Game Industry Has Lost Its 'Spark'?

Gamasutra is running a short interview with game designer Chris Crawford. The discussion in the article centers around Crawford's assertion that the games industry is no longer a creative place. "I haven't even seen any new ideas pop up. The industry is so completely inbred that the people working in it aren't even capable of coming up with new ideas anymore. I was appalled, for example, at the recent GDC. I looked over the games at the Independent Games Festival and they all looked completely derivative to me." I'm not sure I agree. What do you think? Is there anything creative left in the games industry, or are we going to be playing Halo 6 and Final Fantasy XVII ten years from now?

Comments

Enough Already

[American AC in Paris]

Y'know, I hear that if you beat it hard enough, it'll actually come back to life!

Re:Enough Already

[Tackhead]

> Y'know, I hear that if you beat it hard enough, it'll actually come back to life!

Yeah, but only after the refractory period.

Re:Enough Already

[Toddarooski]

I think people need to start writing aricles complaining about the lack of originality in gaming articles that complain about a lack of originality.

Everything is Derivative..

[CashCarSTAR]

To one degree or another. We all stand on the backs of giants. The reality is, in all genres, there are these people who think that somehow, someway we can achieve something that is not derivative, however, generally speaking these people tend to have huge massive egos and think that the only person who can achieve this is themselves.

But when you focus on what games have similar, you tend to completly miss what makes them unique.

Re:Everything is Derivative..

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, one of the most innovative games of the year was about standing on the backs of giants.

Re:Everything is Derivative..

[rAiNsT0rm]

To some degree this is true, but there is a difference between derivative and innovative. There is a huge lack of innovation in Games, music, and film these days in favor of quick cash-ins. To deny this is lunacy.

Re:Everything is Derivative..

[MadHatter2005]

There is a huge lack of innovation in Games, music, and film these days in favor of quick cash-ins

Right, but the quick cash-ins aren't so quick and have no guarantee to recoup their development costs. If you're talking a sports franchise, sure, but otherwise you're rolling the dice with millions of dollars.

Re:Everything is Derivative..

[rAiNsT0rm]

I'm not sure of your level of knowledge of the entertainment industry, but routinely licensed titles have such short development times it is astounding. I have seen games be rushed to completion in less than 3 months from beginning to end to make a deadline of a movie premier.

The gamble is not so great as you make it seem, and neither are the time investments. Many "pop" CD's get thrown together in a month or so with pre-written songs, and pre-laid tracks. Sure there are some games/movies/CD's that are still crafted properly, but they are the minority rather than the norm and that is my gripe and the real shame. So much is sacrificed to meet bottom lines and please shareholders, entertainment wasn't always purely about the numbers and this cycle needs to be broken. Millionaire rappers/pop stars, actors, etc. Someone needs to hit the "reset" button on a number of these industries and get things back to reality. I would welcome a second depression if it would do just that.

Re:Everything is Derivative..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah it's like 6 billion people all basically the same and yet unique; then we have people like CC to tell us "you're all the fucking same". Not exactly Jesus, is he?

Now the IGDC is full of people actually making games. This kind of defeats people like Chris Crawford, who hasn't made a game in over a decade. So he pisses on their parade.

So Chris where is this innovative new title from you in the last ten years that shows you haven't just been blowing off ego-driven steam all this time?

*tumbleweed drifts past*

I rest my case.

Almost there

[Dr. Eggman]

Its coming closer, I think we'll be hitting a real saturation point soon, perhaps before even the next console generation is up. There may either be a sort of collapse as the market bloat pops or an explosion onto some new world shaking innovation letting the pressure up. The pressure is coming out of the game's direction themselves. The current direction is unsustainable to allow for enough creativity, but if something can change that direction to something of a second golden era in which creativity can flow (part of which would be a drastic reduction is staffing) we can avoid a terrible implosion of games and a huge set back for the industry as a whole.

Re:Almost there

[Anonymous Coward]

an explosion onto some new world shaking innovation letting the pressure up

Enter the Wii...

In all honesty, the Wii is the first console that I'm looking forward to, or even considering buying since the Dreamcast. Faster framerates and prettier graphics don't mean much to me, if the gameplay is identical to almost every other game out there.

Spore also looks very interesting, but I'm not sure if it will make the same impact that the Wii will.

In all honesty, I think the game industry lost its creative spark a long time ago, and is now starting to come back.

Re:Almost there

[ultranova]

but if something can change that direction to something of a second golden era in which creativity can flow (part of which would be a drastic reduction is staffing)

Which is impossible. The fundamental difference between current games and those of the past is that current ones are 3-dimensional, while past ones were 2-dimensional. You can make the graphics for a 2-dimensional game simply by drawing, but a 3-dimensional game requires a 3D modelling program, and they are, to put it frankly, horrible in the amount of work required to get anything done.

Games lack creativity because creativity is a risk, and when it costs millions of dollars and years of time to make a game, risk is unacceptable. I see only two ways to solve this problem:

1. A computer program comes along that can take scanned-in 2D drawings and build a clean 3D mesh from them. Or some other way to radically increase the efficiency of 3D modelling is invented.
2. We all give up on 3D graphics and go back to 2D ones.

Failing both of these, there's simply no way to make games cheap enough to make do without shareholders and investors, and they want as little risk as possible.

Agreed

[neonprimetime]

GS: When you say new ideas don't go anywhere, what kind of new ideas do you mean? Have you seen any that maybe popped up and fell flat?

CC: I haven't even seen any new ideas pop up. The industry is so completely inbred that the people working in it aren't even capable of coming up with new ideas anymore.

FF is a bad example

[casualsax3]

People love to give Squeenix BS about Final Fantasy 112, but the fact is each game is full of fresh ideas (some good, some bad obviously). FF XII looks to be very different. And if Halo 3 makes as many improvements as 2 did over 1, I'm sure I'll enjoy it. People seem to forget that it doesn't have to be revolutionary and new to be really really good.

Re:FF is a bad example

[klynch]

Maybe not, but I don't want to pay for the same game twice. I really don't see what was so good about Halo. As far as I can tell the only reason it was successful was because there wasn't another decent shooter on the Xbox at the time. Final Fantasy games, however, are pretty good but I find that's because of the story they tell. They involve you into the story and at some point you find yourself sucked in and making a difference in this game universe.

Re:FF is a bad example

[EwokCommander]

Re Halo - read the 3 novels. Re FF - try playing Skies of Arcadia on the DC or Skies of Arcadia Legends on the GC.

Re:FF is a bad example

[klynch]

I'm not bashing reading here, but why should I read some Halo books? This isn't a literary classic here... it's a shooter.

Re:FF is a bad example

[casualsax3]

The books were actually awesome, I really enjoyed them. Two of them were written by Eric Nylund, a military science fiction writer. The 4th book is actually scheduled to ship in October I believe.

Re:FF is a bad example

[mOdQuArK!]

Damn, I spent ridiculous amounts of time trying to find all those "Discoveries" in the DreamCast version of Skies of Arcadia. I've still got my DC roaming around here somewhere (and the Skies of Arcadia) - I wonder if they still work?

Re:FF is a bad example

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Final Fantasy is a great example, because people think that FF12 is something new when it's really a rehash of the same game that was originally released in 1988. FF12's big new feature is that it removes the boring interactive portions (otherwise known as, "the stuff that makes it a game and not a lousy movie"). Other than that, it's essentially the same as all the other FF games.

"Group of scrappy young heroes with improbably large swords and amazingly skimpy outfits band together to fight evil personified (with long hair), eventually defeating it."

There. I just described every Final Fantasy game. Hope I didn't spoil the ending for anyone!

If you think Final Fantasy isn't just rehashing the same game over and over again, then you're simply naïve.

Re:FF is a bad example

[Pope]

Why should anyone have to read a book to enjoy an FPS video game? I don't need to have played Super Mario Brothers or Donkey Kong to play Super Mario 64 (OK, other than for 1 mini-game, but it's not a necessity to finish the game), even though they share the same characters.

The game is the game, if it can't stand up by itself, then it's not any good.

Re:FF is a bad example

[Blakey Rat]

Halo was an innovative shooter, like it or not. It was the first that used a shield-recharge system instead of hit points. (Which encourage smart military-style gameplay, i.e. taking cover); it was the first to give you a realistic inventory system where you can only carry two weapons at a time, not 15; it takes place in a rich detailed universe which huge story potential; it had multiplayer features that, while old hat on PC, were something never seen before in a console game; it's the first game to nail vehicle physics; it had amazing AI for the time. I concede that the level design needed work, and the in-engine cutscenes were pretty jerky, but the rest makes up for it.

I think the thing these columnists are all griping about is that gaming is no longer "revolutionary" but "evolutionary." Halo isn't a new genre, but it certainly evolves the state of FPS games.

Re:FF is a bad example

[EwokCommander]

I remember playing that game like it was yesterday (where yesterday == 3 years). I was talking to someone on a forum about beating the end boss and he was like, It was no problem; I'm level 70-something. I replied It took me a while, but I did it in just a few attemps. As a level 43... :)

Re:FF is a bad example

[EwokCommander]

Well, considering I never said you HAVE to read a book to enjoy an FPS, I'm merely recommending the reading. The books give you a lot of background to before the Earth-Covenant war, and introduced you to the characters. The 3rd book, First Strike, I believe, was where you first met the Brutes. You also meet a crew of Spartans, which were rumored to be in Halo 2 (and hopefully will be in Halo 3/Forerunner).
And who said it wasn't a good game?

Re:FF is a bad example

[PaganRitual]

And who said it wasn't a good game?

Well lets see ... pretty much ... everyone that owns a PC capable of playing FPSs, plus anyone else that doesn't own a PC, but had spent some time playing a FPS on one.

And yeah ... they paid their bill, and couldn't have been more courteous.

Re:FF is a bad example

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

you mean it fools you into thinking that you make a difference in the game universe when really it just tells you that you made the decision that made the difference in the universe? Don't get me wrong though, sometimes I love to play through some really good stories (FF7 etc) and I'm not really trashing the FF games. Basically, FF makes me feel like I'm playing a really good movie, which is sometimes what is desirable in a game, and sometimes it isn't. I'm not sure if this is the reason why a lot of people like Halo, but the reason I like it is that the story is actually really good. The premise is kind of lame and the level design is kind of lame for some parts of it, I'll admit it. But the Halo series is the first series to actually get FPS right on a console. I feel the controls are the finest they could possibly be on a gamepad. In short, if you don't think of RPG as stats and turn based, I feel Halo has about the same amount of role playing as does the FF series(which isn't all that much).

Duh

[Reality Master 101]

What creative industry ISN'T 95% derivative? Movies, television, books, music, art, you name it. Everyone jumps on the bandwagon when something is successful. Every so often someone comes up with something new, but true innovation is very rare.

Re:Duh

[Dmala]

Moreover, the video game business has been like this literally since day 1. There were dozens and dozens of Pong variants and knockoffs made in the mid-to-late 70s. The same goes for Space Invaders, Pac Man, Street Fighter, and lots of other games that are now considered classic. To say that the industry is worse now, or even different, is kind of ridiculous.

Re:Duh

[MilenCent]

The problem isn't that there are dozens of knockoffs. The problem is that, now, knock-offs are the industry. Selling games has become more about finding easy to make a buck (Madden Player Update 2006) than creating new kinds of games. (Recognized exception: The Sims, although it should be noted that even though they took a chance on its creation, they quickly ran it into the ground with expansion packs BEFORE releasing the official sequel. I shudder to think of what they'll do if Spore makes it big.)

Even the me-too games of yesteryear tended to add substantial new gameplay nuance. There's enough different from Pac-Man to Ms. Pac-Man, from Defender to Stargate, that a master of one game is not automatically a master of the other, even if the game types are superficially similar.

Part of this has been the move from algorithmic-generated, dynamic situations to static "content" to be consumed (which gives us the relatively recent notion that a game can be "completed," and is itself a tremendous shame), but Crawford is right on the money, in general, about the sterility of the game production industry.

Re:Duh

[servognome]

There's enough different from Pac-Man to Ms. Pac-Man

There are a lot more differences between Madden 2005 and 2006, than Pac-Man and Ms. Pac-Man. Both keep the same core gameplay with AI tweaks and graphics updates. But Madden also included ways for the player to interact.

Part of this has been the move from algorithmic-generated, dynamic situations to static "content" to be consumed (which gives us the relatively recent notion that a game can be "completed," and is itself a tremendous shame)

The faster and faster enemies of yester-year does not make the games better, especially if you figure the pattern. People have mastered Pac-man. I remember mastering "Laserblast" on the Atari 2600, as a kid. Eventually I figured out the pattern so I just completed wave after wave until I got bored.

Re:Duh

[MilenCent]

There are a lot more differences between Madden 2005 and 2006, than Pac-Man and Ms. Pac-Man. Both keep the same core gameplay with AI tweaks and graphics updates.

Not so. For Ms. Pac-Man cannot be beaten with patterns like Pac-Man can, which at high, and even middle, levels of play makes it a fundamentally different game. Meanwhile Madden 2k5 and 2k6 are still, ultimately, football. It is possible that AI tweaks could make it a different game, although I doubt it in this case. Graphic updates, however, cannot.

The faster and faster enemies of yester-year does not make the games better, especially if you figure the pattern. People have mastered Pac-man.

You grossly oversimplify the case in your dismissal of "faster and faster enemies," but even faster play can, potentially, make a game interesting. For a modern example, check the WarioWare games, which ultimately boil down to an extended reaction test.

Whether a game is masterable or not is beside the point. People have mastered Defender, a game which is orders of magnitude more difficult to rule over than Pac-Man and to which patterns are not useable. Many more people, assuredly, have mastered Madden, but that is not why the endless line of Madden sequels are bad.

Re:Duh

[servognome]

Not so. For Ms. Pac-Man cannot be beaten with patterns like Pac-Man can, which at high, and even middle, levels of play makes it a fundamentally different game.

Essentially this is an AI tweak to make the game more challenging, same thing they do for every Madden Game.

Meanwhile Madden 2k5 and 2k6 are still, ultimately, football. It is possible that AI tweaks could make it a different game, although I doubt it in this case.

Essentially Pac-Man and Ms Pac-Man are maze collection games (just like loadrunner, etc). What you cite as the main difference is a change of AI so that the patterns are different. That doesn't change the core gameplay, it changes how the player plays the game. Just as AI tweaks in Madden don't change the core gameplay (football), but can significantly affect how the game is played.
Further, Madden updates the player interface, which gives additional choices and strategy. Imagine adding a "sprint button" to Pac-Man.

