Quote:

Original post by GameStudioD Well, original ideas are few and far between. It would make sense that discussion of them is limited. Additionally, people have a comfort zone, innovative ideas are out of that comfort zone and are harshly ridiculed. People are scared of new ideas. This is true in general, not limited to gamedev. Imagine if the designer of Katamari Damacy posted his idea here. The game is fun, but the idea is way, way out of the box. His idea would have been blasted and he would be laughed off this forum. Maybe even somewhat discouraged.

I don't think it's necessarily a case of being 'scared' of new ideas, but not being able to relate to them at all when presented in writing.

The problem with discussing truly original game ideas is that it's very hard to judge what is fun and what isn't, what works and what doesn't, because there's nothing to relate it to. This makes it hard to discuss on any level beyond "that sounds interesting, let's see a demo". Let's face it, "A game where you start off with a little ball thing and roll it around collecting scenery and getting bigger" sounds fairly lame on paper. You really have to play it to appreciate it. In any case, it's hard for anyone to really offer advice on how to improve the actual design details, because there's not a lot to compare it to.

On the other hand, there is still an enormous amount of room for innovation and growth within established 'genres' - but since the basic concept is much more familiar, and there is plenty of experience of things that work and things that don't, it is easier to have an actual discussion about it. As a result, discussions about games that can be classified within a well understood genre tend to elicit more responses and stay alive longer than those that can't.

Quote:

Original post by Iron Chef Carnage Look at the volumes that Wavinator has produced here, and then look at his website.

Nah, didn't you know my sole goal is to have every thread in this forum start with "Wavinator." It's an Agent Smith thing. [grin] (Thanks for the honorable mention, btw.)

Quote:

(although we might get a mention in his credits when all is said and done).

Credits?!?! Are you kidding. You guys are going to be IN the game! ("You've been destroyed by the pirate cruiser Iron Chef Carnage!!!"[smile]

I think you nailed the purpose of this board, actually. It's not entertainment, it's a tool to acid test the crazy stuff in your head that you're way too apt to fall in love with (writers call this "Kill your darlings.").

I think the progress of maturity for an idea works a little like this:
1) Crazy brainstorm, half fuzzy, exciting because it's new or different
2) Translate it from the white hot, living space of imagination to paper / word processor
3) Test it out with friends, community
3 a )If response is "waaaa?" then refine
3 b )If response is "cool" then ask why (want more of that)
4) If committed to it, refine and make something; else abandon & move on

---

Quote:

Let's hear your INNOVATIVE ideas! I'm getting tired of all the "yet another RPG combat/levelling system" threads

No, let's hear YOUR innovative ideas! [smile]

I think the real question you may be asking is "Why aren't people proposing ideas for new games I'd like to play?" The cure to that is to POST YOUR STUFF!

Search for bishop_pass threads. I've enjoyed Wavinators very thoroughly as well.

Quote:

Original post by Iron Chef Carnage Take bishop_pass and his horse simulation system. He's got all the research, all the knowledge, and all the competence to make it work. For a while, you couldn't even mention horses on these boards without a dissertation from him on why your four-legged motorcycle was an abomination and how ungodly it was to reduce the horse to a simple means to an end. He's the reclusive genius. He may very well be 98% of the way through the most nuanced animal behavior simulation ever developed, but he knows that GD.net isn't the place to develop it.

Sadly not, but an excellent point.

[Edited by - Brandon N on March 3, 2005 6:02:35 PM]

Quote:

Original post by GameStudioD Imagine if the designer of Katamari Damacy posted his idea here. The game is fun, but the idea is way, way out of the box. His idea would have been blasted and he would be laughed off this forum. Maybe even somewhat discouraged.

NO! NO! NO! Sorry for the strident response, but I think this is a critical mistake that people make. Everything depends on how the idea is presented. You MUST take responsibility for the interpretation people will have of the words you use. If you use boring language, your idea will come across boring.

Which sounds more interesting:

"A game where you dance or fight with a sword every once in awhile, avoid guards in cities, and use a boat to get money..."

or

"A pirate adventure where you plunder your way through the Spanish Main, sinking galleons, engaging in legendary sword fights, conquering townships, and winning the hearts of beautiful maidens, all to become the greatest pirate in history?"

The first is bland and uninspiring. The second uses active, colorful language to inspire interest. (The game, btw, is Sid Meier's Pirates! which is unquestionably innovative)

As mentioned in other places, one of the reasons people keep making RTSs and RPGs and FPSs is that they generally follow a fairly coherent and similar control system and are easy to pick up and play, making them fun. As stated by other people, if I can't pick something up and play it within, say, 10 minutes, or if I have to sit there for 5 minutes trying to figure out how to do some basic thing (like moving a ship), then I don't really think that game is fun. If there's a tutorial I'm usually alright.

