I'm sorry but looking around my local Game, Gamestop or Smyths (Possibly only in Ireland) I can't help but notice that the originality in games died shortly after the "new generation" of games popped in throwing the occasional Portal in to make us believe in a future for the industry.
First off there are the rubbish but "sexy" games. Whether it's Lara croft swimming around in a piece of latex or string, Nariko (Heavenly Sword) dancing in a piece of tissue or the creepy japanese hentai games. I can't help but feel that the developers just say "Well listen, we made rubbish games that luckily only last a few hours with awful gameplay, story and controls with no real emotion put into the games because we just love to dish them out to pay for our next rubbish game but don't worry, the high quality graphics mean you can see Lara's cheeks as she swims around in plastic lingerie endeangering sharks, tigers and the only living dinosaurs."
Either that or the mindless "Kill everything in the room" games where, yes, you kill everything in the room with extreme violence (ala God of war) with no real cause except the main character thinks everyone's looking at him funny. Or else the other vvariant of mindless violence wherein you play a game where you hurt people. Manhunt 2 was NOT brilliant, you could just kill people in disgusting ways. Although on my side of the globe you could staart of killing things beore the screen went all "mush peas" and just melded into a big blur where you could imagine what was going on. I spent those moments imagining I was playing a more interesting game.
And finally, sports sims. did they EVER change? Yes you can play Ronaldo in more realistic graphics each year but while graphics get the update, the |AI is the same as it was in 1999 because the game flips a coin as to whether your shot will get in or not or if you'll be tackled or if the damned enemies will just run in circles for hours. And don't worr because while last year you could play as Wayne Rooney kicking a ball up and down a pitch, this year you can do that again, but buy him into a different team :o! Maybe if they mixed up the formulae by giving the players guns or every now and then turning them all into sheep I'd be interested but no, EA will dish out more of their series by the magic of "Copy+Paste"
Whew.
I'm now considering that bloom filters, everything brown, grimdark artwork, crouching behind things to fire, vehicle sections and Brown Haired With Stubble Grizzly Male Protagonist were probably original at some point.
I'd like to play that game actually, knowing it was the beginning of the end.
Play indie games! They're better! They're cheaper! They're made with more love! They might be more innovative!
Big world (ie, not indie) innovative games come along every once in a while, but it's a lot less financially risky for the big companies to give the players what they know the players will buy instead of trying to convince them to buy something new and different that might really suck because it's not Halo 9.
People get stuck into a safe mode of thinking with most forms of entertainment, whether it be music, movies or games, and it's pretty hard to convince them to broaden their visions, I guess. FIFA might be the same game it was 8 years ago, but I bet it ships some heavy units still :). If I have to read about another game which really pushes some boundaries and gets awesome reviews but is a commercial flop I am going to cry. Like this: :'(
And besides, there are innovative things out there, if you look hard enough. Sure it might be little innovations rather than something like Darwinia, but look at stuff like Singularity. It's going to be a first person shooter, yeah. You're going to shoot monsters, yeah. It's (hopefully) going to be very different to say... Painkiller (though I liked Painkiller, the first time). It might be evolution over revolution, but there are people trying new things :). Look at a game such as Deadly Creatures. It's basically a platformer/beat em up game, but it's new and exciting! It tries new things! It does them well! It's not the hugest advancement ever, or the biggest step out the box, but it has no sexuality (well, I sure hope not, that'd be kinda creepy), the violence is fairly suited to the game's subject matter and it tells a story in a different manner to the norm.
Yeah, making 23 Tomb Raider games isn't pushing the boundaries. But it does make the industry strong, which means that games like Deadly Creatures have a greater chance of success than they would otherwise. I guess. Maybe. Perhaps.
Ah, I've bored you all now. Where's my glasses dammit? Damn kids!
mumble grumble Resonance mumble grumble Aquaria mumble etc
:=
I'd say honestly resonance feels like it could really add some cool stuff. At least from what I can see from the videos.
