Slashdot Mirror
The Perils of Pointless Innovation In Games
Negative Gamer is running a story discussing the need felt by the major game developers to create the next huge blockbuster, which often leads to innovation and change for their own sake rather than simply focusing on what makes a game fun. Quoting:
"There seems to be this invisible pressure to create something that is highly 'intuitive' and incorporates the highest level of innovation that we have ever seen. The problem is that the newest ideas put into games are either gimmicky, terrible in execution, or blatantly ripping off another title. On the other hand there are series that feel the need to completely revamp a game that played perfectly fine before into something completely new that falls flat on its face. ... There's a critical problem with popular, mainstream video games that isn't as large with other mediums; they are expensive to make and require a lot of time and effort put in to create something masterful. With that, games must take cautious paths. I fully understand the risks, but adding unneeded material to certain games is not justifiable."
Ah .. yes .. office suites!
This sort of shit has been happening ever since there were companies competing for market-share of the same domain.
And I doubt it is even related to software alone.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
There seems to be this invisible pressure to create something that is highly 'intuitive' and incorporates the highest level of innovation that we have ever seen.
Well, this is certainly the first time I've heard someone complain about innovation and change in gaming.
... blogger? looks pretty young on this article. I wonder if he recalls playing 2D sidescroller after 2D sidescroller? Or if he realizes that a lot of games come out based on the same engine and it really bores me when I realize that I'm just playing a re-textured version of Doom 3 (or whatever the first game was that used that engine).
The picture of the
On the other hand there are series that feel the need to completely revamp a game that played perfectly fine before ...
Then play the first game over and over. There are some people that prefer to play something different. Yes, at some point you should draw the line but there are so many games out there you should just read the reviews or rent it and avoid it.
Given enough competition, innovation is a very good thing regardless.
The problem is that the newest ideas put into games are either gimmicky, terrible in execution, or blatantly ripping off another title.
What you are complaining about does not sound like "innovation" but merely something that annoys you. How is it innovative to do any of those things? It sounds more like you're just upset about some franchise being ruined for a title or two so you needed to vent. This isn't "pointless innovation," it's copycatting.
My work here is dung.
The thing is, though, even though 98 out of 100 improvements turn out to be flops, those 2 out of 100 seem to have carried humanity from flint tools all the way to nuclear weapons and internet porn. Well, that's some improvement!
This is my sig.
With our budgets the conservatism is understandable. At the same time when you are trying to make a new product there is also pressure to be the one that stands out. So the creative process demands that you try new things, preferably early on in the project. I think the real problem here (sorry to parade out an industry truism) is not failing quickly enough. If a new feature or mechanic becomes a *big deal* and is not allowed to fail when it starts to suck, the investment of money and ego may require it to ship. However, trying new things when you have time to take the risks, and are not overly committed to shipping them, is the thing that keeps us evolving.
-- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
Every time a sequel for a popular game comes out, fans (and detractors) will cry out if it uses the same gameplay as the previous game. "There's nothing new!" But if the developers change it up, then the fans will cry foul, saying they're "ruining the experience" or "fixing what isn't broken".
But, it seems like the video game media likes (and praises) innovation quite a bit, which could be why the developers do it. The fans will be upset no matter what, but at least they can try to get the media on their side, regardless of whether the innovations in question are any good.
If you can't convince them, convict them.
M-W.com defines:
Intuition:
1: quick and ready insight
2 a: immediate apprehension or cognition b: knowledge or conviction gained by intuition c: the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference
Innovation:
1 : the introduction of something new
2 : a new idea, method, or device : novelty
These two things, although they often overlap, are not the same thing. Intuitive means something is easy to use without having to work hard at it (Boy, this point and shoot interface in this first person shooter game is intuitive!). Innovation means that the idea is new (Wow, I never knew it would be fun to roll a ball of trash around and make it as large as possible until I played this game, katamari damacy!). You can innovate without having an intuitive interface. You can make a new game with an intuitive interface without bringing anything new to the table.
If it ain't broke...don't fix it.
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
If you're trying to fit a mechanic into your game instead of building a game around a mechanic you will fail. If it doesn't fit, don't shove. Honestly I think I'd be happier playing Twilight Princess with an ordinary gamepad, ala 'Cube, than with the Wiimote.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Now that I think about it "A solution in search of a problem" is probably a better saying.
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
... the author makes some good points but when he started lauding MGS 4 as the pinnacle of what good game design is I had to take a step back.
The amount of cutscenes in Japanese games is offputting while the gameplay is often lacking (or the companies don't have a clue of what was fun about it).
You can especially see how stale the JRPG genre has become by going "simple" (read: cutting corners, cutting the best parts out they had in previous games going way back to the early 1990's). I would love to run a JRPG company and kick a lot of crappy developers and so-called visionaries out, some JRPG dev's are seriously stagnating and backtracking in RPG's in recent years.
