their own games, but I think they also need good story tellers to create the quests and puzzles for others to follow.
To get back closer to the topic, a while back I played a game called "Inherit the Earth" which followed the old isometric wander-around-and-find-stuff model. It came across as a kid's game and was fairly simple to beat, but the most interesting thing about it was that there were no violent actions you could take. It was all about solving puzzles and had a fairly engaging story line. It was also a commerical flop.
In several games I've played recently, there have been fight scenes that seemed out of place. Surly the designers of the game could have come up with a better way for me to prove my strength-of-spirit or whatever. Perhaps they could even have given me several choices, with the outcome of the game depending not only at my success in my chosen path but also on the path I picked. But perhaps I'm expecting too much from the industry...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Seriously, I will probably get hit as a troll on this, but I noticed what I'm about to say hasn't appeared in anything mod'd 4 and up.
If you're not happy with lack of game originality, you have yourselves (as a consumer group) to blame, because you told the powers-that-be that's what you want. That the shite you buy is what you'll put money down for.
So many people here commented on console economics, and the convergence of games and movies, and blah blah blah crap we've heard a billion times that any pseudo-intellectual who buys a computer-game oriented magazine once/year (or reads slashdot) can figure out.
How Ironic it is to see pontificating posts holding forth some of these very games as examples of originality. The HERD (That's the majority of you slashdotters out there, with respect to gaming) bemoans the lack of originality. The HERD thinks that discussing it on slashdot is a testament to their ability to be intellectual. Most of THE HERD put money down in advance to reserve their copy of a new release of a MAJOR game title this year. The HERD blindly responds to each "new release" and marketing campaign, plunking down their money where told to. The HERD moo's contentedly when given flashy new grapics or gimmicks. The HERD mindlessly plows through these games, and when done looks up from their screen long enough to say "Next?" The HERD is hooked to the soma of the big budget games, and sees originality only as a variation on a theme.
There is PLENTY of originality out there in computer games. It seems like every other week I walk into my wife's office and see her playing some new little flash game that dazzles me with it's simple yet addictive game play. I don't know who out there is writing these things, but I've been blown away by the quality and orignality of many of the titles my wife and her friends seem to stumble across. Word games, hand-eye coordination games, all sorts of little games. Fun little adventures. Simple little games. But, many of them have been VERY original in their theme, and very well done.
Btw, the games-of-old are often still around. That's right - MUDS, with their mix of combat and puzzle solving (via quests) are still out there. Almost no two muds are alike, and many offer a lot of fun adventure-style puzzle-solving gameplay, as well as hack-and-slash dynamics. Oh yeah... you can talk and interact with other people too.
Not up for MUDS for whatever reason? How about a MUSH, or a MOO, where god forbid, you make the game happen. You create (hopefully) ORIGINAL characters, breathe life into them, and build stories collaboratively. Again, this is quasi-troll material, but I bet most of the slashdot readership couldn't do this for one reason or another (I won't get into what they might be here).
What's more, they are often very low-cost, if not flat-out FREE!
Not once did I see someone mention these sorts of games as examples of originality that still abound. Well, HERD, ARE YOU LOOKING? Or are you waiting for a multi-billion dollar marketing campaign to spoon-feed originality to you! How does a multi-billion dollar consumer group presume to have origanality?!!
Look at it this way: there have been tons of good games with good media and major distribution that took about 6 months to make it to the bargin bin (Alice, Thief, Undying). Who's to blame for this? Think about it. The games are out there; the buyers aren't.
I shudder to think what will happen to games like Call of Cthulhu. As much as I pray that it's going to bring a change in PC gaming I know the truth; CoC will be in the bargin bin by the end of the quarter and HalfLife 2 will have sold an average of 200,000 copies a day for 5 months. Not that HalfLife doesn't deserve it either but very few PC Gamers are going to give CoC a second glance with old standards like HalfLife and Medal of Honor on the shelves.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
1.) Replay Value. it does the game no good in terms of long term value if kids beat it once and are bored and sell it back EB at bargain basement prices. Look at Halo.. STILL $40 USED!
2.) Story Line. If the people playing are emotionally attached, you're set. Look at how the RPGS that Squaresoft pushed out (FF3 anyone?) did? Great Story Line. And i'm not talking about "saving the princess/mario junk" (note, this isn't applicable in the Street Fighter style fighting games).
3.) Graphics. No matter how good your game is, the majority of people won't come to play it if doesn't appeal to them in the least. Lets face it. The kids who drive this industry want flashy cool stuff. Most likely they don't know a quality MUD when they see it.
4.) Pick a target audience and stick to it. Pokeman for kids, Mortal Kombat for older kids, House of the Dead for "mature adults". it makes sense (i think.)
now the problems.. look at sports games.. they arent' original at all.. yet madden 'xx continues to sell like hotcakes. The problem with this is when for the simple level of adding a few more bells and whistles they can rake big profits for yet another year.. why bother making something completely innovative? No purpose.. it's better to go teh safe and easy route.
Barrier for entrance into the video game market is just too high now.Originaly game making is wonderful, but from a business angle it is hard to push to the bean counters. Before any type of R&D project a business is going to estimate the future money to be made and then in corporate the business risk. For new developpments, this is very high, and pushed your value down to nothing, so why bother.
If you look around and see the market has room for another game where you tote hundreads of guns and have balls like churchbells and blow away all the pinko scum, you know it will make money, just add a cute new feature, like bullet time, or extra blood splatting on the walls and you sell your game. Same as putting "New and Improved" on a box of Tide.
Until the consumer quits opening their wallet for the same old thing you wont get much innovation. the only reason we can say "they innovated in the old days!" is because there were no video games to compare from. Same as old cinema. iturn of the century and into the 30's movies were innovative. today, they are variations on a theme.
Make innovation profitable, and you will have innovative games.
we could also get into the limitations of UI devices and innovate those and then games could go nice directions control wise. I mean have you played Enter the Matrix for the PC yet? Your left hand gets one hellacious workout with all the different control combinations.
-- Insert wisdom here: