What Does the Game Industry Have Against Innovation?
 

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6141519.html

Interesting article. Tim Schafer and Psychonauts is prominently featured.

It is wishful thinking, but had Majesco invested some more resources in Psychonauts and released a Psychonauts 360, or whatever edition as the launch title for XBOX 360, possibly it would have sold more copies given the mostly crap launch titles for the system.

Edit: ...and actual Psychonauts' sale figures are so depressing :(

We've got a saying that goes like: Was der Bauer nicht kennt, das frisst er nicht.

"Which the farmer does not know, it does not eat."

:crazy: :confused:

Yes. :D The main problem with the crapload of WWII games coming out is that they're (more or less) all the same. How about a game that digs deep into the horror of war from a civilian's point of view? Joe Everyday's life in which he has to deal with the loss of family members, friends? A game that tells to story of a man desperately trying to survive?

Or a game in which you're playing the father/mother of a Jewish family living in Germany? Ah, well...

The article mentions what I've felt is the reason: companies want to make a profit, and they'll go with what they know works. The bottom line being profit is what I hate the most about companies. I want progress, damn it!

I like to make geeky jokes about technological advancements and what they're being used for. Like physics engines in frag fests like Half Life 2 (and before the panning will start - I perfectly know that the term frag fest doesn't do the great game HL2 justice). Anyway! Interaction is still so limited, even though fiddling around with the nerd's gimmick that came with the game (the grav gun) is fun, booyeah. But sometimes it *is* just that depressing what's being done with that kind of stuff...

Just think what would have happened with Half-Life 2 if Valve hadn't decided that the gravity gun was the most fun thing in the game during early testing :crazy:...

Mh... the poor guys at id had to come up with something interesting for the Doom³ expansion pack on their own? :D

:D :D :D

I would have bought Psychonauts had it been released for Gamecube. But I don't have an XBox and my PC ain't good enough. So I'll never get to play it. Oh well.

The more appropriate question would be.


What does the game buying public have against innovation?

Because if it sold people would make it.

Standard Supply and Demand model.

People just want the same as the old one but with little improvements.

Just look at how well the annual Fifa games sell.

Innovation takes a lot more effort for reduced returns. Not an attractive business product.

Hive mind mentality is common when it comes to purchasing non necessities. The current popularity of Sony and how through slick advertising and marketing it triumphed over the 'made in japan' label stigma that dogged it in the past (especially in America) is a great example of how demand can be manufactured as well as supply.

Individuals may desire innovation, but the majority of people will buy what the hive mind tells them to buy, because what drives them to buy it in the first place IS the hive. Convincing the hive to buy something different is tricky because it goes against what's normal for the hive, to alienate differences. Sony did it, Apple sorta did it (many would claim the iPod has become a sellout of a different nature).

As for developers wanting to make innovative titles, they may well bemoan having to make "shoot-em-all 5" but the likelyhood of all of their 'innovative' titles being interesting or fun to play is pretty low.

People often point to the ammount of shooter titles on the market, I liken the shooter title to the fancy assed columns of the baroque age. The shooter is just the natural progression of the best you can do with the existing medium. They're finally getting so fancy looking people are just starting to wonder if all the stupid curves and doohickeys make much difference. A shooter is a shooter and a marble column is a marble column.

Ok so I'm waffling, but I have high hopes for the Nintendo brick-remote-sword-tennis-racket-thingy... or something like it... I think it or something else wildly different to the keyboard and monitor method of entertainment delivery is needed if we ever want to see anything more than curly bits of decoration on a pillar that holds up the roof first person shooters.

I think for innovation to start happening, the market has to open up to a different demographic. Like someone said, pretty much 90% of the games right now are the equivalent of action block busters in the movie industry. Where are our romantic comedies, our dramas ?etc... Even the ones w4e currently have with the deepest stories like RPG's have a lot of fighting to attract the non gamers.

But it's like a catch 22 right now. Different games don't sell well, so publishers do not take risks on them, and this in turn leads to more of the same demographic. I believe it will take more than a tetris or a few arcade games to open up the market to the non gamers. It will take games like the old adventure games, stripped out of the frustration, and with much more diverse and interesting plots. Indigo prophecy might be a first step, but remove the murder thriller and replace it with a drama - with a love story. I know it won't be popular with the guys, but maybe with their girlfriends.

-Hey, speak for yourself. If it's either fun to play or enlightening, anything else is irrelevant. And I tend to think that a good romance could be both.

I know I know!! Let's all stop buying games and just download them! That will teach those greedy bastards!!!

Oh wait, we already did that... :frown:

I just read the latest issue of Game Developer, which has a Pac-Man post mortem. (That's right. It has a Pac-Man post mortem.)

The following quote of Pac-Man designer Toru Iwatani has radically changed my entire set of values, for both game development and private life:

:shifty:

That is solid gold. At least you can use it as an example of non-PC attitudes leading to good games ;)...

To answer the question: Nothing.

Innovation: Does Size Really Matter?
 

Part Two: Innovation: Does Size Really Matter?

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6141548.html