Holy Order Sol
Member
Or I meant exactly what I said and you don't get to go all shrink on me.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Let's face it: us gamers hate innovation
- Thread starter Alex_Mexico
- Start date
Or I meant exactly what I said and you don't get to go all shrink on me.
we.are.the.armada
Member
Wrong.
First off, don't make such claims when only using mainstream games and their sales. It's more complicated than that and you should know it. Second, there are so many innovative games out there that are doing well by doing good. And "we" hate these somehow? Third, there are demographics in gamers that you can't ignore when talking about such a nebulous topic.
with a 30second long intro... why? everything past 3 second is way to long for an intro.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Yup. It seems pretty goofy to me. Speaking about such a massive market in this way doesn't seem useful in a lot of ways.
Although the COD comment irritated me as well, the FIFA one really irked me. What exactly are we expecting them to innovate with? They add gameplay and engine tweaks each year and they try adding in different things to the game modes like Manager Mode and such. Shocking news guys, the most popular sport in the world makes for one of the post popular games in the world.
The video seems like a good example of presenting statistics and information in a way to support an argument.
He cites Resident Evil 4 as being a sellout because it went into a third person camera mode? That wasn't a big thing when they did this, over 10 years ago. It was an innovative approach to the series, which had become cookie cutter for the most part up until then.
And Smash Bros isn't innovative? They took fighting games and approached it from an entirely new idea of knocking the enemy away, instead of chipping down a health bar (every other fighting game ever.) In the end, it plays very different, and they were the first to do this. He's acting like just because the cast of characters is a huge cast of Nintendo, it must be a cash in.
Not to mention that "innovative" is such a sweeping and subjective term, that it almost makes real meaningful conversation meaningless.
Games that are "too innovative" run the risk of being much less approachable and understandable to not just common gamers, but everyone. The same thing happens in all media. We don't want to invest $60 in something that might just be weird.
As a designer, it's part of the design challenge to create something that does something new and different, but is still understandable enough to be approachable and accessible as to be inviting. Hence the philosophy "Keep it simple, stupid." It has everything to do with how WELL it's designed, which innovation is part of, and nothing to do with an objective amount of innovation.
He cites Resident Evil 4 as being a sellout because it went into a third person camera mode? That wasn't a big thing when they did this, over 10 years ago. It was an innovative approach to the series, which had become cookie cutter for the most part up until then.
And Smash Bros isn't innovative? They took fighting games and approached it from an entirely new idea of knocking the enemy away, instead of chipping down a health bar (every other fighting game ever.) In the end, it plays very different, and they were the first to do this. He's acting like just because the cast of characters is a huge cast of Nintendo, it must be a cash in.
Not to mention that "innovative" is such a sweeping and subjective term, that it almost makes real meaningful conversation meaningless.
Games that are "too innovative" run the risk of being much less approachable and understandable to not just common gamers, but everyone. The same thing happens in all media. We don't want to invest $60 in something that might just be weird.
As a designer, it's part of the design challenge to create something that does something new and different, but is still understandable enough to be approachable and accessible as to be inviting. Hence the philosophy "Keep it simple, stupid." It has everything to do with how WELL it's designed, which innovation is part of, and nothing to do with an objective amount of innovation.
To answer the topic title, customers in general prefer superhero movies and nostalgia games, hence the big amounts of money they get.
For those unique indie games you talk about, maybe they could do even more wonderful things if they had Mighty No.9's budget.
Hibiki Kurosawa
Member
Remember, majority of people buying games (such as those million sellers) are not vocal internet goers. I wouldn't gamers hate innovation, though. That's a bit of a strong term (and a generalization).
I have a Rift DK2, a preorder in for STEM controllers, and I've kickstarted a bunch of stuff, but it's not like I make up the majority of the market.
Change the "us gamers" to "most gamers" and I'd tend to agree though. The old UI design maxim "don't make me think" comes to mind. People tend to like games they already know how to play.
