Japanese 2005 Sales figures

[Nicked]

Fair enough, but I'll lamely turn the question around on you: please define innovative in your words. I have not played the brain training games, but I think Animal Crossing and Nintendogs speak for themselves.

Innovative...innovative...it is hard, but first I'll make a case why they aren't innovative then attempt to define it.

AC DS is basically AC GC with wifi. The game consists of no real gameplay elements to innovate. No ('real') story, no AI, no action, only a goal that would not be out of place in a short flash game. If dearth of gameplay cannot be considered innovative, the only thing left is communication. Whilst communicating and sharing items with friends may sound cool, in reality it is, extremely limited. Communication with ingame characters is laughable.

Nintendogs is Tamagotchi with a new interface and even less goals (but more...'gameplay'). Using the stylus is novel, but the entire concept has been done.

Innovation to me (and the dictionary IIRC), is achieving something unique that sets a standard that is ahead of its time.
A game like Zelda was innovative for its gameplay mechanics when it was released. It defined a genre. Mario64 defined 3D gameplay and camera control. Goldeneye defined objective-based (shooter) gameplay amongst other things. Likewise MGS2 innovated AI and interaction, IMO. Just some examples.

These particular games, are yes, deriviatives of other games. The unique interaction (the specific implementation of their touchscreen control, that is) are gimmicks. Saying the word gimmick creates a negative image which is not what I intend. They are novel concepts (especially in Nintendogs for interacting with your dog) that are fun but ultimately very limited in impact. Not impact as in sales, but impact as in adoption into other games or any lasting effect on gaming as an entertainment/art form.

 

[pakotlar]

Innovative...innovative...it is hard, but first I'll make a case why they aren't innovative then attempt to define it.

AC DS is basically AC GC with wifi. The game consists of no real gameplay elements to innovate. No ('real') story, no AI, no action, only a goal that would not be out of place in a short flash game. If dearth of gameplay cannot be considered innovative, the only thing left is communication. Whilst communicating and sharing items with friends may sound cool, in reality it is, extremely limited. Communication with ingame characters is laughable.

Nintendogs is Tamagotchi with a new interface and even less goals (but more...'gameplay'). Using the stylus is novel, but the entire concept has been done.

Innovation to me (and the dictionary IIRC), is achieving something unique that sets a standard that is ahead of its time.
A game like Zelda was innovative for its gameplay mechanics when it was released. It defined a genre. Mario64 defined 3D gameplay and camera control. Goldeneye defined objective-based (shooter) gameplay amongst other things. Likewise MGS2 innovated AI and interaction, IMO. Just some examples.

These particular games, are yes, deriviatives of other games. The unique interaction (the specific implementation of their touchscreen control, that is) are gimmicks. Saying the word gimmick creates a negative image which is not what I intend. They are novel concepts (especially in Nintendogs for interacting with your dog) that are fun but ultimately very limited in impact. Not impact as in sales, but impact as in adoption into other games or any lasting effect on gaming as an entertainment/art form.

If u qualify innovative as the above, then pretty much everything is an extension of something else. Including special and general relativity, and all other "unique" ideas.