Slashdot Mirror
Innovative, Original Games Have No Chance
In interviews with game developers this week, the tone seems to be that innovative, original thought is no longer welcome in the games industry. That definitely seems to be the tone behind IGN's interview with Okami producer Atsushi Inaba, and MTV's interview with Bioshock's Ken Levine (distracting flash site). Atsushi, speaking about the art style in his critically acclaimed but poorly selling adventure game, had this to say about originality in games: "You use the word 'difficult', but I think that it is becoming almost 'impossible' for an original game to succeed financially. This can't be blamed on anyone but it's a simple fact that an original game doesn't appeal to the majority of gamers." Meanwhile Levine, talking mostly about the level of art he's trying to create with the title, had this to say about some of his fellow designers: "Most video game people have read one book and seen one movie in their life, which is 'Lord of the Rings' and 'Aliens' or variations of that. There's great things in that, but you need some variety." While most of the rest of his comments are somewhat mild, he reiterates throughout that they're trying to do something that gamers may not "give a crap" about. What do you think? Has the industry gotten to the point where retreads are all that will sell, or is there still room in the marketplace for original ideas?
Innovative, Original Games Have No Chance
Well then. Since that's settled, Let me get back to Madden 2008: Platinum edition.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Guess how EA made its billions...
The overwhelming majority of the cost of a game now, seems to be having ever-more-detailed graphics, higher-paid actors, etc. If you want innovation in the game structure itself, it shouldn't be costly (it seems), to do a sort of "proof of concept" in Flash or C# or whatever works on a PC, and if that gets popular, then you know that that's the kind of thing gamers want.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Originality and creativeness in video game design should still be rewarded by the consumer.
I still remember my first time picking up SimCity, or Dune 2 or Wolf3D. Hell, even The Sims was original in its time, not that it was something I personally enjoyed
The problem is nobody seems to want creativity or originality anymore. The gaming market seems to want nothing but FPS's or WoW addons anymore. And quite frankly, its a damn shame.
I have high hopes for Spore, but will the average gamer give 2 shits about it? Probably not....but I REALLY hope I'm wrong about that. Of course, its yet to be shown wether Spore will be fun to play - time will tell.
Although in the grand scheme of things, I believe that the problem isn't that the consumer won't buy originality in gaming. Its that the studios suck at doing anything original.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
All fantasy games are the same fantasy game. Vanguard, DDO, WOW, Everquest...
Elf? Check.
Dwarf? Check.
Fighter? Check.
Rogue? Check.
People don't want fantastic fantasy. They want familiar fantasy. The equivalent of peanut butter and jelly on Wonder Bread or a hot dog while mom and dad eat that weird lasagna stuff. Fantasy gamers have the taste of a 4-year-old.
One word ... Nintendogs
... "Know your audience"
The fact is that most "inovative" games break the standard rule in any creative pursuit
If you're trying to make a game that is different then you should probably look into who the demographic that will be interested in your game is and focus on making the game good for them.
The problem is that if you need 200 people to make a game, you need to persuade so many committees of finance experts to give you the money that the chances of finding someone who will panic at your idea are stupidly high.
Finding the money for a game that needs 20 people to make is a lot easier and less risky, because even if it's a flop, you aren't taking the whole publisher down with you.
Of course, ideally, you do the whole game yourself, on your own, sticking 100% to the creative vision you had, without needing to persuade *anyone* about the validity of the idea, and taking all of the risk yourself. I've gone many years reading big name industry celebs saying how that's not possible any more, despite the fact that I do it for a living, and I know a fair few others who do so as well.
Of course, if you would rather not make a game at all, than make one on a low budget, then that's a different matter. But personally, if I could make a 'triple a' WW2 FPS clone with 100 people, or an original, inventive 2D budget game on my own, I'd do the latter, even if it will never make me rich.
But generally, he's right, there is a lack of originality in mainstream games (spore is a good exception though).
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Love sees no species.
To talk about his peers in the industry he does, and paint with such a broad brush. If he wants to make himself look better than his peers, perhaps he should do so by proving himself, rather than trying to stand apart through pointless and insulting talk alone.
As someone who works in the industry, I know many designers, artists, and engineers, and in general they love all kinds of fiction - SF, fantasy, action, horror, drama. Tastes are quite varied... there is no extreme focus on Tolkien or Aliens. In fact, many of them are quite tired of Tolkien.
Hunt your preferred prey at Aliens vs Predator MUD. Join the war at avpmud.com port 4000
While I can't speak for consoles, original ideas still find their way to PC, I always find a handful odd, little known company's games on PC shelves (or rather lists as I shop mostly online.) Defcon and Darwinia spring to mind. Those games were both etail and limited retail before they also came to Steam. Steam provides a plethora of indie games, many of which are unique and intersting like The Ship. Steam has so many indie games that they infact have their own browsing tab.
Demented But Determined.
I think the video game industry needs to stop bankrolling projects off a few blockbuster titles, and instead bankroll them from a massive library of reliable inexpensive titles.
Just a thought.
Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
I'd have to say... with razor thin profit margins video games have to meet, it is infinitely safer for companies to launch lines on next-gen consoles with proven game francises. I mean, no matter how bad the next Sonic re-hash is going to be, its going to outsell a cohort of obsure, but avant-garde games whose developers' venture capitalists might already be wary of the business model the industry is following. Its easier (and safer) to bastardize previous works for a C-/D+ than risk "original thought." But with that said... it disappoints me that there is no real venue for low budget/indie games on consoles like MP3 and FOSS has given underdogs a fighting (and sometimes winning) chance despite the odds.
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
Has the industry gotten to the point where retreads are all that will sell, or is there still room in the marketplace for original ideas?