I'm not saying that Madden is groundbreaking by any means, but to put the transition from Pac-Man to Ms. Pac-Man on a pedestal is laughable.

You grossly oversimplify the case in your dismissal of "faster and faster enemies," but even faster play can, potentially, make a game interesting. For a modern example, check the WarioWare games, which ultimately boil down to an extended reaction test.

Yes "faster enemies" make the game interesting to a point. WarioWare is unique example, as it's not just "faster" which would get boring. It has a wild mix of gameplay, so the player is always switching which keeps things interesting.

Many more people, assuredly, have mastered Madden, but that is not why the endless line of Madden sequels are bad.

Which is why multiplayer play is so interesting, it is the modern equivalent of dynamic content, and provides a far more interesting challenge than just speeding the game up.

Re:Duh

[MilenCent]

Essentially this is an AI tweak to make the game more challenging, same thing they do for every Madden Game.

There are two ways I can attack this statement:
1. Pac-Man and Ms Pac-Man have much less "space" between the player and the design. When it comes down to it Pac-Man and Ms Pac-Man are their AI, so changing it makes a much bigger difference in a game than one based upon what is ultimately a complex real-world analogue. It's not a difference that should sustain more than one sequel, but it is substantial.
2. One would be a lot more willing to forgive the initial sequel to a game than the tenth. Madden has had more than ten sequels!

Note, also, that Pac-Man has inspired more varied sequels: Super Pac-Man and Pac 'n Pal are both maze collection games, but they are much more different from Pac-Man than Ms Pac-Man. The maze collection game example you gave, Lode Runner, is a very different game from Pac-Man: it contains puzzles, guards whose AI must not only be thwarted but taken advantage of, multiple types of one-way passage, multiple secret board elements, "dots" the enemies can move, a unique system of game physics that must be learned (timing of hole-digging, using enemies as platforms, the special aspects of ladders and handbars) and of course all these aspects are mixed through 150 levels.

That doesn't change the core gameplay, it changes how the player plays the game.

Not so, once you know a Pac-Man pattern, the game becomes memorization and recall on demand, not pathfinding in response to a dynamically-changing set of obstacles.

Just as AI tweaks in Madden don't change the core gameplay (football), but can significantly affect how the game is played.

I will happily admit that it is possible for a sequel or two to fundamentally improve upon a predecessor. But I cannot accept that Madden has successfully reinvented itself over and over since the Genesis days.

Further, Madden updates the player interface, which gives additional choices and strategy. Imagine adding a "sprint button" to Pac-Man.

Imagine adding a "sprint button" to Pac-Man.

Super Pac-Man has such a button.

but to put the transition from Pac-Man to Ms. Pac-Man on a pedestal is laughable.

I didn't choose it just to defeat your argument, but in order to purposely pick a borderline case. I don't just argue to win, I do so to clarify my opinions in my own mind. This way, I like to think I'm more likely to be convinced if someone responds with an accurate rebuttal. If I can successfully argue this, then I'm more confident in my opinion afterward, instead of just parroting what I've always thought true. If I can't, then maybe I should think things through a bit more.

Which is why multiplayer play is so interesting, it is the modern equivalent of dynamic content, and provides a far more interesting challenge than just speeding the game up.

Agreed, although I don't think it's always better than a solo game. Further, there are some multiplayer games that are almost impossible for a new player to get into because the established pool of players is exceedingly skilled. New players trying to get into, say, a FPS, and getting consistantly schooled by everyone they play against, are not going to stick with it for very long.

Re:Duh

[servognome]

Note, also, that Pac-Man has inspired more varied sequels: Super Pac-Man and Pac 'n Pal are both maze collection games, but they are much more different from Pac-Man than Ms Pac-Man.

Which is my point. Pac-Man went through the same evolutionary transition that Madden games have. Taking advantage of better graphics and technology to add little bits to gameplay. None of the sequels in both cases (Pac-Man and Madden) is revolutionary compared to its predecessor, however, comparing titles several years apart shows the significant changes of gameplay. The continuity of Madden 96, 97...05 is similar to Pac-Man, Ms Pac-Man, Super Pac-Man, Pac Mania, etc.

Getting back to your orignal statements that "knockoffs are the industry" it has been so since the birth of the industry. There was a bunch of Pong, Pac-Man, Space Invader, and Asteroid clones. Further, the successful franchises spawned sequels, just as is going on today.

Because a game has a familiar icon or name, doesn't mean that it can't advance the industry (eg Mario 64, GTA3, Dune 2, Half-life 2, etc).

Agreed, although I don't think it's always better than a solo game. Further, there are some multiplayer games that are almost impossible for a new player to get into because the established pool of players is exceedingly skilled. New players trying to get into, say, a FPS, and getting consistantly schooled by everyone they play against, are not going to stick with it for very long.

Many games have bots for the novice player, then "Noob" servers once those players have mastered the AI. After that point they can be fairly competitive, and if there is a dominant player on one server, just switch to the thousands of others.

Re:Duh

[MilenCent]

Which is my point. Pac-Man went through the same evolutionary transition that Madden games have. Taking advantage of better graphics and technology to add little bits to gameplay.

But no, I don't buy your point here. Super Pac-Man and Pac N Pal do not add little bits, there are major rule changes in these games. And it's also worth noting that Ms. Pac-Man, the first sequel, was the last truly popular Pac-Man game.

Getting back to your orignal statements that "knockoffs are the industry" it has been so since the birth of the industry. There was a bunch of Pong, Pac-Man, Space Invader, and Asteroid clones.

THe difference there is that, then, most games sold weren't clones, and the most popular games then tended to be ones that were relatively unique. Now, generally it's the same franchises that get the lion's share of the attention. The word "franchise" wasn't even applied to video games until relatively recently.

Re:Duh

[servognome]

The essential rules of all those games remains:
a) navigate a maze to collect all the items
b) dodge enemies
c) collect powerup to let you destroy enemies

Adding keys and such increases the challenge, and requires some new thinking, but doesn't break the core rules
Just as Madden remains football, but introduction of features like:
analog passing - requires the player not just to identify passing target but also judge timing and distance
sprint button, spin, highstep - prevent being tackled with correct timing
blocking control - directly control a second player on the field
change how the game is played.

THe difference there is that, then, most games sold weren't clones, and the most popular games then tended to be ones that were relatively unique. Now, generally it's the same franchises that get the lion's share of the attention. The word "franchise" wasn't even applied to video games until relatively recently.

Best selling franchises and clones were very much a part of the early industry, and at times entire genres were dominated by a single company:

Text Adventure(Infocom): Zork, with Infocom also producing other similar text adventures
*-Quest (Sierra On-line): Kings Quest, Space Quest, Police Quest, Liesure Suit Larry, etc.
RPG: Ultima, Wizardry, "Gold Box" & other SSI games
Platformers: Donkey Kong, Mario (DK spinoff)
Sidescrolling shooters: R-Type, 19xx, etc
Beat 'em Ups: Can't think of any franchises with alot of sequels, but there were a lot of clones: Double Dragon, Bad Dudes, TMNT, heck even The Simpsons
Brawlers: Street Fighter, Tekken, and a few dozen knockoffs
Flight Sims: Microprose sims (F-15, F19, etc)

The industry hasn't really changed, only the popular genres, and dominant players have. Just as Ultima IV is considered great, even though it was the 4th game of the series; there is no reason that Doom IV can't be great, if it does something innovative.

Re:Duh

[MilenCent]

The essential rules of all those games remains:
a) navigate a maze to collect all the items
b) dodge enemies
c) collect powerup to let you destroy enemies

Objection #1: I suggest that this also describes many first-person shooters. I submit that a description that allows a FPS to be confused with Pac-Man is too simplistic.

Objection #2: Both Super Pac-Man and Pac-N-Pal add fundamental elements that challenge each of these three points. In Pac N Pal, another character roams the maze and collects the objects you're chasing, and while you don't get points for the ones she gets, they are counted towards completing the level. Super Pac-Man contains a second kind of energizer that provides invulnerability instead of invincibility, and with careful management and use of the sprint button it can change the entire thrust of the game from one of enemy avoidance to careful energizer rationing. Pac-N-Pal doesn't have energizers at all, but instead two special items in each board that merely paralyze the monsters for a time. And both games have deformable mazes that contain gates that must be defeated.

In a more complicated game, additions like these seem insignificant, but Pac-Man is not a very complex design to begin with. Football, on the other hand, is a very complex game. No matter what you add to a football game, it will always be constrained by the requirement that it remain football.

Just as Madden remains football, but introduction of features like:
analog passing - requires the player not just to identify passing target but also judge timing and distance
sprint button, spin, highstep - prevent being tackled with correct timing
blocking control - directly control a second player on the field
change how the game is played.

I admit, these are interesting features. I think adding these things could indeed renew the game for one, perhaps even two whole sequels. Madden, according to the quick websearch I just performed, has been around since the Apple II. I only even remember it back to the Genesis!

You would have to list a much larger number of additional features to successfully defend Madden. The big feature they end up selling is updated player rosters.

On your big list of game genres, you lump together games from different eras. An early parser-based Sierra On-Line adventure plays differently (arguably better) than their more recent point-and-click games.

Further, adventure games are a bit of a special case, as one plays them for the story more than the raw mechanics. Infocom called their games "interactive fiction" for a reason. Zork might be the same general thing as Planetfall, but it's very different in the story it has to tell. And even then, Infocom made some really unique text adventures: Nord and Bert Couldn't Make Head or Tail of It is really a different kind of game altogether.

RPG: Ultima, Wizardry, "Gold Box" & other SSI games

There's actually a good amount of variation between these. ("Other" SSI games? You mean strategy war games?)

Platformers: Donkey Kong, Mario (DK spinoff)

The Mario games were very different from each other up until Super Mario Bros. At that point, the games were closer in design to each other, but made up for it with the level design and other changes. Yoshi's Island is very different from Super Mario World though.

Sidescrolling shooters: R-Type, 19xx, etc

Yeah, and I would have complained about it then as much as you expect. The decay of computer game design is not a sudden thing by any means, but it has definitely gotten worse over the years. If I had to pick a time when it was starting to cause real harm, I would have chosen the fighting game glut of the 90s.

Beat 'em Ups: Can't think of any franchises with alot of sequels, but there were a lot of clones: Double Dragon, Bad Dudes, TMNT, heck even The Simpsons

Double Dragon had multiple sequels, and TMNT had an arcade sequel. Golden A

Re:Duh

[servognome]

I admit, these are interesting features. I think adding these things could indeed renew the game for one, perhaps even two whole sequels. Madden, according to the quick websearch I just performed, has been around since the Apple II. I only even remember it back to the Genesis!

This comment leads me to believe that you in fact don't play Madden games. Those are just a handful of features that HAVE been added over the years. The fact that they shove a game out every year doesn't mean the game hasn't changed. Perhaps Madden 2006 is a lot like 2005 which is a lot like 2004... 2002. But then when you compare 2006 to 2002, the game is very different, it's evolutionary change. The nature of the market that game competes in doesn't allow 3 years off, so they introduce changes slowly.

On your big list of game genres, you lump together games from different eras. An early parser-based Sierra On-Line adventure plays differently (arguably better) than their more recent point-and-click games.

What I was showing is that franchises, which you claim are a recent phenomenon, existed in the 80's. King's Quest was on a 1-2 year release cycle, as was Ultima and Zork. The sequels in most cases played the same as their predecessors, but didn't diminish the franchises. In fact, as you point out, the technological innovation that you seem to want, actually hurt adventure games on the whole when they moved from parser to point-n-click.

Re:Duh

[MilenCent]

This comment leads me to believe that you in fact don't play Madden games.

I don't play many football games, period. It is true I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of when each Madden introduced each feature (which I do with many other games). There is a kind of chicken-and-egg problem here: if you don't like the games you don't play much of them which makes it hard to argue why you don't play them. But that does not mean the reasons I don't play them are not valid, nor does it mean I'm ignorant of the series in general.

Anyway, I was surprised to hear that the series went back to the Apple II. In my mind, Madden still effectly started on the Genesis. Even since then, however, there's been roughly one release a year for over a decade.

Those are just a handful of features that HAVE been added over the years. The fact that they shove a game out every year doesn't mean the game hasn't changed.

The changes you offered sounded like they -could- be interesting. But they also seem kind of gimmicky. I'm not sure a bucketload of other features like those will make the game more interesting. It also sounds like they'd probably turn some players off, so they're probably optional, so they're not essential aspects of the design.

Perhaps Madden 2006 is a lot like 2005 which is a lot like 2004... 2002. But then when you compare 2006 to 2002, the game is very different, it's evolutionary change.

Then I would submit that the games between 2006 and 2002 are unnecessary.

The nature of the market that game competes in doesn't allow 3 years off, so they introduce changes slowly.

Then why I say they should do is sell one game every four years, and then sell roster update disks for a small amount while the teams work on the next big game.

Anyway, the problem I have with Madden isn't so much its existance (if people like to play it then great), but that its success has helped to poison the market away from designs I like to play. Just like how the rash of one-on-one fighting games in the early 90s contributed to the demise of the "good" Atari Games. The people who ultimately control the direction of gaming aren't designers but management, the people with dollar signs in their eyes.

To those people, and everyone who views the success of a game solely in terms of the profit it brings in, the Madden development process will seem like The Way to make games. If it wasn't for that influence, I wouldn't have a problem with Madden.

This is why we go for MMORPGs now

[damburger]

Many, if not most, game players now exclusively play online against other human beings. Other humans provide an originality to each gaming session that tends to be better than that the reactions of a computer.

So game designers have pretty much given up. Instead of having a game to challenge you, they publish games which allow people to challenge each other.

They have taken this to the point of laziness though. Game content is suffering in favour of the almighty online.

It would be nice to see a game that did let you interact with lots of people online, but was also a good game in itself. I'm not holding out much hope though.

Re:This is why we go for MMORPGs now

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a similar opinion of playing other against/with people.

I stopped playing p2p/MMO games becuase they all got to be the same after awhile. I play the servers I enjoy, but otherwise I don't play anymore. Live humans don't really provide an originality in gameplay to me. They are all hackers, griefers, noobs, campers, or good to the point of taking the fun out of the game. So many games rely so much on p2p that AI development is no longer considered important. I don't use games for social interaction, I have a life. I play games to kill as many critters as possible in the shortest amount of time. /not anonymous, just too lazy to log in.

