Things We Hate About Gaming: Innovation and Change
No I am not encouraging developers to be lazy, and like you I do not want rehashes year in and year out. However, games these days are driven by an overwhelming idea that it needs to be the stellar hit and turn into that recognizable AAA title and sell millions of copies. Nothing wrong with that, but the route taken to achieve this is often failed.
There seems to be this invisible pressure to create something that is highly “intuitive” and incorporates the highest level of innovation that we have ever seen. The problem is that the “newest” ideas put into games are either gimmicky, terrible in execution, or blatantly ripping off another title. On the other hand there are series that feel the need to completely revamp a game that played perfectly fine before into something completely new that falls flat on its face.
Mirror’s Edge was on everyone’s palette when it was announced, the idea of free-running and using melee combat rather than running and gunning had a lot of people excited. Unfortunately, the game play was not up to par on what was promised. Having frustrating disarm techniques on top of easily getting lost and losing your footing, made the title soon faded into obscurity for me.
Gone are the days of fresh, yet simple ideas. In this day and age games are created with a very formulaic style. Does it play well? Better add some multiplayer. Is it too short? I don’t care what you need to do, make it last five more hours. There’s a critical problem with popular, mainstream video games that isn’t as large with other mediums; they are expensive to make and require a lot of time and effort put in to create something masterful.
With that, games must take cautious paths. I fully understand the risks, but adding unneeded material to certain games is not justifiable. I’m not interested in BioShock 2′s multiplayer, I’ll be playing it for the story. I have plenty of other titles that have great multiplayer, why do I want another one? Keeping things simple and rational is what publishers need to realize.
Simplicity Triumphs.
Take Shadow of the Colossus for example. The surprise is that there is little innovation in it, but it still manages to beat many of the ill-thought out ideas that are coming out today. The key aspect of Shadow of the Colossus was its simplicity. Thrown into the game with a short cut scene and no dialogue besides a voice narrating what you must do, the game still beats out many titles that hire expensive writing that end up with no emotion. Having to painfully force myself to put to rest these majestic goliaths was one of the most challenging video game moments for me.
Shadow of the Colossus then expands its simplicity further in the gameplay. There is no driven cliche antagonist that you are searching for, no forced linear map, and above all nothing irrelevant. There were no small enemies in the game, no levels that you had to beat. It was simply the colossi that you were hunting. Thrown into the game with the promise that if you slay the sixteen beasts wandering the vast luscious world, a girl would be resurrected. You then got onto your horse, lifted your sword in the air, found your way and began your journey.
Too many games these days incorporate long levels to plod out the story and have highly frustrating, unnecessary additions that ruin what could have been a decent game. The gaming community is partly to blame for this. Crying out for a long game, gamers incite the idea that titles must have a long length to justify their purchase. Developers then add into their game slow pacing and repetitious game play in order to meet the ten plus hour “requirement”.
On the other side of the fence, developers are head-strong into turning their games into a series or franchise. What could have been a single great game turns into an average series, with the plot stretched over numerous titles that also bring in new twists and narrative that tarnish the original intentions and integrity of the story. As well as this, some IPs are milked and made into completely unrelated genres that are utterly unnecessary. What time and effort used to make something that played poorly could have been used to improve the already existing title and improve it to make it more “innovative”.
What happened Rare? I used to love you…
While Rare certainly wasn’t the pioneer of platforming games, I’d strongly defend them on perfecting the genre. Banjo and Kazooie’s charm and witty writing on top of masterfully crafted levels helped them become quite possibly the best developer in the late 90′s. Did I mention they also made Perfect Dark, Jet Force Gemini, Goldeneye and Diddy Kong Racing? I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Rare’s acquisition by Microsoft and foray into this generation has been a struggle for me. I don’t believe it has anything to do with Microsoft, but the emotion and life from the company seems to be missing. Rare have released only a few titles so far, feeling quite lackluster in their original quality. Perfect Dark Zero was a mediocre shooter that just felt poorly done, Viva Pinata was a garden sim without the fun, Kameo: Elements of Power which was so-so, and Nuts and Bolts.
I wanted to love Banjo Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts. I really did. The idea of creating vehicles in the Banjo universe sounded like a lot of fun. While creating the vehicles is still very fun, the performance of them is not the greatest. Hitting the slightest bump in a car will send it toppling to its side, and the handling for cars was pretty sub par. The flying and water vehicles performed more fluently fortunately.
