Support NeoGAF

[Danchi]

I struggled to get through the video, especially after the "bro games" line. I don't think any of the games in the OP are particularly innovative either (even if I like some of them).

I've actually never played Call of Duty (except the zombie mode at a friend's house), but the way it implemented a perk system was pretty novel at the time, no? I wouldn't like to say it was the first of it's kind, but it seemed to be one of the major reasons it became so popular.

The Madden "yearly expansion pack" comment is also such a cop-out.

4.4m views, though, wow! Are these the most popular gaming-related videos on Youtube?

 

[Squozen]

I think it goes a long way beyond gaming. The gaming population is ageing, and as you get older most people become very conservative and stick to what they know. I read an article the other day that suggested that most people stop listening to new music after the age of 33. It seems to me that this same thing is happening in movies and games, where most big budget products are aimed at people that refuse to take on anything challenging but stick with what appeased them as teenagers.

 

[Killer]

my god that video was terrible.

Good games sell. News at 11

 

[Gnome Scat]

I'm fine with it if it builds positively off of the core gameplay of the franchise. For example, Halo 5 did an excellent job of that in the Beta, save the automatic weapon headshot multiplier.

 

[spekkeh]

Not a fan of the video in the OP. I'd argue Resident Evil going action TPS is more innovative than if they released Resident Evil zombie mansion with tank controls 6. For all the derision CoD rightfully gets, it was actually one of the first big games that had a mosaic / ensemble story where some of the player characters die.

But in general, yes, gamers greatly admire sequelitis. They want to 'get hype' for a next iteration. You see franchise forming in other entertainment media as well, but not to the extent and success in gaming. Whether this is due to the cost of games being higher, or that our hobby is predominantly populated by people with a computer science / engineering major who like predictability and small iterative steps, I don't know.

Not me though, while I still like AAA games every now and then, I stopped buying all yearly iteration games or clear variations on an old template. So I don't consider myself to be of us gamers in this case.

 

[2+2=5]

Honestly i don't think it's a matter of innovation, imo it's a more general thing, many(most imo) gamers look only at three things: graphics, scores and hype, so obviously successful games are mostly the ones pushed by the big ones.

Think of the recent indie boom on consoles, it happened because the big three pushed it to cheaply fill the holes between a big game and another, no big had ever even just considered to show indie games in a e3 conference before 2012 or 2013.

 

[harmonize]

The Gamecube is the most derivative home console Nintendo has ever released. Pretty much every time I see somebody complain about the "gimmicks" the company keeps revolving their consoles around, they suggest going back to the Gamecube days of just being a powerhouse console with a simple control input. And the software on it was generally more quirky than anything, certainly not to the level of innovation that the NES had with game mechanics in general, N64 had with 3D gaming, and Wii had with motion control gaming.

"Gamers" is a very large brush that includes tons of people of varying levels of dedication to the activity, it's no different than low brow movies/music/books preforming better than their more mentally and emotionally demanding counterparts. Media is produced for the masses, and I wouldn't say the masses are dumb, but they definitely aren't looking to be challenged by their entertainment.

 

[Ushay]

Looking at Kickstarter:

Star Citizen - Wing Commander Privateer
Mighty No 9 - Rockman
Yooka Laylee - Banjo Kazooie
Torment - Planescape
Wasteland 2 - Wasteland
Pillars of Eternity - Baldur's Gate
Bloodstained - Symphony of the Night
Planetary Annihilation - Total Annihilation

Speaks volumes. The annual franchises like COD and Assassins Creed continue to sell by the millions, all they do is iterate and mildly improve on the previous series. Wii U tried to do something different yet we resisted the ideas brought forward, Kinect 2 got bitchslapped down to the same place.

So yeah, I'd say you are right OP. One thing I do know is, we appreciate fresh ideas in the software side of things. Games like Journey are a good example of this.

 

[Chance Hale]

People kickstart games in dead franchises that have no modern successors and often hadn't had a game in over a decade. Don't think it speaks to a lack of desire in innovation as much as it says people enjoy genres that have been left behind by other companies.

And I love the games on the Wii U but most are very traditional. If anything Nintendo resisted the ideas of the system given almost none of their games use the gamepad in a meaningful way. And while Kinect 2 is more accurate it's still useless for actually replicating 1:1 movement.

