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?
Pretty appropriate comparison to KQ7&8. Haven't played enough Telltale to know the connection you are trying to make there though.
Quote from: Bludshot on March 18, 2013, 09:32:19 PM
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." ;)
Does nothing bring you joy, Lamb? Nearly everything I've seen by you is either extremely negative, disgusting, or very funny.
Quote from: Lambonius on March 18, 2013, 09:39:27 PM
Quote from: Bludshot on March 18, 2013, 09:32:19 PM
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.
Quote from: GrahamRocks! on March 18, 2013, 10:28:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Bludshot on March 18, 2013, 10:32:57 PM
Quote from: Lambonius on March 18, 2013, 09:39:27 PM
Quote from: Bludshot on March 18, 2013, 09:32:19 PM
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. :)
Quote from: Lambonius on March 18, 2013, 10:38:34 PM
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.
XD
A good brief stab at the topic, done in a fun manner. Although his pronunciation of "innovative" kept irking me. :P
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.
Quote from: KatieHal on March 19, 2013, 08:12:57 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Lambonius on March 18, 2013, 10:39:26 PM
Quote from: Bludshot on March 18, 2013, 10:32:57 PM
Quote from: Lambonius on March 18, 2013, 09:39:27 PM
Quote from: Bludshot on March 18, 2013, 09:32:19 PM
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.
Quote from: KatieHal on March 19, 2013, 09:39:38 AM
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. :)
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.
Quote from: snabbott on March 19, 2013, 10:48:28 AM
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! :)
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
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
Quote from: Lambonius on March 19, 2013, 10:57:05 AM
Quote from: snabbott on March 19, 2013, 10:48:28 AM
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...
Quote from: Lambonius on March 19, 2013, 09:53:40 AM
Quote from: KatieHal on March 19, 2013, 09:39:38 AM
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?
(http://www.gagbay.com/images/2012/04/shocked_boxer_dog-70719.jpg)
... :o ?!
:rofl:
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. :-\
Has the world frozen over? ??? Katie and Lamb agree on something!
I like KQ7 and KQ8. And nothing will change that. Sorry Charlie ;D
KQ7 I can understand (and I agree), but KQ8? That's... unusual.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is there no one else that thinks this logic also applies to Telltale's "cinematic adventures?"
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.
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.
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.
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. :)
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Damar! !!! Long time no see!
Also, we really need a "Like" button. :P
Quote from: snabbott on March 27, 2013, 07:47:58 AM
Damar! !!! Long time no see!
Also, we really need a "Like" button. :P
We have one; it's called Reply. ;)
but there's no retweet button D: