Gamers are a passionate people. Like any fandom we follow our passion of choice with vigor and loyalty. We want the best for her. We are diverse, we are everchanging and as time goes on we are maturing (despite what some downers will say).
But in our passion have we forgotten the point of video
games?
You see gamers, in their love and devotion, have fallen into a trap. This trap is what I have labeled
the myth of innovation. The myth claims innovation will breed fun. This is the myth that corporia (corporate culture) sold to us so long ago.
"With this innovative technology we will deliver fun in a new way."
We're really innovating with this game and the result is a fun new experience."
"When publishers allow developers to create original content what you get is an innovative product which is more fun for the consumer."
Eventually we fell into the trap. We began to associate innovation with fun until we ranked innovation even higher. We began to seek out innovation under the assumption that fun would be the result.
Now we blast anything that doesn't satisfy our lust for buzzwords. If it isn't
innovative,
groundbreaking,
original, or some other PR bullshit it's already lost appeal to those "real gamers" who, despite all the factors that amount to a fun game, are turned off by how unoriginal the title is.
My fellow gamers video games are not all
SRS BIZNSS. Video games are about fun first and foremost. This paranoia that unoriginality will somehow lead to a dystopian future of Halo clones and Guitar Hero spin-offs is pure fantasy. Our industry is too large to not house new and exsciting ideas. My back catalog, and chances are yours as well, could keep us amused for weeks or even months.
One of the great flaws of the myth of innovation is that it is near impossible for there to be a time where unoriginality runs rampant. It is your duty, if you truly want something original, to go out and find it. Nevermind that it's not the industries job to spoon feed you whatever you're looking for, it's really not that difficult to find innovation or originality.
Even still let's not forget fun first and whether you disagree with the majority or not sales never reflect unhappy gamers. Nobody is telling their family and friends to buy bad games. I say this because a large part of the cult of personality this myth carries almost always involves striking down the market as some unholy bastion of all that is wrong with gaming. I won't defend the creativity or lack thereof but rather rebuttal with
"Who the fuck cares as long as the people playing the games are happy?"
Remember fun? It existed before you even knew what innovation was and you bought whatever had kickass boxart.
The myth of innovation, a myth that I must confess seemed at its height to me in the hype leading up to the Wii, is a myth that detracts from what gaming sould be: fun. Fuck buzzwords like
experience,
epic, and
emotion. Give me fun. It's simple (in theory). It doesn't neccesarily ask for grand adventures, tear jerking storylines, or even believable characters. All fun ask for is some dedication and love from it's creators.
Because anyone can pull originality out of their ass. Few can do the same for fun. I've been in the film community, and as everyone knows my first and truest love is music, but no entertainment industry promotes fun nearly as well as video games.
The myth of innovation is nothing but a distraction. Cast off the chackles, lift up your blindfold, and see that fun can be the most unoriginal and uninspired game you've ever played.
Everybody's focused on trying to make ch-ch-changes, thinking it'll bring them fame, or maybe they think they're just a bunch of rebels rebelling, or whatever it is those young americans do these days. What they need to do is stop feeling like they're under pressure to innovate and bring back fun. Come on devs, be heroes. Bring back the golden years.
also
highfive
also again,
Fun Read!!!
I think the Metal Gear games strike a good balance between trying new things and evolving what’s fun. Like how 3 introduced the concept of procuring you own food and keeping Snakes stamina bar up, then 4 continued that and meshed it with Snakes state of mind to make the psyche bar, and still introduced new things like turning the tide of battle and the Drebin system. (At least I thought all those things were fun.)
again... awesome work! Love this!
Oh, and JesusNinja's analogy is as nerdy as it is accurate.
Those games are fun but none of them were innovative. That only furthers the debunking of the myth. What was innovative about any of those games? Nothing. They were unique and fun but uniquity and fun does not equal innovation.
And that is an extremely small fraction of good games. Extremely small. That's before even addressing the subjectiveness of fun?