 

[EVIL]

Interesting how Call of Duty MW made a bunch of innovations that changed things from the previous version and then sales sky rocketed.

You can't say gamers hate innovation then just site sales. There are innovative games that sell well and there are innovative ones that don't sell well. You can't just ignore that multitude of other factors, jump to that conclusion and expect it to hold any water.

changing minor features in a sequel isn't innovation.

 

[Wensih]

Looking at Kickstarter:

Star Citizen - Wing Commander Privateer
Mighty No 9 - Rockman
Yooka Laylee - Banjo Kazooie
Torment - Planescape
Wasteland 2 - Wasteland
Pillars of Eternity - Baldur's Gate
Bloodstained - Symphony of the Night
Planetary Annihilation - Total Annihilation

I wonder where:

Rain World
Classroom Aquatic
Hyper Light Drifter
Don't Starve
Kentucky Route Zero

And the variety of other wholly unique ideas are placed in your kickstarter list?

 

[Puru]

I believe people in general do not give new games as much chance as one from an established serie or developer.
I don't think people are against innovation, it's just that they do not want to play bad games, innovation or not.

 

[SerTapTap]

I think the problem is more the extreme fascination with polish that drives a lot of AAA sales. Innovation generally results in some quirks here and there and is generally more complicated to market. AAA abhors both

 

[fester]

Looking at Kickstarter:

Star Citizen - Wing Commander Privateer
Mighty No 9 - Rockman
Yooka Laylee - Banjo Kazooie
Torment - Planescape
Wasteland 2 - Wasteland
Pillars of Eternity - Baldur's Gate
Bloodstained - Symphony of the Night
Planetary Annihilation - Total Annihilation

Exactly! And they're the biggest crowdfunded games ever and they're all spiritual successors to old, established franchises.

Im sure most of them will/are great (hell, I backed 3 of those) but hardly what you'd consider the epitome of innovation.


Agreed.

Could very easily say those kickstarters were so successful because the "innovation" big studios were giving us were giant piles of homogenized shit.

 

[OBias]

I don't know about "us" but I personally like innovation when it's done right. My favorite games of the previous generation are Mirror's Edge and Ghost Trick. My most anticipated game in this generation so far is Splatoon. Without innovation I'd have probably abandoned video games as a hobby by now. I want my entertainment to surprise me.

 

[slavesnyder]

Innovation means risc. Innovation means sweat. Innovation means uncertainty.

It's not the gamers that hate innovation, it's the publishers.

 

[Holy Order Sol]

I don't hate innovation, I just value execution above everything else and don't do the whole "points for effort" thing.

 

[ugly]

That's a very innovative approach to looking at the situation

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

I don't hate innovation, I just value execution above everything else and don't do the whole "points for effort" thing.

But in a fixed possibility space, there's eventually a point of diminishing returns when it comes to execution. Eventually things start to feel too similar, even if under the hood they may not be.

 

[flatearthpandas]

I don't think it's so much the community doesn't like innovation as that they really respond best to extreme marketing that innovative games usually don't have in their budget.

 

[Rebel Leader]

That part about final fantasy 13 being the 4th ...

did he forget that it was multiplat while the other FF games were not?

Could very easily say those kickstarters were so successful because the "innovation" big studios were giving us were giant piles of homogenized shit.

Not only that but "X genre is dead" rhetoric we always hear

 

[Riposte]

I've pretty much said it a hundred times, once far too recently, but people who say they want innovation don't even know what innovation is (nor how completely relative it is). They forget innovation is more about improvement than newness (otherwise, it would be invention). It's particularly misguided when they look for invention, or medium-wide innovation (cross genres), in 2D games or 3D platformers a la Mario, give how both fully explored they are and their narrow focus (as opposed to the mixture of genres capable of being found in open-world action games and whatnot). The important lesson here though is that for some people "new" > "better", because they choose novelty as a solution to jadedness and, more so today, we are trained by media to jump between things constantly. To roughly quote my recent post: in these circumstances people find evolution unfulfilling, they want creation (and the creators more divine in appearance).