Yes. Where the fuck have you been? Take a look at the list of all-time top selling games. It's mostly sequels.
It's not cost-effective to take a chance with original ideas at present because game development is so expensive. Maybe that will change in time, maybe XBox Live marketplace or whatever Sony and Nintendo call their efforts will change that, but right now, it's all about existing paradigms and sequels.
This issue has been rehashed how many times already.
One problem I have witnessed a few times,
Say the total gaming market is 100 people, an whatever you sell with appeal to 50 of those people. People would say how well the game did and marketing calls it a sucess.
Wait a couple years and say the market is 1000 people, the majority of which like some common formula. You release again and get, say, 75 people. Now marketing calls it a failure because it didn't appeal to the _largest_ group, even though the total viewership increased.. it just didn't increase as fast as the full market.
Too many companies end up all aiming for the big demographics rather then targeting the smaller groups where there is less competition. Everyone wants to be the 'best' even if 'third' would result in more profits.
Face it, the entertainment industry thrives on mediocrity. Whatever works is endlessly ripped off and stripped of whatever made the original good by committees of overeducated, undertalented hacks. Anything new is shunned and mocked, until it becomes popular at which point everyone is suddenly it's biggest fan.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
My wife and I are playing through Okami now. It's one of the most fun games I've played on the PS2, with lots of interesting things to do and see, and the art is just beautiful.
Kudos, guys.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
Go through an independant publisher like Shrapnel Games http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ though they are an indy publisher they reach a large ammount of people. Also Valve and Steam seem inclined to take risks with orginal ideas. Anyone who says creative original games are dead is either stupid, lying, or both.
Did people want plumbers hurling turtles? A happy face eating dots and running from ghosts? Sure, two older examples, but what people want generally falls into one of two categories:
- Mindless fun that you can start and stop at any time
- Epic quests that reward you for having no life
Me? I want to shoot things. Plot? I need only need this - it moved, so shoot it. Sure, I'll expand that preference to TDM, CTF, Search & Destroy, etc. versions of FPS, but I really just want mindless carnage. I'm a guy, and most of my ilk want to experience a testosterone-filled thrill ride - cars, guns, planes, etc. Basically, the opportunity to be tough perhaps, clever maybe, but superior...definitely. Plot? Perhaps that's what you need to bring in female gamers.
No new innovation? Uh, I believe a game came out in the not too distant past where you get paid for dropping a hooker off at a party...and it sells like hotcakes. Not my thing, but someone is thinking out of the standard game box.
Your mileage may vary.
This is not news as the basic premise is hundreds (or thousands) of years old. New and original art is never in the mainstream. Every so often, new forms of art and ideas are created and the current ideas and art styles fight tooth and nail to suppress the new stuff. Then the new stuff eventually becomes mainstream and boring and the cycle repeats with a new wave of artists pushing the mainstream. While Okami might not have sold well, it will probably be an influence to many incoming game designers who will incorporate some of the unique elements of it into a game that may appeal to a wider audience.
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
That's funny...I'm a gamer, and the reason I haven't bought a game for awhile is due to the lack of innovation and originality game publishers put into their work. These big game publishers will sometimes take a game or studio that may have had some promise, buy it outright, and release a rehash of the same old shit. (Microsoft? EA? Many more I'm sure.) I would rather take a chance on an original game (Katamari, Frequency, games of that nature) than pay for the next WWII FPS...or almost any FPS anymore for that matter.
This lack of innovation is simply due to the consolidation that's occurred in the game industry, among many other industries in America. Selling games today is strictly about profit. In the earlier days of video gaming, people were making games out of passion, and the people actually working on the game had more say-so. Certainly, passionate individuals are still around, but in much smaller numbers, and their insight/dedidcation/passion is outweighed by corporate deadlines and the knowledge that yes, unfortunately, people will pay for garbage games. (Sequels, movie spinoffs.)
It's like the music industry -- If these publishers keep selling "pop" games (i.e. mass-production based on a selling formula) then sooner or later something will inevitably happen. My two cents.
"Banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies." -Thomas Jefferson
It just needs to appeal to a large enough minority. How popular are train sims? Or even Civ type strategy games? Most gamers really aren't interested, and for perectly legitimate reasons. Some people love them though. And there's a lot less competition at that level. Rather competing with 100 other titles for 90% of the market, you could compete with a handful for 10% of the market. It's a safe investment. Niches can be profitable.
And original games often have a much wider appeal than the games types I mentioned. Everyone loved Lemmings. They liked Pikmin too.
You know why we don't get original games? Because they don't let game designers design them. All the ideas come from studio chiefs or publishers wanting to make the next Doom or Half-life. If you have an original idea what do you do with it? If you work for EA, you'll be ignored. If you work for a small studio, everyone, including the big boss might love it, but nobody's going to publish it.
I know that a platform isn't a game, but the Wii has really thrown out what home gaming has mention. Not to mention that it's gotten... rather good reviews; people seem to love it. So, originality seems to be not entirely out of the question for something in the industry to sell well.
I'll also point out that "gamers" is a rather illusive term today. Nintendo among others have realized that female gamers have different ideas of what makes a good game as well as "older" gamers as well. And that's only two of the markets that are only beginning to be tapped.
Basically, although it may be true that the traditional "hard-core gamer" may prefer to stick with the same type of game over and over, other types of gamers may actually prefer more original content. Of course, we won't know for a fair number of years if this is true, but I wouldn't count original content out just yet.
Most video game people have read one book and seen one movie in their life, which is 'Lord of the Rings' and 'Aliens' or variations of that. There's great things in that, but you need some variety
:P
When I was a lead tester at Atari, I was considered a freak since had boxes from Amazon delivered straight to my cube. Most people couldn't believe I had time to read books. (Remembers, kiddies, you must sacrifice your personal life to the alter of the video games gods.) Or it might have been the Norman Rockwell posters that scared them off.
