Main Menu

Innovation: Gaming's Snake Oil

Started by Lambonius, March 18, 2013, 06:49:37 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

snabbott


Steve Abbott | Beta Tester | The Silver Lining

snabbott

#21
Quote from: KatieHal on March 19, 2013, 09:39:38 AM
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.
Yeah - ideally you have some buffer time in your schedule to cover that sort of thing, but a lot of times it's not enough. :-\

Steve Abbott | Beta Tester | The Silver Lining

writerlove

Has the world frozen over?  ??? Katie and Lamb agree on something!
"Love can't be banished, even from this place. ... still less can it be banished from my heart."
"ENOUGH! Burden me not with thy poetry."-KQ6

Sir Perceval of Daventry

I like KQ7 and KQ8. And nothing will change that. Sorry Charlie  ;D

GrahamRocks!

KQ7 I can understand (and I agree), but KQ8? That's... unusual.

wilco64256

I think the main reason KQ8 could claim to be innovative was just because it was still a King's Quest game, doing something different from other King's Quest games. There wasn't anything about it that was all that new or amazing for gaming in general. And really I don't think it added anything that grand to the King's Quest franchise either. Again, too many new additions all at the same time. Maybe if they had added just one or perhaps two new things, like just the 3D exploration, then it might have fit a little better.
Weldon Hathaway

Bludshot

You have to ask yourself if MOE was made the way it was because Sierra genuinely thought it would improve the franchise, or if they made those changes for the sake of the changes.

From my perspective it was clearly the latter.
Deep Thoughts with Connor Mac Lyrr
"Alack! The heads do not die!"

Lambonius

Quote from: Bludshot on March 19, 2013, 09:26:35 PM
or if they made those changes for the sake of the changes.

From my perspective it was clearly the latter.

That, and the fact that they thought that the huge FPS/action game market would buy into it because it was in 3D and had action/platforming elements.  It was done that way because they believed it'd be the biggest moneymaker that way--series fans be damned.  Make no mistake--it was a business decision first and foremost, a creative one second.

HitBattousai

I'd 100% say that Sierra made MoE a 3D action/adventure hybrid because they felt they had to change and jump on the 3D bandwagon for the sake of things. 

As to the video, I agree with the guy's overall point, that innovation should be secondary to making sure you've actually made a good game.  I don't think his examples in some cases were that good(personally I thought Mirror's Edge was awesome and Heavy Rain is complex enough that calling it a Dragon's Lair remake is pretty weak to my mind) but it isn't a good thing if everyone starts making games that "innovate" in some way but are no fun to play.   

Lambonius

Is there no one else that thinks this logic also applies to Telltale's "cinematic adventures?"

Neonivek

Quote from: wilco64256 on March 19, 2013, 08:43:50 PM
I think the main reason KQ8 could claim to be innovative was just because it was still a King's Quest game, doing something different from other King's Quest games.

Here is kinda the thing. An action/adventure game taking place in the world of Kings Quest is something I definately can get behind as there is enough lore and structure that just screams adventure!

KQ8 is barely Kings Quest. If they didn't mention Graham, The Castle, or Daventry you wouldn't even know you were playing a Kings Quest game. In fact they went out of their way to contradict the series everyway they knew how.

It to me didn't innovate on the series because it is Kings Quest in name only.

KatieHal

Hitt: I agree re: Heavy Rain. I LOVED that game! I see what he means about the gameplay being an updated take on Dragon's Lair. but yes, it is certainly much more complex. Dragon's Lair was literally nothing beyond 'move towards the flash', and Heavy Rain was definitely more involved than that.


Lamb: I don't agree with that point about Telltale, but largely because, as I said, I don't consider any of their games to be innovative. They have fairly simple puzzles and emphasize the story and experience over the gameplay, and that's obviously a conscious choice on their part.

Katie Hallahan
~Designer, PR Director~

"Change is the constant, the signal for rebirth, the egg of the phoenix." Christina Baldwin

I have a blog!

wilco64256

Quote from: Lambonius on March 19, 2013, 10:01:01 PM
Is there no one else that thinks this logic also applies to Telltale's "cinematic adventures?"

