Innovation in the gaming industry

[SacredWarrior]

As a gamer, this is something that I want to rant and rave about.

This is the generation of remakes and remasters. Gamers don't want new games, they just want to play old games with a shiny new coat of paint. Pathetic! And companies give them what they want, since they too have ran out of fresh ideas. God this generation of gaming is so annoying, stupid, and VERY hypocritical. Why hypocritical? Because they wanna complain and bitch about cross-gen games but not this bull.

Innovation in the gaming industry honestly died when the 7th generation began. Sequels and remakes are good and all that but I want to see new IPs as well with ACTUAL INNOVATION! Not overly cinematic shit that doesn't even deserve praise (TLOU I'm looking at you) or something that's a copycat of another franchise (almost every shooter in existence). It's really sad when Nintendo has to make a shooter that's actually unique and we haven't had a unique shooter in God knows when.

What are everyone else's thoughts on this?

 

[Esmeray]

TLOU???

 

[SacredWarrior]

TLOU???

The Last Of Us

 

[Esmeray]

Okay so you complain about wanting more unique innovative games and then hate on The Last Of Us? You know how incredibly backwards that sounds?

 

[SacredWarrior]

Okay so you complain about wanting more unique innovative games and then hate on The Last Of Us? You know how incredibly backwards that sounds?

There was nothing innovative about The Last Of Us. We've had zombie shooters before and practically anything that people THINK is innovative in that game can easily be found in other games. The only reason TLOU even got attention or praise is because it's The Walking Dead in video game format and because of sheep who follow hype trains over something that's already happened. It's like people saying Frozen is the most innovative Disney film ever when it's clearly not because the things people say are innovative about it can be found in other Disney films. And this is coming from someone who likes Frozen. You see my point? Too many people are fooled and follow popular opinions instead of actually forming their own and doing research on said thing they have an opinion about.

 

[Esmeray]

There was nothing innovative about The Last Of Us. We've had zombie shooters before and practically anything that people THINK is innovative in that game can easily be found in other games. The only reason TLOU even got attention or praise is because it's The Walking Dead in video game format and because of sheep who follow hype trains over something that's already happened. It's like people saying Frozen is the most innovative Disney film ever when it's clearly not because the things people say are innovative about it can be found in other Disney films. And this is coming from someone who likes Frozen. You see my point? Too many people are fooled and follow popular opinions instead of actually forming their own and doing research on said thing they have an opinion about.

Except for the fact that it isn't just a zombie shooter game, the zombies are entirely different than the ones from the walking dead. Though I guess you have a point. It is kind of similar to the walking dead in some aspects, and it has the aspects of Uncharted. The character roles are similar to the walking dead. Guy whom is rough around the edges picks up a little girl he must protect. Must get the girl to a set location. Bonding with the girl, becoming a father figure to her. Fighting style is like that in Uncharted.

And now I'm disappointed xD

 

[SacredWarrior]

Except for the fact that it isn't just a zombie shooter game, the zombies are entirely different than the ones from the walking dead. Though I guess you have a point. It is kind of similar to the walking dead in some aspects, and it has the aspects of Uncharted. The character roles are similar to the walking dead. Guy whom is rough around the edges picks up a little girl he must protect. Must get the girl to a set location. Bonding with the girl, becoming a father figure to her. Fighting style is like that in Uncharted.

And now I'm disappointed xD

I didn't really like the gameplay of TLOU. It didn't really interest me (more like put me to sleep) and honestly I don't like zombies and I'm sick of the fad. I liked it better when vampires were the main craze (Twilight shall die in a fire). TLOU was ok to me but I don't see why it got the praise and attention it got when there are honestly much better games out there. Even Resident Evil was better to me and that franchise went to hell after RE4.

 

[Esmeray]

I didn't really like the gameplay of TLOU. It didn't really interest me (more like put me to sleep) and honestly I don't like zombies and I'm sick of the fad. I liked it better when vampires were the main craze (Twilight shall die in a fire). TLOU was ok to me but I don't see why it got the praise and attention it got when there are honestly much better games out there. Even Resident Evil was better to me and that franchise went to hell after RE4.