 

[Doikor]

But in a fixed possibility space, there's eventually a point of diminishing returns when it comes to execution. Eventually things start to feel too similar, even if under the hood they may not be.

Tell that to blizzard. Honestly they haven't "innovated" anything for 15+ years. They just iterate/polish already (proven) existing ideas/mechanics from their own and others games.

And yet mostly their games just keep on selling more then ever release after release. Even the at release terrible Diablo 3 sold over 15 million units. Over 20 million if you count Reaper of Souls.

 

[spliced]

I'm trying to collect myself after watching that video that says Super Mario Bros. wasn't innovative..

Anyway...

Innovation is not some magic pill that makes anything great. People need to learn that, seriously. When a company innovates there is a pretty decent chance that innovation will be worse than what came before it and that's the fact you have to accept. Virtual Boy was super innovative but people didn't like it.

Innovation is good but it's not everything. I'll take a great clone over innovative rubbish.

 

[Chainsawkitten]

Im from europe. Who is this "we"?

"us gamers". "US gamers".

I think that's what they're getting at, anyhow.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Tell that to blizzard. Honestly they haven't "innovated" anything for 15+ years. They just iterate/polish already (proven) existing ideas/mechanics from their own and others games.

And yet mostly their games just keep on selling more then ever release after release. Even the at release terrible Diablo 3 sold over 15 million units. Over 20 million if you count Reaper of Souls.

Blizzard are a single company in a much larger industry. I'm not saying there isn't room for polishing a fixed formula, but rather that it can't be enough. And Blizzard are proof of that too, as they make games in new genres (new to them) every decade or so.
edit: not to mention their many unreleased games: Warcraft point & click adventure, Starcraft Ghost, whatever their recent one was before it got changed, etc..

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

The difference between iteration and innovation is an undefined term around here. The rhetoric is "Iteration is shameful, innovation is wonderful." But I'm not so sure they're different, or that games defined as "just iterating" are so easily pegged in that category.

But even if you define a new feature as "iteration," it can have far greater changes to the fun that pops out of the experience. 4 player co-op added to a 2D Mario game vs Super Mario Sunshine's mechanics - I had way more fun with NSMBW because it was wacky and fun, far more fun with 4 friends than Sunshine was by myself.

The end goal of video games is not "innovation." It's fun. Innovation is only successful if it adds to the game. I want to play fun games. Sometimes, fun shit doesn't have to change.

I also want to add that the older I get, the more I know what I like. I don't feel like I have to pick something up to prove to myself I don't like it. I just want to keep gaming and avoiding what won't work for me. Man, if that involves buying the next cookie cutter sequel then I going to do just that.

 

[Xater]

I love innovation. I have always picked the more interesting title over the formulaic. That's why I played games like Battlezone (I'm talking about the one from Pandemic here) or System Shock 2 when they came out. Problem is the mainstream to which most big games have to be catered to these days. You can't to any huge experiments really because games are to expensive to make.

 

[aussiedude08]

I dont think its fair to put this on Gamers in general. There are heaps that only play the Shooters like CoD or sports games like Madden of FIFA. but they often only play them and dont play the other games. They are CoD/FIFA players and more like casual gamers in terms of the variety of games they play.

I have no issues with studios trying new things or new IP's. but sadly most studios dont move too far from what they are good at. Naughty Dog moved from Uncharted and chose to do TLoU over a new J+D game. Guerrilla are making a new game moving from Killzone. Bungie made Destiny. Techland went from Dead Island to Dying light [sure its a similar concept]

There is more risk trying a new IP. But there are still a lot of gamers who will play new IP's if they like the concept of the game. Whenever a new game in a yearly series comes out there are threads about who will give up on the series this year, While the games like CoD or AC or sports titles still sell heaps they lose some buyers every year but seem to gain just as many new buyers and more and more are voting with the wallet and skipping them when they get sick of the same game every year with little improvements and they decline in quality.

 

[Dargor]

I think you're completely wrong OP. People like innovation, its just that, with the normal setup (gamepad or Kb&M), there is no new innovation to be made in gameplay. All we can have is gimmicky implementations that won't add anything essential to gaming in general.