Take, for example, the demo for Nexus: The Jupiter Incident. I've heard great things about this game, but when I went to play the demo, it dropped me in a mission without any indication as to what the controls might be - I was stuck there for 5 minutes trying to figure out how to move my ships (while they were under attack, no less). Not to mention the controls aren't extremely logical until you actually learn them (i.e. I would have expected clicking anywhere on the screen to move a ship). It looks nice, is somewhat original (not too many fleet-style games are around), but the documentation is hidden in the README file and IMHO the interface is just too deviant.

Just my opinions. Cheers!

I don't know, I have some innovative ideas, but I don't want to share with everyone because I want to get them done myself. I'm sure others feel the same.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator (The game, btw, is Sid Meier's Pirates! which is unquestionably innovative)

I challenge that. It is well executed, nicely rounded, visually appealing but definitely not innovative.
On the other hand it´s a typical example of what we´re talking about. Design isn´t in the grand ideas - absolutely nothing in the "new" Pirates! is new, but as a whole it has still managed to win the audience.

Innovative people have no need to discuss their ideas on public forums.

If you're innovative then external input on your ideas will break your project.

Still, there are some interesting people here whose opinions I often read with interest.

One of main reasons you don't read about innovative ideas here is do to the fact that game design is a very practical field and not a highly theoretical one. Its very hard for people to recognize a good idea until they have seen it implented. This is espically true of innovative ideas because people lack a frame of reference to compare the idea to. So often time they will misinterprate the idea and associate it with something else.

The next great game may have already been stated in this forum it just that no one can regonize from few paragraphs posted about one part of it.

Quote:

Let's hear your INNOVATIVE ideas! I'm getting tired of all the "yet another RPG combat/levelling system" threads :-)

How about a game that takes place with player moving around the interior surface of a sphere. And I don't know you do stuff and grow bigger and sphere move from opaque to translucent the bigger you get. Until you encompass the whole sphere and find your self moving around a universe composed of obstacle related to things you did in the sphere. Then you have to roll around the universe avoiding obstacles to get to the goal. Once you reach the goal you break out of the sphere and find yourself in a bigger sphere.

Then you give it some bizzare name like "The whole worlds a hamster ball" and you have your self an inovative game idea.

But just remember the key phrase in video games "Its not who did it first, its who last did it best."

Quote:

Original post by infrmtn Innovative people have no need to discuss their ideas on public forums.

Sure, they do. All ideas require scrutiny. Refer to the Scientific Method and the Design Process, and associated reasons for utilization of those procedures.

Quote:

Original post by TechnoGoth How about a game that takes place with player moving around the interior surface of a sphere. And I don't know you do stuff and grow bigger and sphere move from opaque to translucent the bigger you get. Until you encompass the whole sphere and find your self moving around a universe composed of obstacle related to things you did in the sphere. Then you have to roll around the universe avoiding obstacles to get to the goal. Once you reach the goal you break out of the sphere and find yourself in a bigger sphere. Then you give it some bizzare name like "The whole worlds a hamster ball" and you have your self an inovative game idea.

I disagree. That sounds like swinging at the wind, blindfolded, until you hit something. That's not game design. That's not design. Refer to my post earlier in this thread concerning design as a deliberate process and "innovative game design" as a method of solving novel (never before seen) and/or unresolved game design issues. For instance, if a company creates a computer monitor which projects images within a glass spheroid, innovative game design would necessitate developing a game that works well and is fun when displayed in such an environment. If a company creates a user input device, similar to a VR glove, innovative game design would necessitate discovering a way to allow usage of that technology in a manner appropriate per genre. Those two examples are technology-related; however, perhaps one day cognitive science refines the way we understand the operations of the human brain. Innovative game design would involve adapting game design methodology to that new understanding.

Innovative games are not simply "new ideas." Everyone has unique ideas. Sometimes these ideas may share similarities with other ideas, but these unique ideas remain unique because they are different from the others in some way regardless of minority difference.

Innovative games resolve an issue (or set of issues) in game design never before seen (or never resolved) in the history of game design. Which novel issues would your unique game idea resolve? If none, then it's not innovative design.

With regard to understanding discovering opportunities for innovative game design, apply this quote belonging to Rene Descartes, "I begin to understand the foundations of a wonderful discovery all the sciences are interconnected as by a chain; no one of them can be completely grasped without taking in the whole encyclopedia at once."