PS4 And Xbox One Have An 'Exclusive' Problem

[Silent_Buddha]

Innovation for me is brand new gameplay mechanics altogether. Stuff like the Nemesis system in Shadows of Mordor.

How is that any more innovative in a console/PC game than building a dungeon with a deck of cards? It's basically taking a very very shallow token political/spy system from past TBS/RTS games and putting it into an open world action game. Taking out people of position in order to alter the political landscape of the opposition? Been done. Replacing them with a lacky doing your bidding? Been done. By your own definition it is derivative since it borrows mechanics from another genre.

Shadow of Mordor itself is just a hugely derivative open world game that mostly follows the same blueprint as other open world games. It does it extremely well, but don't attempt to coat it as something it isn't.

Every game I listed is far more innovative than Shadows of Mordor. But within that statement, using the definition I used. The Nemesis system is innovative for an open world action game. The system is just not innovative with regards to console/PC gaming. Just as Shifty mentioned how adding RPG elements to Borderlands could be considered innovative (although System Shock did that far earlier but with much less exposure to modern gamers. ).

Innovation in my eyes encompasses the entire game. Is it following a tried and true formula with minor and mostly superficial alterations? Or does it attempt to redefine the genre or even create a new genre? Something like that is extremely rare for a game with a AAA budget because the risk is too high. But happens quite frequently in the independent and/or low budget publisher scene. And by frequently I mean a lot, not necessarily the majority.

Regards,
SB

 

[Prophecy2k]

Innovation in my eyes encompasses the entire game. Is it following a tried and true formula with minor and mostly superficial alterations? Or does it attempt to redefine the genre or even create a new genre? Something like that is extremely rare for a game with a AAA budget because the risk is too high. But happens quite frequently in the independent and/or low budget publisher scene. And by frequently I mean a lot, not necessarily the majority.

I didn't say anything about the rest of Shadows of Mordor, as I'd agree in that case that the rest of the game was basically just a reskinned Assassin's Creed (and almost unabashedly so), but the Nemesis System was innovative on its own as a standoit mechanic/system, because I'd never seen or even heard of any other game that does the same exact thing before. If you have then that's fine, but I wager it wasn't in a AAA open world action stealth game, and it probably wasn't done exactly like the Nemesis system.

Your mentioned games, as you described are essentially permutations of dungeon crawler with any selection of RPG, action game, loot system etc mechanics which have been done in so many games that playing any one of your list indies would feel like playing a combination of about 300 other indie games I've already played.

To me that's not reinventing a genre or trying to create a brand new genre at all.

Also don't get me wrong I agree with yours and Shifty's general definition of innovation, but where I draw the line is when the combination of "new" or "added" mechanics to a tried and tested genre or formula are themselves already worn and tired gameplay mechanics in and of themselves.

E.g. if I made a new version of God of War but added a loot system and RPG stats, would that be innovative? In my mind, no it wouldn't because the GOW gameplay formula is too familiar, likewise the added "new" mechanical spin that separates it from the object of its inspiration is equally just as familiar and tried and tested.

Whereas, if I take a third person vehicular combat game and add in RTS base building mechanics and tech tree development and progression systems (i.e. mechanics from a genre that isn't popular on consoles), then this I would call something more akin to a reinvention of a genre or an attempt to create a new gaming genre.

The latter I don't see among PC indies nearly as much as i don't see in the AAA console dev space.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What games do satisfy your idea of innovation then?

 

[Arwin]

I think it has been scientifically proven that creativity only really exists of combining existing things in a new way. How successful that is, and particularly how well known those existing things are inside the gaming realm is probably what influences perceived innovation. Like using accellerometers and gyroscopes in game controllers - that was only possible because those were being used so widely in cars, for instance, but their application for game controls allowed for a lot of new things to happen in games.

If I have more data in my features database at www.techingames.net I am certainly planning to try to generate a report on what features are new or rare, and how they trend. This should eventually be able to give some kind of global innovation or uniqueness score that could be interesting (even right now I already report the first game that used a certain feature on the feature detail page, for instance)

 

[London Geezer]

At this point it would be nearly impossible to do something 'new'. Everything we get is an extension or evolution of something that has done before, many times to various degrees of success. Even VR is basically only a new way to display something. More realistic, immersive and whatnot, but still just an evolution or 3D viewing/gameplay.

