PDA

View Full Version : Where's the innovation?



Hell_Baron
03-28-2012, 06:28 PM
Hey folks,
When i was a kid i remember playing games such as Baldur's Gate and Fallout, games well known for being far ahead of their time, doing things no other game had done before. The thing is the creators of these games actually dared to be creative, to be innovative, wich is something i sadly cannot say for today's games wich mainly consists of First-Person-Shooting-Suicidal-And-Hyperactive-Sniper-Simulators (*cough* CALL OF DUTY *cough*). it's a goddamned shame publishers rather preffer to stick to the same cookiecutter formula of making a random game with extremely cliched elements in order to appeal to the masses, thus playing safe, not giving a shit of actually being innovative or creative just because they're scared of it being a total fuck-up. and it's just not new franchises. the only innovation i see in games these days are indie games.

I don't want to be force fed a unoriginal piece of copypasta that's supposedly "the standard" of every videogame these days.

ClockHand
03-28-2012, 06:30 PM
Don't buy them

Sylux
03-28-2012, 06:31 PM
Yeah just play old games. I just play N64, SNES, and PS2 all day shyeeeeet.

GunZet
03-28-2012, 07:04 PM
Hey folks,
When i was a kid i remember playing games such as Baldur's Gate and Fallout, games well known for being far ahead of their time, doing things no other game had done before. The thing is the creators of these games actually dared to be creative, to be innovative, wich is something i sadly cannot say for today's games wich mainly consists of First-Person-Shooting-Suicidal-And-Hyperactive-Sniper-Simulators (*cough* CALL OF DUTY *cough*). it's a goddamned shame publishers rather preffer to stick to the same cookiecutter formula of making a random game with extremely cliched elements in order to appeal to the masses, thus playing safe, not giving a shit of actually being innovative or creative just because they're scared of it being a total fuck-up. and it's just not new franchises. the only innovation i see in games these days are indie games.

I don't want to be force fed a unoriginal piece of copypasta that's supposedly "the standard" of every videogame these days.

A game did this in 2011, it was called Bulletstorm, it was an FPS that gave a shit about what people thought of it, and it was sexy as hell. Though it was highly shunned by the public for having the balls to be something different in a solidified genre.

T1B3R1U5
03-28-2012, 07:24 PM
Where the innovation you ask? It simply got shoved up a Claptrap's ass like an electrode, causing it to be burnt, electrocuted, melted by corrosion, and then finally taken off to a scrap pile to be eaten by Skag's(AKA Shitty Game Developers) and then regurgitated without the orginal content of the innovation....An a hat's tip to the creator's of Bulletstorm to help me handle my own strange and deranged ability to get nearly a hundred skillshot's on screen at any given time.

ClockHand
03-28-2012, 07:53 PM
Wait, Bulletstorm was innovative? I thing I didn't play'd that part.

Sylux
03-28-2012, 07:53 PM
Hahaha, yeah. That's what I was thinkin'.

GunZet
03-28-2012, 08:10 PM
The core gimmick (skillshots) was it's innovative point that seperated it from the other 5 gazillion first-person shooters. Not many FPS' give you the choice to actually think about how you kill, it's usually point and shoot. Whilst in BStorm, you can point and shoot, but that's not how it was meant to be played. It was meant to point, whip, kick, shoot a flare up a dude's ass, whip him back down, kick him into a cactus near a group of other fiends, and watch your screen explode into a flurry of points and shit.

If that's not innovative (in it's genre), what is?

Sylux
03-28-2012, 08:13 PM
A game with less repetition? Or a game with badass story? Sure, the witty banter is fun to listen to, but what's so great about the story?

GunZet
03-28-2012, 08:15 PM
The story I can't really say much for if we're still talking about Bstorm here. It was meh and bleh, full of 'badass guy' cliches. But it worked for the game. You got a lot of games out here that have this arcade gameplay, but this story that tries to be super serious, and it just doesn't really work together. You just get a bad movie that you can play.

Sylux
03-28-2012, 08:17 PM
Well some platformers (arcade types) are actually really badass story-wise. Then sometimes they're hilarious. Castlevania is an example of both, really.

Matt
03-28-2012, 09:56 PM
Where is the innovation, you ask? Indies:

Overgrowth. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPPzVltjn1g)
Uplink. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa3aUcNWdfw&feature=related)
Hammerfight. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAVYpvWRdoM)
Crayon Physics. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsTqspnvAaI)

Pretty much everything in the Humble Indie Bundles.