When, and if, VR becomes a viable gaming experience, we'll definitely see huge strides and innovations on the gameplay front, simply cuz this new form of experiencing games doesn't accommodate our current gameplay paradigms without some pretty nasty hitches.

Innovation needs to be essential in order to be adopted by the mass market.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

Also, innovation and iteration are relative. To someone who doesn't game, and doesn't keep up with video game news, they might not know what you consider "innovation."

To a typical COD player, the new features added in each sequel might be fairly innovative for them. The game balance, the new modes, the change in speed and art style, etc. It's not their fault they don't F5 on the indie games thread on NeoGAF to know that in comparison to everything else, COD changes relatively little each year. It's fine to be satisfied with what you play.

 

[Holy Order Sol]

But in a fixed possibility space, there's eventually a point of diminishing returns when it comes to execution. Eventually things start to feel too similar, even if under the hood they may not be.

Not my problem since novelty barely has any impact on my enjoyment of games. I notice it, I don't yearn for it.

 

[Hans.Gruber]

changing minor features in a sequel isn't innovation.

I do understand that people don't like CoD. But the changes and evolution the CoD franchise went through can't seriously be called "minor".
Going from Berlin to Baghdad setting wise was a big risk, so was going from Baghdad to 2035 Lagos.
IMO Activision has nailed this formula:
as much innovation as possible + not alienating longtime fans = Profit

 

[OCD Guy]

Shock Horror....Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto and Fifa are safe franchises that make money, businesses don't want to take risks and make games that are unknown quantities that won't make money.

The cost of development for AAA games has never been higher, there's pressure from Publishers on the developers, it's not worth taking the risk to "innovate" and make something that might not sell.

Why do you think there are so many remasters? Easier to develop? It's a known quantity so the risk won't be as big.

There is innovation but you're looking in the wrong places. Publishers like EA for example is not the place to look. Look at the smaller publishers/developers/indies and even Nintendo to be fair.

The majority of gamers i.e the mainstream which generally consists of the average Joe that will go to Gamestop/Game and pay 60 for the latest Call of Duty, they don't sit on forums like us, obsess over resolutions, graphical effects, metascores etc They just buy the game, and they have dictated the state of the industry today. Do you honestly think the typical gamer that buys Fifa has heard of Digital Foundry lol

The mainstream gamers don't buy "innovative games", the majority of Publishers have seen the trends and are going for where the money is, the likes of Konami are a perfect example, they've come to the conclusion that mobile gaming is where the money is. They don't care about P.T as let's face it it would never be a big seller in the grand scheme of things.

Years ago when games didn't cost as much to develop taking risks and "innovating" was safer to do, nowadays no one is going to spend millions developing what's essentially a gamble. A small indie developer is where you need to look. But everyone hates indie games right? Look at the complaints about PS Pus when Sony give "another indie" in the instant game collection

 

[Nzyme32]

I don't agree. Part of the reason I am now only on Pc is because that is where most innovation occurs

 

[Memorabilia]

Dude bros & "casuals" comprise a far larger share of the market pie than the potentially more discerning niche we comprise here at GAF. I love all kinds of games, yes, even the Titanfalls & CODs...but I don't expect my candy crush playing fiance' or my Madden playing buddies to suddenly want to get down with Pillars of Eternity or, say, Q.U.B.E. Not gonna happen. I just feel lucky I managed to get my girl into Dungeon Defenders...its my sly way of maybe introducing her to more real games & getting her off the F2P mobile shit.

Edit: She also loved watching me play Portal & helping me solve the puzzles...so there's always the chance of getting her to actually play Portal 2. I'd say thats one of the most innovative series ever...and it reached somewhat mainstream levels of success. But those types of titles that can bridge the gap are few and far between....

 

[Skellig Gra]

It's human nature. People in general hate change. Sure there are some of us who like new things and are always looking for a better way but we are a severe minority.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Not my problem since novelty barely has any impact on my enjoyment of games. I notice it, I don't yearn for it.

I'm not a psychologist, but according to many theories, enjoyment is fundamentally related to having the right combination of familiar and new inputs. Surprises are considered an essential element of fun. So either your definition of novelty doesn't coincide with what constitutes innovation, or the experiences you enjoy are possibly more innovative than they appear to be on the surface.

