We scream for innovation! Yet we keep buying imitation...

[Rattlesnake8]

I posted this in a topic on the GS forums and was wondering what you guys thought about this..

The thing that really bugs me is how game developers claim their idea is innovative when it is just an imitation or an exact rip off of other games. This happens an aweful lot. Especially to games that aren't very successful.

For instance, Close Combat 4:Battle of The Bulge was the first game to my knowledge that introduced a strategy map where you move turn based and then play out the battles in real time. The Total War series is known as the series that started it, when in face it wasn't. The game does so well and so many people think its new and great, when it's been done before.

Battlezone II is an old game, which combines RTS and FPS into one. You build bases, train troops, get resources like RTS games, but then you can take command of a unit and control it exactly like an FPS. This is also done, but not to the same extent, in Dungeon Keeper where you were able to take control of a unit from first person. Of course, this idea didn't catch on at the time, but years later developers make a game with it, and others follow.. and the only people that know its an old idea are those gamers that played the games with that idea all those years ago. The developers claim its innovative, its all BS though. They just rip off ideas and tell everyone they came up with it.

Imitation is also a good thing. Without imitation we wouldn't have the games we have today. If no one copied Wolf3D's success we wouldn't have had Doom, Doom2, Blakestone, and therefore we wouldn't have Doom3, we wouldn't have many other FPS games. Imitation can be good when developers take an idea and add to it. When they add their own ideas and change things. This was done in to Total War series. You could make peace, alliances, build units/buildings in the strategy map. In Close Combat 4, it's set in WW2. You don't make buildings, set diplomacy (there is none to set, its set during a historic battle). So the developers added a lot of their own ideas and it turned into a great game. When they do this, then the result is great. But when developers make an exact copy of the game, just changing the visual aspects (like in an RTS, just changing units, maps, buildings but keeping everything else the same without adding any new features, the game is boring). Of course, then the game fails miserably so developers try to add new things all the time.

The thing i find is that developers seem to be working together. They don't seem to be working to make the overal games better, they just add one new feature to get us interested. For instance, RTS games.. when one of them went 3D. ALL of them suddenly went 3D. It was a sudden change which happened as though the develepers all got together and decided on it. With with recent FPS titles and physics. It all happened at once. All the WW2 games that came out, many of them were announced around the same time. (when they were announced, screenshots were provided showing that the games had been in development for a while). Are we to believe that so many WW2 shooters just happened to be in developement at the same time? Maybe one or two.. but not that many, not by so many different developers.

What do you guys think?

[Ojnod]

I am not one to complain too much about lack of innovation. I mean if I wanted some innovation, I would be bored with current games, and I am not. Maybe once I get tired of the style of games that are out there now I will start to ask for innovation.

Plus I don't really see what new areas we can go into without things becoming too complicated. My favorite games are simple, ones that I can launch and play for 30 minutes and stop. I am finding too many current games are ones I need to sit down for 2 hours at a time any time I want to play them just because of the way they are built.

[DanTheManPR]

I would rather have a very un-innovative but great game (like UT2004) than an even slightly less fun inovative game. In short, if its good, i'll play it.

[Nova]

I don't care much for innovation. If a game does not innovate yet is fun and addictive, what's the problem? Ion Storm tried to innovate with Deus Ex: IW, yet the game turned out to be pretty bad. I'm not saying the occasional new well-implemented feature is unwelcome, I just think developers should stop trying to "revolutionize X genre" all the time.

[Torsion]

I agree, I think the priorities of game companies should focus on making well playing and fun games. I think sometimes they base the entire game around one innovative feature in order to try and attract gamers to their product. If they could just focus on nailing the existing and fundamental gameplay mechanics, people will be more attracted in the long run.

Innovation comes naturaly as things develop. I think the companies should just let it happen instead of trying so hard to seek it out and incorporate it into their games.

[Rafal Dudek]

For instance, Close Combat 4:Battle of The Bulge was the first game to my knowledge that introduced a strategy map where you move turn based and then play out the battles in real time. The Total War series is known as the series that started it, when in face it wasn't. The game does so well and so many people think its new and great, when it's been done before.

Actually there were other games before this. For example, I had an SNES game called Actraiser developed in 91', it contained strategy-empire building and side-scrolling action during battles =P There is also a matter of not who invented the concept, but who perfected it. Another example is Lords of the Realm games =] Lords of the Realm 2 had strategic map with realtime combat and was developed prior your close combat 4.... (yes I know you like WW2 stuff so I'm shoving stuff down your throat to make a point :p: )

Comming up with fresh ideas takes a big risk and publishers usually shy away from this especially now that the economy has slown down. Take a look at Impossible Creatures... pretty neat game concept, didnt do too well.

The developers claim its innovative

They have every right too if they further developed the idea to new heights from its basic origins. Lets face it, we have pretty much seen everything there is to see, now its all about the design. But there are still tons of ideas that could be big if done right. I havent seen any good gangster/mafia type of strategy games. There were a few but they ALL lacked something major. Mob Rule, Gangsters 1 and 2, Gangland. All tried to touch the concept, but came out with poor design.

[Logan]

I think it's more about an evolution. Think about it - if you send out a game that no one has ever seen before, what happens? A lot of people really won't like it. It's too risky for game developers to do that. To make an analogy - when you jump into a cold swimming pool, your body gets a huge shock. However, if you ease yourself in - first your toes, then your feet, then your waist - then you acclimate much better.

That being said, the best way for games to "innovate" is to just evolve naturally, and that's exactly what a lot of games are doing. Deus Ex was a hit because it blended a FPS with RPG elements. NOLF was a hit because it included sneaking around and interesting situations, a big difference from the majority of FPS titles being released at the time. Max Payne introduced photorealistic textures on a huge scope, and real-time physics was brought into play in other games. Combine all of that together into a single game (which, if it hasn't been released already, it certainly will be sometime soon), and you have a truly revolutionary FPS. It might not be an all-in-one leap in all facets of game design, but if you look at a new game that has used past concepts and evolved, you'll find it vastly different from an older game, or from a new game that has not evolved (some might say Doom3 fits this description).

So in reality, it's all about acclimating the game audience to new technologies and new concepts. What also ends up happening is a development team trying to be innovative will run out of steam and become severely overextended - what ends up happening is a shoddy game with pretty neat yet under-developed features is released. It gets poor reviews, other developers and publishers see this, and they decide to stay more mainstream.

[miker_CLO]

As a recent example of innovation not necessarily being a good thing, we released Perimeter, which as we tagged, was RTS Reborn. Now the game engine and content itself were well made and we received some great reviews all ranging in the mid 80s to 90s, even receiving an award for the game engine, yet the game itself didn't sell as we had hoped.

Yes it was different to the current breed of RTS games out there though had some familiar qualities, but I still think that the actual game concept may have scared the gamers away, especially in the West (apparently the Russians loved it).

This has definately given us something to think about and consider in the next line up of games.

Of course this doesn't mean that we all should copy game concepts and form our own little tried and tested package, but the question is, does the average gamer really want innovation?