Also I couldn't stand FFX and MGS 4 for same reasons, too much cutscenes too little gameplay options. In FFX they simplified the weapon and armor system so radically I felt cheated. They also reduced the number, variety and quality of NPC monsters and did a worse job in terms of art for them, etc.
When "simplicity" means cutting corners it's bad game design.
While I enjoyed Shadow of the colossus, it too had major problems with the land being so barren and having to waste a lot of time travelling back and forth from boss to boss without much happening in between could be a real drag after the novelty of the big world wore off.
Truth be told many game developers don't really have much insight into what works and what doesn't in their games. I can't be the only gamer that feels like game developers of late are flailing around blindly in many regards in terms of what made their games fun.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/hot_new_video_game_consists/
Another area where developers fail constantly is that they don't seem to look at prior solutions, it's almost as if some developers don't actually play games themselves.
Only fools learn from their own mistakes.
"we've got trenchcoats and bad attitudes" - John Constantine, HellBlazer
I loved every one of the games that the article cites as suffering from too much innovation. Some people like to play perfected versions of something they've played before (Gears 2, Halo 3), while others would prefer to play a flawed-but-new experience. Thankfully, both tastes are catered to in this industry.
4 things broke game industry in mid 90s :
* advent of 3d and easy, mass production of games through usage of 3 - killed strong story and fun : everyone took easier route for competition - 'hey our game has more polygons'.
* pointless innovation of the type described in the article
* 'challenge' disorder. each game has been made into major struggles you have to take on in the still of the night at your home, instead of entertainment.
* 'play time' bullshit. it become added to a game's 'value' as a measurement - but fun was dropped from the equation. so its fairly how long you spend in front of the game now. it goes hand in hand with the shit in the item above.
Read radical news here
AC still hasn't been able to scrounge up the money to get treatment for his poop fetish. Perhaps the President can spare some change to get AC some treatment.
That said, building a brilliant game around one single innovative feature can be done: the concept behind Portal was absurdingly simple and the end result is awesome and more importantly, it's tons of fun.
The problem is that the newest ideas put into games are ... or blatantly ripping off another title.
Newest ideas. Blatantly ripping off another title.
One of these things is not like the other.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
If the game were designed with the wiimote in mind than there would not be an almost identical version for a game pad.
I can see what's trying to be said, but look at games like Portal. They took a simple concept, portals, and built an entire game around this one simple idea. Sure the game is not long, but it's a brilliant game. It's loved by almost every single person who plays it. Not just enjoyed... loved. And if you listen to the commentary while playing the game, you can really see just how much thought and effort they put into even this simple game.
I just don't see the problem with this. Game creators should continually try to innovate. No, they're not always going to hit their mark, but occasionally they will totally nail it, like with Portal, and gaming as a whole will take one more step forward. That's a Good Thing.
Games were great until the *cool* people started getting into them. Games used to be a niche market for nerds. Now the games are dumbed down for all the jocks. The scene is too blown up and now it's all about money and pleasing everyone.
Shouldn't this have been an April Fool's joke?
The last thing the gaming industry needs is to be cautious and spurn innovation. Games these days (get off my lawn, etc.) seem like they are mostly retreads and clones of past successes. Do we really want every game to have the exact same game play as last year's, only with better graphics?
TFA points out several flaws in recent games, but not one of these flaws is novel, or a direct result of innovation. Gaming critique fail.
-- 77IM
Student: Is it true that the foundation of the universe is paradox?
Master: Well, yes and no.
Might and Magic IX - Went for eye candy over game play.
The third Krondor game - More eye candy, virtually no game play.
Thief 3 - "Consolized" the game. Missions were composed of several small linked play areas instead of large rambling areas to explore. This was done to adapt the game to console hardware limitations.
MOO3 - An example of change for its own sake. Did anyone actually like this game?
Wing Commander III and IV - Examples of challenge disorder. There were too many missions in these games that were virtually impossible to beat, and the dynamic difficulty setting system made it impossible to adjust the games to your personal skill level.
SimCity 2 and later - Added too much complexity, ruining the game experience. Remember: KISS!
Civ3 and 4 - More challenge disorder. Even at the easiest difficulty settings these games are very hard to beat.
There are more, I am sure, but I'll let other Slashdotters come up with them. And yes, I am aware that many people enjoyed many of these games but, speaking from my own knowledge (from conversations with other gamers), each of the games I have listed lost a large part of their audience, with only the hard core fans of the franchise claiming to like them.
There's a critical problem with popular, mainstream video games that isn't as large with other mediums; they are expensive to make and require a lot of time and effort put in to create something masterful.
Like.... movies?
Games that cost hundreds of million dollars to make aren't the best place to experiment. I think big game studios should create R&D departments where they'd make small games to test a new concept and give it to a number of people to test.