Re:This is why we go for MMORPGs now

[Anonymous Coward]

I must be part of that 1%, cause I hate online games. Why? Because people are idiots. I'll only play online with friends.

Re:This is why we go for MMORPGs now

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be nice to see a game that did let you interact with lots of people online, but was also a good game in itself. I'm not holding out much hope though.

World of Warcraft.

Re:This is why we go for MMORPGs now

[Augmento]

i actually think the limitation is more that MMO developers restrict player action and creativity too much. the scripted NPC actions come off as more original because they are not under the same limitations imposed on human players.

Perhaps...

[GundamFan]

Or maybe we are just all complaning about a problem we created.

We want games released quickly, with simple twist free stories and game play we are comfortable with.

Look at the outrage over MGS2... people will revolt if you try to inovate so it makes more sense to sell the sequels.

Re:Perhaps...

[Anonymous Coward]

People didn't revolt over any "innovation" in MGS2; they revolted over not seeing the character-skin that they were expecting.
That is, unless your definition of innovation is "same game engine, different character".

Re:Perhaps...

[Das Modell]

Is it really a problem? The games seem to sell well enough, so clearly there must be a demand. I know I'd rather play the next Half-Life than some goddamn storytronics bullshit that will probably never see the light of day. What kind of "innovation" do people want? Some whacky game where you control a dishwasher and try to rape kittens on Mars?

If you want to look at this as a problem, then yes, it's clearly the fault of the consumers. People only buy FPS, RTS and MMORPG games, so that's exactly what they're going to get. Developers won't make games that won't sell. I don't know what you mean by the MGS2 outrage, but I can imagine what would have happened if Half-Life 2 would have been radically different from the first game... the fans would have probably been angry. They don't want change, yet at the same time they cry about the lack of innovation.

Chris Crawford seems like a person who contributes nothing, but complains a lot. He also has some very strange ideas about things:

Well basically, new ideas don't go anywhere. So the industry is just rehashing the same stuff over and over.

If new ideas don't go anywhere, what's the point of innovation?

During the 80s there was a lot of experimentation, a lot of new ideas being tried (many of them really bad) but there was at least experimentation. Now we don't see any experimentation whatsoever.

Well gee, let's think about this: during the 80s, the industry was pretty much getting started, and many of the genres we have today didn't even exist. Also, the primitive graphics required developers to come up with a solid gameplay idea. Nowadays you can easily get away with recycling an old idea, but repackacking it with good graphics and sound. Of course, it's not like they didn't recycle ideas in the 80s...

Has anybody noticed that we don't appeal to the general public? Has anybody thought that perhaps it might be a good thing? In fact, the industry has talked about reaching out to a broader audience for decades, but the industry is not willing to do anything about it. As long as you keep recycling the same product you're going to have the same markets.

Sims? World of Warcraft? Second Life? Sports games? Racing games? I should think that they reach out to the "general public" (what does this even mean, exactly?) well enough.

According to Mobygames, he hasn't done anything related to video games for fourteen years, except that storytronics stuff. Also, "innovation" is a retarded buzz word that doesn't mean anything, just like "next gen."

Re:Perhaps...

[MilenCent]

If you want to look at this as a problem, then yes, it's clearly the fault of the consumers. People only buy FPS, RTS and MMORPG games, so that's exactly what they're going to get.

It is indeed possible to pin blame on consumers, if you take the view that the true worth of a thing is decided retroactively, years later.

Already pawn shops are littered with outdated sports games, and a used game store I visited just a week ago had two clearance prices: one for old SNES and GENESIS titles, and another, lower one for sports games for those systems.

What kind of "innovation" do people want? Some whacky game where you control a dishwasher and try to rape kittens on Mars?

You make it exceedingly difficult to take you seriously when you make a statement like that.

I know a bit (really not too much, but a bit) about Crawford's Storytron. He's worked a long, long time on it, but if it works, it'll be extremely big -- it's nothing less than a engine that lets a computer tell stories algorithmically.

In otherwords: ever wondered, in a Final Fantasy game, if your character did something that had not been planned by the game creator? Crawford's idea would be able to handle that.

Chris Crawford seems like a person who contributes nothing, but complains a lot.

He does complain a lot. (Lots of other people do too, for that matter.) But his contributing nothing is not so much his fault; to produce games that get sold on the big chain shelves these days, you pretty much have to buy into the system. He does not, which from one perspective dooms him to marginalization, and by another allows him to be principled and insightful.

Sims? World of Warcraft? Second Life? Sports games? Racing games? I should think that they reach out to the "general public" (what does this even mean, exactly?) well enough.

It's easy to cherry pick counter-examples when there are hundreds, if not thousands, of games released every year.

There are essentially two major categories of games you refer to, plus World of Warcraft:

Sims and Second Life are truly unique concepts, and it could be argued that their uniqueness is what makes them popular. Crawford would not disapprove of either of them (though he might of the many Sims expansions). Second Life, in particular, may be something truly new and interesting -- but it also pushes the boundries of what is considered a game. It is also a rarity, and there were several attempts at that kind of thing before Second Life: There, The Palace, and the one which I had the most experience with, WorldsAway.

World of Warcraft doesn't really do anything new, but it is an exceptionally polished example of the genre. That's what Blizzard does best (Warcraft was not the first RTS, and most of what makes Diablo interesting comes from roguelikes), and I can't fault them for that. There isn't room for too many Blizzards, though.

Concerning the other examples, and most notably driving games, I only have two words for you: "Riiiidge Raaacer!"

Re:Perhaps...

[servognome]

Sims and Second Life are truly unique concepts, and it could be argued that their uniqueness is what makes them popular

Nope, ever hear Tomogachis (The Sims) or MUDs/MUSHs (Second Life)?

Re:Perhaps...

[Minwee]

"Chris Crawford seems like a person who contributes nothing, but complains a lot."

He has published over a dozen games and written five books on the subject to say nothing of founding the Computer Game Developers' Conference, an event which started in his living room.

When you have contributed as much nothing as he has, then you can complain all you like.

Re:Perhaps...

[Das Modell]

You make it exceedingly difficult to take you seriously when you make a statement like that.

Well, I'm just tired of everyone screaming for innovation, yet nobody ever specifies what that innovation is supposed to be, or what it could be.

I know a bit (really not too much, but a bit) about Crawford's Storytron. He's worked a long, long time on it, but if it works, it'll be extremely big -- it's nothing less than a engine that lets a computer tell stories algorithmically.

In otherwords: ever wondered, in a Final Fantasy game, if your character did something that had not been planned by the game creator? Crawford's idea would be able to handle that.

But how well would it handle it? It would have to work so well that it doesn't feel like it's just generated by the game. It would also rule out voice acting. I prefer handcrafted content as opposed to automatically generated content, and I don't see any massive demand for Crawford's system. I could be wrong, of course.

He does complain a lot. (Lots of other people do too, for that matter.) But his contributing nothing is not so much his fault; to produce games that get sold on the big chain shelves these days, you pretty much have to buy into the system. He does not, which from one perspective dooms him to marginalization, and by another allows him to be principled and insightful.

What can he possibly accomplish by staying on the sidelines? If he wants the industry to change, somebody has to change it. He actually accused the industry of talking instead of doing, and it seems like he's guilty of the same thing. He seems like a respected person, so it shouldn't be impossible for him to start his own development company, should it?

It's easy to cherry pick counter-examples when there are hundreds, if not thousands, of games released every year.

Video games aren't like TV shows or movies, and they shouldn't even be expected to be. However, there are many games that appeal to the so-called general public, and that should be enough. I wasn't trying to cherry pick anything.

Re:Perhaps...

[MilenCent]

Tamagotchis are not the same thing as Sims. MUDs are not the same thing as Second Life. MUSHes are closer, but still different.

Both of the later games draw from earlier things (as all created things must), but both these things add substantial new elements that makes them greatly different from their predecessors.

Re:Perhaps...

[twistedsymphony]

I hear that MySpace game is pretty popular...

Re:Perhaps...

[servognome]

Both of the later games draw from earlier things (as all created things must), but both these things add substantial new elements that makes them greatly different from their predecessors

What in the Sims is substantially new in terms of innovation? It is very much like a tomogatchi. You tell your little character what to do to keep them happy and you can buy things for your little character. Adding complexity does not equal innovation.

As for Second Life there was some innovation in being able to exchange real world money, but the core game is very much like MUSHs, just with graphics.

What made the games popular is they presented existing game types in a way that was more accessable to players (Just like EQ did with MUDs), not groundbreaking innovation.

Re:Perhaps...

[MilenCent]

Well, I'm just tired of everyone screaming for innovation, yet nobody ever specifies what that innovation is supposed to be, or what it could be.

Hm, understood.

In my view, innovation means the creation of new kinds of gameplay. I don't necessarily mean that all games must be completely different from each other, but most games now are ultimately older games with different data sets.

The best way to understand what innovation could be is by example, and some of the best examples I can think of come from Electronic Arts, back in their pre-behemoth days. In the 8-bit and even during some of the 16-bit era, they were well known for the ingenuity of their releases. One of the most-acknowledged classics of game design, MULE, was actually published by them back then. Around the time when EA began changing into Mr Hyde Inc, word is that creator Dan Bunten and Electronic Arts reached loggerheads over producing a sequel on the Genesis when Bunten refused to compromise his principles by including weapons into the game. Never mind that weapons wouldn't make sense in MULE's careful balance of competition and cooperation, the project was shut down because EA mandated Bunten change his game to chase a trend.

What I ultimately mean by innovation, in a word, is more games like MULE. Not exactly like MULE (for that wouldn't be innovation so much, although it'd be a welcome change from what I see now), but at least willing to try something new.

But how well would it handle it? It would have to work so well that it doesn't feel like it's just generated by the game. It would also rule out voice acting. I prefer handcrafted content as opposed to automatically generated content, and I don't see any massive demand for Crawford's system. I could be wrong, of course.

How well? Well, the way we percieve a game is determined by its presentation. In a game which is represented close-up, the player will expect more detailed behavior than one which is viewed at a distance. In the Sims, you don't view your characters closely enough to understand exactly what they're saying, so they don't actually have to say anything, they just get word balloons with symbols. In SimCity, individual people aren't simulated at all, they're viewed in the aggregate. I think if a project using Storytron technology reaches market, it won't be as noticable since the interface and presentation will be in a way that make it less noticable in this way, abstracted out, with some text generators surrounding it to ease the presentation.

As to "prefering" hand-crafted content and voice acting, allow me to make a bold statement:

People don't know what they prefer.

They make snap judgements, they approach things in a biased manner, they refuse to give things a chance. This is just human nature of course, but it is not admirable. Everyone wants to judge instantaneously instead of giving things a chance. Maybe this is unavoidable in the long run, but it doesn't mean we should accept it.

What can he possibly accomplish by staying on the sidelines?

He can start his own company and work on Storytron. Further, Crawford himself has rejected this (and as far as I know still does) but there's the casual games market, there is great potential for originality there... if it can get far enough away from the shareware sea of Tetris clones and Breakout variants.

However, there are many games that appeal to the so-called general public, and that should be enough. I wasn't trying to cherry pick anything.

I just thought it was interesting that two of your examples were games that I myself would have chosen specifically for bucking the trend. And two more of them were genres that certainly contain plenty of failures for each success.

Re:Perhaps...

[MilenCent]

Adding complexity does not equal innovation.

This is not necessarily the case. The Sims is different in these days (not a comprehensive list):
- It discards the "always on" real-time component of Tamagotchi.
- Having discarded that, it also doesn't have to be portable, so it can be played on computer.
- There is a house design component, and figuring out good paths for your Sims to use is a major part of the game.
- The upgrading of house components and careers.
- Resource management, in the areas of time and money, which is entirely absent from Tamagotchi.
- Continuity. A Tamagotchi doesn't remember its state beyond each moment other than concerning a handful of internal variables.
- Special events can happen to Sims, which provide situations that must be overcome or taken advantage of.
- There is a huge "metagame" connected with The Sims, in the construction of new objects, that can easily be more engaging than the main game to an interested player.

As for Second Life there was some innovation in being able to exchange real world money, but the core game is very much like MUSHs, just with graphics.

(This is a less complete list.)
- Second Life exists in a different kind of space than MUSHes. The transition from a room-oriented world, as in Infocom adventures, to a 3D space is more than just graphical flavoring, it involves many new programming challenges and makes many things possible that weren't before (and some things much harder, too). The greatly increased visibility of the world allowed to players, by itself, would be enough to
- Graphics *can* improve a game too, by allowing the player to perceive and interact with a world in a more natural manner.
- Do not underestimate the effect the real-world-money connection has upon the game! In a way, it makes Second Life part of the largest game humankind has ever produced: economics. It is very possible for the intrusion of real-world money to ruin a game, but Second Life seems to have done it right.

Re:Perhaps...

[Anonymous Coward]

People only buy FPS, RTS and MMORPG games, so that's exactly what they're going to get. Developers won't make games that won't sell.

I just bought a Nintendo DS Lite and with it... Brain Age and Big Brain Academy. In fact, I bought the DS for these two games. And I'm not the only one. Give something else to people, and they'll jump on it. The problem is the industry, not the people.

Re:Perhaps...

[Anonymous Coward]

"What kind of "innovation" do people want? Some whacky game where you control a dishwasher and try to rape kittens on Mars?"

I'd buy it.

Re:Perhaps...

[torchdragon]

Chris Crawford needs to take his own advice and go back to his cabin in the woods. I was there for is rant at the GDC. He's done. He's embittered towards an industry that isn't going the way he wants it to. He wants interactive storytelling, and that's it. If its not a digital "table top roleplaying experience" he doesn't want it and everything else is crap. He's done, put him out to the pasture.

Re:Perhaps...

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of "innovation" do people want? Some whacky game where you control a dishwasher and try to rape kittens on Mars?

Hell yes.

Any devs reading this? Make that game, dammnit!

One word:

[MaggieL]

Spore.

Re:One word:

[Anonymous Coward]

Spore.

Completely unoriginal, its just a ripoff of darwin.

Re:One word:

[Z0mb1eman]

I'm looking forward to Spore more than to any recent game, but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.V.O.:_Search_for_Ed en

Re:One word:

[g00dn3ss]

It depends what kinda new thing you're looking for. If you're going to make comparisons just on theme then you can always find similarities. "Hey look, there's nothing new - they're all just shapes and stuff moving on the screen!"