 

[iroboto]

I think it has been scientifically proven that creativity only really exists of combining existing things in a new way.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

For me, the innovative games are things that combine elements not combined before, or tweak a formula in a different way.Borderlands was an innovation for me. Truly standout games doing something no-one's done before (to whatever extent that's really possible) are revolutionary. So Populous and Lemmings and maybe Spore's creature evolution. These games aren't many, I'd say mobile is the hotbed for these developments these days. Something like Blek was completely new (at least, regarding my gaming history!). But then with soooo many developments on mobile, sheer number of efforts are going to yield to a higher total number of innovations. The percentage of true innovation is likely the same as AAA or console games or whatever, because the limiting factor is human creativity that shouldn't be any different just based on platform.

I suppose from that base human creativity factor, you could determine if an industry/publisher was less innovative or not based on their percentage innovation. I'm not sure you can improve innovation, but you can stifle it and that's the accusation made towards the largest publishers.

 

[Prophecy2k]

What games do satisfy your idea of innovation then?

Games that essentially set new gaming trends or create new genres; and do so through a combination of bringing to the fore lesser experienced or even brand new gameplay ideas into familiar settings or existing game genres.

An example would be the Red Faction series, as the first game to include meaningful 3D environmental destruction as a primary game mechanic. Or Tomb Raider a third person action game that uses large scale environmental puzzles as a primary mechanic.

There's lots of innovation in gaming when you look back at the last 20 years of gaming and console generations.

These days however, there's barely any.

For me, the innovative games are things that combine elements not combined before, or tweak a formula in a different way.Borderlands was an innovation for me. Truly standout games doing something no-one's done before (to whatever extent that's really possible) are revolutionary. So Populous and Lemmings and maybe Spore's creature evolution. These games aren't many, I'd say mobile is the hotbed for these developments these days. Something like Blek was completely new (at least, regarding my gaming history!). But then with soooo many developments on mobile, sheer number of efforts are going to yield to a higher total number of innovations. The percentage of true innovation is likely the same as AAA or console games or whatever, because the limiting factor is human creativity that shouldn't be any different just based on platform.

I suppose from that base human creativity factor, you could determine if an industry/publisher was less innovative or not based on their percentage innovation. I'm not sure you can improve innovation, but you can stifle it and that's the accusation made towards the largest publishers.

I'd argue that the bigger and smaller dev/pubs of current AAA games can. They just need to stop allowing focus testing and marketing departments to design their games for them.

Indies have even less of an excuse because their projects aren't as high capital projects and thus don't carry the same level of risk. Unfortunately far too many seem to fall into the same trap. and bascially just design games as a frankenstien amalgamation of what is current and popular in the trend on Steam.

I'm not saying there aren't exceptions though. Games like Goat simulator are excellent examples, but I feel titles like that need to be the majority in the Indie space and not a minority as the current state of things appears imho.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Games that essentially set new gaming trends or create new genres; and do so through a combination of bringing to the fore lesser experienced or even brand new gameplay ideas into familiar settings or existing game genres.

I meant name some. Are there loads, so you could create a list of a hundred titles from the last five years, or is it barely any, showing that it's an unrealistic standard to hold devs to?

These days however, there's barely any.

More and more ideas have already been used, leaving less room for discovering new ideas. Look at...transportation. Look how many new forms of transport were invented in the 1800s, early 1900s, and compare that to how many new forms of transport have been created since then. Once the cycle, steam car, automobile, train, and plane had been developed, the number of options available for new transports was greatly diminished. We're left with the Segway and Space Hopper pretty much. It'd be unfair to say current humans are less inventive and creative than their forefathers simply because the opportunities for completely revolutionary advances are dminished.

Indies have even less of an excuse because their projects aren't as high capital projects and thus don't carry the same level of risk.

Speak for yourself! An indie trying to make a living from games has to work within the same industry limitations as the AAA devs and big publishers. The aim is to produce something that people will spend money on and something new and untested might be a flop. The risk is the same on projects big or small - your livelihood!