The writing in Nuts and Bolts had some humor, but overall the title felt very hollow. The game even starts with an overweight Banjo that seemed to be throwing in the towel as a joke to naysayers that wanted another platformer. I know that Rare wants to do new ideas, and that is perfectly fine with me, but why did it need to be Banjo? Rare has stated that they intended it to be Banjo for the game, but a new IP character would have been fine. It’s depressing to see the company that I beloved drastically changing one my favorite characters into a different game. The platforming worked perfectly fine, and would have been a breath of fresh air to the Xbox 360 full of blood, gore and gratuity.
I don’t see the problem with Rare creating new IP’s and ideas as well as continuing to create the types of games that helped them gain the status and accolade they have today. With what they’ve provided this generation, it feels like a slap in the face. Rare haven’t announced anything for 2009 yet so I’m optimistic about what they could announce at E3 this year. Though, I wouldn’t be surprised if Microsoft failed to recognize them, or they announced another new title.
You bet I cried during this.
The Metal Gear series on the other hand, is a perfection in maintaining standard game play while appropriately adding new features. Visiting Shadow Moses in Metal Gear Solid 4 was very surreal, coming full circle back to where Snake’s 3D espionage began. It also made me realize that I was able to play through each game and not become tired of the plot or action.
Metal Gear has had one of the best transitions over time. There are very few titles that have been around since the 1980′s that have kept their originality and ideas and not submitted to the typical mold of games of today. The series still has its well-crafted bosses, over the top plot, and stealth oriented gameplay.
Video games of today are becoming bigger and bigger, yet the progress in narration, ideas implemented well, and game play seems to be stagnating. Taking huge financial risks is not the way to go, but taking a step back and trying to distinguish what works and what is unnecessary in a game would help cut out a lot of the filler. I do believe that games could eventually overtake cinematography and other forms of art, but if we’re looking to get that – there’s a lot of work to be done.
More things we hate about gaming.
Editorial, Column, TWHAG Tags: art, metal gear, sotc, twhag, video games
Next: Video Games; Choices and Problems
Previous: EA Send Illegal Weapons to Game Writers. I’m Not Joking.
I never got lost in Mirror’s Edge.
I think this boils down to the problems with video games becoming more popular. Before, you knew what a game was when you bought it, so only the people who like that kind of thing would shell out for it. Now, with more people involved, the experiences almost have to be watered down to appeal to large numbers of people. Making for crapper experiences in the process.
It also doesn’t help that games that stick to a tried and true composition get lower review scores for simply not fixing what isn’t broken.
While I agree, to an extent, with your general idea that innovation for the sake of simply racking up more dollars isn’t good, I do think that at the end of the day this is one of those cases where the means justify the end. In other words – it doesn’t matter if some innovations fall flat, or become nothing but a gimmick, you have to keep’em coming, you have to push the envalope, otherwise we’re going nowhere.
And I also have major issues with some of the points you bring up in support of your argument, mainly because I think you’re not being consistent with your definition of the word “innovation”.
Mirror’s Edge is an example of exactly the kind of attitude we need more of – that is, taking risks. ME’s innovative movement system may never be used in another game again but without developers like Dice trying to push the envelope, we’d never have titles like Half-Life, or Sim-City, or Theif. Not every attempt will be successful but every attempt is necessary.
Your argument about developers trying to make games longer is completely irrelevant. For one, because that’s not innovation. Secondly, I’m sorry but most of the games these days are not even close to what I’d call long. You want to know what a long game is, play Baldur’s Gate 2 – you can spend 50+ hours on side quests alone. Today, a game comes out with 20 hours of gameplay and you start seeing the word “long” being thrown around in the reviews. I’m not saying short games can’t be great and I also agree that making a game longer without a good (gameplay related) reason for it is a bad practice, however, this has nothing to do with innovation.
Finally, saying that Shadow of the Colossus has little innovation is like saying that Half-Life is just Quake with a plot. Yes, one of the greatest features of SotC is its apparent simplicity but that’s the innovation. And of course SotC is only simple on the surface – yes the story is bare and to get to the colossi you simply kinga go there. without any enemies or serious obstacles other than the occasional small environment puzzle, but of course when you get to a colossus the battle is all but simple.