If Spore really works as advertised then the reason it will be somewhat different is because everything is procedural. You get to design your own creature and the system makes it walk or swim or whatever based on the mechanics of the body parts. It's not limited to a preset number of creatures that the game designers thought of in advance.

I think this represents the true path to innovation in the game industry - making things open-ended. This is hard and it will come slowly. I remember a PS2 game a while back called "Red Faction" that was supposed to be different because the environment was supposed to be modifiable. In other words you could do things like shoot the walls and pieces would fall off. But in reality, I found it to be just like every other FPS. Modifying the environment only really helped when the designers had already thought of it in advance.

Just think of all the ways you could make a game open ended. Modifying characters is one. Modifying the world could also be cool in different ways. Then you could do all kinds of things with open ended story line as technology improves. That will be really hard but I think it will happen to some degree eventually.

Once we've got this kind of AI, I also think there is the potential to use games to improve education and society in general. Read The Diamond Age, for example. Anyway, I don't think game creativity will plateau for a long time.

Re:One word:

[Anonymous Coward]

Spore is not a game. It's a sandbox world. The user maps his own goals onto it. You can play games in it, but its not a game. Neither is SimCity, or the Sims...or any sandbox world.

Spore is a life simulation. If Wright was to make SimDayAtWork where the rules are related to what we do at our daily job and was left open-ended...saying that is a game is akin to saying our jobs are games.

Interactive storytelling is not a genre--its not even a game. The only thing common to these things (games, interactive storytelling, and sandbox worlds) are the interactivity.

Re:One word:

[timster]

Go back under your bridge unless you can provide me with a mathematical definition of how complex the rules must be before a "game" becomes a "world".

And don't give me crap about "goals". Many, many games have multiple goals and allow the player to choose which goals to pursue. In the Sims, there is no reason for the player to make any gameplay decisions unless they have a goal in mind, so the game is still goal-oriented.

Re:One word:

[El_Isma]

And only one game.

Re:One word:

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the "game" have a resolution? A definitive end (win, lose, or draw) regardless of the choices made by the player? If not, it's not a game.

The game's goal is enforced by the rules--not the player. That is what makes it a game verses a sandbox/toy.

Re:One word:

[jackbird]

Multiplayer FPSes fail that test with certain server settings (no point/time limit).

Re:One word:

[Anonymous Coward]

The core mechanic of an FPS is to shoot the other player before he shoots you. The resolution is when the other player dies (or when you both die). The fact that you respawn is an embellishment on the core mechanic.

The number of respawns or that there is unlimited time doesn't change that the core mechanic has a resolution--its just a nuance of the original embellishment.

Re:One word:

[Anonymous Coward]

I should add, while it looks like I'm trolling, its a result of how annoyed I am that people are complaining about stagnation (or perhaps, complaining about the complainers) and they don't even know what innovation in games means!

It is true that the core mechanics of games have not changed in 15 years. Games these days just have more nuanced gameplay, more 'branching paths' in the storyline, and better graphics.

Suggesting that innovation is still happening in the game space through an example of something that isn't even a game is...misleading.

Katamari was so compelling was because it focused on a new mechanic and it leveraged that to the fullest extent. The industrys response? Make a sequel. In another game they might add a "deeper" story, or add multiplayer, or downloadable content. These are just embellishments on the original mechanic. They are creative, but in a limited sense.

Where are the other games from other publishers that focus on unique and compelling mechanics? If they exist, they aren't getting much attention.

Re:One word:

[Anonymous Coward]

Spore isn't what hes talking about.

Spore is still object focused not social focused on character and drama.

Re:One word:

[timster]

I think that's a poor distinction because it isn't relevant. A traditional pinball machine has no win condition (though there is a lose condition, as in most sim games) and players usually attempt to make the highest possible score. If we add a win condition, I contend that it doesn't change the nature of the game or what it should be called.

Next you can tell me that pinball has a mechanic -- you must hit markers to get points, and you lose if the ball falls. This is true, but it is ALSO true of all the games which you are choosing to call "worlds": in the Sims, you must play well to obtain goals.

SimEarth had a win condition and was easy to lose, so I assume you would call it a game. But if we removed the win condition, the gameplay and source of fun would be identical. Why would we reclassify it due to a small change that didn't change the nature of the experience?

I could get behind a statement that a "game" must involve the concepts of success and failure, but this definition doesn't exclude the Sims, or Animal Crossing, or much of anything that's called a game. It would exclude something like Elektroplankton, but I think few people consider that a game anyway.

Re:One word:

[minus_273]

Wii

Re:One word:

[Anonymous Coward]

First, 'world' was a poor choice of words. If I were to substitute world for 'set of rules' then I think that would be more in line with what I meant. This would mean that games are 'worlds' too because they are a collection of rules. However, I am suggesting that the rules of a game are designed to lead the players toward a definitive resolution.

You're right in that simply asking whether a game has a resolution is incomplete. It doesn't account for the experience of playing the 'game'.

Anything can have a win/lose/draw condition tacked on. That is, the resolution is not integral with the ruleset and its not very meaningful. How much meaning 'winning' or 'losing' has in the context of these rules before it is 'integral', I do not know. It's debatable as to where to draw the line, but I believe that the line exists.

I still think that The Sims, SimCity, and Spore are not games--that there is another word to describe it (sandbox, toy, whatever). Will Wright himself calls the Sims a doll house, or a toy rather than a game.

Re:One word:

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

You mean the future of gaming is nice demos?

Re:One word:

[Anonymous Coward]

wow how insightful

Who cares what this guy thinks?

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

His counter-argument about Nintendo not being innovative with the Wii or DS is that the games industry hasn't been innovative for the last 10 years so why would it change now? Er... okay.

Meanwhile, he wants to sell his books and push his "Storytronics"... geez, the 1970s called and want their cool innovative name back.

Re:Who cares what this guy thinks?

[flooey]

Meanwhile, he wants to sell his books and push his "Storytronics"... geez, the 1970s called and want their cool innovative name back.

Actually, even the '70s don't want that one. They were just calling up to wax nostalgic about Pong.

Re:Who cares what this guy thinks?

[masterzora]

I met this guy and talked to him in depth about video games and his ideas for new games and crap like that. I can tell you now: he is a veritable hack.

He was good in his day, but he just doesn't have it any more. His ideas for "innovation" are basically old style adventure games with dialogue trees. I apologize, he did have one idea that was more of the Sims than of an adventure game. At best, his ideas are TES4:Oblivion, but that's pushing it.

He's done, his day is over, but he just doesn't want to admit it.

Re:Who cares what this guy thinks?

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly weren't listening to him very properly, because the things you mentioned (dialogue trees?? Oblivion?) are the last things he wants to do. If you read more into the subject, either from his books, his website, other articles, or even other articles about interactive storytelling written by other people, you'd see something completely different.

Re:Who cares what this guy thinks?

[theinvisibleguy]

I agree, plus he stole that storytronics idea directly from the movie "Big".

...Final Fantasy XVII ten years from now.

[lucky130]

As long as it's not a MMORPG I'll certainly be playing it.

Or?

[Flaming Babies]

Is there anything creative left in the games industry, or are we going to be playing Halo 6 and Final Fantasy XVII ten years from now?

I believe that there is creativity left in the industry.
I also believe that we'll be playing some version of Halo and Final Fantasy in 10 years.
I'd be willing to bet on Madden 2016 too.
Some series will just live forever in some form.

Re:Or?

[soft_guy]

I'd be willing to bet on Madden 2016 too.

Will the public remember John Madden in 2016? Are you sure they won't change the name of that series? I'm sure there will be football, but "madden", not so sure.

Re:Or?

[ToxikFetus]

Will the public remember John Madden in 2016? Are you sure they won't change the name of that series? I'm sure there will be football, but "madden", not so sure.

Of course the public will remember John Madden in 2016. He's not going anywhere. It will take much longer than 10 years for him to complete his metamorphosis into Jabba the Hut.

Sore loser

[Anonymous Coward]

What has Chris Crawford given to the games industry recently? He's just a has-been who's been trading on a largely self-trumpeted reputation.

Move over Chris, let the new blood take over.

Re:Sore loser

[JackBuckley]

I'd have to agree (without the strong language). If it wasn't _Chris Crawford_ making the comment, the story could have been a troll. Instead it's like listening to your cranky great-uncle complaining about music today. Now if _Wil Wright_ tells us that there is no more creativity in gaming, I'll pay more attention.

It's a mix of many problems

[Opportunist]

One and the most obvious is that new ideas are an inherent risk. With old, tried ideas, you almost can't go wrong. Sure, creating a game with the game flow of Command and Conquer is hardly anything new. Build factories, build little toy soldiers, trash them, the last one to have soldiers wins. Tried, worked.

When you try to go for something new, you first of all have way higher development costs. And you also have the risk that what looked good on paper really stinks in bits and bytes.

Then, we have the problem the movie industry is facing as well: We think in genres. So when you now create a game, your player will try to find a genre to fit it into. We all have our habits and our "pet genres", some love business sims, some like shooters. Should you now create a game that is some sort of mix of genres, something that goes down the middle of two things (i.e. "something new"), you will probably get the response that it isn't what the player wanted, because it has those elements of games he does not enjoy.

So yes, we're kinda stuck with the "same old". And, let's be honest here, who could hold it against the game companies that they don't want to take a risk if it isn't needed? If the risk-less sequel of some game sells just as good as a risky new idea would, why bother going for the higher risk?

Re:It's a mix of many problems

[cmdr_beeftaco]

I think that is the point. Creative people are risk takers by nature. Business people are risk adverse. Business takes over, risk adverse thinking takes over, creative people pushed aside. Old days risk are taken because it cool and new. Lots of flops and some amazing games like Qbert come out.

All about the money

[jrc1000]

I think there's a lot of creativity left. I just think the big issue is that no one's taken the chance to prove one of those innovative ideas can make money. With the cost of creating a game these days, everyone wants to make something proven, and just try to give it a different twist with better graphics.

Snake Oil

[steveo777]

This guy is a kook. From TFA

GS: On that note, can you explain the concept of Storytronics? If there is such a way to give a brief description.

CC: It's interactive storytelling.

Okay, Either I saw this in the movie, Big, or we've been trying for this all along. Anyone who's played an "Open Ended" game such as Chrono Triger knows what mutiple endings try for. Blood Omen:Legacy of Kain had an open ending where you could be good or bad guy.

This guy is huge pessimist (admits it in the article). He just seems like he doesn't have a clue. After reading TFA I'm not clear on what the goal of his "Storytelling" games is, but it sounds an aweful lot like he's trying to create a truely, open ended game, but failing miserably... over and over. It's a noble quest, indeed, but trying to say it's an original idea is really laughable.

Re:Snake Oil

[MayonakaHa]

I probably didn't read enough of TFA (mainly because I think this guy's a loon) but from what I did read it looks like his "Storytronics" is a bad attempt at making LARPs (Live Action Role Playing) or your typical paper and pencil DnD session work on computer. That's great and all, but from my experience that does't work very well unless it's a decent group of friends.

Re:Snake Oil

[typidemon]

Storytronics is basically designing interactive story elements for any meta-product that might need interactive story elements. That meta-product could be a LARP, but that certainly isn't Chris Crawford's intention.

Next time, it might be handy if you do at least a minimal level of research on something before you blow your ass towards the gallery.

http://www.storytron.com/

Re:Snake Oil

[MayonakaHa]

Might help if he did the same before saying the gaming industry isn't innovating and is starting to repeat itself. It always has, it just wasn't popular enough for everybody to know it yet. Blowing off a lot of the innovations of the past few years doesn't put this guy too high in my mind.

Re:Snake Oil

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say it qualifies as an original idea if most people can't even grasp the concept of it. A couple of "multiple endings" has nothing whatsoever to do with interactive storytelling. What about the rest of the game? Put in earlier branches? Put in more branches? You can never put in enough branches to give the player TRUE power to make his own choices throughout the game. You'd have thousands of them, if not more. As Crawford puts it in his book on Interactive Storytelling, branching is an often tried and tired approach that simply does not work, it just does not give you what you want.

Try reading this for a short overview on what interactive storytelling actually is:
http://www.storytron.com/overview/ov_approaches.ht ml

Re:Snake Oil

[Blakey Rat]

I think he's trying for ... well, what Elder Scrolls has been doing since Daggerfall. Morrowind and Oblivion have exactly what he's promoting here, at least as well as can be done considering the amount of developer time and the level of technology for the game.

I can think of a few

[Bastian]

Katamari Damacy, Uplink, Darwinia, Spore looks interesting. . .

I think that there might be a bit of "time compression" going on in this article. Original games were few and far between 10-20 years ago, too. I certainly remember back in the 8 and 16-bit era when it seemed like every single game put out by anybody for any system ever was a side scroller.

Besides, video gaming's youth is gone. I don't see why it's such a big deal that so many games resemble other games nowadays - it was easy to try new ideas in 1985 when not so many ideas had been tried. I'd like to see the people who whine about lack of originality try to spend some time coming up with a new idea that's good. Maybe folks could try harder, but (1)I seriously doubt that nobody is trying (2)trying to sell a formula that's known to sell is part of business, and it's not going to change. You might as well shake your fist at the sky for raining, it'd be just as useful.

  Of course, an article that says, "Gee, it's really hard to come up with novel games" probably wouldn't sell as well as yet another jaded guy bitching about how things were better in the past. (How original.)

Re:I can think of a few

[timerider]

exactly.

katamari damacy (or rather, we love katamari) was the sole reason for me to get me a ps2.

Dual-use technology.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm not sure I agree. What do you think? Is there anything creative left in the games industry, or are we going to be playing Halo 6 and Final Fantasy XVII ten years from now?"

Depends on what you want to be creative. The games, or the technology? There's still some room for creative ideas in the game industry. There's an even greater room for creativity with the technology that goes into games.

Money is the big evil

[jrc1000]

I think there's a lot of creativity left. I just think that no one has taken one of those creative ideas and proven it can make money. With the cost of creating some of today's games, the people that put up the money want to bet on something tried and true, with just a new twist and better graphics. The other issue is that as soon as someone does something completely new, everyone piles on the bandwagon. In two years there's 10 games like the first, it's now considered a genre, and we're back to complaining no one makes anything new.

Hilarity Ensues

[slashrogue]

Seriously Chris Crawford cracks me up. "I've been working on this for 14 years and NO ONE has ever done anything like it!" Apparently the man doesn't know what a MUD is (a real MUD, not one that is all about kill-loot-sell-repeat), and he's never heard of White Wolf either. Seriously, like... wtf. The guy goes ON and ON about rehashing old ideas and recylcing things... people improving but not actually innovating. Look in the mirror, man.

