Where are the Original Next-Gen Games?

The Guardian has an editorial bemoaning the fact that, while the next-gen consoles all seem to have a lot of promise, so far the much-anticipated titles of 2006 are sequels. Most of those are slated for current-gen systems, too. From the article: "However, those hoping for a new game type to take us into the high-definition era may be disappointed. The most anticipated titles of this year are franchise old-timers - Final Fantasy XII on PS2; Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess on GameCube; Metal Gear Solid 4 and Vision Gran Turismo on PS3; and Tomb Raider Legend on practically everything. Publishers are still relying on games that have been around for more than a decade. Yawn."

Comments

The more original a game is...

[Andy_R]

...the less it can rely on hype. Can you imagine there being pre-launch hype for Tetris?

What hype there is for innovative next-gen games is centred round the Revolution's controller, presumably because we have scant news on games that will exploit it yet.

Re:The more original a game is...

[voice_of_all_reason]

+5 (Smrt)

Even if there is a genre-shaker on the horizon, and some of the gaming mag reviewers have a copy, it won't really start getting notoriety until the thing gets into players' hands. Just think, if you saw some website saying saying X is the next big thing, but you'd never heard of X before, you wouldn't really pay attention.

Well, at least I wouldn't.

Enough already

[jayhawk88]

Publishers are still relying on games that have been around for more than a decade. Yawn.

And yet when these titles come out, and they rock, we all won't be able to shut up about how excellent they are and how much fun they are to play.

Look, I get that gaming needs to stop relying on sequels, but I'm also getting sick of this notion that just because a game doesn't use 100% original ideas and characters it must suck. Is there really anyone here that doubts that FFXII or Zelda: Twighlight are not going to be Game of the Year candidates when they are released?

Look a bit further

[Sockatume]

If you're expecting the interesting little original titles to be as boldy trumpeted as MGS4, you've got some pretty funny ideas. The Katamaris and Collosuses of the past arried with little fanfare: the original little games of the future will arrive just as unexpectedly.

Re:Look a bit further

[Irish_Samurai]

No doubt. While I loved both Katamari and Colossus I can't deny that they weren't exactly mainstream. Mainstream games sell consoles.

The reason that these sequels are being hyped on the next gens is because that is the message that will get the most gamers to by the next gen systems in the least amount of time. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo aren't talking to the hardcore gamer demographic - we do all our own research without needing it fed to us. Most hardcore gamers already have a biased view on what system they are going to purchase and why, changing that opinion through marketing hype won't work - the big three know that.

Instead they choose to spend their money on getting the casual gamer to convert earlier than they normally would. The path of least resistance is to offer these gamers an experience that they are familiar with and would like to see more of. Casual gamers whos favorite game is Madden are more easily converted to buying a next gen if the Madden on that system looks amazing. Its that simple.

Hardcore and elite gamers need to quit whining about not being catered to in the marketing arena. Why should we be? We don't listen to it anyways. As a whole we rip any marketing aimed at us a new one, regardless of if its for our box or not. So pushing games to us through overt marketing is a negative action.

Games like Katamari and Colossus don't need the same kind of hype. Harcore gamers read every little bit of fanboi material they can get there hands on. In fact, we know these games are coming out well before their overt marketing is apparent. Groundbreaking games need to maximize their budgets, so they keep marketing costs down. Word of mouth works just fine for these games initially as our click is really vocal and has plenty of online outlets. If the hardcore demographic adopts a new title in droves, it's a safe bet that a large chunk of the mainstream demo will also. That's when these games start spending money on the hype.

People need to realize that not everyone shares our passion, and for a business to cater to a smaller group exclusively is a bad business move. We are catered to, we HAVE games like Katamari and Colossus. Don't get jealous because they don't get the face time people because not everyone will appreciate them.

Re:decade ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Zelda = Not on MSX.

MSX = A Microsoft gaming console.

That is all.

Can Zelda games be considered sequals?

[RyoShin]

I don't know about anyone else, but when I hear "sequal" in relation to a game or movie, it means that said game or movie is a continuation of a previous game or movie.

In the case of the Legend of Zelda games, none of the games have really been a continuation of others.

Yes, there is some supposed chronological line where the games fit in timeline and not release date, but you can pick up any one game and safely ignore the others without it hindering your gameplay. Even if you ignore the different stories (though they tend to have the same outcome, "Defeat the bad guy and save the princess"), the game mechanisms are the same.

• In LttP, we had to cross from dark world to light world to get places later in the game.
• In Ocarina of Time, we had to go back and forth in time multiple times, affecting how the future would turn out in the past.
• In Majora's Mask, we again used time, but this time we only had three days to do anything, and we had to continuously repeat that (like Groundhog Day, but with swords and no Bill Murray)
• In Wind Waker, we had to control the direction of the wind to get from place to place or complete puzzles.
• In the Oracle games, we had to jump back and forth through time and seasons, with cause and effect relationships.
• In Minish Cap, we had to continuously shrink and regrow to explore tiny areas or gain access to otherwise unenterable areas.
• In Four Swords, we had to use teamwork, either with strategy commands or multiplayer action, to achieve our goals.
• In Twilight Princess... well, we turn into a damn wolf, we know that much.

In fact, I believe that Link's Awakening and the two NES Zeldas were the only action RPGs that didn't have any special game mechanism. (CD-i be damned.) Contrast this with Grand Theft Auto, where it's always the same "Shoot people, run from police, steal cars" formula, just with better and better graphics. A better term for Zelda games might be "installments", rather than "sequals".

Sequels != Not Innovation

[CashCarSTAR]

The idea that because a game is a sequel, that it has less innovation than one that isn't, to be honest, is hogwash. Innovation in the game community has nothing to do with characters or story. Innovation has everything to do with GAMEPLAY. And it's an evolutionary stance. Progressive increases and advances in the gameplay is what innovation is.

Oh, and by the way. The Final Fantasy and Zelda series have very few actual sequels. Especially the Final Fantasy series, where a majority of the games in the series are stand-alone efforts.

Re:decade ?

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

ok, you're right on zelda. but if MSX is just a console, WTF was one of them doing in the russian space station ? http://msx.gnu-linux.net/msx-in-space/