Change the "us gamers" to "most gamers" and I'd tend to agree though. The old UI design maxim "don't make me think" comes to mind. People tend to like games they already know how to play.
I don't think they hate innovation either, they just have a casual interest in games
It's the same with music and film, the innovative, medium pushing stuff is loved by the hardcore, but the mainstream just want to watch a movie, or play a quick game, they don't really want anything too new/confusing/subversive
Games like Okami and Valkyria Chronicles are adored on GAF, because for the most part we are enthusiasts
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
I'm equally fine with a cool new concept with rough execution as I am with something derivative that's refined and well executed.
But if something new really feels like shit or legitimately isn't as interesting as it thinks it is, I'm not going to pretend to like it any more than I'm going to pretend to be excited for a new Assassin's Creed game.
But if something new really feels like shit or legitimately isn't as interesting as it thinks it is, I'm not going to pretend to like it any more than I'm going to pretend to be excited for a new Assassin's Creed game.
I think that in general, this is true. We pay a lot of lip service to innovation and originality when we're just talking about games. But we reinforce the opposite with our wallets. Overall we're a risk-averse lot, though we like to pretend otherwise. I've seen so many people reacting to a new, inventive game with a wary shrug and a comment like, "Looks great! But... think I'll wait for a price drop." Which of course, as far as it matters to the developer in terms of gauging the success of their game, is almost the same thing as never buying it at all.
And yes, I know that's not true of all gamers. But I'm talking about gamers collectively as a group taken together, and so is the OP (to address the complaints on the first page about the term "us gamers").
And yes, I know that's not true of all gamers. But I'm talking about gamers collectively as a group taken together, and so is the OP (to address the complaints on the first page about the term "us gamers").
Hipster Cthulhu
Banned
Being different doesn't equal innovation and a game being a sequel doesn't mean it isn't innovative.
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
Sorry, didn't mean to be pretentious, I should have written that post better.
But you get what I was trying to say.
akidnamededdy
Banned
There's a reason lots of developers are focusing less on releasing marginally tweaked sequels and more on just rereleasing the exact same fucking games they did last gen.
Americanmushroom
Banned
Hans.Gruber
Banned
And why does football work so well? Because it's simple and is pretty much the same game since the early 1900's. There were small tweaks like free-kick-spray etc. but the basic concept is the same for Messi as it was for Beckenbauer. Football and FIFA games are the perfect example why: innovation = quality, is just wrong.
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
Meaningless facts in this instance because we don't know how much "new" or "surprise" is necessary for fun to be produced.
If it's just enough surprise to say "oh man the bad guy is on the left side when he used to be on the right" or "the gun makes louder noises" then it really doesn't fit in with the OP's sweeping definition of innovation.
Though I would also say the OP's definition of innovation is also inconsistent, which is probably why this thread irritates me so much.
People enjoy sequels because its safe and familiar and more of what they love?
Thats...pretty damn normal. Also Call of Duty 4 was innovative for its time, the whole reason it still sells is because of how innovative 4 was so how can you claim that gamers don't like innovation?
Out of the top of my head: Tearaway says fuck you
I haven't played Tearaway so I could be extremely wrong but from what I've seen its a 3d platformer thats incredibly charming with a bunch of neat ideas and mechanics but nothing truly innovative (depending on how we use that term) as Mario 64 or Mario Galaxy was for the genre.
Plus it was on a dead handheld releasing at the worst possible time with almost no marketing, sony dropped the ball there.
Beelzebufo
Banned
But I bought Galaxy and not NSMBW, don't buy Madden games or CoD anymore, and am consistent with not thinking TLOU is all that great.
Black Pewter
Member
I ain't got no type. Enjoyable games is the only thing that I like.
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
I agree with you, thought your post (#127) was an essential one. Personally I believe that in addition to refining our individual tastes over time, what is considered an "optimal balance" of new and familiar (in terms of enjoyment) varies from person to person, and will also vary according to a single person's mood.
Appreciating/understanding something unfamiliar or unintuitive will always require more mental effort than understanding something that is not, and mental effort is a limited resource. For example, I imagine that if you're in a time in your life where you have a new job and a new relationship, etc. you may possibly have less "reserve energy" to spend on dealing with new concepts in other areas of life. Similarly, during mundane periods in our life we may have more "reserve energy" and actively seek out bigger surprises.
Polioliolio
Member
Speak for yourself.
The masses don't like innovation, but I do.
I like the occasional sequel, but when that shit is annual, it wears thin real fast.
Not just annual, but god, do you need more than 3 in the same series?
Not only are new games exciting, but the first time there's a sequel to a new game, the excitement is always really high... and the more new games they make, the more valuable and desirable a return to an older property is.
This industry is now almost nothing but sequels, and it blows ass.
The masses don't like innovation, but I do.
I like the occasional sequel, but when that shit is annual, it wears thin real fast.
Not just annual, but god, do you need more than 3 in the same series?
Not only are new games exciting, but the first time there's a sequel to a new game, the excitement is always really high... and the more new games they make, the more valuable and desirable a return to an older property is.
This industry is now almost nothing but sequels, and it blows ass.
More_Badass
Member
AAA maybe, but there's always new stuff to find on the indie side
GAMERS HATE INNOVATION?! NO!
TWO THINGS!!!
First of all - dude doesn't speak for me! I helped contribute to those dwindling SM: Galaxy numbers because I WANTED something new. Personally, if I don't see another sequel or remaster ever again - it'll be too soon.
Second - This is a double edged sword. The pubs/devs pumping out these annual SAFETY nets are also to blame. As consumers - we have no choice but to use what is publically available to us ( that with which we cannot provide for ourselves); essentially we're giving choices, and we choose.
If we're speaking primarily of AAA's - look at the options we are given (i.e. all the sequels/remakes/remasters)...considered fine by today's standard. Why? because the numbers say so.
The industry needs a maverick, LIKE - NOW!!!
TWO THINGS!!!
First of all - dude doesn't speak for me! I helped contribute to those dwindling SM: Galaxy numbers because I WANTED something new. Personally, if I don't see another sequel or remaster ever again - it'll be too soon.
Second - This is a double edged sword. The pubs/devs pumping out these annual SAFETY nets are also to blame. As consumers - we have no choice but to use what is publically available to us ( that with which we cannot provide for ourselves); essentially we're giving choices, and we choose.
If we're speaking primarily of AAA's - look at the options we are given (i.e. all the sequels/remakes/remasters)...considered fine by today's standard. Why? because the numbers say so.
The industry needs a maverick, LIKE - NOW!!!
KillerDark
Member
Strongly disagree, innovation is important because otherwise it does become stagnant.
Yes, but the point is, we ALL say innovation is important. But when it comes time to show loyalty to that premise in the only way that mattersby spending moneywe, as a group, fall well short of the ideal.
Sheriff_Battlesnake
Banned
A lot of people try one thing and like it and then don't try anything else. It's like the orange chicken at Panda Express. I'm content with that option and I'll probably never explore. Most people don't dig up the brass tacks on their hobbies and just buy what they know they like. GAF is a vocal minority.
CharminUltra
Member
Dat orange chicken, doe.
Hibiki Kurosawa
Member
That's what I said.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Absolutely spot on.
Nice sweeping generalizations and goofy creation of unnecessary mutual exclusivity.
Sunnington
Banned
I totally agree. Ever since I can remember I've been saying they should just make 2d sidescrolling Mario and Sonic games with 3d graphics. I've been playing the same Zelda game for the last 20 years and it's glorious! I love it! I think it was the guy who made Fable who said, "We don't want innovation, we want the same old things with less suck." No truer words have ever been spoken.
When people say they want innovation, what they're saying is, "I want to experience a game with the same newness and novelty I felt when I was a kid." Which is a fair point to make, but most innovative games lick my balls.