I have to generally agree with the "new stuff sucks" attitude.
The new age of innovative, creative games full of ideas seems to have ended some years ago.
I mean, look at games around 1998-2002. Almost every single of them made you say "wow, this is something". Starting with the classic Need for Speed series (3,4,5), Operation Flashpoint, the "new" Civilization series, Age of Empires stuff, etc etc.
It seems to me that in that era, the games were really based on ideas, they were "experimental" and the developers tried actually to make games first, the money came second. And nowadays? I reckon that they know what's best to do for the average customer to buy their game, because money comes first, game quality second. The result? Massive profits from shitty games. Result for us non-average kill-everything-in-the-room game players? Shitty games.
Take for example Oblivion. Basic and simple and totally uninteresting low-class game, just in shiny graphics - thus appealing to anyone but classic RPG gamers. Compare it to its older brother, Morrowind, which was totally classy RPG and still remains one of the best of its kind. Take the old Need for Speed thingies. Now it's all about tuning and stuff, the racing and motorsport side of it is gone with the last bit of realism disappearing.
Today is the era of non-hardcore games for casual players. People don't want to have complex or realistic games. They want them to look and sound good. If you cannot package good ideas into a nice package, you're gone. If you don't have good ideas, but you have the package, you don't have to fill it, because people just look at it anyway, they don't open it. It's about the looks, not about the ideas and gameplay, which makes me sad. And I can't understand the fact that people buy these games after having played better ones before. Are they blind? Can't they see that the majority of games today is pure shit in ideas, just looking nice?
Yes, I have to sound like a jerk, sorry:
"PC games aren't what they used to be anymore."
Crayon Physics Deluxe, Braid, World Of Goo, I-Fluid, games by Introversion and That Game Company... You shouldn't worry so much about innovation disappearing from games.
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20051026/gabler_01.shtml
More and more indie game designers design games by prototyping: They create a video game prototypes on a regular basis to get ideas out of their system, whatever sticks to the wall is considered for a full game release, whatever doesn't is discarded. That's how Crayon Physics Deluxe, Audiosurf and World of Goo were created. Even Henry Hatsworth came out of a prototype.
Innovation may be uncommon in big commercial titles, but with the increasing number of indie game makers, we're at the dawn of a completly new era in video games.
Most of the so-called innovative games like world of goo are intensely boring as actual games, so I'm not at all certain that innovation translates to good. A good old cliche, when properly handled, can result in an amusing romp as long as the designers aren't merely trying to one-up some best-seller, which sadly is the case with the industry these days. The problem isn't innovation or even the re-use of themes but the disappointing lack of risk-takers in the game development biz today. They're all so ass-bendingly determined to not take a chance that they double and triple-focus group just about every aspect of the design and wait to see which games will sell so they can hammer out a knock-off that's just different enough to guarantee a profit. Read some of the designer commentaries from Ron Gilbert, Al Lowe, Scott Murphy or others and you'll see they all pretty much say the same thing regarding the lack of trust in developers producing something great on their own, whereas in their 'golden age' they were given exceptional latitude to simply make something fun. Producers in the industry have turned game design into a massive budget Hollywood affair, and unfortunately, it shows.
Independent devs, on the other hand, often try too hard to be innovative rather than fun, and they often miss the plot. You don't need innovation to make something great, just like you don't need double-blind tests or a million dollar budget.
I think there is a lot of innovative stuff out there at the moment. Nintendo have got innovation coming out of their ears with first the DS and now the Wii and I think they've created an arena for some really interesting stuff that just wasn't possible before.
As ProgZ says, this might not necessarily translate to everybody as 'fun', but you can't deny there's a lot of originality coming out of Nintendo at the moment.