Did that just say that gamers don't want new original games? I call BS.
No, the people with the development money don't like new, original games. The reason is that gamers don't like them. Oh, did I say that? What I mean is that a single game that has no history stands a good chance of bombing. Odds are your original concept won't make money. If you make one that *doesn't* suck, though, you'll make plenty of money.
There is too much risk in making a new original game. It might work really well, it might sell 10 copies. Either way it costs millions of dollars to make. A graphics buff to a game people liked *will* re-make its production costs, and at least a bit more. And so that's what happens. There just isn't enough *extra* money for an original game, while there is plenty of excess risk.
First off, I haven't played Okami (I haven't played any home console games for a couple months). With that out of the way, I would only wonder if the release of Okami was just badly timed, at least in the US. With the ridiculous amount of press surrounding the releases of the Wii and the PS3 (not to mention the big 360 game, Gears of War), is it really a surprise that a new PS2 title hasn't gotten the attention that it perhaps deserves? Had the game been released at the same time in the US as in Japan (April), it might have had a better shot at getting traction. As it is, it came out in September when seemingly the entire US market was frozen in anticipation of the new consoles.
As for originality selling, Katamari Damacy (to name one) has had enough success to get not only a PS2 sequel but a version on the PSP. Even more recently, Nintendo has seemed to be all about originality with the DS and Wii, and they certainly aren't suffering.
Unfortunately, new home console titles cost $50+ a pop. That's a lot of money to invest, and I don't think it's unreasonable for gamers to go with "safe bets." I also suspect that if an "Okami 2" was released on the Wii (the painting aspect would seem tailor-made for that console), and of course it was good, it would sell like gangbusters. Then again, at that point the same complaints would be made by someone else that people are only interested in sequels...
...when originality strikes gold, it suddenly becomes mainstream and derivative. The first experience with the Battlefield series, the Metal Gear series, Devil May Cry, Deus Ex, Max Payne, etc., is a unique one, because they all have a new take on an "established" genre -- action. Funny thing is, they resonated with what people wanted, and thus sold well.
And yes, Okami is awesome. So are the Harmonix games. Harmonix doesn't seem to be doing too badly, though. It could be that their "innovation" was simply more along the lines of what people like.
God forbid that if you experiment, you fail.
It seems like you could substitute ANY form of entertainment for the word "games" in that title. The companies chase money... if they see a blockbuster, they're going to rush to produce their own copy of that blockbuster's "formula." Same as with movies. Same as with music. Does it dumb down the landscape? Sure. Does it mark the "end of gaming as we know it"? I don't see why it should. Did Britney Spears & her million clones mark the end of music as we know it? Nope, not at all... it dumbed down commercial radio into a monotonous "sameness", but there's still people out there making interesting & innovative music.
As nice as Okami and Viewtiful Joe were, I hardly think they're indicative of the ultimate fate of "original games". It really depends on how you measure success and how that metric is balanced with the production investment. If you are expecting a Zelda-esque game like Okami to be Zelda you're deluding yourself. I don't think there's any reason not to believe games won't follow movies in this regard. We'll see "original games" come down in cost, fill niches, and find a nice equilibrium between development cost and returns.
Now only if we could get foreign games as easily as foreign films...
---k--
</stupid>
I got to thinking about why original and creative movies are (it seems) better-received than games. Movies are passive, but gaming requires action from the user, and now we're in the realm of habits and comfortable ways.
I believe that the majority of the problem is this: How do I know if I will like a game, if I have never played one like it before? I don't think that any of us consciously consider that question (as it's pretty stupid when you ask it out loud). Most people are simply more comfortable with what they know, and will give that a lot of weight, even at the expense of new and more enjoyable features.
This document was created in WordStar 3.3
Don't trust anyone under thirty.
The problem with the "innovative, original games" that don't sell is probably some combination of insufficient marketing and a modern crop of ignorant and/or reluctant gamers. People who buy video games don't like to take chances on something they've never tried before, especially not for $50-60 a pop.
You want innovation to sell? Release your "innovative, original games" for free as downloads and give the public a chance to figure it out. Try-before-buy works really well, or has no one learned from MP3/music industry? Oh, wait...
Once the innovative game gets popular, it's cloned and bang! - it's ubiquitous. No innovative games anymore...
Calm down. Video games are a very young industry. When video games finally go mainstream there will be plenty of demand for new kinds of games. Unfortunately, it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation, without the new games how do you attract the new customers? The truth is, the only real problem area is in consoles which have been utterly hardcore oriented since they went 3D. Fortunately, PCs have become so ubiquitous that smaller, weirder games actually have a fighting chance of finding an audience -- and even a niche audience in the PC realm is HUGE. The current deluge of me-too-itus shovelware is not the end of the world, it's just a phase, and companies that never grow beyond it may find themselves phased out. The only reason it works right now is because the audience is so small and there is a severe limit of consumer dollars to fight over. These games are very expensive to make, so the money-men who fund them stick to a risk-averting formula based on rehashing past successes. But if you invest in growing the market there's a lot more money to go around, and there's a much better chance for less traditional games to get off the ground. Nintendo is one of the few big game companies that actually gets this and is doing something right by expanding the console market with innovative hardware and software, instead of catering only to the same game players with the same games year after year. I think Nintendo's example (and ultimate success) will not go unnoticed within the industry. Even Microsoft will eventually figure out that they just can't sell Grandma (and often not even Mom and Dad) on Dead Rising and Gears of War. As much as the game industry likes to ape Hollywood, they still have a lot to learn about making art, pleasing the audience, and making money doing both.
