GBA - A Wasteland For Creativity?

jvm writes "Having been intrigued by heated discussions over licensed games and stagnant creativity in the videogame market, I did some investigation into just how many original titles can be found in the library of games for Nintendo's GameBoy Advance. Depressingly, out of the hundreds of games catalogued, only 9% are not licensed, not sequels, and not remakes of older games. That's fewer than three dozen games, and most of those fall into well-known categories. Graphs and downloadable data are provided for interested readers to do their own examination."

Comments

Reasons why the lack of creativity

[Alpha27]

• Sometimes new things do not get a good chance when they first come out so it becomes more of a cult following. Therefore it's less of a chance of a good sell, and return on investment.
• People like franchises/sequels.
• Some new games are just reinventions of old ideas.
• How new can you get? Many games are similar to each other. We have FPS, RTS, Platformers, RPGs, fighting, sports, card, 2d scrollers, etc. Each genre has their style, and everyone sticks to the style that works.

I'm curious to see a report on other platforms, including SNES, and alot of the older systems. I wouldn't be suprised to see the percentage of new games shrink overtime.

Re:Reasons why the lack of creativity

[jvmatthe]

The definition of original for this article was chosen because it was unambiguous.

Does a title use a license from a movie, cartoon, etc.? Is it a direct sequel? Does it use properties developed in previous games (i.e. is it a franchise game)? Is it a remake of an earlier game? Is it a retrofit of a game from another platform?

As far as I know, each of those questions can be answered definitively "yes" or "no", without debate. Had I chosen to try to find a definition by which Wario Ware, Inc. was considered original, it would have necessarily included defining original gameplay.

The definition of original gameplay is not something I'm even going to attempt at this point. I admit up front (and even at the end) that there is a weakness with the definition. But to push it further makes it an issue of opinion, and probably an intractable problem (for a single person or even a small group of people). Intractable because one would need to play each game considered in its entirety and make a decision, a subjective one, on whether it had enough original gameplay to be considered original.

Hope that makes the choice of definition a bit more clear. It wasn't that Wario Ware, Inc. was ignored. Quite the opposite: it was considered and then binned appropriately under the working definition.

Re:Reasons why the lack of creativity

[MilenCent]

A: The GBA is "a wasteland for creativity" because most of its games are sequels.

B: To clarify the argument, "sequels" here is defined to mean any game in which has a character from a previously-existing game. (Wario in WarioWare, Inc.)

C: Thus, WarioWare is not original, regardless of its considerable originality and the fact that it has almost nothing to do with the "historical" Wario besides using the character. Also, the following games were also not original when released: Mario Bros.(Mario originated in Donkey Kong), the NES versions of Super Mario Bros. or Super Mario Bros. 2, Yoshi's Island for the SNES, Super Mario 64, Zelda: Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time or Majora's Mask (with its 3-day system) for the N64, or Luigi's Mansion, Metroid Prime, or *Animal Crossing* (all those Mario items and NES games!) for the Gamecube.

D: On the other hand, Spyro and Vexx *are* original.

E: Bleah!

The experiment is baised against companies that use stock characters and franchises, regardless of how originally they are used. In other words, it could not possibly be any more biased against Nintendo, which often does very original games but uses their franchise characters to attract an initial user base. You can bet that if other companies had even a fifth the character portfolio that Nintendo does, they'd be abusing them left and right.

If you define "originality" by an arbitrary standard in order to make the argument better, then you're going to get weird results. Originality, by its very nature, is difficult to pin down.

(Now that I've roundly dissed the article... I do have to say, I visit your site semi-often. In general, pretty cool.)

Portability is a big thing

[Metasquares]

While a lot of the games are just ports of other games, the fact that the GBA is portable gives them a renewed appeal. Sequels may also benefit by association. If someone liked playing the original game in a series, they'll probably assume that the GBA sequel is just like the original, but portable.

We've Got to Support Originality!

[Gothic_Walrus]

One note - Advance Wars is actually a continuation of a previously Japan-only series of Game Boy games.

Unfortunately, originality on all consoles has been vanishing as of late. Publishers make the easy decision and decide to go with what's guaranteed to sell. No one really needs four different NFL games for each season or a tie-in piece of shovelware for every blockbuster movie, but that's what we're getting.

As was noted in the article, the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of us, the gamers. As long as we're content with retreads of old franchises and sequel after sequel to an unexpected hit, that's what we'll receive. It would be nice to see console manufacturers award originality (maybe a price break on the media or the license fees?), but that probably won't happen. Therefore, we, the gamers, need to support originality. We need to buy the games that are different, the ones that take chances. Praising them isn't enough. More often than not, even a mediocre original game is far better than a licensed one. The problem is that we don't do that. We buy the franchises, the crappy licenses (Enter the Matrix, anyone?). We don't support originality, making it an unneeded risk for publishers.

Until we reform our buying habits, nothing is going to change.

This shouldnt surprise you

[Cassius105]

This is to be expected

you cant really expect there to be that much creativity when 90% of the ideas for that technology were used up a decade age

Meh...

[JMZero]

You can go ahead and buy original games (Fantavision? Blix: The Time Sweeper?), I'll keep buying good games (Metroid Prime, Zelda: TWW, Yoshi's Island GBA).

I think we need to realize a couple things. First, "sequel" doesn't mean "not original". Second, "original" doesn't often mean "good".

Wrong expectations

[techstar25]

I was under the impression that the GBA was designed so that you could bring your favorite console games along with you when you travelled. I didn't think the goal was ever to create new games, but was really to bring NES/SNES/PSX games to a portable platform. If you want new games look at the consoles. Obviously that is where the innovation will take place.
I think we should not look at GBA as another independent platform, but more as a supplement to the existing console platforms. This is especially true if you think of it as a supplement to the Gamecube, with all the connectivity features.

N stands for creativity!

[ubikkibu]

I'd be more interested to see a similar breakdown for the PS2, XBox, and GC. The true wasteland of creativity is on the big consoles, not the GBA.

The reason I sold my XBox (and never picked up a PS2) is because my personal, subjective analysis is that there is basically no innovation going on there. The original PlayStation pretty much killed it all. Yes, there were great and novel games for every platform, but compare the PS to the Saturn--its original competitor--and later the Dreamcast and N64. Developers took more risks for the DC by far. There are weirder and more original games for the DC that would simply have gotten lost in the shitstorm of Crash Bandicoot clones.

It's undeniable that the vast majority of GBA games are repetitive knockoffs. This is even more true for the big consoles. But so what--I don't buy those titles. There are odder and more creative games available for the GBA, and for the GC. Now that we don't have Sega--the true innovator--doing quite as much, Nintendo stands out as a relative bastion of creativity, compared to the Sony and Microsoft markets. Especially the XBox. It matters nothing if it's sold 15% more units and has half again as many titles out as the GC, if all the games suck. (Does anyone actually play the XBox, or do they just buy them because their buddy told them they'd look cool?)

Anything else any better?

[Chris_Jefferson]

Are you sure that the X-box / PS2 / Gamecube will fair any better? Having a quick look through a list of games I'm not convinced they would.