I think their stuff falls more into the opposite of innovating, whatever that would be. Instead of adding things they're really simplifying their games into something more like interactive stories. I did like the stories in Walking Dead and Back to the Future, the gameplay was rather wimpy though.
Weldon Hathaway

Lambonius

Quote from: wilco64256 on March 20, 2013, 09:59:11 AM
Quote from: Lambonius on March 19, 2013, 10:01:01 PM
Is there no one else that thinks this logic also applies to Telltale's "cinematic adventures?"

I think their stuff falls more into the opposite of innovating, whatever that would be. Instead of adding things they're really simplifying their games into something more like interactive stories. I did like the stories in Walking Dead and Back to the Future, the gameplay was rather wimpy though.

Right, I agree--but THEY call it innovating.  They have said it repeatedly in public interviews and such.  Walking Dead and the disastrous Jurassic Park in particular had been repeatedly hailed by them as innovative new takes on the adventure game format.  That's all I really meant.  :)

Bludshot

Quote from: Lambonius on March 19, 2013, 10:01:01 PM
Is there no one else that thinks this logic also applies to Telltale's "cinematic adventures?"

I have only played the Walking Dead, if there was something innovative about it I would say that such innovation was successful, I really enjoyed that game. 

It didn't really strike me as innovative though, the game just had an effective narrative.  The only thing that I would maybe consider innovative about it is that it is one a small number of games where you are more invested in a separate character's survival than you are in the protagonist's.
Deep Thoughts with Connor Mac Lyrr
"Alack! The heads do not die!"

Neonivek

Quotethe gameplay was rather wimpy though

Well yeah. All of Telltale's games are dirt easy.

So easy in fact that you actually have to turn "The game tells you how to solve the puzzle" off.

Blackthorne

Yeah, the promoted Jurassic Park as innovative... pshhhh

I agree that their stories aren't bad - but the gameplay is really lame at times.


Bt
"You've got to keep one eye looking over your shoulder
you know it's going to get harder and harder as you
get older - but in the end you'll pack up, fly down south, hide your head in the sand.  Just another sad old man, all alone and dying of cancer." - Dogs, Pink Floyd.

Neonivek

#37
It gives me the impression that Telltale games are meant to be played with your brain switched off.

Thus they are as unchallenging as possible. I'd say it feels like a portable game but as Professor Layton has taught us, portable games can be challenging.

Bludshot

Brain turned off might be a stretch concerning how stressful it was playing TWD.  But in relation to the puzzles, yes I see what you mean.
Deep Thoughts with Connor Mac Lyrr
"Alack! The heads do not die!"

Damar

The interesting thing is that interactive stories aren't innovative at all.  That was done back in the day with full motion video games.  The story is set and just takes little breaks to let you do something  fairly obvious.  The only difference is the lack of fuzzy, badly done video.  Likewise the dumbing down of adventure game interface and even what Katie talked about a while back of one button does this, one button does that, isn't new.  Black Cauldron did that way back when.  But they had a reason to ditch the parser and dumb down the interface.  It was for young kids.  And it was a really fun game because they did it for a reason.

I completely agree with the innovation thing and I don't want to repeat what Lamb already said.  What I find interesting, though, is that people talk about needing to innovate and change even when it changes the nature of what the game is.  There is another option here and that is you let the genre die.  People talk about how adventure gaming had to innovate and that means adding FPS or RPG elements or dumbing things down or whatever.  Well, I argue that robs adventure games of what they are.  That isn't innovation, it's changing the game's very nature.  And that's just too much.  A particular genre is enjoyable because of what it brings to the table.  If no one wants that anymore, maybe its time has ended.

Think about it, this is why remakes of classic t.v. shows universally suck.  They try to update it and change it to fit the times.  Look, the Brady Bunch is lame.  I never liked the show.  But, if a t.v.  producer tries to innovate it by having The NEW Brady Bunch and it's all modern and the family is dysfunctional and Greg is a crackhead (and it's not a satire) then I'm going to hate that new version even more because it's changing the nature of something that already existed just to say, "Oooh, we're modern!"  The Brady Bunch is a relic of a past age, so leave it in the past and enjoy it on its own terms or  not at all because bringing anything new to the table misses the point entirely.  That was also my argument against the new Star Trek films.  They're entertaining, but to me, they miss the point.  Some adaptations of King's Quest and Space Quest do the same.  They try too hard, try to make the game relevant.  Well, the game is already relevant to us because of our childhoods and our enjoyment of the genre.  Changing its nature isn't innovation and it doesn't revive anything.