+0 Meh
Just because a game is original and innovative doesn't mean that it's any good.
I used to have a game called KKND. Krush, Kill 'N Destroy was among the first RTS games to incorporate reactive pseudo 3d landscapes and the concept of unit rank and improvement through experience. It was original and very innovative, but it wasn't as much fun as Red Alert 2 that came out later.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Let me preface by saying I have not played Okami (and I don't have a PS2, so it's not likely anytime soon)
Pushing the envelope is a sometimes embittering experience. Not everything that is truly innovative is of good quality. Not everything of quality will find mass appeal. Not everything that eventually finds mass appeal has an explosive introduction to the scene. These are universal truths.
But saying that people don't want innovation is a mental surrender: the old sour grapes thing. This year Nintendo has proven without a shadow of any doubt that innovation is still viable in the games domain. Their focus on an innovative means of game interaction has propelled them back into viability within the console market... and the truth is that even players of other consoles will reap the benefits - Nintendo has shown that eye-candy is not the only thing that sells games, that people are still interested in the "fun factor," and the other consoles will ignore that at their own peril.
I am not completely obtuse to the financial concerns of his situation. Likely a large sum of cash was gambled on the development of this game, and by his reaction I assume that it was not a $$ success. He can either scrap the idea or gamble further that he can develop it into a success.
It's a big risk, but damn it you know the option that is the most rewarding every bit as well as I do.
Losers always whine about their best, winners go home and fuck the prom-queen. Right?
"Be afraid to die until you have won some victory for humanity" -Horace Mann
I list for you a few games that are "original" that are also selling well: Brain Age Katamari Damacy Loco Roco Cooking Mama Trauma Center Phoenix Wright Shadow of the Colossus I'm sure there are others that I'm missing. Once upon a time FPSs were original. Platformers were original. Q*bert was original (I still don't understand that game). I think we're missing the big picture here. Innovation (as I understand most gamers referring to it as) just doesn't happen much in the real world. If you want an object lesson, type out a sentence in a word processor increasing the font size by 1 for each line. From one line to the next there isn't much difference. However, if you compare every fifth line you'll see a rather distinct difference. If you compare the first and last lines they won't look even remotely the same in size. That's how I like to look at gaming. Look back at games from 2007 in 2017 and tell me that the market was stagnant. The truth is it's not, it just seems that way right now.
http://www.bynarystudio.com
It really depends what your market is:
- If your market is those people who must have things the way they always were, then innovation will fail.
- If your market is people who will accept innovation, as long it is not too far off, then some innovation is possible.
- If your market is people who like try new things, then there is a chance innovation will work.
For the case of where innovation is possible, it can't exist on its own. The promise of a new improved gaming experience still needs to be there. Nintendo innovates, but doesn't always get it right, but with the right market and developer support, then these products work.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
#1 selling game in December, and the second-biggest franchise last holiday behind Madden, even though it only came out on one platform. Innovation and originality dead? Sorry guys, just because Okami didn't appeal to an American audience because of it's heavy reliance on Japanese mythology doesn't mean that originality and innovation in gaming is dead. Is Twilight Princess on the Wii not innovative? Someone already mentioned Nintendogs, but what about Phoenix Wright, Dance Dance Revolution, Lego Star Wars, Rayman Raving Rabbids, SingStar and Viva Pinata? Those were all top-100 selling games over the holiday. Just because "insert game here" didn't sell doesn't mean originality in gaming is dead. The rewards for making an innovative blockbuster have never been higher... just ask Red Octane.
Okami is hardly original in that they added a paintbrush gimmick to a Zelda-style adventure game. Same thing goes for Viewtiful Joe with its side-scrolling brawler style, except that the Bullet Time gimmick had already been played-out with Max Payne.
A few years ago the NY Times got a new crossword editor, who started making puzzles with new words in them. At the time the clues and words had become so standardized that anyone with a few years experience could mechanically fill in most of the Sunday puzzle. The in-crowd wrote furiously to the paper and complained about being forced to think (like noobs!)
An editor with a big publisher, speaking at Purgatory (writers' workshop), made the comment that the best way to get published was to pick a book that was selling well -- and write something exactly like it.
Come on guys... the Romans at least had those virile barbarians to fight. We're sinking into the muck voluntarily, and as fast as we can.
Let's consider this from some other perspectives. Other aesthetics change throughout time in a kind of punctuated equilibrium - art, music, and architecture all have "periods". Typically, these periods have a few exponents who are themselves involved in catalyzing change by introducing something:
Ultimately, this is going to happen; it has happened many times in the past in every artistic field, including gaming itself. The only question is who will be the radical game designers that manage to change the dominant aesthetic? Obviously people who continue to develop their own style of games despite the current demands of the mainstream.
In other words, if you're interested in creating innovative games, keep at it. At some point, people will want something else (whether this happens anytime soon is still up for debate, and if you want to make some money now, you might be better off conforming).
Katamari Damaci
They may be desirable traits in a good game, but their presence along does not guaranteed a good game. If you look at a Zelda game, it is never going to be original enough such that the story doesn't involve a hero named Link and a princess named Zelda and a villian named Ganon. It is never going to be innovative enough that the game won't involve some kind of combat with a sword, arrow, boomerang, and a random grab-bag of tools. However there's far more to a good game than just having an original idea or an innovative feature. Doing a boring feature, like hitting something with a sword, but doing it extremely well, is what separates a good game from a normal one.
I think this is a poor statement to make, or at least not very visionary, on the cusp of three next-gen consoles offering strong on-line game stores, and seeking to use those online games as strong differentiators between the platforms since so many games are cross platform now.