Innovation =/= fun. If you want to argue that go ahead try but I can assure you it's a very tough bitch to follow up on. Pong was innovative. Pong is not fun.
And who is the true innovator? Is it who does it first or who does it more fun? If the latter does that only further the idea that innovation doesn't equal fun? Innovation has a place, don't get me wrong, but it's definitely not neccesary. Not at all.
I really wish I had played Deadly Premonition because I feel like that could really back my point up. Or in my ignorance I may be creating my own undoing. :P
Basically.
Also, Talking Heads + voluntary grinding sounds like that perfect college party I never went to.
"Who the fuck cares as long as the people playing the games are happy?"
THIS x a fucking million
Talking Heads + voluntary grinding sounds like last weekend to me. And she was...and she was.
(Disclaimer- I'm actually nowhere near that cool. I just wanted a ticket on the Byrne Train)
Can you clarify the games prrulz mentioned not being innovative for me? Galaxy, from my understanding, put Mario on a new plane, breaking ground with its planet mechanics. I haven't played that, so I can't say too well, but Katamari's rolling and Portal's first person tunneling are things I'd point to as examples of pioneering.
That aside, I couldn't agree more, especially about the pancakes. A game could incorporate poking yourself in the retina with a Wiimote, but that innovation ain't gunna make it good.
Please don't throw tomatoes at me.
Jim Stirling often talks of this point too.
I feel that the gamer now is a different being to the gamer of yesteryear. The focus on innovation (or console exclusivity) has left many of us jaded. The magic has been lost and they have been replaced by the mum's and part-time gamers for whom playing bowling on a TV is a wonder. Hell my flatmate walked past me playing SF HD Remix. She laughed and said "whoa! street fighter, awesome i used to play that. I can't believe it's still around" and laughed whenever i did some super move. That's a gamer that cares about fun.
I think games like Splosion Man, Street Fighter IV, and the forementioned Mario Galaxy* go a long way to invoke that child gamer enjoyment because you're not thinking about how the game is designed you just focus on splosions, lightning fast reactions or just seeing the purtty colours and giant levels. Sometimes you don't need to know that the Wizard of Oz is a little old man.
*while we're on that point, Mario Galaxy is NOT innovative. It was fun but didn't do anything that mario 64 hadn't already done with 3d platforming. Moving around a planet wasn't that big a deal).
also,
Why does every game released in the present day have to be innovative and original? I'm not saying that every game has to be a monotonous cliché which we have seen a thousand times before, but it can use a formula which has proven to be fun. You see a lot of disgruntled and angry fans when a sequel to a great game turns out to be more of the same, but why should it matter if its fun?
I know in reality I'm pretty hypocritical to what I just stated. I like to spend my money on Indie games and games which bring new ideas to the table that actually work. The reason I buy such games is because I don't like the way we are shaping the industry for the future. I see great games like Okami having pathetic sales figures and it's development studio closed down, but yet SH*T games like GTA 4, Fallout 3 or FF 13 selling millions.
Innovation is bullsh*t, but so is the future of our hobby if these crap games keep selling like they do.
Also, you've reminded me of the paradox of Forbidden Siren, a game that was utterly depressing, tough and not meant to be enjoyed in the common sense of the word, yet somehow I had fun with it right up to the bitter end. I don't even know how to begin answering that one!
@Bev & Occams: Grinding sucks. I spent two years on and off playing Persona 3, P3:FES and Persona 4 in a row and as much as I loved them all, I don't ever want to grind again. Not even playing outside music helped, I was still staring at the same battles 2 or 3 hours at a time.
But at least they designed the games to give you a break now and set levelling up goals. Unlike Wild ARMs 3, which forced so many grindfests and nigh-impossible secret boss battles on you because it gave you so little EXP for your troubles.
