Video games are all about making the most appealing and fun game. In the beginning of this industry, innovation was easy, because almost any concept you could think of hadn't been done yet. Nowadays, it is a whole different story. Another thing that happened more often in the past was simply copying another game. It used to be so blatent, for instance a copy of pong would be called tennis for two or ping-pong, and simply change the paddle color. In the game industry today, this still happens to a much smaller extent. However, each new game of a certain genre improves on those games that came before it. In this regard, new games, even though they have the same concept, optimize the genre of game which they belong to. These games easily make money, although alot of them are quite derevitive and forgetable. True innovation in the game industry can break through any genre and deliver an entirely new game experience. However, people often shy away from these types of games because they feel safe with games they are familiar with and know they will get their moneys worth. Therefore, most truely innovative games struggle because they are strange and new. Is this so wrong though? Is it such a bad thing for people to want improved versions of games they already know and like or should the game industry focus more on trying to deliver new and different experiences?

I think the game industry is going to focus on whatever makes them money, no matter what we think.[wink] We as customer or aspiring designers don't really fit into the equation. But they'll focus in both areas.

I think there's nothing wrong with clones. There have been several times when I've finished a game and wanted more. When I finished Diablo years ago I waited forever for another hack & slasher where I could co-op with friends (and it took forever for one to come out).

What is turning me from the game industry more and more, though, is the rash of too many clones. There really is such a thing as "enough of a good thing." Unfortunately, like tobacco, the game industry has a fresh crop of ever new young players, so they can afford to lose an old guy like me.

It's really going to be a matter of competition, though. My friend, who has long wanted to see more strategy-related character development in games, laments that he's now starting to see it everywhere (in boxing, in racing games) except the genre where he wants it (in RPGs). But it's clear that this stuff is being added because the games can't attract the attention they need just as they are.

It's just as easy for "optimisations" to flop as they are to hit. Contra kicked ass. Super C was alright. Contra 3 was incredible. Every Contra game since has flopped. I don't think that small tweaks to a popular genre can guarantee success any more or less than taking a risk with something new and different.

Believe it or not, there is still a TON of innovation in the game industry. Just look at many of the titles Nintendo has put out anytime recently. Sure, its called "Mario" or "Metroid" or "Zelda", but the gameplay is quite different and new things are included. That isn't even considering the completely new games that are making new names for nintendo.

The problem is that the innovation isn't in the direction we (I) really want to see. I want to see existing game types improved, because a lot of them come SO close to being great yet are still far enough away that the demo keeps me away from the full game. I predict that in 20-30 years, either there will be 'The Game', or innovation will pick up as technology utilization ceases to be as much a distinguishing feature as it is today. I hope I'm not too far off unless it comes sooner than 20 years =-|

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator I think there's nothing wrong with clones. There have been several times when I've finished a game and wanted more. When I finished Diablo years ago I waited forever for another hack & slasher where I could co-op with friends (and it took forever for one to come out).

Agreed. I think the problem is the lack of clones that actually improve upon the original. Most clones seem to do little more than take Game A, change the story and setting, and call it Game B, and even then they do it half-assed most of the time, breaking things that were never broken in the game they attempted to emulate.

Look at the Resident Evil Series: RE1 was really cool, and innovative, and interesting. RE2 fixed what problems there were and became a benchmark of excellence for the genre. That's progress. The next handful of RE games were weak shadows of RE2, and when new features they added seemed tacked-on. RE4, at long last, revolutionized the franchise, and is generally considered to be among the finest video games ever made (despite the lousy script writers and voice actors that Capcom tends to hire).

So there are times when a new idea can really work (RE1), times when a few tweaks can optimize an already good idea (RE2), times when a few tweaks just don't cut it (RE3, Veronica, Dead Aim, Zer0, etc.) and times when a totally rethought design is the best solution (RE4).

I don't know exactly how to gauge the appropriateness of these methods. How can we know what the best course of action is? I'd hate to have missed out of RE2 because Capcom said, "We've done that already," but at the same time I could do entirely without most of the games in the series. Same thing with Final Fantasy and some other large franchises.

I've never really been disappointed with a Zelda Game (though I missed those two GameBoy titles that came out together), and I think that's just about the way to do it. Zelda1 was freaking amazing, the first of its kind. Zelda 2 was less good, but presented such an interesting world that it couldn't be hated. Link to the Past was a lot like #1, but bigger, prettier and with more sophisticated gameplay. Link's Awakening abandoned the Zelda/Ganon cliche and put the gameplay in a different context. Ocarina of Time was a revolution for the series, with the grown-up link and the 3d combat (terrific 3d combat, a standard for the industry). Majora's mask was just a rehash of OoT, but it was terrific, with a neat town-sim-thing and the time-based puzzles, but it again got away from the Zelda/Ganon paradigm. Wind Waker is like a tribute to the others, with a spectacular world, impressive gameplay, interesting puzzles and a story that examines the series in an almost existential way. Despite the cell-shading, it's perhaps the most "grown-up" of the games, and that's fine by me. Four Swords is a retro party game, but is certainly a worthy member of the team.

How, then, did Miyamoto and Nintendo get it right so solidly and so often? What do they know that we don't? What do they know that took Capcom so ling to catch onto?