It's a neverending cycle

[jeremyds]

I think what we're seeing in the gaming industry runs parallel to what we're seeing in the movie industry. As both games and movies are becoming more and more expensive to produce, the risk of failure increases. Games are generally still priced the same as they were 10 years ago, yet the costs to produce them have increased dramatically. Publishers are less willing to take risks and thus resort to releasing games that are derivative of or sequels to past successes. As long as customers are willing to fork over their money on these games, the publishers will continue to produce them.

My POV

[bill_kress]

It seems to me like games are getting lamer all the time, but then I have to realize that now I'm 42 and playing games just doesn't have the draw it used to. Not that I don't play, but I am open to the concept that my memory of games then is better than my reality of games now.

Of course, it's possible that Games just peaked with Outhouse and have gone downhill ever since.

You're just not reading it right.

[BlackCobra43]

You read it as "The game industry isn't innovative anymore" What was actually said is "I NEED WORK AND MONEY OH GOD PLEASE HIRE ME"

Crawford is a Troll

[PhoenixOne]

He's a troll and he has an agenda; he wants to sell you on "interactive storytelling".

And, if Slashdot is anything like GDC06, he'll get his wish and there will be a hundred "No it isn't" posts... *sigh*

Kinda like the Movie industry?

[Maugrim]

...Weird.

Another who doesn't know what "innovative" means

[DeeDob]

Almost on a daily basis someone in a forum will say that games are stagnant and lack innovation.

To that i say bull...

Games don't lack innovation, people fail to even try the most innovative games or to even find the innovation in a game.

People always seem to think that "innovation" should equal "revolution" in gaming. People are just waiting for the "next" big thing that is just isn't coming anytime soon:
- Text-based games to static-graphic games.
- Static-graphic games to dynamic 2D graphics with sound.
- Dynamic 2D graphic with sound games to polygonal "3D" games.
- Polygonal "3D" games to ???
It's the ??? that people confuse with innovation.

True "Innovation" comes in small doses...
A game like Halo: yes, it's YET another FPS. It introduced a couple of concepts that made for overall good gameplay.
A game like the Original Doom: very similar to other games that came before, it introduced better level designs and a perspective of height.
The game Life Line: Used almost exclusively vocal commands to control a character in a survival horror game. Innovative... even if it failed to work properly.
The game Indigo Prophecy: Multiple endings to every scene. Player action impact on overall story. It was done before, but this game took it to an entire new level. It was a main aspect of the game rather than a simple afterthought.

Other developpers take these small innovations and include them in their games... Over the course of years, this is the innovation that amount to something.
Comparing Top Spin 2 to the old Tennis game on the NES, i can't help but think that it's not only graphics that have changed. The gameplay has too.

It's kinda true...

[Daegras]

As someone from within the industry, I have to shed a tear and agree. The fact is that staple products are being bought up so much that creativity really isn't pushed that much. I mean, how many people out there are guilty of supporting EA's Madden series for the last 5+ years? TONS! But I say it's only "kinda" true because there -are- games that are breaking the mold and doing damn well. Look at Katamari Damacy. I know that it's really the Japanese fanboys/girls in America that love it, but there is still a growing audience for the Katamari series now that it's reached a major popularity point. Shadow of the Colossus is another good example. This is a game that took the traditional platformer/action genre and gave it a bit of a twist that made a -very- fun to play and interesting game. So while the trend is to go with the cookie cutter games, there are still companies out there who are going the creative route and really making the money.

Has Zonk ever actually *played* a FF game?

[danaris]

Or, more to the point, played more than one? There are certain elements that bind them together, sure (chocobos, basic battle concepts, some guy named Cid who likes technology/airships), but each numbered Final Fantasy game is completely different from the preceding ones--new characters, new stories, whole new world, largely different magic/skill/whatever systems (FF X-2 and the FF VII Compilation aren't really "numbered FF games").

Just because they all bear the same name doesn't mean there's more than that linking them. Some people think that's a bad thing; personally, I like every FF game I've played, the similarities and the differences.

Dan Aris

Re:Has Zonk ever actually *played* a FF game?

[Anonymous Coward]

What differences? That's the point, the differences are so cosmetic that they might as well all be the same game.

largely different magic/skill/whatever systems

Nope. Wrong. Changing from Fire, Fire 2, Fire 3 to Fire, Fira, Firaga doesn't count as being a new magic system. Your mage will always be weilding Fire, Ice, and Bolt against enemies. It may be called something else (Fire, Blizzard, Thunder), but it's the same thing. It's always Cure to heal and Esuna to cure. (?!) Same magic system, every single game.

Combat system is essentially always identical. On your turn, attack. No variety there. Some characters have special moves, but that's hardly innovation.

Skill systems are all essentially identical. You fight monsters, and then your character gains some form of points (renaming them doesn't count as innovation), and with enough, they "level up" and their stats increase. Yeah, really innovative there.

Face it, from a gameplay perspective, all the Final Fantasy games may as well be the same thing. Sure, the stories change, but that has really nothing to do with innovation in gaming. The game play in Final Fantasy is essentially stagnant - about the only thing that changes between Final Fantasy and Final Fantasy 12 is that in Final Fantasy 12 they removed the part where you actually have to input commands. Final Fantasy 12 will play the game for you. The whole "plays the game for you" is the most innovative thing that Final Fantasy has ever done, but I'd hardly call that a good thing.

Seriously, anyone who thinks the Final Fantasy games aren't all cookie-cutter copies of each other needs to get their head examined. Stand back away from your fanboy-ism and look at them objectively. They're all the same.

Re:Has Zonk ever actually *played* a FF game?

[danaris]

Nope. Wrong. Changing from Fire, Fire 2, Fire 3 to Fire, Fira, Firaga doesn't count as being a new magic system. Your mage will always be weilding Fire, Ice, and Bolt against enemies. It may be called something else (Fire, Blizzard, Thunder), but it's the same thing. It's always Cure to heal and Esuna to cure. (?!) Same magic system, every single game.

Same spell names != same magic system.

I will grant that the basic makeup of the magic systems are all pretty much the same--they are all element-based, with, generally, attack, healing, and support magic. But I would challenge you to find a system of magic that is primarily combat-based that can't be classified into those three categories...and the number of elements varies from three to about a dozen, depending on which Final Fantasy game you look at.

Also, what I was primarily referring to was the method by which spells are learned, for which see skill system below.

Combat system is essentially always identical. On your turn, attack. No variety there. Some characters have special moves, but that's hardly innovation.

Hmm...sounds like you just described every turn-based battle system in existence. Y'know, if you get general enough, everything is the same, and there's nothing new under the sun. We may as well all give up; every game requires you to look at a screen while entering a series of commands by hitting buttons or moving pointing devices. Worse yet, every game is made up of patterns of 1s and 0s on some kind of removable storage!

It's true that the ATB system remained more or less the same from FFIV through FFIX, but they did change some things in FFX, and from what I understand, even more so in FFXI (though I've not played it).

Skill systems are all essentially identical. You fight monsters, and then your character gains some form of points (renaming them doesn't count as innovation), and with enough, they "level up" and their stats increase. Yeah, really innovative there.

Again, you're so general, you could be describing AD&D or just about any other traditional RPG.

And as a matter of fact, you're way off base here. The methods of gaining skills have changed quite a bit from one Final Fantasy to another. In the early ones, you had to buy spells from shops. In FFIV, all skills were learned just as you describe, as the characters leveled up. In FFVI, skills were specialized, but spells came from Espers. In FFVII, everything was learned by equipping the right Materia. In FFX, you learned skills by moving a token around what looks like a giant game board and activating the right spheres!

Need I go on?

Seriously, anyone who thinks the Final Fantasy games aren't all cookie-cutter copies of each other needs to get their head examined. Stand back away from your fanboy-ism and look at them objectively. They're all the same.

I would say that anyone who thinks the Final Fantasy games are all cookie-cutter copies needs their head examined...or needs to actually look around a little, and see that the similarities they are seeing are really inherent to the genre as we know it. Sure, it might be neat to see some RPGs that break completely from the genre norms, and do some wild and crazy things--but it's much, much harder to be sure of making it fun and enjoyable if you do away with levels and command-based combat altogether. Maybe with the Wii controller, you'll be able to do some amazing and new things to make combat different. Maybe someone can come up with some super-cool and innovative way of measuring character advancement without using levels and experience points, but that's not necessary to make a the gameplay fresh and interesting.

Oh, and I'd rather be a fanboy enjoying the latest partially-recycled Final Fantasy than a cynical curmudgeon grumbling in his porch rocking chair about how there's no real innovation these days, and nothing's worth even bothering with, because it can't possibly be any fun...

Dan Aris

lacking creativity

[dlc3007]

I'd like to point out that complaints about the creativity of the gaming industry aren't very creative any longer. For years we've been reading the same, tired, inbred complaints that are just rehashed derivatives of complaints we've heard before. .

-4, Unjustified and REDUNDANT.

[argStyopa]

Is it daily now that we get a story about how
- the games industry is dying
- there's no creativity in games any more
- nobody's buying games
- nobody likes games

?Huh?

Yet WoW has passed 6 million users, an utterly-unheard-of number in the MMOG world. The computer/electronic games industry (which didn't EXIST prior to what, 1975?) is now bigger than Hollywood. More people than ever play games, to the point that we're generationally reaching the point where the 'mainstream' of society are electronic gamers.

If this is failure, what's success?

Like any industry, in it's fledgling decade there was a great deal of innovation (much of it sucked), success (and failure), and a non-zero-sum universe of customers. There used to be companies like Studebaker, Packard, Nash, and Hudson, too. Like every industry, there are periods of innovation and expansion, and periods of consolidation and centralization. It's the capitalist equivalent of breathing.

If we're exhaling now (and I'm not convinced we are), relax. The industry will inhale soon enough.

Re:-4, Unjustified and REDUNDANT.

[ryane67]

just a FYI, that 6 million users of WoW is not current users, its overall accounts... many of which are idle / expired.

Re:-4, Unjustified and REDUNDANT.

[UnknownSoldier]

> Yet WoW has passed 6 million users,
> If this is failure, what's success?

1. There is more then one definition of success. Success = Popular, is only one definition.
2. Popularity != Quality.
TV (Reality Shows), Fast-Food (McDonalds), etc, all prove that.

WoW isn't a great game -- it is "good enough" and better then most other MMORPGs. Is is fun game? Yes. While it's yet-another-mmorpg that streamlines most of the annoying problems others still have, it still lacks "rich game design."
i.e.
Character types are restricted to classes. The only real thing to do at level is 60 is waste ridiculous amounts of time farming for "phat loot." The world is static and boring because quests have absolutely no influence in the world. Crafting is limited. Combat is the only way to level up. It's designers have no clue on gaming dead-time. World interaction is almost non-existent. i.e. no rock climbing, treasure hunting, sailing, etc. I could go on, but I'm tired of playing another boring MMORPG. I want the diversity of Ultima 7 / UO in a modern engine, with WoW's streamlined interface.

> If we're exhaling now (and I'm not convinced we are), relax. The industry will inhale soon enough.
I'm glad you mentioned this -- far too many people forget about the life cycles, especially how gaming goes through it's 11-yr life cycle. i.e. Down cycles in ~83, ~94, ~05.
See Video Game Timeline (Word Doc)
Video Game Timeline (Google HTML cache)

--
Why is Windows Explorer so bone-headed? Try renaming a file/directory to start with
- a period. i.e. ".config"
- a space, so it shows up first when sorted. i.e. " Shortcuts"

Re:-4, Unjustified and REDUNDANT.

[Krater76]

Not only that but videogames are so mainstream that politicians are trying to curb who gets to buy the content. You don't get that kind of response unless you are BIG, like movies or music.

If we're exhaling now (and I'm not convinced we are), relax. The industry will inhale soon enough.

I defintely think you're on the right track. I remember listenting to an oldies radio station once on a long car ride home from college. They played three songs from the early 60s. They were terrible and I wondered why they were being played. Then the announcer said that these were the top songs on the radio a couple weeks before the Beatles premiered (in the US of course) on the Ed Sullivan show.

It definitely seems like we are at that point now. We are fine with what we are getting but we are in a holding pattern for our next video game rock stars.

Re:-4, Unjustified and REDUNDANT.

[prockcore]

Yet WoW has passed 6 million users

Considering that WoW has only sold 6.5 million copies, I have a hard time believing that number.

If you want to put that in perspective, Super Mario Brothers 1 has sold over 40 million copies.

Re:-4, Unjustified and REDUNDANT.

[Riden]

You see those kinda posts and news blurbs every day because kids (and I mean all ages) will look at their little stack of game boxes, proclaim that they are bored and then post on the interwebs that the sky has infact started to lose altitude and will be impacting any day now.
And then they will complain about Sony, cause, like, you know, thats cool and stuff.

The only thing I find tired about the game industry are the complaints, the wildly unjustifed remarks that X should/is going to die/is dieing/is dead and the politics :/

Wait for the Wii

[Sarusa]

I'm definitely interested to see what people come up with for the Wiiiiiii. I'm willing to bet Crawford doesn't own a DS, since there are great games like Kirby's Canvas Curse that are completely unique thanks to the touch screen. The Wii should really open things up as well, so that'll be fun to see what designers come up with.

Much as I respect Crawford in some ways (I own his books) I have to think he's a bit insulated. There certainly is progress, it's just slow and bursty as usual. Back in the 80s it was all Pac-Man clones, Space Invader clones, generic platformer, and generic shooter. With the occasional gems.

Stagnation? Bah! Many new ideas!

[charlesbakerharris]

For instance, World of Warcraft has implemented a fantastic system of "reputation grinds" - a true innovation in the MMORPG space! Just think - do the same thing over and over for hours, and you get something! More hours? More something!

I'm just so glad they came up with it before anyone else did!

Adventure gaming?

[TheBrakShow]

I think one of the most revealing examples of this loss of spark was LucasArt's cancellation of Sam and Max II. Yes, granted Sam and Max II is a sequel, but at least it would have been a departure from the FPS, MMORPG, RTS, and driving games that seem to be dominating the gaming market today. Adventure is an incredibly versatile genre, yet seems to be underappreciated by today's developers. I believe adventure games will ultimately save the gaming industry when everything else has become hackneyed and stale.

If something new and good would come to market...

[ryane67]

I wouldnt be stuck playing Starcraft ;)

Does it really matter?