Online games is where those with really unique ideas should seek to test them in the open market, where I can splurge for $5 to $20 on a fun looking game I may well never see at $50.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The severe lack in innovation in video games today is caused by the game companies being tied to making games for the old, tried & true genres. These genres are now so full of titles that there is no longer any room for originality. Take the first person shooter (fps) genre. IT HAS BEEN DONE TO DEATH. There are so many fps games out there that you can choose any setting, play-style, weapons that you want to play with! And yet every time a new fps game comes out the developers try and call it innovative because it adds the tiniest of changes to the standard formula (such as rechargeable health bars Wooopie.) FPS IS DONE. many other genres have also been done to death as well such as: sports, racing, fantasy rpgs etc. There some genres that in my opinion are still open to a lot of expansion. Massively Multiplayer Online games (MMOs) for one still have a long way to go. The game developers need to get off of making MMOs with elfs, dwarfs, and orcs and start putting some interesting stuff into the mix. How about being a cowboy or bandit on the wild west? or being a pirate on the open sea? just now we are starting to see some originality breath life into this genre.
Back in the 80's and NES was still new? How about back in the 90's? Although, I do have to admit that Guitar Hero was nothing new, it was basically DDR with a different controller. But I'd hate to say that "innovative, original games have no chance." This has two flaws: 1) You have to state when they suddenly ceased to have a chance and 2) It's rephrasing the thought "there's no need to spend any more time researching because any more advances in science would've come up already"
"You want innovation to sell? Release your "innovative, original games" for free as downloads and give the public a chance to figure it out. Try-before-buy works really well, or has no one learned from MP3/music industry? Oh, wait..."
The only thing that "try before buy" has taught me, is that people talk out both sides of their mouths. We give them demos via various means and they still pirate the full game. So no it's not "the game developers fault". It's the publics fault.
"The problem with the "innovative, original games" that don't sell is probably some combination of insufficient marketing and a modern crop of ignorant and/or reluctant gamers. People who buy video games don't like to take chances on something they've never tried before, especially not for $50-60 a pop."
Psychonauts is siting at a nearby store at $10.00. TEN DOLLARS! And it's been there for over two months.
...especially if they suck as a game. Too often, "innovative" or "original" are used to describe gameplay elements that are outright lame. I find it hard to believe that novel games that don't suck have no chance.
A chess analogy is appropriate here. Who'd want chess to be completely rewritten every month? Nobody. People like the predictability because it allows the skills they've built up to remain useful. We bitch about annual Madden and FIFA clones, but to a lot of people, that's their chess, and they don't need somebody fucking with their chess.
There are chess players and there are board game enthusiasts. Madden whores are the chess players. Gamer nerds who like lots of different games and pine for originality are board game enthusiasts.
Every game was eventually a new and original concept, and some of them actually caught on.
Tenemus pyrobolos atqui jacimus cognitiones.
I don't read that many books myself - but one of the few books I chose to read (i.e. it wasn't required in school) would be the within Hitchhiker's guide series, and the LotR series. By extrapolation, those who don't watch movies normally would go for the mainstream films (and won't go for the imports that aren't heavily advertised), and those who don't play games normally would go for the "mainstream" games (although in this case, I suspect they would go for something more casual, such as Bejewelled.)
The last book I read is the Zombie Survival Guide which I liked. Of course, recommending this book is almost equivalant to recommending a random game that you probably wouldn't have easy access to.
I don't buy this... not one bit. Sales of video games are almost completely, directly proportional to how much you put into marketting them, and how WELL you market them. I work at an NBC affiliated TV station, and was a board op around the time Okami was released, I surf the intarweb probably for over an hour a day, largely on game related material. I never ONCE saw a commercial for Okami at either of these places. So am I all that surprised to hear that it didn't sell well? No. Not really.
Hell, I'm incredibly surprised I don't see more game ads. I probably see more GameTap commercials, and generic "Playstation Portable" commercials, than all specific video game commercials combined. Television advertising, especially for this demographic, is at the HEART of your marketting of a game. It doesn't matter HOW innovative the game is, if the main stream doesn't pick it up, no amount of yelling and screaming about it is going to make it popular.
These are not small budget companies or low budget productions, if they can afford to make a game like Okami, they can afford some national NBC prime time spots, as expensive as they are.
That said, I absolutely loved Okami, and am very sorry to hear the creator is so dissolutioned, like this.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
They're bitching about poor sales for innovative games, yet Okami is still unreleased here in Australia. If they'd hurry the hell up and get it out, they'd have at least one more sale.
how about a quality lightgun game, with a quality arcade style lightgun that is both accurate, and recoils. not lame rumble, recoil like time crisis.
i like 2 player games, preferably playable on the same screen, although split screen is ok. but with a little depth. remember tmnt 2 the arcade game, for nintendo, and the manhattan project. battletoads, etc.
smash brothers, power stone, worms.
nintendo has it right, how about similar games geared towards an older audience, with lots of gore, and realistic graphics. poof its a hit.
not innovative at all, derivitive and fun. thats the ticket.
Perhaps the same is happening in the games industry.
Art, and games, are after all in the eye of the beholder. Many people do like art that conforms to certain recipes and certain types of art have mass appeal and sell well (nudes, landscapes, flowers and stuff), and there are certain game types that people tend to enjoy (FPS etc). Don't bitch if people don't all appreciate yourr bucket of sick game.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I honestly don't expect much innovation from the 360 or PS3, and not much really for PCs either. However, I love my DS for all the unique games available on it, and I look forward to getting a Wii for the same reason. That being said, I think most innovation in the future will start on the PC platform, or on the 360 (XNA!). That would be due to the ease that indie developers can get up and running. Look at Portal and DEFCON.
Stop trying to make original games that cost so much to develop that you need a blockbuster success to make it financially viable. Make original games that are low-cost in development so that a few thousands people who are happy to buy and play those games will be enough to continue making such games.