The game play was better in Uncharted which is where it originates from (Uncharted is also a naughty dog game). The reason I think it is better though is that Uncharted was more challenging to a degree and they also included puzzles n jank that you had to solve before you could progress. Plus Nathan Drake was sexy AF. LOL

Though I have to say my favorite games of all time were Spyro and Jack and Daxter. The first ones that came out. I never played resident evil. It didn't interest me. I also liked Super Mario Sunshine. Metroid Prime. Starfox. Assassins Creed. I've never played any vampire games. Though a lot if the games I've played also have a long chain of adaptions or "polishing". Metroid for example, spyro, sonic, harvest moon, animal crossing, super smash bros, Mario kart, sonic, ext. I think I only own three games for the Wii that were unique. fragile dreams, mini ninjas, and one other that I can't remember the name of.

 

[SacredWarrior]

The game play was better in Uncharted which is where it originates from (Uncharted is also a naughty dog game). The reason I think it is better though is that Uncharted was more challenging to a degree and they also included puzzles n jank that you had to solve before you could progress. Plus Nathan Drake was sexy AF. LOL

Though I have to say my favorite games of all time were Spyro and Jack and Daxter. The first ones that came out. I never played resident evil. It didn't interest me. I also liked Super Mario Sunshine. Metroid Prime. Starfox. Assassins Creed. I've never played any vampire games. Though a lot if the games I've played also have a long chain of adaptions or "polishing". Metroid for example, spyro, sonic, harvest moon, animal crossing, super smash bros, Mario kart, sonic, ext. I think I only own three games for the Wii that were unique. fragile dreams, mini ninjas, and one other that I can't remember the name of.

I honestly think that ND should go back to cartoon-like games for a while. If it wasn't for Crash Bandicoot, they wouldn't even be known! God knows a Crash game is overdue from them! Uncharted was fine to me but I prefer Tomb Raider (which it's based off of).

I LOVED SPYRO!! :D God I miss that dragon :( As for Jax and Daxter, I haven't played it yet. I love Mario and Sonic and I wouldn't be a gamer if it wasn't for them. I played Starfox 64 as a kid and I still have yet to play Metroid. I lost interest in Assassin's Creed after the shit the developers have been pulling. I adore Super Smash Bros and it never fails to give me a good time or make me laugh while playing with friends and family XD

 

[Kagayours]

There's a bit more at play than just a "lack of ideas", you know.

 

[SacredWarrior]

There's a bit more at play than just a "lack of ideas", you know.

That video was funny XD But yes gamers are a big problem too -_- Which all started when online gaming became a thing

 

[Kagayours]

That video was funny XD But yes gamers are a big problem too -_- Which all started when online gaming became a thing

I really doubt it's entirely online gaming's problem.

Really it just makes sense to say that it's more a matter of familiarity.

People like Smash Bros. They know that they like Smash Bros. They will buy the new Smash Bros when it comes out. People like Zelda. They know they like Zelda. They will buy the new Zelda game when it comes out.

And that's why games that really don't change much over time or that you really don't expect anything groundbreaking from, like Madden and Mario Party, as the video referenced, still sell just fine, because people already know that they'll get a certain experience from it, and will be likely to buy it because there's no risk in doing so. For example, you said you liked Spyro. If we pretend that Skylanders doesn't exist and a new Spyro game came out, would you buy it? Would you at least consider buying it? Odds are that Spyro game is going to catch your attention much more than some random game on a store shelf that you've never heard of before.

And that's the tricky thing with "innovative" games. You pretty much have to build a fanbase from scratch, instead of relying on one that already exists. With the right promotion and word of mouth a good new game could take off and become popular, but... it's risky. Many "innovative" games could flop. You really can't blame developers for sticking to something that's easier to make and practically guaranteed to sell as opposed to trying to come up with something new and interesting that's much less likely to be successful.

 

[SacredWarrior]

I really doubt it's entirely online gaming's problem.

Really it just makes sense to say that it's more a matter of familiarity.

People like Smash Bros. They know that they like Smash Bros. They will buy the new Smash Bros when it comes out. People like Zelda. They know they like Zelda. They will buy the new Zelda game when it comes out.

And that's why games that really don't change much over time or that you really don't expect anything groundbreaking from, like Madden and Mario Party, as the video referenced, still sell just fine, because people already know that they'll get a certain experience from it, and will be likely to buy it because there's no risk in doing so. For example, you said you liked Spyro. If we pretend that Skylanders doesn't exist and a new Spyro game came out, would you buy it? Would you at least consider buying it? Odds are that Spyro game is going to catch your attention much more than some random game on a store shelf that you've never heard of before.

