Innovation: Gaming's Snake Oil

[Lambonius]

Anybody watch the Jimquisition episodes at the Escapist?  If not, you should--he's often hilarious, and usually dead on in his analysis of various gaming related topics.

Case in point: this week's episode, which explains precisely why KQ7, 8, Telltale, motion gaming, and so many other things that aren't traditional KQ5 and 6 style point and click adventure games should be killed with fire.  Well, to be fair, he doesn't actually talk about any of those things, but the logic of what he DOES discuss can be easily and aptly applied to the aforementioned crapfests.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7005-Innovation-Gamings-Snake-Oil

I love it, and couldn't agree more.  What do you guys think?

[Bludshot]

Pretty appropriate comparison to KQ7&8.  Haven't played enough Telltale to know the connection you are trying to make there though.

[Lambonius]

Haven't played enough Telltale to know the connection you are trying to make there though.

Basically that sacrificing deep gameplay at the altar of story should be considered "innovation." 

[GrahamRocks!]

Does nothing bring you joy, Lamb? Nearly everything I've seen by you is either extremely negative, disgusting, or very funny.

[Bludshot]

Haven't played enough Telltale to know the connection you are trying to make there though.

Basically that sacrificing deep gameplay at the altar of story should be considered "innovation." 

I'm not seeing that one.

[Lambonius]

Does nothing bring you joy, Lamb? Nearly everything I've seen by you is either extremely negative, disgusting, or very funny.

Did you even read my whole post?

I'm honestly interested in stimulating some discussion about the video at the link I posted.  The points Jim iterates pretty much perfectly encapsulate my own views on the matter.  I would even argue that the idea of "innovation without real purpose" was a big part of what led to most of Sierra's flops, and perhaps even eventually to the collapse of the company.

And please, for the love of God--no wall-of-texts detailing the downfall of Sierra.  You know who you are--there are several other threads for that.

[Lambonius]

Haven't played enough Telltale to know the connection you are trying to make there though.

Basically that sacrificing deep gameplay at the altar of story should be considered "innovation." 

I'm not seeing that one.

Another argument for another thread. 

[snabbott]

And please, for the love of God--no wall-of-texts detailing the downfall of Sierra.  You know who you are--there are several other threads for that.

[KatieHal]

A good brief stab at the topic, done in a fun manner. Although his pronunciation of "innovative" kept irking me.

I feel like the word "innovative" has kind of lost its meaning, actually. Like, I wouldn't call any of the TTG games I've played (Monkey Island, Walking Dead, and I watched my fiance playing Back to the Future) innovative. Walking Dead had nothing innovative in it, but it was just a really well-executed story with well-executed characters (hah, sometimes literally!).

Likewise with Heavy Rain, which Lamb didn't mention but which was a brief example in the video. It wasn't really innovation so much as gorgeous real-time graphics (so, how they did those may actually count as innovation, but we're focusing on gameplay vs. story innovations) and, again, a well-executed story experience. He's right in saying it was kind of just an updated gameplay version of Dragon's Lair--and those updates make a difference, I did enjoy for example how your movements with the controller would often mimic the movements made by the character. It's a small thing, but it does pull you in a little more. (Of note, I used a controller, not a motion controller stick thing. I watched an LP of someone using that and I'd say the regular controller is far superior an experience.)

KQ7 did try to innovate, though, and I don't know that I'd say they did it for the sake of doing it. The scheme or what was popular in games was changing, and an attempt was made to catch up that, stay current because yes, they did have a need to do so. It was an innovation out of necessity, or at least, what was deemed to be a necessity. Unfortunately, it didn't go so well. Likewise with KQ8, which rather than being a good adventure-RPG hybrid like QfG, ended up lacking on both fronts.

[Lambonius]

KQ7 did try to innovate, though, and I don't know that I'd say they did it for the sake of doing it. The scheme or what was popular in games was changing, and an attempt was made to catch up that, stay current because yes, they did have a need to do so. It was an innovation out of necessity, or at least, what was deemed to be a necessity. Unfortunately, it didn't go so well. Likewise with KQ8, which rather than being a good adventure-RPG hybrid like QfG, ended up lacking on both fronts.

I think the problem with KQ7 and KQ8 was ultimately quality control.  And by that I mean that, after messing around with all the "innovative" aspects, I don't think anyone ultimately went back and took a "big picture" look at the whole game, and asked "do these innovations serve the story?  Do they make the game more fun to play than doing it the way we did it before?" Etc.  I mean, I'm sure there was actual quality control, but I just don't know if one could honestly ask those questions and answer truthfully in the affirmative.

[KatieHal]

Having made a game that's tied to a timeline now, too, for commercial and company survival reasons, I can understand too if by the time they DID know it wasn't well executed, it was too late to majorly change things.

That said, the one-cursor interface in KQ7, while far from perfect, was a step in the right direction. A 'smart' cursor has become a common practice now, but the better ones have a little more complexity to them--like offering only the options that can be used, or doing a right-click does X, left-click does Y, always, thing.

KQ7 maybe tried too many new things at once: totally new art style, totally new cursor, totally new aspect of alternating 2 characters. None of those were executed perfectly, so the fact that they all ended up lacking something, on top of a story that had holes cut in it, added up to a subpar product from a company and series that had traditionally delivered pretty well.

[Bludshot]

Haven't played enough Telltale to know the connection you are trying to make there though.

Basically that sacrificing deep gameplay at the altar of story should be considered "innovation." 

I'm not seeing that one.

Another argument for another thread. 

I'll just bump the telltale thread if I feel so inclined.

[Lambonius]

KQ7 maybe tried too many new things at once: totally new art style, totally new cursor, totally new aspect of alternating 2 characters. None of those were executed perfectly, so the fact that they all ended up lacking something, on top of a story that had holes cut in it, added up to a subpar product from a company and series that had traditionally delivered pretty well.

I can find nothing to disagree with about this. 

[snabbott]

I haven't played any of the games mentioned in the video, but his point about innovating for no purpose is a good one. I'm not sure I agree with his definition of innovation, though. I wouldn't consider something innovative just because it is new / different.

[Lambonius]

I'm not sure I agree with his definition of innovation, though. I wouldn't consider something innovative just because it is new / different.

I don't think that's his definition of innovative at all.  In fact, I think that's precisely the point he's trying to make! 

[stika]

honestly, I'm the sort of gamer who enjoys his Halo and Gears of war with his Monkey Islands, Ultimas or whathever.

So i'm fine with innovative games, "innovative" games (no, that's not a repeat) and the same old same old

[Blackthorne]

Now, what he's saying in the video is that innovation for INNOVATION'S SAKE is bad, not innovation in general.  If it doesn't add or really improve the mechanics of gameplay or enhance the storytelling, then it's just snake oil they're selling you.

He's spot on.


Bt

[snabbott]

I'm not sure I agree with his definition of innovation, though. I wouldn't consider something innovative just because it is new / different.

I don't think that's his definition of innovative at all.  In fact, I think that's precisely the point he's trying to make! 

Maybe I didn't express that very well. If it doesn't make it better, I wouldn't consider it innovative. Granted, "better" is multi-dimensional and objective...

[KatieHal]

KQ7 maybe tried too many new things at once: totally new art style, totally new cursor, totally new aspect of alternating 2 characters. None of those were executed perfectly, so the fact that they all ended up lacking something, on top of a story that had holes cut in it, added up to a subpar product from a company and series that had traditionally delivered pretty well.

I can find nothing to disagree with about this. 

You....agree with me? Without any argument whatsoever? I...bwa...wah?

[GrahamRocks!]

...    ?!