So you can use SotC as an argument for support of the benefits of certain simplicity and elegance of gameplay, but not for support of “don’t use too much innovation”.
I think you make some really good points; especially in regards to multi-player and game length. I’m afraid there’s another aspect to this problem, and that’s pricing. Even though Bio Shock is one of my favorite games, I still kick myself for dropping the full $60 for that game when a rental would have been a much better value. I think making a great 10 hour single player experience is perfectly fine if the game can come in at $30, but unfortunately video game pricing is at $60 a pop. This mandated price has forced developers to offer more value to customers by way of forcing a game to be longer or forcing multi-player into the equation. The end result is the game is poorly paced or it has some thrown in multi-player that detracts more from the game than it adds. The result is the added value is really just an illusion. This problem can easily be resolved by just offering these video games at a better price. The developer will not have to spend the extra money it takes to add these extra features that actually hurt the game, and the gamer will feel like they still got a good value. Futhermore the gamer will be more likely to buy the game, because the gamer is risking losing a lot less money if the game is poorly done. Other ways to address this could also include offering the game piece meal at $20 a pop, much like Valve started to do with the Half Life 2 episodes. At any rate it all comes down to giving the gamer a good value, and reducing risks across the board.
Innovation is what we need MORE of not less. Most games are rehashes of other games. Do we really need another FPS ? Do we need another Tekken or Final Fantasy?
I think Mirrors Edge is the best game I have played in ages. I would rather play it that ANOTHER Metal Gear game. Way too many cut scenes and well nothing new.
Don’t know how old you are but innovation is what has given you all these great new games. When I was 20 I was playing on an Amiga, when 8 I was playing on an Atari 2600, the reason we are still not playing Amigas and Ataris is one thing… innovation!
Perfect conclusion, instead of focusing completely on marketing trash, and lame screenshots, and other bloat crap like live! and other needles bloat, they better get back to the roots and search for game designers who still know what makes a game fun and joyful.
If you look at the difference between for example, GTA Vice City and the latest crap GTA4, all the refreshing nice renderings, fresh environments, easy controls, well thought out missions, maps you actually could remember part of it, and had to offer something extra, GTA4 has lost all of that, and has become an uterly boring, lifeless, ugly, bloated piece of junk created by braindead marketeers who have no single touch with how a game should feel like, and how a game should keep a user happy instead of bugging them constantly with stupid additions like cellphones ringing every 3 seconds, and having to press 300 buttons to only read something, something that doesn’t add any value nor fun to the game afterall.
I am fully for the idea of new franchises and series. I’m saying if a series has quality game play and features, leave it be. I ask that they do not implement gimmicky ideas into the existing IP – when that could be better spent on a new one.
Thanks for the comments, all.
I read another comment complaining about comment on video games being expensive as a medium compared to others, such as film. The barrier for entry to video games in my opinion, is a lot tougher than film. If you decide to go out and film, yes, you may not be making Citizen Kane, but you certainly won’t be making World of Goo if you decide you want to jump in and create a video game.
@Edgar: I think we’re on the wrong page here. I’m in defense of developers for their game length. So long as the game is great, there should not be a need to have a certain time length, or price reduction on it. (As long as it’s not too short) When filler is added to pad out a game – it can make or break it.
The reason many developers take the easy route and revamp or borrow ideas from previous games is because it’s the easier gamble. It’s extremely risky for these big companies to sink a ton of money into something big and revolutionary that may or may not work. They are going to take the safe and easy way out. If anyone is going to write a revolutionary and innovative game, it most likely will come from a small indie developer. The solo developer has no time crunch and doesn’t have anyone limiting their development other than themself. However, they may lack the funding to get it noticed well enough. But, this is like other media. You can’t be an author trying to write the next great fbleepin’ novel. You don’t know if what you are writing is going to be the next Harry Potter or Twilight series. If it happens, it happens. The Segway guy thought his invention was going to revolutionize the world. Didn’t. So, instead of trying to figure out what the public wants and try to custom tailor a game to the public (which will most often never work), they should design a game for themselves with the attributes that they value in a game, like plot, replay value, ease of use, etc. Just my two cents.