And that's the tricky thing with "innovative" games. You pretty much have to build a fanbase from scratch, instead of relying on one that already exists. With the right promotion and word of mouth a good new game could take off and become popular, but... it's risky. Many "innovative" games could flop. You really can't blame developers for sticking to something that's easier to make and practically guaranteed to sell as opposed to trying to come up with something new and interesting that's much less likely to be successful.

That I can understand but the reason why franchises like Call of Duty get hated so much on the internet is because developers sometimes release these games yearly, not even giving the games time to sink in and sell. The reason why Nintendo always gets hype for their franchises is because they give their games time to sink in and they actually make changes to said games and make them different from each other. Innovation is tricky yes but that's why indie games exist and have risen in popularity over in the years. The reason why Splatoon is getting attention is because Nintendo already has lots of fans and rapport from millions of people. I understand developers wanting to stick to things that made them known and popular but making new IPs can also help them gain new fans. Look at Naughty Dog. Crash Bandicoot is what they're most known for and sadly I don't think they can legally make Crash games anymore but after Crash, they made new IPs like Jax and Daxter and Uncharted and now they're considered one of the best.

Hell yes I would buy a new Spyro game! Skylanders.....Let's not talk about that.....thing!

 

[Hana]

I'm not a serious or even a casual gamer, but what's wrong with reimagining the old into something fresh? No one can really claim originality, the word is almost obsolete since in reality, it's always the same old ideas being done in new forms.

But about those old games? Seriously, I'm curious about them, but how can I, and younger generations, appreciate those old games? Maybe the producers or creators or whatever want to do those remakes because they want to share these older things with a newer audience, one that wouldn't be able to relate so much with the older graphics and designs. Again, I'm not a gamer, but one day I might try to see and understand what's so great about these.

 

[SacredWarrior]

I'm not a serious or even a casual gamer, but what's wrong with reimagining the old into something fresh? No one can really claim originality, the word is almost obsolete since in reality, it's always the same old ideas being done in new forms.

But about those old games? Seriously, I'm curious about them, but how can I, and younger generations, appreciate those old games? Maybe the producers or creators or whatever want to do those remakes because they want to share these older things with a newer audience, one that wouldn't be able to relate so much with the older graphics and designs. Again, I'm not a gamer, but one day I might try to see and understand what's so great about these.

Games from two or three generations back being remade is fine. But PS3 games being re-released on the PS4 is completely idiotic to me and looks like a cash grab. You can appreciate them by buying older consoles and buying the games. Retro gaming is a huge market nowadays and not only that but it's cheap too. Games being released in HD for the first time as part of a collection is fine because it gives some people a chance to actually play the games for those who never owned the consoles the games are originally from. Examples include: Final Fantasy X/X-2 HD and Kingdom Hearts HD 1.5 and 2.5 Remixes. There are also remakes such as Tomb Raider Anniversary that help gamers experience old games in a new light like you said.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

It's an area the AAA studio has been failing at a lot lately.

Which is why we've been seeing such an increase in the Indie Market today for gaming.
Our creativity isn't dying, it's just changing location.

Though this now gives new issues like obligation to finish their games, early access burn out etc.
But it's a new market, I'm sure we'll iron out those kinks in time.

 

[Grif ♥]

Y'know, innovation isn't really something I care a whole lot about. Sure, introducing a new element that's never been done before (or never been done well) is always a point of interest, and can lead to a lot of great developments in the future as that concept is expanded on, but how innovative a game is has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the actual game, and I'd much rather play a game that's enjoyable rather than one that's hoping to ride out on having one unique feature. It's why I don't have a problem with sequels and remakes while everyone else is crying about the death of creativity.

If the product is good, why're you crying about it?

On the opposite side, if the concept is innovative, but the execution is god awful, why does that make it better than anything else? It's still awful.

Since The Last of Us was being discussed, let's take that into account. Was it particularly innovative? Not exceptionally. It introduced a few new elements, but I don't think it introduced anything that revolutionised the gaming industry. Was it a good game? Absolutely. I adored it. The protagonists were interesting and relatable, the gameplay was solid(although, admittedly, nothing to rant about), and the story was all around pretty great. I'm contemplating going for my third run-through of the game, which is rare because I don't often replay games unless there's some incentive to (such as with Skyrim, where one character can be radically different from another).

On the opposite side, I can suggest several relatively new games that introduced something new and fun. There's plenty to choose from, if you value a game based entirely on how many new elements it introduced.