[Senobyzal]

Who cares? If the games are fun, I'll buy and play them, regardless of how many numbers are after the title.

If the games become just derivative spam, then the market will respond. I no longer buy RTS titles, for example, because I've been playing them since Dune 2 (really, since Herzog Zwei for the Genesis) and they have gotten very, very, old for me. Others still enjoy them a lot. Same with FPS titles; I enjoy this genre, but pass on maybe 75% of the "major" releases because I've been there, done that.

All entertainment builds on past innovation, as others have already noted in this thread. If sales go down on the redundant games, and people flock to the few "innovative" titles, then more of those will be made. But it seems like most people are happy with "more of the same"... and having fun!... so that's what is made.

Re:Another who doesn't know what "innovative" mean

[Elder Entropist]

"- Text-based games to static-graphic games.
- Static-graphic games to dynamic 2D graphics with sound.
- Dynamic 2D graphic with sound games to polygonal "3D" games.
- Polygonal "3D" games to ???"

Not really how it happened. "Dynamic 2D graphic with sound" games like pong were "first", at least in popular culture. Text and static graphic games actually same later.

And that's not necessarily good

[Moraelin]

"What creative industry ISN'T 95% derivative? Movies, television, books, music, art, you name it. Everyone jumps on the bandwagon when something is successful."

Yes, but that does not make it good or interesting to anyone with even the minimal intelligence needed to notice the verbatim copy.

E.g., yes, movies do the same, but that's exactly why movies have lost my interest long ago. Every single freakin' genre has been reduced to one standard script, with _maybe_ a couple of standard variants. So if you watch the first 5 minutes of any movie, by now you can tell pretty accurately what will happen in the rest of the movie, who will die, and exactly after how many minutes the standard plot twist will come.

I'm freakin' sick and tired of, for example, The Hero's Journey standard script, after seeing it being applied verbatim to every single freakin' action movie. It seems that just about _any_ topic is shoehorned into the same script, following the same steps, in the same order, and religiously obeying the percentage of minutes each step could take. And spicing it up with the same ingredients, e.g., sex and wanton destruction of property, because that's what sells.

And I really mean _any_ topic by now. I have all confidence that Hollywood could even shoehorn the whole WW2 into the same tired Hero's Journey script, starting with Franklin D. Roosevelt as an ordinary citizen you can relate to, climaxing with him single-handedly defeating Hitler and Mussolini and their super-soldier guards in a spectacular fight, and coming down from that climax by getting the girl and becoming a normal citizen again. Forget what you've learned in history class about how that war actually went, this is the Hero's Journey way, and we're not gonna let history get in the way of it. The fall of the Soviet Union? Same deal. Start with Clinton as an everyman figure, climax by defeating Gorbachev and his Spetsnaz guards in an epic fight, etc.

Yes, it's partially sarcasm, but also sadly serious: they're _that_ bloody one-track-minded about shoehorning anything into a standardised script.

I've even seen it seep into games. Sometimes in such an uninspired 1-to-1 transcription, that makes a 10 minute introductory sequence in a 90 minute movie become a boring horrible 5 hour grind in a 45 hour console RPG. They have their script saying that X% of the total time must be devoted to showing the hero as an everyman figure that the viewer can identify with, and they're gonna religiously obey that.

And so on.

Does that make movies better? No, it doesn't. As I've said, it just made my interest in movies take a nose dive as soon as I figured out those standard scripts. (That was around the mid-teens, btw, so it didn't even take a lifetime to get that "haven't I seen the exact same movie before, only with different names and props?" feeling.)

Am I looking forward to seeing games become the same thing? Good grief, no!

A visual interpretation of Chris' stance

[mcasaday]

That picture of Chris Crawford on the article was just so melodramatic. It reminded me of something. I just... I just couldn't help myself .

Re:A visual interpretation of Chris' stance

[mcasaday]

GS: Do you feel that's a trend toward actual committed development of the technology or people just paying lip service?

CC: No, this is still academic research, and I think it is quite revealing that much of this research has led to a dead end. That is, you track some of these academic projects, and they start off with grand and glorious goals and then three or four years later, the project is dead. And they publish a couple of papers, but they didn't get anything to work. That's largely because people have difficulty appreciating the magnitude of the problem. Interactive storytelling is not something that you can slap together in a year or two. However, the appreciation of that is developing and people are more seriously discussing the building blocks of the problem. I know there are a lot of graduate students all over the world who are seriously attacking some of these issues, and really do seem to appreciate them. We already have a couple of academics who are again seriously tackling the issue of interactive storytelling. So we're definitely in the early stages of solid academic pursuit. When will this turn into commercial product? Well on that aspect I'm pretty far ahead of everyone else, but I'm confident that we will see some of these bright graduate students coming up with really weird ideas and bringing them to a pre-commercial level within the next five years.

Okay, mockery aside, I find it interesting that we have these academics working for over a decade on something that the game industry itself wouldn't even touch with a ten foot pole. It's not fast soft-shadowing techniques or scene management strategies they're working on. Those kinds of problems are difficult and they require really smart people to address, but they might only take a number of months to a year of R&D to solve. No, the problem that Crawford and his people are working on will take decades to solve by his own estimation. (Starting from roughly 1992, mind you.) Yet, if their efforts pan out at all it could be a big win for everyone. Even though the market for interactive storytelling (assuming salable products ever emerge) is unlikely to overlap much with the current gaming market, this kind of interactive entertainment would probably have a tremendous positive influence on the game industry and could provide much-needed big pile of new ideas for game developers to pick through.

I only wish more people were working in the background dedicating themselves to difficult problems like this. The game industry itself can't be counted on to do this kind of blue sky research, generally speaking, because these sorts of problems do not fit well within the boundaries of your average game production timetable or middleware development schedule.

Sequels do not mean a lack of creativity.

[KeiichiMorisato]

I'm tired of people complaining about having to play another Mario or Zelda game.

Just because a game bears the name of its predecessor doesn't mean there is a lack of creativity or it's the same rehash of gameplay. Many of these sequels introduce brand new gameplay and actually push their respective genres into new directions.

Just for example: Super Mario 1, Super Mario 2 (NA version), Super Mario 3, Super Mario World, Super Mario 64, Paper Mario, Super Mario RPG, Mario Tennis, Mario Golf, and Super Mario Kart all bear the Mario name, but all of them introduced new gameplay and new ideas and weren't just rehash and useless sequels.

Re:Sequels do not mean a lack of creativity.

[discoalucardx]

While most of those are innovative for sports/racing games, they're still just sports and racing games. I think he was referring to things outside those genres. Although Nintendo does improve on it's franchises more than most other companies do.

People are just looking in the wrong direction

[ProppaT]

This just sounds absurd to me. Of course, if you're looking at what's going on in the Sony and Microsoft camps, the magic has died. There's prettier pictures to look at...and this IS magical for a while...but they're beating a dead horse.

Nintendo, on the other hand, is just pumping me full of adrenaline these days. Pick up a DS. Geez, so many new concepts and ideas are going on. So many brilliant games. Trauma Center, Pheonix Wright: Ace Attourney, Lost in Blue, Brain Age...a lot of traditional type games are getting great face lifts too. We've only seen the first generation of DS games too. It's pretty amazing.

As for the Wii, I can only imagine what games we see come out of it. It's too soon to say if or how it will revolutionize the industry, but seeing how Sony's already tried to implement a knock off of Nintendo's motion detection into the PS3, you can see the fear in their eyes. Maybe Nintendo will finally be able to take gaming back to its roots and divert attention away from the more graphics/more power mentality that's taken over America.

A lot of new ideas

[Roy van Rijn]

The last couple of years a lot of new ideas have been sparked, for example the Sims was a brand new concept (and a huge hit). So where the street race car building games (NFS Underground etc).

Of course you can say: "Sims made a lot of sequals, so did NFSU..!!"

That doesn't say the developers aren't creative anymore, its just marketing, cashing in on good concepts!

And last of all, the best-thing-ever game Spore might consist of a couple of old concepts, but you can't deny its a creative masterpiece!

Re:A lot of new ideas

[asretfroodle]

Street race car building games new? What about Street Rod?

Appeances can be deceiving...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there is only an *appearance* of a lack of innovation in the game industry which is due to 2 things.

First, gaming has gone mainstream as compared to 5+ years ago where gaming was an activity only a niche group of people participated in, namely geeks/nerds. Once gaming became more mainstream the target audience, and thus the content of the games, changed. Nowadays games are not made to cater to me and other like minded people, they are aimed at average Joe. This has resulted in me prefering the games I played while growing up (FF1-3 & 7, Toejam&Earl, Starfox, Mario Kart, Goldeneye) compared to whats on the shelves now. On some occassions I would say that I have felt downright alienated by the gaming industry. This leads me to my second point...

Nostalgia. Its a very powerful feeling. Often defined as "a longing for the past". It influences people's views of politics, history, morality etc. These are very personal beliefs. I dont think its crazy to surmise that nostalgia can, and does, influence ones views on something as trivial as the gaming industry and its products. Its important to point out however, that nostalgia tends to be largely unrealistic in most cases.

Nowadays when I walk into EB to look for a game I have to remind myself of 2 things: 1) games are not aimed at people like myself anymore and 2) my childhood gaming experiences were probably not as great as I like to think they were. If I dont do that I never buy anything. Ever.

Chris Crawford unhappy? Unpossible!

[bigbigbison]

It becomes more and more difficult to take into consideration anything Chris Crawford says. He is the gaming industry's grumpy old man. Everything he says basically ammounts to, "These damn kids these days!" While even the boy who cried wolf was eventually right, no one paid attention to him because he cried wolf so many times.
Whenever I see a statement from him I know it will be about how bad he thinks gaming is today. Just once I would love to see a statement from Crawford that was positive. His constant negativity just makes me want to discount him entirely, which probably isn't fair. Even the best song gets boring without variety.

Genres aren't that big a problem

[Moraelin]

Personally I find that:

1. genres aren't _that_ limitting

E.g., "Europa 1400 -- The Guild" is technically a "business sim", but that didn't really prevent it from mixing inter-personal relationships, a bit of politics, a bit of history lesson, even a bit of RTS, etc, into the mix.

E.g., between Europa Universalis and Hearts Of Iron 2, Paradox's games have technically been strategy in real time, but they're not even vaguely similar to C&C or Warcraft.

2. it's not like people outright refuse new genres. Quite the contrary.

E.g., Populous was debatably the first sorta-RTS, and didn't even fit any genre at the time. Guess what? It was a big success.

E.g., although technically first person shooters were not that new, they still were relatively uncommon, and Wolfenstein 3D was the first textured one. So although you can't really say that it invented a genre, it took an obscure genre and made it a huge success overnight.

E.g., both Sim City and Civilization pretty much created respectively the city-building and empire-building genres. Yup, they sold nicely.

E.g., The Sims only resembled one old game, and at that only vaguely. At any rate, noone though of it as a "genre" yet. Yep, it's quickly become the number one best-selling PC game of all times, out-selling any of Id's or Epic's shooters by a massive margin.

So from where I stand, it looks like inventing a genre actually can sell like hot cakes.

What doesn't sell is just making an uninspired melange of two genres, typically not even understanding what the people liked in either of them. Or not even noticing that they appeal to different types of personalities. E.g., you can't really hope for that much of a market overlap if you mix a slow-paced city-builder appealing to casual gamers with a "hardcore" Counter-Strike clone appealing mainly to die-hard loud-mouthed online "clansmen". E.g., you can't just take a pure-reflexes Mario clone and give it RPG-style cut-scenes and dialogues, and think you've covered both pure-reflexes fans and story-driven fans with one game. In practice, the two are more like opposites, so whoever likes one will be bored by the gameplay of the other.

But that's IMHO not really that much innovation anyway: copying verbatim from two sources isn't much more creative than copying from one. So if that isn't that tempting to publishers, I can't say we've really lost that much as a result.

Hmmm....

[91degrees]

Well, I quite like Singstar, and have been told that Guitar Hero is pretty good. Lots of people liked Buzz. A Tale in the Desert was a pretty nifty idea, or is that too old to qualify? Lionhead's "The Movies" sounds like a pretty original idea. To be honest, I can't think of a lot of games that were original. What are these original games that everyone talks about? Apart from the really early ones, when there was no choice but to be original, the only times we got new ideas was when we had substantially good new hardware. We saw a brief burst of ideas with hardware capable of doing 3D graphics, and another when it became capable of texture mapping. Most of the history of games development has been incremental.

Ease up...

[archaic0]

I do agree that the current game market seems diluted somewhat of unique games, but I think it is unfair to attack games specifically with this charge and call them dead for it.

In the human experience there are only a few real different 'modes' if you will. Happy, sad, scared, excited, love, hate... (not a complete list of course). These modes translate to story telling in only a few ways really. The classic love story, a hero saving the world, an evil over-running the world, pure good vs evil, the heist, the grand adventure... (again, not complete).

There isn't really an unlimited number of ways to smash those up to make a unique story. The main story components of most any movie or book can boil down to a well known baseline. Yet with games, that's not enough for us.

Movies and games both I think are playing with a stacked deck in a way because we as consumers keep demanding things of them that we don't demand of their origins. We don't demand that authors churn out brand new never read before ideas every single week of the year. We accept one new story from a given author every few years sometimes, often with the exact same setting, characters, and overall idea. We travel with an author through the telling and re-telling and continued telling of the same story. Don't hear me say that's bad, I enjoy it as much as the next reader, I'm just making a point.

Yet when it comes to games and movies, heaven forbid that two games or movies come out that are both set in wartime or for a good war game be followed by several more games set in the same war. How many books are there about World War 2? Isn't the subject played out by now in print? How many movies are about a boy and a girl? Why is this still an option for a movie? (once again, making a point, I don't specifically think we should stop with either of those)

The saving grace in books and movies seems to be giving the subject a contemporary spin and a twist of some kind. Then we eat it all up. Casablanca was a love story, Romeo and Juliet was too, and so many years later The Break Up is simply a love story. But with a modern setting and a dose of reality we eat up the same story over again. Just how many romance novel books are there???

Games however, are cursed to never repeat any element of anything that came before it. Got an idea for a game? If it's an FPS then you can't have aliens, a war, hell, drugs, the mob, or any number of other things that have been done because without even considering the game on it's own, if it has anything to do with hell then it will be trying to be Quake and it's screwed... or if it has aliens it's trying to be Halo or Half-Life and we'll skip it just the same.