Same thing as with the Medal Of Honor series, first games where building up slowly, steady, keeping you interested in many different ways, the gamer knowing he should progress because the surprises and plot will become more and more joyful. But look at the latests games, the moment the copyright- and other crap screens disappear and the game begins, you’re in a completely over-acted rain of bullets, bombs, explosions, and other stuff no single graphics cards can barely handle, If you’re lucky to finally get through the first mission, you feel already bored out and irritated, because you want to game that builds up, not one that starts with total chaos, and is completely shallow, empty, and meaningless after the first mission.
It looks like marketeers know that game previewers focus on the first few level for sake of time and efforts, and they KNOW no re- or previewer will ever see the uterless boring and funless bunch of missions thereafter.
There still ARE some good developers who somehow try to keep to their root, like the Tomb Raider series, some folks are never happy, and allthough they greatly eljoyed playing them, they WILL find reasons to start screaming because of these are to short for them, but only THAT explains the fact they indeed DID enjoy these kinds of games.
And then there’s also the maffia behaviour, bigger companies without much feeling for games but WITH feeling about marketing tricks, and buy out the great gaming companies and transform their into their own boring sausages, everyone knows that Electronic Arts has released very few good games, but everyone knows that EA spams everything with every new sausage they get out the door.
Finishing the sub-subject here :
It’s like woman and sex, better a short and joyful game, than a never ending bunch of boredom.
Good article.
The key point we should remember: Innovation for the sake of innovation is rarely — if ever — a good thing. Innovate if it makes for a better product; otherwise, stick with what’s tried and true.
So many modern games feel like the designers decide to do things differently, not because it necessarily creates a better game, but simply because they want to be different. They deliberately ignore what already works well, just for the sake of “innovation.” Or maybe it’s not deliberate — I have to wonder sometimes if modern game designers even play games, because there are a lot of issues in modern games that are pretty obvious to me as a person who’s been playing games for 20+ years. “Ignorance is bliss…” applies here, I guess. =P
Also… Designers, don’t bother innovating if you’re only going to focus on a specific feature, and the rest of the features are sub-par. It’s the old “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig” — many modern games look uber-shiny or have some new “innovative” feature, but are still rotten at the core, i.e. not fun to play. And if your game isn’t fun to play, what’s the point?
I’ll take a fun game over an “innovative” game every time.
gamers mean baldur’s gate 2 + expansion longer than neverwinter
they mean fallout 2 against fallout 3
they don’t require slow pacing, fan mods ( these aren’t a warranty for succes), dlc ( some aready on disc – feels like paying twice ) or other milking marketing techniques.
gamers require good old solid games from the beginning, clear cut, well built – hopefully no patches and with a decent price tag.
can any of you compare the twists in panzer general vs the twists in stormforce ? so what if its 3d they gave up mouse control , wtf inovation is that. how is your control when you have to run around up and down ?
I still play warhammer sothr or blod omen on a win 95 machine because they are better than present mark of chaos.
looks and talks aren’t everything in the game.
take last remnant , ff style , how many fights can you do until you’re bored out of your skull ? and it looks great .
can you actualy compare fallout 3 to 2 ? where is my party ?
what is my effect on the world? what a hell happened to the cities? the smallest had 2 people with the biggest maybe 30 – 8 did something.
slow pacing like drakkensang – a potential great otherwise … it’s like they aren’t neighbours with gothic team , slow pacing means exploring the land, hunting, side quest not running back and forth in slow motion, even a fatter build would move faster than their hero.
rpg need exploring not linearity
rts need twists and equipment and realistic development
try starcraft vs red alert3 , 90% of the time you have to switch between powers like mortal kombat kid. this is rts people. the producers tried to balance multiplayer like .
a tank should be a damned tank
and so forth
In your articles about “More things we hate about modern games” :
You can also make clear that the way EA Sports makes people buy a so called new year edition of their sports titles, but they don’t tell people they only changed the soundtracks, and that’s about it.
Comparing things like FIFA’08 and FIFA’09 is about removing the (stolen/bought) HitZone2008 CD that plays on it, and change it for the HitZone2009 CD that play on it.
…. And that’s about the only new stuff in their “brand new” sports game.
No to mention that their music selection sucks donkey balls IMHO.