• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Is it fair to expect every major release to bring something new to the table.

T

Takamura-San

Member
I was having this conversation last night in mumble, about expectations and innovations in games.

Does every major release has to bring something new to the table? Are these expectations actually realistic? Can games just be good or does every developer should go for +1 upping what has been done before?

I for one believe that innovation happens every other year. When I buy a major release I expect at least a good game. If it is a great game then better.

One example of this is SW:TOR. Mind you I have yet to play the game, but one major complain that I have read/heard is that it is, "another WOW-like MMO". Not going to say that there might be other issues with the game, but is it being a good game enough? Maybe there are people that don't like the WOW-skin and would like to try another. The same with Rift and other recent MMO's.

Another example is BF3. Another major release in which the feedback that i read/hear before release is that the game was going to "redefine FPS". Really?

It feels that there's a mindset that "if you don't bring something new to the table, don't bother doing it". Am I right that this is the case? Should we be without new releases until developers come up with something new for every major release? That Means that this past holiday would've been without:

- BF3
- MW3
- SW: TOR
- GOW: 3
- Z:SWS
- Skyrim

Just to name a few.

Please share your thoughts.
 
I don't think it's so much "bring something new" as it is "don't bring the exact same thing that eight people have already brought".
 
It all depends on if people are tired of the formula and mechanics in question.

In the case of SWTOR vs. WoW, keep in mind that people have been playing the same game since 2004 and the formula is getting rather stale at this point.
 
Innovation is an overrated idea used by message board theorists. It doesn't affect how much I enjoy a release.
 
Every game? No. But when you're chasing a market leader like WoW or Call of Duty and your core game design is very similar, you have to expect to be called out on it from time to time.

edit: Though the comparison of Battlefield to Call of Duty should be argued. BF is it's own animal.
 
Not every major release, no. I expect a handful of lesser known games to do something interesting, then the big guns will run it into the ground.
 
DidntKnowJack said:
Every game? No. But when you're chasing a market leader like WoW or Call of Duty and your core game design is very similar, you have to expect to be called out on it from time to time.
Click to expand...

I agree.

But then there are critics who dismiss everything if a game doesn't re-invent the wheel.
 
If people get bored quickly with games because they do not show them enough that they find new or exciting then that is just how it is. There is no fair or unfair, just doing something "safe" or "good enough" is as much of a risk as doing something different and untested.
 
For every game, of course not. I need to play great games before playing something "new". First off, "new" =/= automatically great but to give up my money it NEEDS to be something great. This means the dev/publisher needs to make a great game first, and innovate second.

But there are traps. If you make a good game but it's too similar to thousands of other we just played, why would be buy that? Might as well replay the game I already own. So making a game is like messing with receipes. They are good receipes but sometimes you mix it up in a certain way that you never tried before in order to kill monotomny.
 
shinobi602 said:
Nope. For me the idea that a game has to be innovative to be good is beyond ridiculous.
Click to expand...

But perhaps it need to be innovative to be interesting? For me it has to be either that, or in story focused game it at least has to have a story and a setting worthy of my attention.

Not what that doesn´t mean that a game that doesn´t have any of those can´t be good, but considering the amount of games I have, being a good game is really not enough now.
 
Lyphen said:
Innovation is an overrated idea used by message board theorists. It doesn't affect how much I enjoy a release.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this, Innovation is great but very rare, mostly what we get is Game X with component from Game Y.

Sometimes it works others it doesn't.

For me a new game has to be worth it, that can be for a 100 different reasons from telling more of a story to giving me more of the gameplay i liked. I like Oblivion, I like skyrim. Elder Scrolls 6 will most likely be the same formular with some new stuff added some old stuff removed and a new enviroment and thats enough for me.

But thats not applicable to everything, Call of duty multiplayer for instance hasnt hooked me the same way im buying them only for the SP now (however crappy it may be in some peoples eyes) I likely wont buy BlOps 2 cause i hated BlOps SP.