I can't be bothered playing any of these "innovative" titles beyond their demo versions. World of Goo was fun until repetition set in; rather quickly, it has to be said. Ditto Crayon Physics. I don't think these designers are doing anything out of the ordinary, and I wouldn't pin my hopes on them to improve the future of gaming anymore than I'd pin them on Peter Molyneux or David Jaffe. They make simple fun games, and they benefit from keeping them small and focused. But they're also gimmicky and really don't hint at designer potential anymore than a well designed FPS does. The Bit Generation range from Nintendo, for the Gameboy Advance, was similar in scope; bite-sized chunks of gaming to occupy ten minutes while waiting on a bus. Fine and dandy, you may say, but personally I want more than that in my gaming life.
A great game that lacks innovation is far preferable to an innovative game that bores.
Quote from: krishaw
I'm sorry but looking around my local Game, Gamestop or Smyths (Possibly only in Ireland)...
Ireland has no decent independent game shops anymore, that's the problem. Or I haven't found one yet.
Quote from: Stupot on Wed 15/04/2009 23:20:24
I think there is a lot of innovative stuff out there at the moment. Nintendo have got innovation coming out of their ears with first the DS and now the Wii and I think they've created an arena for some really interesting stuff that just wasn't possible before.
Personally I wouldn't call Nintendo innovative.
I think Progz (and Fish) hit the nail on the head, innovative doesn't always mean good. Over the past few years I've played some good games which I wouldn't call innovative but which I also wouldn't call cookie cutter copies. Innovative and good aren't the same - and I'd rather play a good game than an innovative one! Different for the sake of it is pointless.
(Also Molyneux sucks)
The original Spellforce was a rather unique and daring mix of RPG and RTS, and went down only so-so. Spellforce 2 got rid of several of the more intricate mechanics, streamlined the RTS factor, and was a boring bit of eye candy hit.
Truly unique games would stand little chances these days, and it's pretty hard to come up with "new stuff" (was there a truly new genre in the past three years or so?). Ben has a point, indie games can dare to try out new stuff, but even there, it's usually a back-to-the-basics approach that only seems fresh to non-ancient gamers. What indie games *can* do is ignoring sales and going for the fun thing "cuz we wanna"- and that really is a good thing. Aquania, Spelunky, S.C.O.U.R.G.E. Sometimes you just hit gold.
Don't even start with casual games. Bejeweled Twist? Four years in the making!!?? And all that's new is that you do not SWAP two jewels, you TURN then around...
Eets (http://www.eetsgame.com/news/index.php), however... Eets was cool. And then it got sold to the CG market and... died.
I never understood why it has become popular for gamers to hate Peter Molyneux... Is it because Yahtzee does?
Coz, from where I'm sitting, the guy has been behind some pretty good games.. and dare I say fairly inovative for their respective times. I know Fable didn't quite live up to everyone's overblown expectations, but it that's the reason for all the hate then I feel sorry for the guy.
He does? I don't hate him so much, just Fable (and specifically Fable II) which just sucks ass.
Quote from: Stupot on Thu 16/04/2009 00:57:07
I never understood why it has become popular for gamers to hate Peter Molyneux... Is it because Yahtzee does?
Coz, from where I'm sitting, the guy has been behind some pretty good games.. and dare I say fairly inovative for their respective times. I know Fable didn't quite live up to everyone's overblown expectations, but it that's the reason for all the hate then I feel sorry for the guy.
Generally that came about when he sold his soul to Microsoft. An Innovative company being taken over and destroyed by a corporate giant whose goal is nothing more than to make money being the consensus.
Its hard to argue too when you compare his softography pre M$ and post M$.
Last game that made me shake and wow and dream about it at night was Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. PC version, of course.
Even kill-everything-in-the-room games CAN be innovative.
I'm talking about 3 scenes here.
The nuke (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2S3N0uSSho) (nukes in games rock by default)
Last drive of the middle-eastern leader (so who cares if it was just an interactive cutscene? It was uber!)
And, of course, plane shooting scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LliExLMdCgc). It was like 1:1 rendition of random modern war video on liveleak.com (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=890_1218411271), only... you could play this! Coolest thing in any game in the world, ever.