 

[Prophecy2k]

Shifty I didn't name any because I was essentially saying "think of every possible game genre", then think of the title that either invented the genre or evolved it in a major way with one or more major new mechanics. It's a huge list!

I would also argue that your transport industry analogy isn't based on the right premise. Engineers and inventors that createdthe first cars, trains, plane etc, aren't creating even more original transport concepts now because there's no reason to. Those created had industries and infrastructure established around them, and so despite the fact that some may not have been the absolute most optimal or perfectly suited design for the intended task, they were good enough and have been evolved and tweaked over time to bring them to their most modern incarnations.

So i'd argue that the creators of today aren't as creative or inventive as the originators of the currently established and dominant transport technologies, precisely because they have no reason to do so.

Which is similar to the games industry as devs can keep cranking out the same old titles again and again because they're established genres that are popular and will more than likely sell a considerable amount to generate a profit. So again, why bother doing anything that deviates from the "tried and true"?

 

[London Geezer]

But then with soooo many developments on mobile, sheer number of efforts are going to yield to a higher total number of innovations. The percentage of true innovation is likely the same as AAA or console games or whatever, because the limiting factor is human creativity that shouldn't be any different just based on platform.

I'd go as far as stating that AAA games are usually the least innovative out there, and they sell by the truckload also because they are sticking to a proven and successful formula.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I didn't say anything about the rest of Shadows of Mordor, as I'd agree in that case that the rest of the game was basically just a reskinned Assassin's Creed (and almost unabashedly so), but the Nemesis System was innovative on its own as a standoit mechanic/system, because I'd never seen or even heard of any other game that does the same exact thing before. If you have then that's fine, but I wager it wasn't in a AAA open world action stealth game, and it probably wasn't done exactly like the Nemesis system.

And I mentioned that the Nemesis system isn't anything new. It's existed in other gaming genres. A LOT. Since the 80's. Just not in an open world action game. So I give it innovation for that. But according to your definition...

Your mentioned games, as you described are essentially permutations of dungeon crawler with any selection of RPG, action game, loot system etc mechanics which have been done in so many games that playing any one of your list indies would feel like playing a combination of about 300 other indie games I've already played.

It's not innovative at all because it's been used in another gaming genre.

As I mentioned the Nemesis system just basically takes parts of political systems and spy systems from a variety of Turn Based and Real Time Strategy games. Very simplified parts. Very very very simplified compared to the games which featured similar systems.

In other words, less innovated than many of the games I mentioned which were mixing systems that exist in other genre's into a genre that had never seen its like.

For example, is Hand of Fate a...

• 3rd person action combat game with Deck Building (cards) and Dungeon building (layout is actual cards)?
• Card deck builder with Dungeon building feature real time 3rd person action combat?
• Dungeon building game with Deck Building and 3rd person combat?

In other words it defies any existing genre basically creating its own, because it's extremely difficult to fit it into any existing genre. I left out a few other genres that influence that game as the list of permutations would get ridiculous.

Now take any AAA budget release, it's relatively easy to say what genre they all fit into. Which doesn't mean some bits of innovative (stolen/copied from another genre) gameplay can't make it an evolutionary change from past entries in that genre.

And being easily placed in a well defined genre doesn't mean there can't be innovation. Just that it is unlikely to feature much if the budget is really high. The higher the budget, the safer you have to play it.

Which also doesn't mean that small budget games are exempt from this. If you are an independent developer making a game. And you've sunk your entire life savings into a game. How much of a risk are you going to take versus a developer who has a lot of money and is only investing a small fraction of his personal wealth? Oh the one hand you may have to sell your house and hope relatives will let you stay with them if your game fails. On the other hand, if the game fails you've only lost some money.

Regards,
SB

 

[Silent_Buddha]

If I have more data in my features database at www.techingames.net I am certainly planning to try to generate a report on what features are new or rare, and how they trend. This should eventually be able to give some kind of global innovation or uniqueness score that could be interesting (even right now I already report the first game that used a certain feature on the feature detail page, for instance)

That's be a noble and massive undertaking. As there are going to be many features that are new to some players while others have seen them before. As such its difficult to say what is new or even who was first.