When people say they want innovation, what they're saying is, "I want to experience a game with the same newness and novelty I felt when I was a kid." Which is a fair point to make, but most innovative games lick my balls.
Sheriff_Battlesnake
Banned
The whole point of this thread is a generalization, but generalizations are not always wrong.
All I'm seeing in this thread are responses like, "Well, I don't hate innovation!" Well, yes, OK. That's great! You, individually, probably do like innovative games, and you might even buy them often. Thanks for that! I do too!
But we're not talking about individuals. We're talking about overall sales. We're talking about how gamers taken as a group actually support innovative games with their money relative to more iterative games. The expression of mutual exclusivity is not unnecessary, because (with a big studio at least) sales govern decisions on which studios survive, which projects get greenlighted, which titles get sequels.
I know, I was agreeing with you/backing up your point
Sorry if that wasn't clear
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
The eternal lament of the entertainment creator: people say they want new things, but really want the familiar packaged as something new.
I think video games throw a further twist on this because they are interactive. Players acquire conditioned skillsets and can dislike a new game changing the script on them. They want to feel their existing skills are rewarded and some people become angry at the feeling of being a "noob" again. Perhaps why many players never branch out and try genres of games they are unfamiliar with.
The current AAA situation is just highlighting the downside of all this, when innovation and even free expression of game creators becomes pretty much locked down by the need to make profit on overly expensive games.
To be clear, I think everyone has a personal ceiling on their willingness to start over and learn something new. It's just that some people's ceiling is much higher than average. They are most likely an outlier, and are the first people to notice stagnant media.
I think video games throw a further twist on this because they are interactive. Players acquire conditioned skillsets and can dislike a new game changing the script on them. They want to feel their existing skills are rewarded and some people become angry at the feeling of being a "noob" again. Perhaps why many players never branch out and try genres of games they are unfamiliar with.
The current AAA situation is just highlighting the downside of all this, when innovation and even free expression of game creators becomes pretty much locked down by the need to make profit on overly expensive games.
To be clear, I think everyone has a personal ceiling on their willingness to start over and learn something new. It's just that some people's ceiling is much higher than average. They are most likely an outlier, and are the first people to notice stagnant media.
Haha
Seriously though, the game attach rate seems to be far greater in the US. I remember the 360 having a much larger game per system owner ratio than the Wii or PS3.
Even the X1, with a smaller user base, manages to top the PS4 with some games in sales.
On subject, I buy and love both.
Well said.
Robert at Zeboyd Games
Banned
Actually, I'd argue that Diablo 3 had a lot of innovation for the genre.
The in-game auction system.
Potion cooldowns + health & other temporary power-ups as random drops from enemies to reduce potion spam.
The ability to freely swap ability setups and abilities modifiers outside combat rather than force the player to commit to a build. This also encourages using multiple abilities instead of just focusing all your points and spamming one ability.
Different resource types for each character class.
And yeah, a lot of people disliked the innovation the game had and just wanted Diablo 2 but prettier and with more stuff.
FF13 is another example of a game that was very innovative and lots of gamers hated. In the end, execution is more important than innovation.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
I don't care if a game is innovative or not as long as it's good. That's the only criteria that matter to me.
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
I'd like to add something related to this point, which hopefully isn't seen as too controversial. I think that in order to be able to fully appreciate vastly new experiences in video gaming, it's important (perhaps essential) to spend a lot of time doing things other than playing video games. I think Miyamoto is a good example of a designer who does this. You can see in interviews with him (as well as other Nintendo staff) that the process of coming up with new gameplay ideas often involves finding inspiration in the outside world, rather than finding it in an existing video game. That kind of thought process is really crucial when it comes to innovating in a given medium.
Beatboxtaun
Member
I can see where you're coming from, but I don't mind innovation, when it will be beneficial and fun.
However, I don't mind playing another game in a genre that adds deeper stories.
However, I don't mind playing another game in a genre that adds deeper stories.