Sylux
03-28-2012, 10:02 PM
If you didn't read the OP, he mentioned indies already.

jubeh
03-28-2012, 10:37 PM
Im tired, I just got off work, ate a sloppily made sandwich and I'm about to take out the trash but

Is this thread fucking serious.

You know how much I hate selective memory. A shitload. Loads and loads of SHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT.

My grandmother's nuclear family never existed in the first place, yet she insists on going on about the good old days. You remember the good old days when black people had to use the side door to get into the theater and women couldnt wear pants. Awesome times.

So where's the innovation? Maybe, just maybe, its something like our childhood generation of games where it was buried by tons of ASS AND FUCK.

Why does nobody remember the shitty games? Is the angry video game nerd the only one? Did anyone play the bill and ted game on the nes, or the tazmanian devil game on genesis. Does anybody remember the atari jaguar?

Do you know why those games you love were so innovative for the time? Its because the guys that made them are the closest to that generation's indie developers. Are you mad at publishers? That's just too bad because publishers rule the entertainment world. Are you mad at developers? Why, because they have bills to pay and mouths to feed?

Its not like innovation is what people really want anyway. They shit all over the wii and kinect and don't even buy actual unique games. What people really want is a new thing to shoot at.

It was nazis first, right. Then zombies? What else is left. Possibly robots? Is Binary Domain the way forward? What about horses. A game where you just fucking shoot horses.

GunZet
03-28-2012, 10:45 PM
http://biopixmod.com/images/51The_Hunter_2012_HI2U.jpg

Also, I dunno if this really counts, but back when I had it on my Snes and all that shit, Earthbound was as innovative as RPGs came, in my eyes. But it was probably just doing the same thing everyone else was doing, just in a sexier way.

jubeh
03-28-2012, 10:47 PM
Earthbound was the opposite of innovative. It was literally textbook dragon quest. Its one of my favorite games of all time but no.

Evil_Cake
03-28-2012, 11:27 PM
atari jaguarhey shut up

Sylux
03-29-2012, 06:04 AM
I think the zelda cd-i games were fun and innovative

T1B3R1U5
04-03-2012, 02:37 PM
I really can't say anything since I wasn't born in the "Era of Innovation" or your guys decade(assuming that I'm not offending anyone here, and am just guessing about everybody's age). So, I think my opinion here doesn't matter or isn't relevant. So, Ciao!

CypressDahlia
04-03-2012, 04:16 PM
You have to keep in mind that it's a lot harder to be innovative these days than it was back then. The oversaturation of media makes it difficult to do something that hasn't already been done. You can only do it from a different angle, most of the time. Or just plain do it better.

Delphinus
04-05-2012, 08:42 AM
^ "Everything that can be invented has been invented." ~ Charles H. Duell, Commissioner's Office for US Patents, 1899. Except not (http://www.myoutbox.net/posass.htm). In addition, looking at something familiar from a new angle is doing something new, as I thought you'd be aware as an artist; non-realism is more realistic than realism because it's better at capturing subjectivity. See Lucian Freud (http://honorehonorhonour.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/self-portrait.jpg) versus a Deviant (http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/331/8/4/realistic_self_portrait_by_xraika_chanx-d33q0ix.jpg).

Innovation doesn't make money. Van Gogh was a starving artist. So was James Joyce. Most of the really innovative people have been. People like their comfort zones and what they know. Anything new is instinctively rejected unless people are forced to observe its merits. So it's not financially viable to try new things. And the present world is a big machine running on profit; humanity and aesthetics died sometime between rationalism and WW1. Blame the idiots who buy the games or blame human nature for being so conservative or blame capitalism, don't blame game companies.

GunZet
04-05-2012, 09:01 AM
Agreed. Though you do have those games and game companies out there that just make it blatantly obvious 'we want your money, yes this is the same game as numerous others, no we didn't even try to do anything different, yes, you'll buy it, and here's this on-disc DLC for the same price as the game itself'.

Which oddly enough, people -do- end up buying them and playing them, lol.

CypressDahlia
04-05-2012, 09:53 AM
^ "Everything that can be invented has been invented." ~ Charles H. Duell, Commissioner's Office for US Patents, 1899. Except not (http://www.myoutbox.net/posass.htm). In addition, looking at something familiar from a new angle is doing something new, as I thought you'd be aware as an artist...

Patents and art don't really work the same way as gameplay mechanics. You could very well patent something that's essentially useless or draw something that nobody appreciates. Games are confined to both of those criteria: people need to like it, and people need to find it useful.

X-Factor in MvC3 was a mechanic created to eliminate the perpetual comeback, but it only broke the game in many instances. Was a cool idea, was relatively new and different in its execution. But it broke the game.