You just got troll'd!
Some people just play a game to let the time flow. So they are playing yet another RPGs while other people watch soap opera. These players enjoy the repetitive monster bashing in a JRPG.
Some other player (like me) do not play often but are no casual gamers. They will take one game and really play it. They are not conscious that some characters could have had a previous life. Or that this game mechanism has been used 20 times.
There are player that search for the graal of video games (like the author) that are extremely critic over the innovation and fine tuning.
I don't know what games Angry Gamer is talking about, because all I see are clones, everywhere. 99.9% of all major releases are clones and re-polished turds. Where he gets the idea that the industry is going to far in the innovative department is beyond me.
Yes, the game still has its flaws, but the parkour interface is very innovative (and fun) and will likely be copied by other games. Assassin's Creed attempted something similar, but ME shows how it can be done right.
Also consider Portal. At heart a very simple concept that was quite difficult to figure out how to implement, but in gameplay led to really interesting and innovative puzzles.
On the other hand, there are failures. For instance, setting the grass on fire and needing to take the prevailing wind into consideration in Far Cry 2 was an interesting novelty that probably took a lot of time and effort to develop, but didn't really add much to the game.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
I focus on FPS. These are getting dumber, dumber and simpler with every release
Rainbow six :
1. team of 10 -> team of 3.
2. full FPS with lean -> cover system 3rd person
Battlefield :
1. drive everything, huge maps, many players -> maps with mostly tanks and cars only
2. sniping game too - now you cannot even lie down
Ghost recon :
1. teams - one team
2. planning, positioning - run and gun
As the flight simulators died out almost completely people do not feel the need to have a good team experience and choose the fast paced run and gun gameplay where it is not needed to lean, go prone and plan a mission.....
Then again, socom, cod4 are still OK, but battlefield and all the clancy games are down the drain bigtime .... for me at least
I can think of a couple of great examples of this.
Back in the early days of the RTS, the formula was that you had one resource to harvest. In order to create complexity, games started adding more resource types. This ultimately made the game more cumbersome to play without adding as much material benefit. The counter to this is what newer games like Dawn of War does with adding strategic locations to the map, hold the location and you get request points for more units.
The original Master of Orion was an excellent 4x game. The sequel sought to add more depth by giving each star planets and you now had to build things on each planet. Instead of adding depth, it just made the game more tedious. This same problem could be seen in typical 4x games like Civ where it was great fun to tweak the cities in the early stages but became increasingly monotonous as empires grew. The problem here was driven home to me when I played an ultra-minimal space game on my Palm. You have one type of planet, one type of ship. You can invest in ship production, factory production, and research. Research will put your ships up to the next tech level. Combat consists of a stack of your ship and a stack of their ships going at it one on one. The tech is weighed between your ship and the enemy's and it does a coin toss. God is on the side with more ships and higher tech. A map on this game that would have taken hours in Master of Orion can be swept in 20 minutes. The core elements of the game are there, just stripped down to the most minimal.
It's very easy to add more crap to a game and far more difficult to add something useful. And sadly, it can be rather subjective as to what truly adds depth and what's simple tedium.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Citing Shadow of the Colossus as an example of why we don't need innovation is confused. SotC doesn't have a huge list of asterisks on the back of the box (you know, *Multiplayer! *Online Player! *User Modications! *Physics simulator!). Nonetheless, SotC stands out from the pack. SotC's innovation was omission--like it's wikipedia entry says, "The game is unusual within the action-adventure genre in that there are no towns or dungeons to explore, no characters with which to interact, and no enemies to defeat other than the colossi." It was unusual because of what wasn't there. Well-designed simplicity is innovation.
If you just re-worded this rant to be against adding stuff for the sake of adding stuff instead of against innovation, then it would been making a rather insightful point. As it is, it's just flamebait.
Maybe you didn't like Mirror's Edge, but whatever problems it has are unique problems. Citing it as an example of what's wrong with the industry is deeply obtuse.
Another problem is that in most games they are having to rewrite their engine, create all new artwork and figure out new ways to stand out.
It's actually really horrible that every single new game has to just about recreate everything. It would be like every new book requiring that the rebuild presses and typefaces to print them. Sadly, copyright infringements 'threats' are being used to make things harder. You can't use an actual car in a game, so they have to make a car that *looks* similar to the real thing.
Then appy that to basically just about everything. So much needless work being done over and over. So much wastage.
No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
Microsoft should finish what they started,
or at least, try again;
Allegiance~2
I believe the original cross-class, fps/sim/rt.strat game could expand to cross platform, massive multiplayer, etc,
check out Alleg [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegiance_(computer_game)]
and the community [http://www.freeallegiance.org/]
however, this would ruin the best thing alleg' has going for it; the fact no one knows about it.
Be Warned; the learning curve in this game is tough. dont expect to even know what's going on, even after a month of daily play.
