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

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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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...

[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.

One word:

[MaggieL]

Spore.

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:

[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

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.

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?

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.)

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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?

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.