As hard as I might try, I still cannot bring any other game examples that had more wows than yawns... Since 2000 or so.
Some games though, such as Company of Heroes, really try hard. I wouldn't say that all gaming is only about money and zero innovation.
What I miss the most are 3 genres that all have same requirement for a player: brain.
Those genres are Tycoon-games, Adventure games, and of course, the most painful stake in my heart - turn-based strategies :'(. I don't know why those three genres died or exactly when, but somehow, they didn't success going-3D-revolution and so nobody makes them anymore apart from indie devs and some random central-european 3-man teams with broken engine and a blind artist.
Agreed on TBS and Tycoons.
In spite of the fact that these genres are dead for long, playing Transport Tycoon and Steel Panthers is still an enjoyable thing ;D
Aren't there like mountains of tycoon games released every day? Im not saying all (or any) are any good, but there are plenty of tycoon games about still, Im sure!
Unless even thats died down now
Mountains?
3-button flash-made "tycoons" and horrid broken (http://www.valusoft.com/DRHM/servlet/ControllerServlet?Action=DisplayProductDetailsPage&SiteID=valusoft&Locale=en_US&Env=BASE&productID=75988600) tycoons from valusoft.
Prison tycoon sequels?
I mean something big. Like Transport Tycoon, SimCity or Rollercoaster tycoon. Or theme hospital... The ones you play for hours and hours. Evil Genius, in all of it's broken gameplay and stupid system (almost impossible to make money, trap system is more on fire and exploding than being useful any way) was still last gem of a tycoon I've played. And Simcity 4. But apart from this...
...where are those mountains?
Thank you so much for linking that Valusoft page, wheeze of the week :D
Edit: My favourite being "Mahjongg Investigations: Under Suspicion"
"You must use your Mahjongg skills to unearth clues and bring the criminals to justice."
Quote from: InCreator on Thu 16/04/2009 18:23:21
I mean something big. Like Transport Tycoon, SimCity or Rollercoaster tycoon.
It should be noted that the original Rollercoaster Tycoon was made by Christ Sawyer alone (awesome), with only the help of a graphics artist, and it wasn't changed at all when he found a publisher (double awesome), so it actually qualifies as an indie game (triple awesome).
And it outranked Theme Park (which was pretty well-done to start with) despite being the clone... quad awesome.
I love that game.
Quote from: Stupot on Thu 16/04/2009 00:57:07
I never understood why it has become popular for gamers to hate Peter Molyneux...
Because he talks too much. He talks his games up to a point where it stops being about the games and starts being about how Pete mind-shits gaming rainbows. He then proceeds to release half-finished titles that drown in their own failed hype, and nobody ends up satisfied.
It's the gaming equivalent of promising a blowjob from Scarlett Johannson, only to deliver a greasy tit-wank from Ann Widdecombe. It's kind of what you'd hoped for, but you won't want to tell you friends about it.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Thu 16/04/2009 21:41:32
It's the gaming equivalent of promising a blowjob from Scarlett Johannson, only to deliver a greasy tit-wank from Ann Widdecombe. It's kind of what you'd hoped for, but you won't want to tell you friends about it.
I just googled Ann Widdecombe and I feel dirty.
Ontopic:
The last Sim/RTS game I played was Tropico II which I liked because it's theme was fun: pirates!
Liked the atmosphere and graphics, but the game play was pretty repetitive.
I grew up on games like Civilization, Dune, SimCity and ofcourse Monkey Island, etc. But since everything must be 3D I really stopped playing much games. I did play CounterStrike for a while, in which I liked the team play (which is non-existent in most servers I must admit).
Still it's true: Civ, Dune and SimCity were trendsetters, new original games. I haven't heard about games creating whole new genres in quite some time.
It could come because the games I want to play aren't there anymore, but ofcourse, the fact that I don't keep track of what comes out and don't have as much free time as I had since I work fulltime, could be another factor.