Why do we read novels? How could we play games that only had ascii characters and spend hours upon hours playing them? Fighting the Klingons in Star Trek, Killing the H's in Beast or trekking the dungeons in Rogue, Hack and NetHack.
The imagination is far more powerful than any graphics on a screen could be. Most people would probably take a well developed plot line over graphics any day. That is why games like LOTR or Harry Potter even make it to the stores. People already know and like the plot line. If they had been books that flopped they would have never been made into games.
Good game developers put out tools with their games like Blizzard with the Warcraft/Starcraft series because they know that people will imagine ways to do things that they never would have thought of to begin with.
Lets see better overall story/game development and less focus on the graphical aspects.
Maybe because without innovation, any art form dies?
People who start thinking innovation is pointless are entering what is called the "old man" stage of their life. What they fail to realise is that it is hard to motivate a group of artists to do the same shit they did last year, and artists almost always are the ones driving any successful project. Of course you need to get your fundamentals right, but without innovation, there is no progress. Even if innovation flops, it still progresses the art.
While we're at it, why not ask why physicists work on pointless theories that won't pan out in the end, or ask why mathematicians design models that no one will ever use? The reason is because every once in a while, something catches fire and changes the way we think about things, and the only way to know if that will happen is to publish.
Jazz Jackrabbit was fun to play. It was zippy, on the hardware of the day. (First time I saw it, my immediate reaction was, "I didn't know a 386 could *do* that." On a 486 it *flew*.) It has interesting music. The characters and artwork were well-drawn. I don't know if it was _innovative_, but it was a good, fun game.
So then what did they do for the sequel? They decided that they just had to make it *different*. It used DirectX and ran on Windows 95, so it was *not* particularly zippy -- slower on a Pentium II / 233 than the previous game had been on a 386 SX / 16. The artwork and characters, if you compare them side-by-side, look like they probably took more effort to create (more shading, TrueColor, twinkle effects, blah, blah -- higher technical quality), but if you just sit down to play the game, the art in JJ2 doesn't look as cheery and fun (it uses duller colors), isn't in at all the same visual style, and, generally, fails to impress. It's not innovative, it's not particularly interesting, it doesn't bring anything particularly worthwhile to the table, and on the whole it's not as *fun* as the original.
Descent was a really fun game, addictive even. It was innovative -- the first truly 3D game. Not 3D as in flat sprites in a flat maze seen from an internal perspective, like Wolfenstein and Doom, but *actually* 3D: three-dimensional maps, three-dimensional robot enemies, three-dimensional controls, the works. And it was fun to play. Descent II was more of the same. A few new weapons, a bunch of new robots, some new textures for the mine walls, and now you could shoot out lights and darken a room, but basically it was the same game. And lo, it was a good, fun game.
Then they sat down to make Descent 3, and they said unto themselves, "We must not make another game like the first two. We must make this one New and Better and Different and Innovative." So they abandoned the efficient level architecture and rendering engine that made the first two games play smoothly on the hardware of the day, and they built an entirely new game engine that required a high-end (for the day) graphics card, with 3D acceleration. They introduced new weapons again, but they also introduced an entirely new look and feel, and it fundamentally no longer felt like the same game. When fans of the series complained about the onerous new system requirements, they were told, "If your hardware doesn't meet these standards, you are not part of the target audience." Apparently the "target audience" consisted of hardcore gamers only. And behold, Descent 3 flopped.
These are old stories now. Today you can buy hardware that will run Descent 3 smoothly for a beggar's pocket lint, plus shipping, on ebay. I suppose you can probably also get Descent 3 on ebay for $notmuch, but who would want to?
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
I'd be inclined to agree with you on Civ3 and Civ4...I've kept to Civ2 myself.
Civ 1 --> Civ 2 is a great example of where *useful* things were added (the fixed combat mechanics, and a few novel new units; my favorite of the new Civ II units was/is the Marine). The AI was still dumb, but not *as* dumb & trickable. (cough diplomacy cough) Hell, "Civ 1 with isometric graphics" would have been a useful upgrade by itself.
Colony micromanagement I don't recall being any worse in Civ2.
SimCity 1 to SimCity 2 was just fine to me, for similar reasons, including the graphics-approach change.
I liked the addition of a few more mass-transit types; I liked some of the city ordinances, but a lot of the ordinances seemed obvious one way or another
SimCity 3 also added a few useful features, but I can see the series starting to go down there.
Garbage system, realistic issue for city management, was a good addition
Local power/water deals seemed stupid, though
Landmarks weren't necessary, but they were fine as a side activity, which is exactly what they were set up as AFAIK.
I repeatedly hit a weird bug in SC3 when my city was big & well-managed that caused the city to plummet in pop and such, that's the main reason I put that game back down, not any feature changes
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Slightly offtopic (on Slashdot?!?), but my own choice for worst innovation in modern gaming is regenerative healing in FPS games.