Also, you have to keep the games simple. I've seen Gears of War, and while the graphics really are amazing and all, I gave up trying to play it after 5 minutes. That type of game needs a keyboard and a mouse, not a stupid gamepad with two analog sticks and 10 buttons and endless menus every time you press something.
That might sound obvious to some, but you also have to target the right platform. Making original games for Xbox 360, PS3 or PSP is pretty useless. Most people who buy these consoles want Madden 2008 or the latest Tom Clancy game in HD with surround sound. They only care about specs, not game depth/style/etc.
And last, remember that 2D is not dead, platformers are not dead, and shooters still have a fan base. Einhander, Ikaruga are good examples of games rendered in 3D but with 2D gameplay.
Original games need to survive or else we'll end up with another videogame market crash. IMHO the only thing that can save us is the Nintendo Wii and the Nintendo DS. The last original games I remember that weren't on Nintendo systems was Katamari Damaci and Loco Roco.
... that a Tolkien dwarf is a WoW dwarf is a Games Workshop dwarf, you've got another thing coming. Sure, they're all little people. Tolkien dwarfs are a dying race who happen to be custodians of powerful, ancient magics. WoW dwarfs are booze-soaked, mostly eschew magic, and are highly technologically oriented. Games Workshop dwarfs (I think they're picky about the spelling) have a form of magic they invented, and are, to my understanding, more likely to be motivated by PURE DRIVING HATRED than by the prospect of a brewskie at the end of the journey.
Take something like a Slayer out of the Games Workshop universe and pop it into Tolkien or WoW and there would be bloodshed. A Slayer is basically a suicide bomber without the bomb. Thorin would think the Slayer was a vicious savage. The WoW dwarves would wonder what this whole notion of "dying to avenge a previous loss" was, considering that the dwarves (and the rest of the Alliance) pretty much invariably win the wars they get caught up in and if they don't, hey, death is a very temporary state of affairs in the WoW universe.
In terms of game mechanics, anyone who could say that Vanguard and WoW were the same game has clearly never played either and should probably keep it that way. I'm not trying to be elitist, its just that they're two very, very different beasts. For every structural similarity ("Hey, tank/healer/DPS with emphasis on loot collection!") you'd come up with many more differences that are almost fundamental in nature (WoW: Crafting should be open to everyone and not get in the way of gameplay. Vanguard: Crafting is gameplay, if you're HARD CORE ENOUGH TO HANDLE IT. WoW: Dungeons should be open to everyone. Vanguard: Dungeons should be open to you if you're HARD CORE ENOUGH TO HANDLE IT. WoW: Fast travel should be open to everyone. You should be able to teleport immediately, fly within 2 hours, and have essentially permanently increased non-combat movement speed by the mid-levels. Vanguard: Travel should be slow so that you will quit if you're not HARD CORE ENOUGH TO HANDLE IT. etc)
Disclosure: Yeah, I'm more of a WoW person than a Vanguard person. What can I say, I'm not hard core enough to handle it.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
True. And if they REALLY want to keep dev costs down, they could make it for PC, XBLA, PS Marketplace, or even the virtual console on the wii.
I played okami, I loved okami, but I have to say that it would have hooked me much harder not on the ps2, with its ugly antialiasing and funky cell shading. I hate to agree with the graphics whore, but if you're going to have a game based on art, put it on a system that looks good.
Okami was flatly made for the wrong system. Okami was a game that would have done VERY well on the Wii. How you cast your spells is with a paintbrush control system. It's their own fault they put Okami on the wrong system, but a system that is also on it's way out, and the only people really buying games on it at this point are looking for the sub $30 bargain bin games. Not $50 new! Clover studios was out of their fucking minds. Hell I was even gona buy it, but Capcom canned Clover Studios after the game had been out in the US for TWO whole weeks. No fucking way I'm going to pay for a game when you shitcan the developer so fast. I'm about halfway through the game now, and it's worth the money hands down, but no, Capcom can go blow themselves now for all I care.
... in the exact literal sense
Odds are any sucessful game that is original will not in fact be an original.
It will probably have been based of a game a few years before that didn't do so well due to lack of funding for the cutting edge graphics engine but still had a small cuilt following and was then either bought out or imitated to make a new game with all the slick graphics that the kids demand and a huge marketing budget which then makes this new copy a sucess.
$_="Slashdotter";$syn="OTT";s;..;;;sub _{print shift||$_};s!ash!Perl !;s=$syn=ack=i;tr+LLEd+BLAH+;_"Just Another ";_
One of the saddest games was Psychonauts - a brilliant, funny and whimsical platformer from Tim Schafer, which sold about eight copies. It won dozens of awards in 2005 but its market reception was so poor because it was "something else". (Also the marketing was dreadful and it wasn't even available in many countries).
My next big hope is Spore, which should generate a lot of attention coming from Will Wright.
Strange - but every few years (months, by now?) we hear this again: no more original games possible, nobody wants them, waaaah!
Yes, creating/selling original games is difficult. This has several reasons:
It must be original instead of yet another Elf-Bashes-Monsters or Space-Hero-Shoots-Monsters.
Familiar games tend to sell better - not just to customers, but to financers.
Like most new ideas, most original games are flops. Their ideas simply don't 'click' with the players. Often enough they have a small, fanatical fan-club, but this doesn't make enough money, especially when the financers insisted on huge loads of fancy graphics and whatever, pushing up the number of people needed to create this.
However, every now and then an original game comes out. And is a huge success. And has so many followers (coders and users) that this type of game soon becomes familiar again. Where do you think all the familiar games came from? Thin air?