 

[Garlador]

Gamers don't hate innovation.

Gamers just are SKEPTICAL of innovation.

And that's because "innovation" by major developers usually means such "innovative" things like DRM, online passes, pre-order DLC, on-disc DLC, $40 Season Passes, forced online social elements, always-online requirements, QTEs and massive on-rails setpieces, and "appealing to a wider audience".

When something truly astounding and innovative DOES come out (Portal, Metroid Prime, GTA3, Halo: CE, Mario 64, Pokemon, StarCraft, etc.), you bet we take notice.

 

[Shuggananas]

I'd never seen anything like it before hand.

If you could post a video it would be very much appreciated.

Garry's mod comes to mind
Of course it's not minecraft, but it's a sandbox as in you're free to do whatever you want with what you got

 

[Chaos17]

Stop following only "mainstream" games. There are tons of innovative games out there that do well enough.

There isn't a single group of "gamers"

This

 

[SocksAndShoes]

I don't think innovation is the problem.

I think innovation for the sake of innovation is the problem. Too many game mechanics are half-baked and only added so the marketing team can have another bullet point on the back of the case.

Interesting, polished innovations will always be welcome.

 

[Shuggananas]

I don't think innovation is the problem.

I think innovation for the sake of innovation is the problem. Too many game mechanics are half-baked and only added so the marketing team can have another bullet point on the back of the case.

Interesting, polished innovations will always be welcome.

remember sixaxis presentation

edit : kinect too for that matter

 

[Triggerhappytel]

I dislike that video. It's almost as if big-budget massively marketed stuff appeals more to the wider audience than something extremely niche like Ico or Persona or whatever. I mean... what exactly is it trying to say, besides the extremely obvious? You could say the same thing about books, films and music too. Welcome to pop culture, I guess?

 

[More_Badass]

Looking at Kickstarter:

Star Citizen - Wing Commander Privateer
Mighty No 9 - Rockman
Yooka Laylee - Banjo Kazooie
Torment - Planescape
Wasteland 2 - Wasteland
Pillars of Eternity - Baldur's Gate
Bloodstained - Symphony of the Night
Planetary Annihilation - Total Annihilation

Also looking at Kickstarter (or coming soon)

Elsinore - Time-looping AI-driven Shakespearean adventure game
That Which Sleeps - Grand strategy game where you control an awakened Lovecraftian being corrupting the world in secret
Superhot - Minimalist FPS where time moves when you move
Four Sided Fantasy - Puzzle platformer where you use and manipulate screen wrap
Rain World - Open world survival platformer with advanced AI and procedurally generated animations in an alien ecosystem
Machiavillain - Dungeon Keeper-esque strategy game meets Cabin in the Woods

etc

 

[Renekton]

I wonder where:

Rain World
Classroom Aquatic
Hyper Light Drifter
Don't Starve
Kentucky Route Zero

And the variety of other wholly unique ideas are placed in your kickstarter list?

I went by most funded.

Nostalgia dominates the top 20.

 

[PillarEN]

remember sixaxis presentation

edit : kinect too for that matter

Bu bu but... my avatar. It's the perfect example for good Sixaxis controls.

Yeah I know it was junk otherwise. Always turn it off for Mirrors Edge tightrope walking.

 

[Jo Shishido's Cheeks]

This is why Shenmue failed, damn you gamers!

 

[tebunker]

I went by most funded.

Nostalgia dominates the top 20.

Things tinged with Nostalgia can still be innovative.

I think, and others have posted this too, but defining what is and isn't innovative or innovation is important. Then also understanding that there is nuance involved as well.

Iteration and Innovation are closely related.

All of those nostalgic Kickstarters you posted could all contain innovations, and be innovative in different ways.


I just think too many get hung up on what is and isn't innovation and most don't actually understand the word. Mainly focusing on large scale innovation or change is probably wrong. Understanding that there is a scale to it is a start.

 

[More_Badass]

I went by most funded.

Nostalgia dominates the top 20.

Of course it does and it always will. I don't see how that overshadows the fact that unique and innovative indie games far outnumber the spiritual successors on KS. It's like saying superhero movies make a shit ton of money so the movie industry is boring now, while ignoring everything else that's out there