Its not always bad or wrong... It made sense in Halo to have regenerative shielding due to the setting (and didn't make sense in The Getaway, which I KNOW isn't an FPS but I have to mention it before someone pipes up to mention Halo isn't technically the innovator of the concept), and a lot of Sci-Fi games benefit from it for similar reasons. I also quite liked how FarCry 2 handled it... Tiny wounds get shrugged off with time, if they accumulate you're stuck with them, and magic healing syringes are plentiful to carry, but not easy to find in the field.
But I'll be damned if I can find a single excuse for current-era or WW2-era FPS games having regenerative healing. What is that? A WW2 soldier takes a rocket to the face, but hey, all he has to do is hide around the corner for a few seconds and, BAM, fit as a fiddle? Really?
And OK, I know the old stalwort of FPS games, the Health Pack, doesn't make *much* more sense ("It's OK, we'll reconstruct your landmine-kicking leg using bandages! All done!") But at least it feels slightly more sensible thematically.
"Ooooh, but it aids the flow of the game! It's all about the flow!" Don't give me that. With autosaves and checkpoints being ever denser, it doesn't really matter if I lose 15 seconds from having to replay a small section of level or from hiding in an out-of-the-way corner waiting for my health to come back. Or hey, here's an idea, why not come up with some innovative new approach that doesn't rely on instant healing packs OR regenerative healing?
Now hey, it's not my job to come up with that new approach... It wouldn't be innovation if you got it from some random Slashdot poster... But I do have a couple of ideas, if you want to hire this gorgeous little brain of mine.
The problem is that there are too many similar games and sequels of successful series. So everything feels similar which generally isn't that fun after awhile. We're lacking variety which doesn't necessarily need total innovation. Companies do have to innovate and if,on their first try, it's not quite right that is not an excuse to go back to to the same old thing.
But innovation isn't just about completely changing everything. We don't need completely new control schemes to innovate. Just don't make every damn game feel the same.
Case in point, the BioShock 2 gameplay footage: http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47807.html?type=mov
Yes the graphics are nice but that was exceptionally boring to watch. If you give it early 90's graphics it's effectively Wolfenstein 3D. Where is the innovation in fun that really makes it exciting to those that have played most FPS games? There is none and quite frankly it looks like something to pass on. I don't care how many scripted sequences it has, we've had those, done properly, since at least Half life 1 and it's not really that exciting anymore no matter how good the graphics are.
I think we just need more variety. Look at Street Fighter 4. It's not really that innovative. It's SF but in 3D. But a lot of people think it's great. I personally think that's because you don't really get fighters these days. They've sort of died out. So to get one that's of decent quality is a great thing. So companies just need to quit copying each other and repeating so much crap.
There is also another element: the fact that the good game programmers are so full of themselves that they reinvent the wheel everytime.
(I know: I have been a game programmer myself).
All the good programmers that I know always rewrote the code that they have to integrate in their code, and all this work is lost, since they mostly restart from zero in the next game.
Graphists have also the same behaviour, by redesigning everything from scratch at the start of a project.
Also, everybody wants to experience something new, by not working with legacy parts (that are presumably of bad quality).
As a very very basic example think of Loderunner. It's gameplay elements were pretty simple. And it's content was it's maps.
In such a game say if the original only came with a few maps, it did not but for the sake of argument, then offering something beyond that original could be as simple as adding new maps. The problem comes in with asking for more of someone's money just for adding some more maps. Simply adding more simple content is rarely enough to justify asking for more money.
So lets say that they changed the gameplay in addition to adding new maps. Ah ha! Now there is more to talk about. It's much easier to justify asking for money again for even what might be basically the same game. And of course the question becomes is the change to the gameplay's dynamic good or not.
These days games work with a much bigger scope. Gameplay elements are complex and even the content itself is not trivial to do. So often just adding some more content can be enough to asking for more money.
However everything after a while get's 'played' which then means changing up the gameplay to keep people interested. However in an industry where it's about getting that sale, because our right ownership of software is so fucked up, so important the idea is about keeping people interested has started to trump making sure that gameplay is actually good.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
It's the same old story...
A tiny (often unheard of) developer attempts to create an instant hit by churning out an [insert genre] game, or worse, they try and create an MMO of a popular (non video game) franchise.
The marketing execs over-hype the product, demand unreasonable or prohibitive deadlines and after an initial surge of uptake, the game is a clear flop a month after release.
I realise it's asking the impossible, but perhaps the solution is for games developers to stop trying to make money, and start trying to make good games? Churning out games may have worked in the 80s when 'every' video game idea was a unique one, but relying on the tried, tested and worn out formulas no longer fools the savvy gamer.