Halo on the other had could ship Halo 2 multiplayer with different maps and id buy the legendary edition day 1 and play it till my xbox broke.

See, it varies on a case by case basis.

Innovation is nice , its not required and it can even kill some franchises but as a concept its nice.
 
No I don't think so. Typically the stuff in games that people say are innovative are just more polished ideas first introduced in an older game no one heard of.

In my opinion Blizzard is the master at it. They don't necessarily bring a whole lot new to the table in their games but what they do bring is very very polished. (Not saying they aren't innovative just that they get more credit than they perhaps should).
 
In my mind a game has to have either innovation or a high level of polish. Developers need to recognize this early on and decide which direction they're heading. If they can do both, they've got something really special on their hands.
 
I'll support moreofthesame only if it's the first time, at the second one no matter how good the game is I'll get bored fast.
 
Green Scar said:
Hate to be that guy, but Skyward Sword did bring plenty new to the table.
Click to expand...

I think Skyward Sword is a great example of expectations being out of hand.

SS does plenty of things that are new and innovative. But you still get like half the people who playing griping it's just the same old game Nintendo has made for fifty thousand years.

When people overhype themselves with unrealistic expectations, they get disappointed no matter how good the game is. However it happened, I think in gaming that "innovation" has become seriously conflated with "satisfaction". I.E. if I'm not satisfied with this game, it wasn't innovative enough! If I'm bored with it, it's because it's more of the same!

People are pattern matching engines. When they dislike something, or are in some way disappointed, they single out everything in the game that seems like a good excuse to pin their unhappiness on and form a narrative around it. For instance, Skyward Sword had like one "push the box" puzzle in the whole game. But I'm sure there's someone out there who thinks it's entirely stale, who singles in on that ONE poor box, and in his mind, sees the entire game as full of boxes.

Hell, I've seen this happen in person; someone who for a complex combination of reasons dislikes something, and when they try to describe the experience, they outright distort the truth - they exaggerate the things they dislike, they even "remember" those things happening more often, or at worse times, than they actually did. I used SS as the example here, because people place Zelda on too much of a holy pedestal - either they're fans who long to feel 12 years old again and have their mind blown as when they first played Ocarina of Time on christmas morning in their jammies, or they hear so much about this "epic" Zelda series, try the game, and find it's not literally better in every way than every other genre of game combined, and say it's an overhyped piece of boring crap.

But anyway. I think innovation is a tricky thing to consider with how people relate to games and all. I think the "message board theorists" do put too much emphasis on it. There seems to be a certain kind of gamer who is easily bored, maybe doesn't really like games as much as they think, and blames it on games being dull and uninteresting. A lot of the cries for innovation in games stems from hardcore gamers who have burned themselves out by only playing a limited variety of games (their "obsession"). I know first person shooter fanatics who can't stop playing just one type of game, and are bored out of their minds because every new FPS can't reinvent the genre.

I also think that we might not have such problems with innovation if more games were designed to be evergreen experiences, games built to last instead of being disposable 5 hour "experiences" never played again or kept in someone's library. Too many games that come and go in a blur, overhyped but forgettable, also leads people to demand more novelty for its own sake in order to help tell individual titles apart.
 
Lord-Audie said:
One example of this is SW:TOR. Mind you I have yet to play the game, but one major complain that I have read/heard is that it is, "another WOW-like MMO". Not going to say that there might be other issues with the game, but is it being a good game enough? Maybe there are people that don't like the WOW-skin and would like to try another. The same with Rift and other recent MMO's.
Click to expand...

In this instance, it was also a case of people who don't find the WoW mechanics appealing, then hearing about this new one with a story that isn't throwaway and being disappointed when it turned out that it played just like all the other MMOs that they weren't interested in.
 
If it's a new release in the same franchise, then yes. There has to be a reason that this is not DLC. It can't be just because of the size of the game.
 