Game makers thought that we wanted our game spin to be higher resolutions and more eye candy, but although we scream for that, we don't buy what they deliver claiming some higher calling of needing unique stories. All the while, hundreds of games a year come out that are so unique they could make their own genre category but because they weren't in hi-def we won't buy them. And because we didn't buy them, but we bought Halo 5, then you better believe that Halo 6 is on the way.

Movies suffered a similar bout with consumers in recent years, as consumers demanded more and more CGI effects. Once we got them though, we figured out that we really didn't want them as much as we were asking for them. A movie today that comes out and is chock full of effects usually won't do too well at the box office. Effects that we can't tell are effects exactly are still good things, like entire movies in space and the like where the effect isn't a big explosion but a light overtone.

I think movies are starting to come around and figure out just what should be CGI and what shouldn't. They've learned when to say NO to CGI and actually dial it down for effect instead of up. Games will get there too if we'll let them. But in order for the creative leaders out there to keep their jobs we need to buy their games. Nex

Sad to say, you've got it wrong

[Moraelin]

Sad to say, the assumption that "if only genre X is produced, it's because people only buy genre X" was always false. I fell for it before too, but it never was true anyway.

The thing that matters is _profit_, not number of copies sold. Genre X can be more profitable than Genre Y for a miriad of reasons, even if Genre Y actually sells more copies.

E.g., read some interviews from Sierra and the like during the late 90's, when FPS and RTS exploded and Adventures nearly went extinct. Surely it was because everyone only bought FPS and RTS, and noone bought Adventures, right? Well, wrong. Adventures were a growing market, sold better than ever, and routinely outsold a lot of FPS. But here's the catch: they also cost a lot more to produce. Making a brainless FPS just needed a licensed 3D engine and making about a dozen levels and skins, whereas making an Adventure needed complex animations and scripts. You could sell half as many copies of a FPS and still have more money left.

Briefly: yes, a genre skirted with extinction although it had more demand than ever. Go figure.

E.g., the MMO growth today has _nothing_ to do with everyone wanting to play online only. On the contrary, there are still are _far_ more offline gamers than online gamers. So why do people want to produce a MMO instead of cattering to the larger market? Because of the monthly fee, that's why. If you sell someone an offline game, you get maybe 40$ from them, and worse yet, the retailers take most of that money. If you sell them a MMO, studies say people stay on the average 6 month in them, so at, say, 13$ per month and one of the months being included, you've raked in 13*5 + 40 = 105$ from the average gamer, and 65$ there bypass the retailers completely.

That's all. It's not that everyone wants just 3 genres. It's that those are the most profitable, but the reasons have _nothing_ to do with more people wanting those.

Re:Sad to say, you've got it wrong

[Das Modell]

Fair points. Maybe it's not the fault of the consumers. But, is the Sierra example relevant anymore? These days, making an FPS is not necessarily very cheap, even if you license an engine. I'm going to guess that it's actually even more expensive than making adventure games. Perhaps adventure games were first shelved by developers, and now nobody just isn't interested?

Re:Sad to say, you've got it wrong

[Moraelin]

"But, is the Sierra example relevant anymore?"

It was relevant as strictly an example of

A) how a major producer of one genre abandoned that genre, in spite of having a growing market and selling more copies than ever. And,

B) how profit and copies sold can be two very different things.

And, you know, taken from the mouth of those who were one of the two biggest names in the adventure game industry at the time.

But, in the end, it was there just as an example that you can't always just blame the demand side of the equation.

Is Sierra that relevant any more? No, but other publishers and developpers are still doing the same with other genres. E.g., Interplay sold the Fallout franchise where Fallout 2 had sold millions of copies, but announced yet another MMO at a time when _noone_ had millions of subscribers to their MMO. EQ had peaked at some 400,000 IIRC, and number 2 was at 250,000 or so. (And a couple of years later, other than Blizzard, noone still has millions of subscribers.) So basically they discarded Genre 1 where they had millions of buyers, and went for Genre 2 where they could hope at most for hundreds of thousands. Why? Because in Genre 2 you could get bigger profits even if you sold a tenth of the number of copies.

"These days, making an FPS is not necessarily very cheap, even if you license an engine. I'm going to guess that it's actually even more expensive than making adventure games."

Very insightful observation indeed. And indeed that might be why adventures are making a comeback in a major way.

Wait, Halo 6 is coming?

[Mark Programmer]

When did Bungie announce it?

I hadn't heard!

Can I pre-order now?

Bound to happen

[Programmer_In_Traini]

You know, it was bound to happen.

The more money is involved, the less creative it gets. Because creativity is a risk and risk scares investors away.

So, a lot of people tap their games's ideas from the little pond of type of games that are successful like RPG, Shooters and GTA style.

As soon as games starts fading out (if they ever do) then we will see creativity because developpers will fight themselves to obtain funding from the rarer investors.

Well...

[Pratt is a source ki]

Well being a Game Programmer myself does not opt me out of this discussion. I believe the fledgling console development houses are afraid of change simply because they do not have the time nor the captiol to implement new ideas. But i digress the PC gaming industry is an everchanging universe. Implementing new ideas is what we do. If it wasnt for implementing new ideas, i wouldnt have a job as far as im concerned. Ideas that a normal every day pc gamer will ever see or care about for that matter. Writing OpenGL drivers, A.I. script, * algorithms and such. We're underappreciated and underpaid. But we love what we do.

and don't forget

[fwwr5007]

Is there anything creative left in the games industry, or are we going to be playing Halo 6 and Final Fantasy XVII ten years from now?

And Duke Nukem Forever. (Maybe.)

I disagree sir

[LD gspot]

His arguements may sway me more if he would answer when asked for examples. MMO's were never done before at one point, the Half-life series seems to be revolutionizing cinematic games, The Total War series created a battle simulator unmatched by anything before or after, Nintendo's standard controller for the Wii wireless and motion sensored, the DS is using a touch screen to enhance game experience, Will Wright is blowing us all away with Spore; Will someone please tell me this guy's definition of innovation? It doesn't happen overnight, it requires work and time, especially when dealing with a time and money consuming, volatile industry such as video game development. As far as I see, the game industry is moving forward all the time. This guy hasn't told me anyhting except that it's not. I can train a parrot to say 'it's not.' Why is it not? Name a game. Name an idea that is absolute shit, name an idea that should have work done on it but people are too scared. Give me examples, thoughts, reasons, but don't sit there and tell me I should listen to you because you spent 4 more years of your time on school than I did. Wait there's more: Donkey Konga, Guitar Hero, Mario 64 changed platformers forever, Zelda games havent been the same since Zelda 64, the Natrual Selection Mod for Half-life-I didn't see any RTS/FPS games before that, nor any that feature 2 different races since. I could go on and on and on about innovation in games. I want to know why these aren't innovations?

Re:I disagree sir

[Kennego]

The parent is absolutely right, and gives more great examples of innovative games than any other poster. I think this post alone is proof that Crawford didn't think this one through enough before speaking...

High budget

[MisterTea]

The reason why the games industry isn't as creative is because there's too much at stake. Think back to all of the games for the early ATARIs and Commodores which really sucked. All the tons of games which were totally worthless and not even remotely entertaining. For every great creative masterpiece there were tens, even hundreds of games which were just a waste of time. Game companies now aren't willing to bomb ten times to get one great game because a single game can cost in the millions of dollars.

Re:High budget

[angrymilkman]

yep high costs are a barrier to innovative games. But there is hope, maybe someday some easy game creator kit will be developed which is only as complex as photoshop and still allow one to create innovative games easily.

Re:High budget

[PhotoBoy]

I've often wished for such a thing myself, but I just can't think of a way it could be done. As far as I can imagine the developers of the app would have to anticipate whatever type of original game you could want to make.

The other barrier to creating games these days is the complexity and time needed. Even a modest 2D game can require people with different skills- artists, programmers, musicians etc. Back in the Spectrum/C64 days when sprites were crude mosaics it was much easier. These days to be a one man developer requires a lot more skill in different areas.

Re:High budget

[Gnostic Ronin]

I think this is the meat of the problem -- it costs too dang much to make a game, and too much to buy a game.

When you spend $50 million to make a game, exactly how much can you innovate? If the game flops, you're out almost all that money. That could easily bankrupt even a fairly large company. So they don't take risks making something that isn't a pretty sure thing. So they make a new sequel of last years big game, or if they didn't make last year's big game, they make a knock off with just enough changes to avoid a lawsuit. It's possible to make a new game type -- If you work for a company that is already a big dog (Katamari Damancy i.e. is released by Namco, the same Namco pretty well known for sequelizing any game until players want to scream -- see Megaman). Other than that, you can't really release a new groundbreaking title unless you're willing to lose your company and your shirt.

On the player side, the high price actually encourages genre loyalty. I might give an interesting movie a go if it gets good reviews, or if it looks interesting. The same with a book -- I might see one and think the premise sounds interesting and buy it. But the difference is that a paperback is $10, and a movie ticket (per person) is $10 as well. A new game will cost 5 times that -- $50. $50 for most people isn't an impulse purchase. Most people don't buy a new game unless they're pretty sure that they'll like it.

So it's a double bind. Companies can't afford a flop, so they make a bunch of knock-offs and sequels. The games cost a lot, so players either buy used or buy a sequel of a game that they already played. That's probably why there are so many movie games -- people buy 'em because they recognize the movie, so it's less risky than making a new title.

It seems to me that the only way to get more original titles is to make it cheaper to make a game. That way it isn't company-threatening to risk on a new type of game. Plus, if the company charges less -- $15 instead of $50, people would be more inclined to try a new franchise, or a new genre, or just a new game that sounds interesting.

Creative games tend to be stillborn

[Anonymous Coward]

There were some really creative games in the 80's and 90's with original content. Robinson's Requiem was a game where you survived on a planet and could build snares and stuff from parts you found to trap game (somewhat revisited in a Jurassic Park game, and now only noted in good physics engines). Another really old game let you sail from island to island, navigating by the stars and shooting at monsters (this was in the CGA era, but the concept of stellar navigation was beautiful.) And then there's the games where aliens actually spoke different languages, or the one (Cydonia) where they actually had a written language that could readily be translated (this was a language called aUI created in the 1960s by a guy who claimed to learn it from an alien - despite this the language itself is pretty cool.)

The problem with being "too" creative (or too intelligent) is that if the game doesn't sell millions of copies, the creative aspect is never reaches sufficient "maturity" to "breed" and end up in newer games. So while we have some "hopeful monster theory" going on where a game actually shows some creativity, such elements often die out within that game platform or CPU generation.

If I were a game designer, I'd mine used software shops for concepts that were either ahead of their time, poorly executed, or both. Current systems could make awkward designs from 20 years ago really sing with realism and beauty, or trigger newer ideas that wouldn't have been possible 10 years ago.
- Kent N

razzie awards

[angrymilkman]

Wouldn't it be cool if there was some sort of razzie award for the worst sequel-prequel- copycat game of the year? Maybe this would also motivate the game industry to develop more innovative games.

I have enough great and original ideas

[El_Muerte_TDS]

I just need funding and creative freedom from the people that supply the funding.

...but none of us would admit to being PoMo

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh how wonderfully post-modern the game industry has become! Let the deconstruction begin! Now, as far as I can tell this has been the complaint about every creative trade in every era throughout the history of mankind. I'm sure there were cavemen complaining that there was no innovation left in cave paintings, nowhere left for the form to evolve.

Just because Mr. Crawford can't come up with an original idea to save his life doesn't mean the industry is drying up creatively. I cite Breakdown, Beyond Good & Evil, Katamari Darmacy, and the Nintendo Wii as examples of why he's full of it.

Re:Another who doesn't know what "innovative" mean

[grumbel]

If you define 'static graphics' as games with non-animated sprites and non-scrolling backgrounds it fits.

Um...Wii?

[nmaster64]

Even if your completely against the premise of the Wii and/or the DS, you can't simply ignore them completely and then say there's no innovation in gaming. That's about as innovative as you can get, and there's also stuff like Spore as well to remember...

I do agree however the industry has become rather derivative. Seriously, THREE Final Fantasy XIII's? Ok, that series may be ready to die now (especially since Final Fantasy 8 was the last truly good one). Halo is great, but it's one of a bazillion FPS's (I don't think ANY FPS could get me excited these days, although Red Steel has certainly peeked my interest). Racing is probably the most boring genre on the market (barring Mario Kart and Burnout type stuff), and they're on what now, Ridge Racer 7? Madden's well over it's 20th iteration, with hardly significant upgrades year-to-year and no competition. Compared to the rest of gaming's history, this last gen was relatively boring in my opinion, and I definitly could use with some innovative titles (DS games and Guitar Hero FTW!).

But I'm hoping that's where the Wii comes in. If nothing else, it's something new, so I'm all for it. Considering how much play I've gotten out of my DS (and boy do I love my new DS Lite), I trust Nintendo to help bring the industry out of this horrible slump of repetitive gameplay. I mean, the industry wouldn't even be here if it weren't for them, so they at least deserve the benefit of the doubt. I think Wii looks awesome (despite the name), and it's definitly more exciting than anything anybody else is showing, and that's because it's the ONLY thing I see coming that's not just derivative.

Programmer agrees

[Anonymous Coward]

I work in the games industry, and I totally agree with this. I'm a programmer, but the designers run the show. They write the same stories, and use the same gameplay mechanics over and over. Very often, I'm told to make our system look exactly like another popular system. Most ideas that I have about how to make our games cool are totally ignored, because the designers have shipped several successful games, and I'm just the guy that's supposed to make their rules work. Don't expect anything novel. It's pretty hopeless.

Already there!

[Rosebud128]

What! Who says it takes millions to make a video game? It actually doesn't take much money at all. The biggest barriers today are the ones we have created in our head.

I've worked with Garage Games and you can easily create a game even with their engine. Where do you think Marble Blast Gold and Mutant Storm came from? Even the Wii's development kit is cheap enough that a regular person can buy one.

The big problem with independent development is that they often try to compete with big publishers' games and/or they make games for themselves. Would you see them make games for girls or elderly like Brain Age? No. Nintendo has said they had a problem with new people because they want to make games because of "Final Fantasy, Zelda, and Mario." So Nintendo has to 'un-train' them and not have them think of games in those terms. There is much opportunity for game makers today. In fact, probably more now than ever since everyone says they are 'bored'.

But to the original post, we are already at the point where the market is regressing. This has been occurring for the past five years drastically in Japan and reversed only with the success of the DS there. In America, the market has begun to slide; transitional year my butt. Transitional year does not last several years!

Re:Already there!