But if it was most companies, it would have been padded out to 2-3x that length. We'd have had at least one sequel by now that "innovated" in some pointless way (like the one-way green portal and the come-out-upside-down purple portal, and the...).
Exactly!
Plus there would be portal ports to other, more PG-friendly franchises so by now we would have a Mickey' Portal of Mistery, Hannah Montana: The Portal To The Other Side (where you would change between Hannah and Miley depending on the portal color) and perhaps even Port-A-Portal - a tetris-clone for your mobile phone where you drop different colored balls through various portals and then the balls, get ready... THEY CHANGE COLOR! Wouldn't that be AWESOME!!!111eleven!
And it wouldn't be Portal but PortalTM.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Innovation and the damndest graphics mean squat when I'm only getting 7-10 hours out of a game, with maybe an extra five if I try to be a "completionist". I'd much rather have well-designed but standard mechanics with decent graphics and have a 20-40 hour game.
So much focus is given to presentation now with less and less to content. If this keeps up, I'm just going to stick with older consoles because I'll get tired of playing movies. (Incidentally, movie length keeps getting longer and longer.)
This was a game that I found to be doing this at the same time it ripped ideas off of other games. The entire "shoot off their limbs" strategy really made no sense since the "aliens" were mutated human beings (with all of the normal "skull mounted" sensory organs). The 3rd person view I found to be a neat idea, but it was clumsy in execution. The accuracy of the laser pointers were often wrong. Also, when the 3rd person vantage point hit something like the wall of a closed in space, the view actually made fighting impossible. Third, the upgrade node system (along with available funds) was far too underscaled. I found that the number of available nodes made playing around with different weapons prohibitive. I basically went through the game with 3 weapons since the cost to upgrade or maintain others wasn't worth it (I played at the highest difficulty level).
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Well, I rather like the Wii's motion control system, myself. That's the innovation that's most captivated me. I also like Lightgun games a lot. When the Time Crisis games and Ghost Squad came out, they had me addicted. The latest Lightgun innovation is an arcade game called "2Spicy" which allows branch-path movement. To me, that's pretty cool. If someone could make a massively muliplayer military game based on this idea, that would be my idea of awesome.
Sure is a fine line between complexity and tedium, you're right there.
Interestingly, some players develop a sentimental attachment to the tedium involved in their game of choice, another line-blurrer IMHO.
Specific comment, though: A multi-ship battle being broken down into one-on-one fights doesn't make sense - seems to simplistic, and underestimates the true force advantage you'd have.
How many resource types is too much? Starcraft's 2? Age of Empires' 4? More?
Realism can't override bad gameplay, seemingly one must admit...
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
99% of the games out there are retreads. If they aren't outright sequels, they are just slight variations on standardized genres.
The only place you generally see real innovation is the small, quirky independant game studios. The big places can't afford to risk inovation.
This is precisely the reason why JRPGs aren't doing well now. They continue to shoehorn "innovation" where it isn't needed. These new-fangled battle systems just don't work. The ongoing success of Pokemon and Dragon Quest shows how grand sticking to proven methods can be.
"There seems to be this invisible pressure to create something that is highly 'intuitive' and incorporates the highest level of innovation that we have ever seen. The problem is that the newest ideas put into games are either gimmicky, terrible in execution, or blatantly ripping off another title."
Huh? If they are "incorporating the highest level of innovation we have ever seen", doesn't that kind of exclude "blatantly ripping off another title?"
or another gem...
"There's a critical problem with popular, mainstream video games that isn't as large with other mediums; they are expensive to make and require a lot of time and effort put in to create something masterful."
*sarcasm on* Yeah, big movies take no effort, money, or time to make. *sarcasm off* Did this guy even READ what he wrote before publishing this ranty tripe? And there are LOTS of "masterful" video games (and movies, for that matter) produced on a shoestring budget. World of Goo, a spectacular (and popular) game by almost any measure, was made by a staff of TWO guys.
What a moron...
SirWired
This problem is occurring everywhere from computer software to motor cars, with companies adding innovation where it's not needed and in so doing breaking things unnecessarily.
My last two company cars have been Vauxhalls; a company that is obsessed with adding innovation that makes the car a nightmare to drive. The old Vectra replaced the mechanical indicators with electrical ones that made it impossible to turn the indicators off. The Insignia, which has replaced the Vectra, has reverted back to mechanical indicators but now they've replaced the mechanical hand break with an electrical handbrake. To disengage the handbrake you have to press the accelerator making a hazard out of precise manoeuvres such as pulling out of a tight roadside parking space. Other aspects of the car are crap such as the automatic lights and automatic climate control which make me feel like I'm not in control of the car. Why can't they just leave things as they are instead of "innovating" and destroy things that work perfectly well.
Thins are even worse with software and we're seeing a push to replace the entirely functional mouse and keyboard with touch screens that are slow, cumbersome and don't work half the time. User interfaces are even worse and Microsoft are intent on innovating their way to destruction with the likes of the IE7 and Windows 7 interface while KDE seems to be in competition with them to produce the worst interface possible.