Innovation aside, how come nobody made worthy UFO: Enemy Unknown remake/sequel yet?
It's been like what? 16 years?! I've tracked and played every damn remake/sequel attempt, from Project Xenocide to UFO: Aftermath and it's all worse than even Windows ME.
I'd gas hundreds of guitar hero/MMORPG/final fantasy sequel/other shameware making developer crews to just get one that's worthy and can do something good.
I personally don't even care about innovation. Let's have some gameplay, shall we?
Duke Nukem 3D was nothing so-innovative, nor was Blood or Red Alert 2 or Worms...
But they were good. In some strange, special way (which != my nostalgia).
I've played hundreds of modern games and don't remember even names, let alone what was game about or what was the story.
But I remember all cheat codes for Doom or fatality inputs for Mortal Kombat 3 or... hundreds of things I will never, ever need. Even though I haven't played those games for 10 years?
How come? What makes new games so unmemorable, empty, non-influencing?
This is not the main reason, but I believe one of the factors that ruin games today is the attempt to reach realism. Holy crap, my rifle can get old and so I have to change it! Oh noes, my character is hungry, I must go eat a hamburger unless I want to die! How is this making the game any more fun? Realism can be intriguing, but not when it comes between me and my fun and certainly NOT when it tries to be passed on as innovation. If I wanted realism I'd go rob a real bank, or go to war. And I actually miss things like avoiding big boulders infinitely swinging on a rope, even though I'd always think they were annoying.
I am not sure if games are getting worse or game industry gets lazy.
I don't mind realism, but I want a scenario-like game (I liked the longest journey) or a game that is not only shoot-shoot-shoot but "shoot in a context" (I liked mohaa).
I think the new games are just half-finished. Somebody spends for graphics and the like but no one is paid enough to actually sit down and create them.
QuoteBecause he talks too much. He talks his games up to a point where it stops being about the games and starts being about how Pete mind-shits gaming rainbows. He then proceeds to release half-finished titles that drown in their own failed hype, and nobody ends up satisfied.
It's the gaming equivalent of promising a blowjob from Scarlett Johannson, only to deliver a greasy tit-wank from Ann Widdecombe. It's kind of what you'd hoped for, but you won't want to tell you friends about it.
Hahaha!! Yeah! Good anology :D Bring back Bullfrog any day. That way we avoid Bullshit.
Quote from: InCreator on Fri 17/04/2009 00:10:03
How come? What makes new games so unmemorable, empty, non-influencing?
You grew up.
Everything that was around when you were a kid is
always great. Everything since then has
always been crap. Doesn't matter how old you are--the only difference that makes is what year you put as the cutoff. (Mine is 1996 or thereabouts.)
Quote from: Snarky on Mon 20/04/2009 21:25:18Everything that was around when you were a kid is always great. Everything since then has always been crap.
Exhibit A:
(http://pannonica.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/teddy-ruxpin.gif)
Exhibit B:
(http://i2.ebayimg.com/05/s/08/ae/d2/fd_2.JPG)
Teddy Ruxpin was indeed epic. Even after 18 years, and his speech reduced to a kind of mindless warble as he valiantly attempts to recount tales drawn from chewn cassette tapes, covered in dust after years in the attic, and only one of his eyes still mobile, I salute him.
The blame for the decline in innovative games has to be pointed purely at the publishers. They release what they know will 'sell'. The only way publishers know things will sell is by looking at previous sales figures. Innovative products have no previous titles, so no figures, so no go. Medal of Honor 74 has many years of sales figures to build on, so is guaranteed support.
The answer? We need someone to infiltrate the publishing industry and fake some sales figures. We then need to release innovative games as fake sequels, put a number on the end of them, and remind the publishers how well the originals sold.
But who could infiltrate the publishing industry? We need someone with a silver tongue, and a promising smile...We need Teddy Ruxpin.