[MoriartyL]

I know I've been such an ass lately that you probably won't care what I say at all, but here's the thing: The sort of innovation which interests me personally is the innovation which moves forward in some direction. Not necessarily all directions, or even most directions, but some direction. It could even be a two-steps-backward-one-step-forward type of thing, if that one step forward is a good step which would be useful for later games. Innovation for innovation's sake, I won't be interested in and I'd wager few others would be interested in. If you were looking for something you could provide as proof of innovation in adventures, then I can see how you'd get so excited. But other people see an idea like this, they say, "Oh, that's interesting." and then walk right past it.

I mean, let's say I were to make an adventure game where you play a carpenter. The inventory is his toolbox, and the only items he has in it for the entire game are the tools he began with. At the beginning, the puzzles use the tools as they're meant to be used, but later on the puzzles get more obtuse and require more creative usage of the tools. See, there's an innovative idea. It's new and different- it approaches the concept of the inventory from a different way, and the story would be unusual because this isn't the typical adventure hero, but just an ordinary guy. But most people wouldn't care, because this is the sort of idea that comes out of nowhere, not doing anything better than older adventures (other than, now that I think of it, the difficulty curve I mentioned), and not presenting any vision for the future. It's unnecessary. It could be fun, though, and that's the only part of this idea I just came up with which anyone would be interested in. Innovation itself is not such a big deal.

I think the problem of lack of innovation is that the last step forward was so long ago. Nowadays, a lot of adventurers feel (and I don't know if I'd agree, since I haven't played recent games) that all the steps made recently have been in the backwards direction, and there haven't been any significant ones forward. The magic of playing a game and seeing vast new territory filled with potential is gone. It used to be (in the "glory days") that the adventure could stand on its own as a legitimate art form in its own right, but now it seems like it's relying more and more on other mediums (film, stealth, action, etc.) to even maintain interest. (This is what I mean by a "step backwards".) And where are the new techniques for storytelling, which could strengthen the adventure (and make those training wheels unnecessary)? That's the problem, not that there are no innovative ideas. Innovative ideas are a dime a dozen.

[mariusmal]

Originally Posted by Jackal

I actually AM a little surprised at the relative apathy.

with that i can agree. but i think that most ppl are burned with all the past promises of revolutionary changes in the genre bla bla. now they stoped being believers and started to get very ceptic about it.

Originally Posted by moriartyL

The inventory is his toolbox, and the only items he has in it for the entire game are the tools he began with. At the beginning, the puzzles use the tools as they're meant to be used, but later on the puzzles get more obtuse and require more creative usage of the tools.

i mentioned something like that (in a more basic way) in some conversations i had with fellow adventure gamers.. sometimes concentrated inovations are very good but i still long to see a totally inovative adventure game

ps - sorry for my english, not my first language. despite being good at it i dont have much oppurtunity to enhance it

[Intrepid Homoludens]

I'll forgo the drama between Mory, Jack, and cobsie and say that it's refreshing to know that there will be yet another game that chooses to think outside the box without resorting to the conventions of other game types.

Yeah, conceptually it does remind me of Lifeline! There was even a downloadable tech demo showcasing the voice interface. Jack, you should sample it. From what I read that PS2 game did reasonably well in Japan to merit release in North America - was it ever released here?

What I'm most concerned about about, though, is how integrated the elements will be and of course the quality of the end product. I'm particular about the A.I. and how well that'll be implemented as the preview didn't delve into it much. I'm also really curious about the puzzle designs, it sounds like some of them will be environmental and others will be character interaction based.

[Jackal]

Yep, looks like Lifeline was released here. I've just started looking for it, as I intend to pick it up. Seems to be pretty cheap, too. (Always a plus! )

I can't comment on how well integrated things are in Experience112, because we didn't see an actual functioning version of the game. It could definitely fall apart in a hurry for a million and one reasons, and I expect the devs probably will make some mistakes. But they're not newbs, and the concept at least seemed well thought out in the presentation we were given, so hopefully they can pull it off.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Erm, I got your point the first time.

[Jackal]

Funky technical glitch. I hate it when that happens.

[After a brisk nap]

Sounds pretty neat to me. I had a somewhat similar idea for a multi-player adventure game concept that might actually work, so I'd be really interested in seeing if there's viable entertainment in this kind of gameplay.

It also reminds me vaguely of the concept for The Daedalus Encounter, a (by all reports) crappy FMV game I never got around to playing, where your character is dead and now existing as a program stored in the computer system of your space ship, and you have to help out your hapless crew mates. Though I think that in TDE you have a "body" of sorts in the form of a robot probe.