The by replacing a few words in the article summary you can get a perfect description of the current state of user interfaces:
"There seems to be this invisible pressure to create something that is highly 'intuitive' and incorporates the highest level of innovation that we have ever seen. The problem is that the newest ideas put into user interfaces are either gimmicky, terrible in execution, or blatantly ripping off another system. On the other hand there are operating systems and applications that feel the need to completely revamp an interface that worked perfectly fine before into something completely new that falls flat on its face."
The word "innovative" has now become synonymous with "junk". The Wii was "innovative" in that the control mechanism doesn't work at all so, while it's sold fantastically, nobody actually plays on it. Touch screen computers are "innovative" in that they make doing simple like viewing your photographs tasks a mammoth task where you're having to make ridiculous gestures to resize them or scroll through them. We're also seeing "innovative" portable media players controlled with facial recognition which I'm sure will work great!!!
The world has gone mad and it seems and companies seem to be in a race to make things as unusable as possible by replacing concepts that work with ones that don't.
Screw "innovation", what I want is "improvement".
You know, you can say that you don't mind if newer iterations don't innovate, but, really, if a series doesn't innovate, what does it hear from reviewers?
"Stale," "uninspired," "same old same old," and so on.
Really, the developer gets shafted either way, so they might as well try the route that sometimes gives them great reviews.
The symptom will only be cured once the disease is fixed.
One major problem seems to be the failure to manage the work vs reward equation. The problem is different for each game-type (and its style style as a second determinant.. blood or ponies?); RTS, RPG, shooters, 3rd person adventures, etc..
A game can be simplified enough that it begins to become trivial for some people. A game can be made difficult enough that it isn't worth the time and frustration for some people. A long, hard think has to be done to decide what type of reward your audience is going for. Story and cutscenes? Immersion (projecting oneself into the characters)? Bragging rights (multiplayer)? Stress/relief cycles? Basic time killing? Accomplishment? Obsessive fulfillment (ASpects of Warcraft, old-style RPGs, brutal puzzle games)? Adrenaline rush or something to do while eating dinner?
So now, how do you balance the work needed for the reward you plan to give out?
As an example of a simple problem case: In stat-based RPG's and adventures, I am obsessive about exploring everywhere. By the time I get to the next part of the story, the characters are too powerful and I have to artificially limit strategy to extract any challenge. Answers to this vary and have pros and cons. Scaling opponents to level like in Oblivion is one solution, but it breaks the immersion and accomplishment when your old level-2 pals in dew-drop forest are level 999 with the best equipment.
1st person shooters can have difficulty level settings, pretty stupid-easy solution there. IMO, the problem here is that the actual gameplay of shooters is repetitive. What is the goal of the game? Adrenaline rush!? Story? I haven't played any shooters in a long time, but I hear Halo and others had good stories and intersting mechanics. I also hear Portal was based around different mechanics. I remember Return to Castle Wolfenstein, a basic shooter. It kept getting cooler and cooler and the game progressed with bigger guns, faster enemies, and a story leading up to undead in the catacombs attacking the Nazis who created them. They had weird strategys; skeltons' shields ricocheted bullets, flame-breath. Then the 2nd chapter began and the whole rest of the game was about killing Nazis over and over again. The robot walkers with the Venom gun were neat, but 90% of the game after that first chapter lost any interesting story and it fell apart. If it was 50% of the length, it would have been a good game through to the end. No reward for my tastes! No fun story for hours! Adrenaline rush only sustains my interest for so long. I was determined to get to the end on Hard to beat my friend (bragging rights!), but hell, the unengaged discipline inspired rants. Now, am I a minority or a majority?
After deciding on basic premise (Sci-Fi, fantasy, immersion like Sims), I believe that this is THE core question for MMORPGs. What reward is appropriate and satisfying for a player most engaged in a certain gameplay (story, playervsplayer, cooperation, construction, collecting). What rewards will be sufficient for what amount of work while not stepping on the toes of other types of players and their work/reward desires?
Finally, IMnsHO, I think the consequences of this search for balance are seen in alot of sequels. Gameplay mechanics in ALL games ARE repetitive. Length of games has alot to do with the final taste-left-in-your-mouth. Sequels are too often like just extending the first game. Unless the first game was very short, extending it beyond its tolerable life. The other rewards have to be tapped to a different degree from the first game to gain any satisfaction.. The level of different rewards tapped are why there are always rants about 'too little of the original charm' in tandem with 'too much of the same!' A simplified example: If you like the story and immersion, often you want similar/simpler mechanics but with a grander and more dramatic story. If you like the adrenaline or were in it for bragging rights, you want different mechanics.