Well yes, every game brings something new to the table, or else it would be a straight re-release.
The real question is: does every game need to bring something mechanically new to the table, and I think the answer is no, although I'm not particularly a fan of games that only bring new story to the table (since I'm not a fan of most game stories)
 
Honestly people complain about yearly sequels but I don't give a fuck.

COD every year? Great! I'm going to rent it for a weekend or two from gamefly and play a stupid amount with friends, send back and then forget about the series until E3 besides forum crying.


Assassin's every year? I love the historical settings and I LOVED Ezio so 20-30 hours a year of running around a new beautiful city calling in my underlings and stabbing fools? Sounds great to me especially when the additions are easily avoided (I loved the multiplayer but hated the tower defense but only had to do it ONCE).


Now when it's a good series with a glaring hole that isn't addressed (Uncharted combat for instance) I'm more annoyed than the above examples that are not perfect games but don't have an obvious thing to fix.
 
The Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning demo reaffirmed my belief in "comfort food" games. Sometimes it's nice to play something familiar, but well-executed.
 
The_Technomancer said:
Well yes, every game brings something new to the table, or else it would be a straight re-release.
The real question is: does every game need to bring something mechanically new to the table, and I think the answer is no, although I'm not particularly a fan of games that only bring new story to the table (since I'm not a fan of most game stories)
Click to expand...

^ (except for the story bits). That should be the minimum requirement for something to be art, not product. Even famous (and talented) literary hacks added something new to their cookie-cutter stories.
 
At the very least, the game should feel refreshing enough for the full price ticket and a general sense that there is some kind of step forward for the overall franchise.
 
i think a lot of the problem is the scoring centric mindset people have. we don't expect every new major film or album to be ground breaking in some way.

the things which break new ground should be praised for it, but nothing should be marked down for being a brilliant example of its genre, or as good as the previous game in the franchise.

and yet that's what game reviewers, and many gaffers, do time and time again.
 
It use to be fair to expect that, but then gamer's expectations are so low these days, it no longer applies. And I think that happened because deep down you can't really play games anymore expecting anything remotely new or creative or not-iterative. You got to WANT to play the same game over and over again or else you would have stopped gaming in general. You have to justify your vice somehow.

Something new to the table is now defined as art assets. Mind boggling but there ya go. That's gaming these days. Production values are neat.
 
I think so. If a game has gotten so formulaic that people are getting bored of the routine, then your next release should have something that makes it different. You don't want to release pretty much the same thing with a slight palette swap or location change, because you are just beating a dead horse if you do.

I think Left 4 Dead 2 is a good example of a sequel that has something new. Its basic premise is the same as L4D1, but while the introduction of new special infected and melee weapons looks simple on paper, they made huge improvements to the way the game played, and actually completely changed the way a player makes decisions in the in-game environment. Compare that to something like Modern Warfare, where every game has had the same mechanics and gameplay for its past 3 or 4 iterations.
 
The problem is everything is so saturated now. Games have become what happened to music. There is nothing left. It's taking bits and pieces and slapping it together into a new monster.

The key is grabbing all the right bits
 
If it's the exact same thing from the franchise, it should be cheaper. I assume that each publishers thinks they are introducing a new feature unless it is a budget title.
 
If its a sequel then yes, if its a new IP not necessarily.

Sequels have do differentiate themselves in some meaningful way from their predecessor, where as a new IP can blend similar existing gaming archetypes in new, interesting, and better ways.
 
I guess when I expect "new", I settle for small things; touch-ups to mechanics level of stuff, not a reimagining. To expect a reinvention every time is a bit ridiculous personally. "More of the same" isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself.
 
Innovation is just a buzzword thrown around with wild abandon these days. Rarely gets used correctly.

Refinement is more important to me.
 
Coxswain said:
I don't think it's so much "bring something new" as it is "don't bring the exact same thing that eight people have already brought".
Click to expand...

I think it's perfectly acceptable to bring the "same thing" that someone else did, so long as you do it as good, or better.

"Innovation" is just a buzz word to me. I put more value in the quality of the work, rather than the innovative nature of a mechanic. So long as a game does what it wants to do well, then I am fine with that. Now, if it copies something, and does it poorly, then clearly there is a problem.