As for the whole "if you don't have an onscreen avatar it's a first-person perspective", is that true of Civilization? Of Command & Conquer? But actually, it sounds to me like this game is trying to be really first person, where you play as a character sitting in front of his computer screen, and what you see on your screen is what he sees on his screen.

And when it comes to not know who your character is, I got the impression that your character didn't know, either, so it wouldn't necessarily break immersion. Of course, the amnesia gimmick isn't exactly original, but in this case it might be warranted in order to make the concept work.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

It also reminds me vaguely of the concept for The Daedalus Encounter, a (by all reports) crappy FMV game I never got around to playing, where your character is dead and now existing as a program stored in the computer system of your space ship, and you have to help out your hapless crew mates. Though I think that in TDE you have a "body" of sorts in the form of a robot probe.

Funny you mention that... The Daedalus Encounter was made by Mechadeus, the team that did Critical Path (the earliest game that's very much like Experience112 in terms of concept). For the record, I've actually played and beaten The Daedalus Encounter...more than once. Heh. And yes, it's sorta crappy as a game, but fun as a movie that you sorta interact with.

My review of Daedalus Encounter

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

Of course, the amnesia gimmick isn't exactly original, but in this case it might be warranted in order to make the concept work.

Amnesia is never warranted and I'd ban it altogether, but what can we do...

[Orange Brat]

I haven't read all this, but this game sounds a lot like Tale of Tales "8." You are a detached from the avatar "ghost" and lead her around. The avatar also has a mind of its own and evolves as time goes by. The game is canceled(or shelved for now), but it reminds me of it.

http://www.taleoftales.com/8/index.html

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

As for the whole "if you don't have an onscreen avatar it's a first-person perspective", is that true of Civilization? Of Command & Conquer?

Of course not- that's third-person perspective. It's not like there's actually a guy up in the clouds shouting orders to the ground.

And when it comes to not know who your character is, I got the impression that your character didn't know, either.

I hope so.

[phankiejankie]

Originally Posted by Jackal

People around here spend so much time bitching about the lack of innovation in the genre, and when someone finally tries something different (at least, different to probably 95+% of gamers), it gets a "yawn, something similar was tried 10 years ago"? Go figger. Maybe that's partly why more developers (and publishers) don't bother.

True... guys Jack is right on this. Useful (spare me the term) innovation is a pretty hard thing to pull. Unfortunately many must fail in order one to succeed. We shouldn't rip the game apart before we have something solid in our hands. I believe the game has potential and it is certainly innovative. The whole indirect control thingy if executed well could lead to a whole fresh way of playing a game (maybe later on another game comes with voice recognition, pushing things further). That’s nice by me. It could be a failure, you can't avoid that, but lets be a bit more optimistic with this one.

Apart from that, the more you strip things down the more you will find resemblances to older games as already mentioned here, but does this lead anywhere? Simon Says and Hyper Olympics button mashing in IP means that IP isn't an innovative game? I think not.

[MoriartyL]

Who said Experience112 wasn't innovative? I didn't hear anything like that. We said it's not original, and I said that it's not a progressive innovation.

[phankiejankie]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

Who said Experience112 wasn't innovative? I didn't hear anything like that. We said it's not original, and I said that it's not a progressive innovation.

Progressive innovation? How can innovation not be progressive?

[insane_cobra]

What I believe he might've meant is that it's a one shot idea with very limited usage; it doesn't progress the genre as a whole. You can have only so many games in which you're locked in a control room and cooperating with an NPC before it gets old.

[MoriartyL]

Exactly.

[Jackal]

But now we're getting back to innovations that are technical in nature. Those are the ones that tend to "progress the genre" (any genre). That was the distinction the preview was trying to make. I'm not knocking those - those are great and much-needed, but I think for the most part they happen when technology catches up and allows it to be achieved, where it wasn't possible previously. Once achieved, others follow suit. I mean, it's not like the ideas themselves are "new" in most cases.

So what I was getting at was a creative design innovation, and those do tend to be one-offs. Or at least, rare-offs. And they SHOULD be, because originality is quickly used up. I mean, heaven help us all if Bad Mojo had created a sub-genre of insect-based adventures. We all want Metronome to succeed, but do we want it to create a series of clones that use sound as a weapon?

Anyway, sure, let's hope that more games take advantage of emerging technology to try new things. But in the meantime, we can still be glad a new game isn't just trotting out the same old thing, even if it's not TOTALLY unique.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Jackal

BI mean, heaven help us all if Bad Mojo had created a sub-genre of insect-based adventures.

Why would that bug you?




*runs*

[mariusmal]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Why would that bug you?




*runs*

AHAHAHAHHAHAHA

ps - cheap joke but effective

[mszv]

Here's my "sophisticated" comment -

Wow - this looks like a great game, very interesting! I want to play it.

It looks innovative to me.