Start with things that are good (high fitness = a fun game or an established genre). Change it a little to hopefully get something better. It's true that many (if not most) of the new creations will be poor, but the ones that are better make the whole process worth it. The real goldmine, innovation in this case, comes when the game is nearly as fun but different in an unusual way. This reminds me of the Isaac Asimov quote "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I've found it!), but 'That's funny...'"
You don't necessarily need to make full games out of each idea (or combination of ideas). Rapid prototyping seems like a good approach, but game makers need to make money somehow. They make games from the ideas they have at the moment (or mostly just rehashes of previous successes with a few minor tweaks), and try to get a better measurement of fitness by releasing a whole game and getting feedback from the community. However, sometimes this measure of fitness fails.... sometimes good things just to unnoticed (e.g., Firefly, Psychonauts, Beyond Good and Evil, and, unfortunately, far too many more).
Games with (seemingly) minor tweaks are a necessary part of this whole process of innovation. Who knows what will influence the creator of the next big thing (whether it be a game, movie, app, tv show, invention, whole new branch of science, piece of art, better mouse trap, internet meme, lolcat, etc)...
Innovation is necessary for things to evolve. Remember that it was monkey before man. But other times, the innovations are done where they do not matter. Where they are actually needed, you can not find them there. Example: Ghost Recon advance warfare. We have all of this cool physics of running etc. but do I really care to hear my own foot steps or breath. No not really. what i want is to run up that little pile of sand or able to see my crosshair clearly. I want that mule to say "Cannot go there" when I give him command to move though I can hear my other characters telling me 10,000 times of the info that i dont really give a sh|t about including my great job of taking a head shot. Subjectively speaking, when i asked other GR fans about the experience of online play of Ghost Recon 1 vs. GRAW, more than often I hear about how good and simple GR was and new one (GRAW and GRAW 2) are improved but still old one was more fun despite all its flaws. Another thing, a lot of people complained that they dont wanna see the gun on the screen like old GR, and still ubi gave them a game with gun in view. Can they not give a in game option for that? Some people will say that this guy is just crying but let me ask you something. How many player would have been p|ssed if they didnt hear the foot steps, breathing sound or annoying character speaches. Now compare that to how many people did get p|ssed for seeing the gun on the screen(the gun that player holds stays on screen as compare to old GR where you only see the crosshair on screen). Developers seem to forget that people like to have fun playing game that is innovative. They dont play games to have fun by looking at innovations.
The problem is that the newest ideas put into games are either gimmicky, terrible in execution, or blatantly ripping off another title. On the other hand there are series that feel the need to completely revamp a game that played perfectly fine before into something completely new that falls flat on its face.
Splinter Cell IV: Double Agent was ruined by this mentality. :'(
how is babby formed?
When MOO2 was released, it was an excellent extension of the original MOO - they introduced a racial attribute system that allowed them to numerically to balance traits, and also allowed for custom races. The AI was significantly improved, to the point that they didn't all do the exact same thing over and over. the new battle engine made tactics more important than they were before, but you could still auto-battle if you were bored with the complexity. The ability to settle many planets within a system also made the large-scale tactics of a war more complex and interesting, as taking an entire system was harder than taking one planet.
It wasn't a perfect game, of course. One of the major complaints from players was, as the game progressed, the micro-management in the game became too much to deal with. And since you couldn't create build scripts or hand-over the basic colony maintenance to an AI, the endgame ground to a halt for larger galaxies.
So, we all got excited when they announced MOO3: perhaps this was the chance to perfect the game, and maybe upgrade to a new game engine. The following is a short-list that would have made any fan salivate:
* Fix the multi-player.
* Add a new 3D starmap/graphics engine.
* Make build lists longer and allow scripting, and possibly add an OPTIONAL AI colony governor you can research.
* Add more tech and attributes and a new story, just to make the game "fresh."
Unfortunately, they broke far too many things and created a game that practically played itself. Instead of adding scripting and optional AI to avoid the late-game micromanagement overload, they got rid of it entirely. All of the improvements in the AI system in MOO2 were tossed for a convoluted and cryptic new system that left players uninformed about AI relations, and pissed just interacting with them. It was a horrible piece of gaming 'innovation,' and gamers gave it exactly the respect it deserved.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
Whenever you luddites stop shivering, maybe you could actually try to understand that such "pointless" innovation is necessary for the survival of the game industry. Game development is a process of continual trial and error. If developers don't keep pushing the envelope, they risk having the user become bored with their products. And if you remember the video game crash of the 1980s, offering too many similar-looking game to users is typically a bad thing.
Sure, we've seen some of these "pointless" innovations fail the first time around on numerous occasions. But, when these innovations are picked up elsewhere and reworked, they can eventually lead to titles that go down in history as being revolutionary.
So yeah... "pointless" innovation might be bad at first, but we f---ing need it!
8==8 Bones 8==8