But this doesn't happen often. You need very good, very original people. And seeing how most companies work (loads of average programmers (cheaper), concentrate on pretty graphics, large bureaucrazies) this explains *why* it happens so seldomly. They do not want to take risks.
Watch this space! In (at most) a year or so, we'll have this question again: "Where O Where Are The Original Games?"
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
Go ahead, try to come up with something new. A new class? A new race maybe? You might notice that in WoW all the playable races are humanoid. Good, now check slightly deeper, do you notice how all the equipment seems to work on them all? Could it be because it is simply a case of scaling the body and appendages rather then coming up with unique art for each and every race?
Imagine a centaur race. Brilliant. Fast, capable of being a mount to another player, large carrying capacity and definitly a different looking critter. Hell, they exist in the game already so it is possible. But oops. You need an entire new set of clothing/armour art, new moves and worse, you might even have to deal with the fact that horses just don't climb ladders to well or manouver in convined spaces.
Much easier to make everyone just a slight variant of human beings were they all got exactly the same performance anyway. Notice how tiny dwarfs run just as fast and jump just as high as a mighty orc?
Ah, but classes, now there you can go imaginative? Well, just try it. You got your basic tank. Up close combat, you can vary slightly between the level of armour vs dodging but that is it. You got someone who gets up close and personal. With that the ranger is next. He stays away from the enemy. You can give him all kinds of things to shoot/throw but basically it is a ranged character.
You are going to need someway to heal your wounds. A priest? A druid? A doctor? A medic? Don't matter what you call it, it is the dude who restores hitpoints.
You might want to add someone with lots of damage capabilty, say NUKE like. Oh but we need balance, so that person should probably be a bit vulnerable. So no close fighting skills to speak off. A ranged magic user? Doesn't matter what you then call it a sorcerer, a wizard or a jedi force specced character, it is a nuker. Heavy damage but vulnerable to direct combat.
Oh you can mix and match, bit of a healer, bit of a close combat, tada, one paladin.
The simple thing is that it has been done. People have sat and thought about this and came up with all the classes that you can come up with. Sure you can name them something different but then you sooner or later will have to admit that "our brilliant new class of the new enlightened order of Aeonites is what you would otherwise call a rogue.... oh okay a thief".
Maybe you can come up with an exciting new class but sooner or later you are going to have to let me know how to play it. Try doing that without saying anything like "it is cross between a X and a Y".
Old and familiar works because you don't have to waste time building everything up. Imagine the following.
"Old and familiar": You enter the tavern and your eye is immidiatly drawn to a beautifull full figured woman with chestnut colored hair and a smile to die for.
"New and exciting": Threatase (the term used to describe to multitude of combined entitities that for lack of a better term is "you" except that that would totally fail to explain it but since the real you controlling this make believe Threatase is a you anyway why bother) fascialte (I suppose a more corporal entiry would use the word enter but being a being of pure thought such a base move is beneath you) the TryK (what a creature concerned only with base needs could never understand) etc etc etc.
Sure, I introduced lots of new things before I got tired of it. Much simpler to just go with the old and familiar. What the fuck is goldplated latinum anyway? Yeah it is new, but mostly it sounds silly and I got absolutly no reference of why it is supposed to be so valuable. Star Trek writers could possible explain it but not in a 45 minute episode.
But yes I agree, did the tiefling in NWN2 really have to be a rogue. The first tiefling in computer games was nice and new and refreshing and we wanted more but not a carbon copy.
Yes I loved all the new races in Planescape Torment and reading their descriptions but that was a game of a bygone era. Nowadays deadli
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I didn't read over every single comment, but I think there needs to be a distinction between what is a success and a failure. I can understand the argument that original games have no chance of selling like established or derivative franchises. It seems like there is no such thing as a niche product anymore, either there are hopes of it selling multiple million copies or it has no chances of being made.
Is it really that difficult to make a game with a scaled down dev team and resources?
It really pisses me off when I get a racing game with a kickass engine, awesome physics, and
even some cool things thrown in like lava, and lightning hitting the cars+disabling them only
to find that there is no way to make my own levels, so I can push the experience to it's limits.
I want to race on courses that have trains barreling through at 200+mph. I want courses that get
flooded. I want lightning to damage my car. I want to do goofy things like a demolition derby
in a railyard with trains running through at a very high speed. Trouble is, though this can be done
in many of the games out there, we don't have access to the editing tools to make it real.
Instead, most of the time, we get the same rehashed crap over and over again. Maybe once or twice
they will throw in a gimmick which resembles vaguely like I previously discribed, but It's just frustrating as hell when you can't make the game do things that the original designers would never dream of, even though it can be done. (phew, long rant!)
And as for this cutting into sales:
1)It sure didn't hurt companies like ID, they probaly sold far more units of their games than if they kept them closed.
2)Sonner or later people won't pay for the same crap over and over again, no matter what.
3)I won't buy a game I can't mod at it's normal price, instead I just wait for it to land in the bargain bin, and even then most of the time I turn them down. I am willing to pay for a
*well modable and good* game at it's normal price.
Original games DO sell.
What sells is not wether it's original or a tried formulae. What sells is good marketting and knowing your demographics. Having a name that people recognize helps.
What did Okami had as competitors?:
Gears of War, the launch of the Wii, the launch of the PS3, Rainbow 6: Vegas, Zelda: Twilight Princess, Final Fantasy XII... Anyone surprised Okami, a title no one ever heard until the end of year reviews where it won some awards, didn't sell?
If Okami was called: "Zelda stories: Okami" (if it was possible), it would have gotten a ton of publicity. Same game as Okami looks a lot like a Zelda game. Just a different setting, but it would have sold.
Final Fantasy: Mystic Quest anyone?