For example, many people would consider Doom or Wolfenstein 3D as the father of FPS games. Which is somewhat true but also false. IDs first truly 3D game was Quake. But Quake wasn't the first truly 3D first person shooter. System Shock predates Quake by 2 years. And of course Ultima Underground came out 2 years prior to System Shock. Roughly the same time as Wolfenstein 3D, only with a fully 3D world. But then... And you can go on and on with trying to find a first. Much less trying to determine if something is new.

Regards,
SB

 

[Arwin]

Of course. It will likely only work if the site becomes popular and everyone helps or I patreon it and make it my day job or hire students But it's a matter of entering the data, and then report any way you want. When I've looked at some of these features, generally some researcher on some mainframe at some university did it first. But after that, it becomes interesting how the feature got onto different, commercially available platforms. Like 16 player Midi Maze on Atari ST, done first on a mainframe way before that, and making it onto a mobile platform (Gameboy) after that, all were basically Wolfenstein 3D in terms of gameplay with local network multiplayer.

 

[Prophecy2k]

For example, many people would consider Doom or Wolfenstein 3D as the father of FPS games. Which is somewhat true but also false. IDs first truly 3D game was Quake. But Quake wasn't the first truly 3D first person shooter. System Shock predates Quake by 2 years. And of course Ultima Underground came out 2 years prior to System Shock. Roughly the same time as Wolfenstein 3D, only with a fully 3D world. But then... And you can go on and on with trying to find a first. Much less trying to determine if something is new.

What are you on about?!

According to the pre-teen adolescents that dominate discussion on internet message boards, Halo is the father of FPS games. Since it invented every major FPS system in existence that existed before but because of "reasons" doesn't count.

 

[MrFox]

What are you on about?!

According to the pre-teen adolescents that dominate discussion on internet message boards, Halo is the father of FPS games. Since it invented every major FPS system in existence that existed before but because of "reasons" doesn't count.

It's an illusion, they're adults but their brain development stopped at the pre-teen level of social interactions. From their own accounts, they had sex with millions of other gamer's moms, so obviously... not pre-teen.

 

[dobwal]

Innovation, invention and improvement do not fall under the same definition. Taking a mechanic from one genre in gaming and introducing into another genre whereby that mechanic becomes a standard like feature is not an invention but is an innovation of that genre. The nemesis system hasn't proved to be an innovation of the open world genre. It has to be readily adopted by other games to warrant such a description.

You can make a game with a bevy of newly invented mechanics, but if it doesn't sell and doesn't impact the market, there is nothing innovative about your game. If someone else comes along, makes a new game, uses some of your inventions and then for some reason it sells like gang busters and other devs are influenced by that title to copy your mechanics then that title will be considered innovative.

Innovation is the the use of a novel method or mechanic that impacts the genre or overall market.

 

[Prophecy2k]

Innovation, invention and improvement do not fall under the same definition. Taking a mechanic from one genre in gaming and introducing into another genre whereby that mechanic becomes a standard like feature is not an invention but is an innovation of that genre. The nemesis system hasn't proved to be an innovation of the open world genre. It has to be readily adopted by other games to warrant such a description.

You can make a game with a bevy of newly invented mechanics, but if it doesn't sell and doesn't impact the market, there is nothing innovative about your game. If someone else comes along, makes a new game, uses some of your inventions and then for some reason it sells like gang busters and other devs are influenced by that title to copy your mechanics then that title will be considered innovative.

Innovation is the the use of a novel method or mechanic that impacts the genre or overall market.

This far too narrow and limited a definition for me.

By this definition practically hardly any games at all are innovative, despite bringing together rich new ideas and presenting a fresh, new and original experience.

I think you're mixing the word "influential" with the word "innovation".

 

[London Geezer]

By this definition practically hardly any games at all are innovative, despite bringing together rich new ideas and presenting a fresh, new and original experience.

But that is exactly the state of affairs today: hardly any games are innovative.

 

[Prophecy2k]

The point is, going by dobwal's definition then we can't even expect hardly any games to be innovative.

It would also retroactively disqualify a shit tonne of games in previous generations from being innovative, despite the majority consensus lauding them otherwise.