 

[Darog]

Y'know, innovation isn't really something I care a whole lot about. Sure, introducing a new element that's never been done before (or never been done well) is always a point of interest, and can lead to a lot of great developments in the future as that concept is expanded on, but how innovative a game is has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the actual game, and I'd much rather play a game that's enjoyable rather than one that's hoping to ride out on having one unique feature. It's why I don't have a problem with sequels and remakes while everyone else is crying about the death of creativity.

If the product is good, why're you crying about it?

On the opposite side, if the concept is innovative, but the execution is god awful, why does that make it better than anything else? It's still awful.

Since The Last of Us was being discussed, let's take that into account. Was it particularly innovative? Not exceptionally. It introduced a few new elements, but I don't think it introduced anything that revolutionised the gaming industry. Was it a good game? Absolutely. I adored it. The protagonists were interesting and relatable, the gameplay was solid(although, admittedly, nothing to rant about), and the story was all around pretty great. I'm contemplating going for my third run-through of the game, which is rare because I don't often replay games unless there's some incentive to (such as with Skyrim, where one character can be radically different from another).

On the opposite side, I can suggest several relatively new games that introduced something new and fun. There's plenty to choose from, if you value a game based entirely on how many new elements it introduced.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This in a nutshell for me.

"Innovative" "original" "unique" are just buzzwords critics love to throw around.

 

[SacredWarrior]

Y'know, innovation isn't really something I care a whole lot about. Sure, introducing a new element that's never been done before (or never been done well) is always a point of interest, and can lead to a lot of great developments in the future as that concept is expanded on, but how innovative a game is has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the actual game, and I'd much rather play a game that's enjoyable rather than one that's hoping to ride out on having one unique feature. It's why I don't have a problem with sequels and remakes while everyone else is crying about the death of creativity.

If the product is good, why're you crying about it?

On the opposite side, if the concept is innovative, but the execution is god awful, why does that make it better than anything else? It's still awful.

Since The Last of Us was being discussed, let's take that into account. Was it particularly innovative? Not exceptionally. It introduced a few new elements, but I don't think it introduced anything that revolutionised the gaming industry. Was it a good game? Absolutely. I adored it. The protagonists were interesting and relatable, the gameplay was solid(although, admittedly, nothing to rant about), and the story was all around pretty great. I'm contemplating going for my third run-through of the game, which is rare because I don't often replay games unless there's some incentive to (such as with Skyrim, where one character can be radically different from another).

On the opposite side, I can suggest several relatively new games that introduced something new and fun. There's plenty to choose from, if you value a game based entirely on how many new elements it introduced.

As I said earlier, I enjoy familiarity like practically all gamers do these days. I just find it somewhat disheartening that indie games are the only times where I can play something new every once in a while. AAA games just bore the hell out of me and nowadays I'm very picky about what games I purchase. The only time I'll try out a new game or franchise is if it's part of a genre I love.

 

[CalibansEnthusiast]

I personally think gaming has lost its soul. It used to be about the story, and multiplayer was an added bonus. Now its about the multiplayer, and good stories are few and far between. I'm a devout Halo fan, and I will risk a fistfight and say the first three Halo games are the best trilogy in gaming. Halo 2 had it all; amazing story and great multiplayer. The rest of the series? Cashgrabs. I genuinely enjoyed Wars, though. ODST: Nathan Fillion and acheivements to get Recon Armor. Thats it. Reach? Lets go ahead and f--- the canon to make more money. Halo 4? More money. Halo 5? Nathan Fillion, and milking every penny out of this series as possible. I'll play it, because I feel compelled to, but I'm not dropping 400 bucks on an Xbone and 60 bucks on the game.

Early Call of Duty games were good, now its hit and miss, the last being Black Ops. Now they just retexture the maps, add/take a few guns, and call it the next game.

Gears of War, first three were amazing. Dom's story almost brought a tear to my eye. Judgement and Gears 4? Shut up and pay for it.

Stories are on life support, now they're just the wrapper you peel aside to get to the multiplayer. A few games have done well with stories, but its hard to find. The only game I'm actually excited for, that I'm going to spend 60 bucks on, is Fallout 4. I'll play the living hell out of that game.

Heres what I want to know:
Where's the Goldeneye remake? If we can remake okay games from the last generation, how hard can it be to remake a great game from the past?
Why can't I fight dragons and fantasy elements with a tank and an assault rifle? Where are those games?