The hardcore people who actually read gaming magazines and websites would know about Okami and try it. Most people don't. They go towards what they can recognize in stores. If that fails, they go toward the "prettiest box". Okami don't have anything people can recognize or relate to. A japanese setting won't interest anyone but japanese folks and anime fans. You have to actually "sell" your product to them by saying why your game is better than the Zelda that is coming out.
It's why movie-related games actually DO sell even though almost everyone knows they are usually bad. They have the movie marketting behind them.
It's really not wether it's original or not. It's all about marketting and knowing the people you sell to. It's 2 factors.
Viva Pinata, another WAY more original title than Okami, didn't sell as much as expected. Yet it had tons of publicity and the TV show to support it. It was even a very good game. Yet it didn't appeal to anyone. Surprised? not really.
The game is complex and deep. It is meant for 12 years old or more in my opinion. Yet it features cute characters that are seen on saturday mornings cartoons for 12 years old and under. You are an adult, you won't be interested in cute cartoons for kids. You won't even take a look behind the Viva Pinata game box in the store.
You are a teen. You won't even touch Viva Pinata for fear of being called names and a kid in school. It looks like a game for baby.
Also the fact that no one actually knows what Viva Pinata: the game is all about until you can actually play it for more than 2 hours. The game simply cannot be described correctly until you actually play it and get past the very lenghty tutorial. The only word of mouth that goes with it is: "The game's good, try it". You can't really even tell why it's fun.
It's a shame really that both Okami and Viva Pinata had marketting problems. Both are some of the most fun games i've had the pleasure of playing recently.
Maybe on Sony's platforms, they have no chance. As far as I know, the PSP's Loco Roco didn't sell too well, just like Clover's games. Ico also didn't do too well, as far as I remember, despite being an amazing game. Katamari Damacy probably sold well, but it's still one of the very few really innovative games for the PS2 (and it's still always the first - and often only - game people bring up when listing innovative games on the PS2).
I think most people buying PS2s simply aren't that interested in quirky stuff. If they were, they wouldn't have bought the blandest, most common console available. Many PS2 gamers simply want their yearly Madden fix, a few generic RPGs and FPSs, and some of the good old GTA ultraviolence.
But look at Nintendo's consoles. The DS has a huge amount of creative, fresh, quirky games, and the Wii is already getting its fair share of them, too. And they are selling! I'm absolutely certain that Okami could have been a huge hit on the Wii.
Don't create innovative games for consoles whose buyers are mostly interested in so-called "mature" games and then come back crying if nobody buys your stuff.
Except the people who buy Zelda games might own a Gamecube and not a PS2. Okami would have sold better if it had appeared on a Nintendo console, even without renaming the characters.
Originality Ftw.
Never stop inventing.
Awesome. So the PS2 had one innovative game that did well. Hardly what I'd call a "rebuttal."
Can we please stop with these "Katamari Damacy" replies every time we discuss innovation in video games? Katamari Damacy is one game (and no, the sequels don't count in the "there is inovation argument). You're simply making the article's point.
I love the irony of someone speaking out against generalization using a sweeping generalization. I think what the article glosses over is crap is still crap whether its original or franchise crap. Original games exist and thrive and do well, heck the even sell systems once one hits big. Just because someones original idea failed doesn't mean originality is dead, it just means no one cares nearly as much as his mother. If these guys were true to being artistic and creative than sales would be secondary but it sounds like bottom line is all they really focus on.
Wrong Wrong Wrong. His game didn't sell well because it has a stupid title and nobody has heard of it. Not because it's not "original".
Non-innovative games tend to sell decently because publishers are more inclined to market something they assume has a proven track record. After all, non-innovative stuff tends to be a repeat of something that was at some point innovative and which became successful.
That having been said, how successful a game becomes really depends on marketing more than originality. Well-marketed, innovative titles do very well sometimes. People have already mentioned Wario Ware, Nintendogs, Shadow of the Colossus, etc. Okami might have flopped *in Japan* but gimme a friggin break the game is so chock-full of Japanese culture and mythology that were I a native of Japan I wouldn't even consider it all that original. And yes Capcom was like "omg Okami doing poorly in Japan we are going to close Clover Studios" before it even made its way to the US. If they had capitalized on its critical success in the US more then sales here could have easily made up for disappointing sales in Japan.
As for Bioshock, well considering the hype it's generated already, as long as it's marketed on TV (Gears of War was *heavily* marketed in every way which is why it sold 3 million units) it will probably do quite well. And if it really is as innovative as the devs make it out to be, then that will be a well-deserved slap in Inaba's (Okami producer) face.
I like basketball!!1!
Nintendo needs to get Okami ported to the Wii, and then hire all the developers (or vice versa)...
I love Okami, because it makes its graphics look really good and succeeds, instead of "realistic" and failing.
Just like I love the Wii, because it makes games new and exciting, instead of "hyper realistic"
Of course, I don't have an HDTV, Maybe after getting one of those, and a couple of years for PS3 titles to mature, I might get me a PS3... Until then Wii Baby!
Like anyone can even know that
Granted, that option would open doors to small publishers which otherwise couldn't publish their games at all, however that would only lower the distribution costs, not the development costs.
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
Breeding? ESRB rated what? In Nintendo world, the stork brings dogs.
Fine..only retreads sell. Therefore my large game collection represents all that is or will ever be. So the inescapable conclusion is that I need not buy any games at all again. Ever!!
I think innovative games do have a chance in this day and age. They just shouldn't try compete head to head with the incumbents. That being said I think it will be quite difficult to have the same sales volumes as the big distributors who pump millions into marketing and getting their products on every advertising medium in front of customers. Our games reporters are also conditioned today to focus on the big box titles because in a round about way, those big box titles pay their salaries.... But small dedicated communities are able to produce awesome products case in point: http://spring.clan-sy.com/