[ultranova]

What! Who says it takes millions to make a video game? It actually doesn't take much money at all. The biggest barriers today are the ones we have created in our head.

Sure, you can make a game cheap (or even for free, if you don't count your own time as money). But it won't have fancy detailed 3D graphics, since those take more time and effort to make than a single person can afford. And it won't have an orchestral soundtract since orchestras also cost money. It won't have voice acting, since, guess what, voice acting costs money.

Simply put, you need eye candy to sell games (or so the current trend claims, anyway), and eye candy does cost millions to make. The game itself doesn't cost that much, but since it's a lot easier to show gorgeous graphics than great gameplay in advertising, the prettier game will be picked from the shelve in exclusion of the uglier one.

And of course advertising costs a lot by itself.

I've worked with Garage Games and you can easily create a game even with their engine. Where do you think Marble Blast Gold and Mutant Storm came from?

Never heard of them. Which kinda proves my point ;(.

Transitional year does not last several years!

It does when Enron does the accounting ;).

Re:Already there!

[Rosebud128]

If you're more interested in making excuses than actually creating entertainment, then you are right, it is impossible. But you do prove my point.

Why do you need 3d graphics and an orchestra sound track? There are many markets that are possible without these absurd production values. You have web-based games, you have the cell phone market, you will now have the Virtual Console and Xbox Live (Mutant Storm and Marble Blast are now currently on Xbox Live, they are better known than you think).

Nintendo created a massive best seller in the game of Brain Trainer made by a few people within three months. The game has no graphics. There is no soundtrack. There are no cinematics. Yet, the game is selling very strongly over all demographics throughout the world. This should be an inspiration.

The problem is not that it is impossible for a few people to make games. The problem is that today's gamers believe a game must be a cinematic experience. Also, indepedent game developers are woefully ignorant on salesmanship and working the market.

Is there a New York Times best written list of books? No! There is only a best SELLING list. While people can debate what is the 'best' game, in the end it comes to sales. It is more imporant for artists and developers to be able to SELL a game rather than have the 'talent' to create 'masterpieces'. This is true for writers, for musicians, and any one else in the creative field. You must know the business side.

In the old days, developers knew the business side. After all, they would make their game and have to tell the publisher how to do it! Now, game developers work more for the publisher instead of the other way around. With those high budget games, the developers need the publishers' money. I've noticed the early developers understand how the market works better than these new developers who are literally working for the publisher instead of the market itself.

There is absolutely nothing stopping you from making the next 'Tetris' or 'Brain Age'. Nothing except your pre-concieved conclusion that it is 'impossible'.

Movies

[Conception]

It's like saying there is no creativity with the movie industry. Sure, there are a few big players that hedge their bets with the big sales and big profits. The video game market is now hitting that split. The big guys are soon going to hire Michael Bay to direct the next Halo. But the small fish will still put out the innovation. It's not going to die, it's just going to split.

Movies

[Databass]

I'm worried the movie industry might be losing its "spark". Most of the movies are derivative and pigeon-holed into cookie-cutter genres such as comedy, action, horror, and romance. Sure, there are a few interesting indie or sleeper hits, but they don't get enough attention for my tastes. Yes, within moments the movie industry will be no more.

Authorized development

[Darkforge]

I'm astounded the game industry has gotten as far as it has, in light of the fact that you can't develop any games for them unless you are an authorized developer.

Before you can develop games for consoles you need to apply to the particular console company to become an approved developer. The exact process varies but it generally means proving that you are an experienced game developer with a financially stable company. The console companies won't approve hobby/inexperienced teams to work on their consoles.

Sure, you can code up homebrew games, but doing so requires hacking your console (which is something most people don't know how to do, and in many cases requires expensive mod chips or other hardware).

The best way to get creative folks working on game software is to let people develop their ideas without having to get approval first. Hell, I'd even shell out two grand for a development kit if I knew I could actually use it and distribute my games to my friends.

Of course, Nintendo, MS and Sony are all afraid that people will code up porn games (which they will) and will disable the console's anti-piracy features (which they will). Which is why, unfortunately, this will never happen.

Re:Authorized development

[Gnostic Ronin]

I think the solution would be to get a fourth console, a cheap open source console that anyone could program a game for and distribute. No pre-approval, no $2000 dev kits. I think Linux and Ruby or Python might do the job.

If a console like that existed and was cheap enough, it might encourage the experimentation that Carpenter wants. The problem right now is that there are so many gatekeepers (Console Approval, Game Company itself, retailers, etc) that if a new concept comes out, chances are pretty good that it will get crushed long before it ever gets mentioned publicly (including GDC). What you need is a stable homebrew that doesn't have all the gatekeeping and hoopjumping before you get approved. Game Companies right now don't have the dough to withstand a flop, so risky games are axed before they get to development.

Re:Authorized development

[cr0sh]

You mean like this one? No, it doesn't have the "flashy graphics" that current consoles have, but it does seem like it has a pretty active development community. In theory, one could package it up into a "real" system with a "real" game - or learn from it to build your own system.

Something I have thought about on occasion would be to develop a game-centric Linux LiveCD, ideally designed around a micro-atx form factor motherboard of some sort. Ultimately, your distribution web site would have a "recommended specification" for the "game console", specifying everything that is needed for the "console" to work flawlessly with your LiveCD distro (this would include motherboard type, RAM, CPU, graphics and sound chipsets, and "standard" joy/gamepad, among other items). You could also note that the LiveCD "may work on other machine specifications, but for best results use the reccommended specifications". The distro should contain all needed development tools for game development (I would suggest the standard tools, but also include Python, PyGame, and PyOpenGL for rapid prototyping) for the specification, plus sample code and maybe even an actual game, along with documentation, etc of course.

The idea being that your site would be the "standard" specification, and would act as partner/coordinator with others to develop actual incarnations of the "console" (maybe you also sell a "reference" console, built to your specs). Every year, you would re-certify/re-develop your specifications (as needed), to keep them "current" (it would be best if the specifications were developed to be middle or "trailing" edge to some aspects of the hardware, mainly graphics and gamepad, so that each version of the "console" has at least a 2-3 year lifecycle). Others developing their own hardware incarnations of the console spec could partner with you to get a "seal of approval" (this would cost something to certify, of course) as well as support. Developers could get their own support. Maybe tier these support packages (provide a free level, a low cost student/independent level, a professional level, and a corporate level).

All it would take would be to develop that first LiveCD - which shouldn't be that big of a deal at all, since there are plenty of them out there to model it off of. The LiveCD should be setup in such a way as to boot to a splashy screen (perhaps after a "title splash" screen) where the user can boot the LiveCD (ie, run the system off the LiveCD), install the LiveCD (as game console or dev console - prebuilt consoles would have this already done, of course), or update the install. If a game is included on the LiveCD, they should also be able to select and run it as well.

Ultimately, you would end up with an "open source Linux game development kit" - one with both hardware and software specifications, whereby someone could easily boot the game on their normal system (if it meets or comes close to the specs) to "try out", or if they wish to go further, they could install it to develop games with. Stipulate to "licensees" or whatnot that any of the game CDs developed must be like the LiveCD reference system, or at minimum have references back to your web site so that "budding game developers" can easily get set up to develop their own games with your system, however they see fit.

I really think this model could work - if I had the time I would try it myself - depending on what happens after this post (like, if nobody does it before me) I might still attempt it. It wouldn't cost anything more than time to develop the LiveCD. Once you had that, you could begin to tweak it to get it to work with a specification...

Re:Authorized development

[Gnostic Ronin]

It could work, but you'd want a single standard over 4-5 years. One of the things that makes console gaming so attractive is that any game you pick up for the console is pretty well gaurenteed to work (barring disk scratches or damage).

Add to that the idea of a console being fairly easy to use. Up until XBOX you never needed to install anything. That simplicity makes it attractive to noncomputer-nerds. The more plug-n-play the system is, the better.

But another thing is that the resulting console (and probably the dev kids) ought to be cheap enough to be reasonably purchased as a kid's console. The games themselves should probably be reasonably close to "kid's allowance" in price range. That way, buying a game can be a sort of "impulse buy" like a magazine or a dvd. Unless a consumer can buy a game the same way they buy a magazine, I don't see them wanting to risk buying a game that they aren't sure they'll like.

yehah! I think this could work.

Re:Another who doesn't know what "innovative" mean

[PaganRitual]

Introducing multiplayer FPS to the console playing masses ten years after it was first being played doesn't count as innovative. Neither does aimbotting AI that apparently counts as 'legendary' AI. Share with us Halo's innovative features, because you've listed the features for the other games, but included Halo seemingly only because you're a huge fan of it.

agree but please push the limits anyway...Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, but every industry should always at least try to push the limits, try new things, even try new twists on old ideas...if they make an old idea better, then I don't really care...

there may not be anything new in the world, but there are always new ways to tell the same story.

So can't wait for Halo 3, 4...even Halo 26 with the complete VR setup.
And would definitely like a new version, lots of new stuff, better graphics of my old favorite, Iron Helix.

Not an anonymous coward, just a lazy lurker.
CG
cganders@myuw.net
**Goals are just DREAMS with DEADLINES!
**Live your life with passion and risk!
kinetically active website: http://home.myuw.net/cganders
irreverent blog: Musings and Meanings on NonSensical Events and Canada
http://ahablogolicious.blogspot.com/ (mainly spoof news, light satire and humor)

Yeah, well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your mom has lost her spark.

Oh, please.

[Rachel Lucid]

Now that people want gameplay again, since graphics capabilities are maxed out to the degree of 'Uncanny Valley', suddenly the producers are crying foul and complaining that they have to think again.

I can think up at least three different games that I would consider revolutionary, 'cept of course that the barrier to entry means I've got to go pitching it to other people rather than developing it myself.

Nintendo

[Xbot]

Question: How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? Answer: *Chomp* Question: How many times can you remake Super Mario before people get tired of it? Answer: *Chomp*

blah blah blah

[zeeroj]

Thanks everyone, next complaint that the industry is stale is still scheduled for 3 months, as usual! These kind of articles are perfect for a slow news day, but with such gems like Microsoft claiming they want to help Linux and the RIAA claiming they've won, there's really no need for non-news.

Re:Another who doesn't know what "innovative" mean

[iainl]

I'll give you two. The shield and the weapon limit.

The rechargable shield killed the urge to constantly quicksave every 5 seconds in case of a cheap ambush that PC games have been trapped in, and to some extent haven't truly escaped. Which is just as well, because as a console title it didn't even give you the option of a quicksave. So you no longer wandered down an invisible corridor attempting the 'perfect' run from a health point of view, but carried on fighting when PC gamers would have hit F9 already. This alone would have been enough to hold its place in history.

The limitation to two weapons also demanded some tactical thinking. The balance was far better than most games, too; fighting was no longer about just using the "best" weapon that you still had ammo for, but choosing the right gun for the situation, and if necessary switching to make the most of what the enemy had left you. Coupled with the always-available grenades, you had a much more dynamic battlefield than anything ID ever gave us.

I'd argue that the AI 'felt' a lot more impressive too, due to the quality of characterisation in those Covenant. Obviously you disagree, which is fair enough.

Re:Another who doesn't know what "innovative" mean

[PaganRitual]

I don't know if a shield will allow it to 'hold its place in history' but you make a very good point that I probably would have never considered as I don't play FPSs on console. And to be honest I'm not the quicksaving type anyway (if a game is worth playing, it's worth replaying sections until you get it right) so it was never going to occur to me regardless.

In my opinion I think you're reading a little too much into being allowed to possess only two weapons at a time, but hey, whatever floats your boat. And I'm not convinced it was the first game to do this either.

I definitely disagree about the AI. I played the PC demo on Legendary and was met with aimbots that led perfectly regardless of what I did, yet still were tricked by me standing with one of those portable shield things between us and me jumping in front of it and shooting them until they were dead. People will complain about the final boss in DOA4 being cheap as fuck, or the skills required to get thru something like Ninja Gaiden, but will talk up blatant perfect leading/aimbotting as brilliant. My mind boggles, but it's 'each to their own' day, so whatever.

Re:Another who doesn't know what "innovative" mean

[DeeDob]

"Pong" was far from the first videogame. It was part of the first "arcade" games and for most people, the first videogame they ever saw. Also one of the first to be actually playable by the general public.

Oh here we go again

[Anonymous Coward]

Crawford's flapping his gums yet again. What was innovative in the 80's? Let's see, he can probably come up with a list of a couple dozen innovative games, yet ignore the thousands of derivative crap that co-existed throughout the 80's. So then NOW, he looks at the thousands of derivative crap, yet ignores the dozens of innovative titles!

In the last 10 years, we've seen a huge refinement in storytelling, presentation and over all gameplay quality. But, no, Chris would rather we play "interactive books". Somehow that would be more fun.

It seems to have gone completely over Crawford's head that perhaps we've explored the limits of what forms video games can take place. Much like how a car today is still the same as a car was 10 or 20 years ago. The only difference today is the bells and whistles and some engineering refinements. Same goes with video games.

Re:Another who doesn't know what "innovative" mean

[Elder Entropist]

Hence my "at least in popular culture" qualification.

The quote that discredited Chris Crawford

[Anonymous Coward]

This struck me as just mind-blowingly ignorant:
CC: My advice to the gaming industry would be to sincerely copy Hollywood more closely. The gaming industry really does operate on a model very similar to Hollywood with one huge exception, and that is that they have no system for harvesting new concepts. Hollywood knows that it needs new ideas. The games industry doesn't know.

Is he serious? We should imitate Hollywood? The same Hollywood which is currently in a state of low cinema attendance, low on fresh ideas, pumping out movies that are rehashes from the 70's, and 80's, so low on ideas that they base movies on VIDEO GAMES and comic books... ?!?!

And let's not forget that in Hollywood, if you want to make a movie and don't have studio backing, you still need in the realm of a million bucks just to pull it off as an indie and THEN have the studios distribute it ("Saw" for example).

So Wow. I am speechless. I'm all for what Crawford is pitching with his interactive storytelling. If you think about it, the ideal implementation of what he is talking about would be equivalent to the Star Trek holodeck... But WHY Chris, WHY do you have to push your idea at the EXPENSE of the game industry? It's obvious that you and your ideas are not even in the same space anymore. It's really not necessary to slag the game industry just to push your new concepts. The two can coexist.

Cookie Cutter Programming Courses!

[sciop101]

DeVry teaches game program writing! Half Price Books have shelves books they used two semesters ago!

Does DeVry still teach programming?