Edit: Damn you, seventynine.
 
H3xum said:
I don't know what games you're playing, but, I'd like to get my hands on them.
Click to expand...
There is a reason I bolded in the quote. Context.

---

This thread is quite interesting but in no way surprising. Sequels sell and that's pretty much all we get. Many people here endorse "refinement" instead of new ideas. I personally don't like doing the same thing over and over again. I find absolutely no satisfaction in automaton entertainment. Some refinements can be considered innovative and that is where there is a possible breaking point. It smudges this thread's ideas but is a genuine concept. The Mario franchise with the 2d & 3d generations is an easy set of examples.

Innovate breaking new ground or refine with innovation. Otherwise, no sale. When somebody hypes up a sequel, my first question is always "so what's new?" If all I get is some +1 spiel to the former titles then it is an instant pass. Been there, done that, not doing it again. So yes, it is very fair to expect every major release to bring something new to the table. It just isn't necessarily realistic.
seventynine said:
Innovation is just a buzzword thrown around with wild abandon these days. Rarely gets used correctly.

Refinement is more important to me.
Click to expand...
It breaks into semantics but as specified above, those concepts are not necessarily mutual exclusive e.g. cut & dry. Hence, you may be endorsing a concept you are labeled a buzzword.
 
I'm going to bring an analogy that a little out there but bear with me.

For those that argue that it is fair to ask for something new for every major release. Do you apply that same logic to food?

I KNOW is not a 1:1 relation, but think about it. There are people that are very happy eating the same kind of meal for a long time.

Can it be the same for entertainment? In this case games.
 
Unless the innovation genuinely adds to the enjoyment, I would suggest the budget for innovation would be better spent on quality control.
 
I don't mind more of the same, but only if it's really good.
What is unacceptable is when a sequal takes a step backwards and is crappier than the first. Then they're just cashing in on previous success and cheaping out on dev costs.
Equal or better, good. There is no excuse for a franchise to become worse.
 
The single best franchises are the ones that stick to and refine a winning formula while deviating only in a way that benefits the core refinement goal as a whole. i.e. 'innovation' is a compliment, a method of potential improvement. See: Pokemon, Zelda, Halo, most yearly sports game franchises, Need for Speed, etc.

Not that it works all the time (some sequels are better than others) but it's more difficult to make an outright bad game by playing it safe with your winning formulas. Wanton experimentation is an avenue best left to from-scratch game design, and that's usually where the best new ideas shine.

There is a corollary though, and that's when innovation and experimentation come from circumstances deeming it necessary, the biggest example I can think of being the 2D-3D transition in the mid-90s. Mario 64 had to be a completely different game from its predecessors for this reason.
 
I don't mind the occasional "expansion pack sequel" (Brotherhood, Fallout: New Vegas, Dead Space 2, Galaxy 2) where it is basically just "more content" and minor tweaks. Eventually though, enough is enough obviously. The problem is that sometimes when games do make changes that are worthy of a sequel, gamers still tend to call it "the same shit" (Nintendo gets hit by this a lot weirdly enough).
 
Also I subscribe to the opinion that if a game only remains interesting the first few playthroughs and has no staying power beyond that, then it wasn't a very well-designed game in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

New Jaleco Arcade Collections Set To Bring 32 Games From The Legendary Japanese Developer To Steam
Trailer Game Dev Platform 
6
178
Sintoid replied
Is EGS tactic to just release free games every week without ever improving the store?
33
824
jshackles replied
Microsoft quietly scraps plans to bring Copilot to notifications and Settings on Windows 11 as it moves to reduce AI bloat across the OS
News Platform 
40
661
falconhoof replied
Is it just me, or is every new game being forgotten in a week or two after release nowadays?
2 3
130
2K
YeulEmeralda replied
Unreal Tournament 2004 is free to grab as fans revive and release it
13
450
MiguelItUp replied
Top Bottom