I would disagree. I don't consider Galaxy, Katamari, or Portal to he innovative. I consider them to be unique and extremely well crafted but I don't see any new idea within them that can he or has been carried on throughout their respective genres as a new standard. I don't see any lasting effect that they have had on their genres or gaming in general. Perhaps not enough time has passed by. Perhaps it's too soon to call them innovative. I can see where you're coming from but I would disagree. Innovation is not something contained within it's itself. It affects everything around it.
@CaptainBus
Maybe. I don't follow the Ebert thing because quite frankly I don't care if games are art and I don't care what Ebert says. With no offense intended to Ebert or to the art gamers but I just don't care. It doesn't matter to me. If Ebert is claiming art must be innovative first to be art then I suppose it isn't. Would that really matter at the end of the day?
@Corduroy Turtle
Yeah it was but not for the innovation stuff. It looked like fun. I had a lot of fun with Indigo Prophecy as well. It wasn't the innovation jive that made me want to play it. I love the Fables games too but I'll be the first to point out Molyneux' vision is nothing but ego stroking. The Fables games aren't innovative but they are fun in my opinion.
My coffee just ain't doing not it no more. *spits in a bucket*
This is why I'm loving Pokémon Soulsilver so much... it's a remake of a game in a long, not innovative at all series- oh my god I just caught a doberman pokémon!!!
Sure "fun" is the reason most people play most games, but "innovation" is the reason most developers make most games... if a game designer isn't supposed to invent and tweak and try new things, why would they wake up in the morning?
Wii Fit?
Also, Pong was/is fun. This article is moot.
You have a valid point. I would argue that this us technology and that is what pushes titles like Gauntlet out of the spotlight. Technology is evolutionary and therefore the software that accompanies it evolves as well. So naturally innovation has to be made but it shouldn't become the centerpiece of development.
To explore new ideas is a natural to set your product apart however true innovation is a very exclusive minority and I don't think "most" developers wake every morning trying to innovate or should wake up every morning trying to innovate. Shigeru Miyamoto doesn't try to innovate. He tries to make fun games and in that attempt to make good games with the resources given him, and through some luck and convienent technological advances, he's managed to innovate. But he's always stressed fun first.
Not only that but innovation isn't entirely man made. History shows a lot of innovation is just dumb luck and timing like has happened to Miyamoto. Sure he is a very intelligent man who has innovated with titles like Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario 64 but all that came out of his uncanny ability to make those game fun. The true innovation, in a sense, came from the technology afforded to him and the time it came about. His ability to grasp those resources and focus on the fun and playability is what really made those innovations.
And then look at Molyneux and the Fable series. He has tried to focus on innovation and while the products have been fun the innovation has been nonexistent. Because it's nearly impossible to just come out the gate knowing your product is innovative. Same goes for Cage and Heavy Rain. These are just innovative in buzzword and hype alone. It's waking every morning trying to innovate that kills some of these guys.
can anyone think of games that ARE innovative?
wolf3d maybe? mode 7 games? first polygon games? MIC controlled games (lifeline,socom,end war)
or does it mean doing something in a game no one has tried before?
Secondly, I sympathize with your overall spirit and tone but have an objection to your valuation of fun above other experiences. I for one do not equate fun with enjoyment: the distinction ought to be established. Fun is a branch of enjoyment - a particular species. Enjoyment includes that sense of self-satisfaction you get from beating a challange, the exhilaration from a gripping storyline, the sense of communion and empathy with a game's characters, etc. The particular enjoyment of fun is the minecart level, jumping on heads and shooting through the frontline. I would not call MGS4's storyline 'fun,' nor H-L2's narrative style, nor any aspect of SotC - but these are the main reasons I play games.
I don't speak for everybody, but a lot of us who have played Mario Kart for the past fifty years and have had our fun, we are for whom these deep, melancholic tones and mechanisms are aimed. We who need something else from our games than just fun, or we just stop playing games out of fatigue. Intrigue and innovation have become our reasons to game, and while fun is fine, we are for whom fun isn't enough anymore (as I think Rev said, correct me if I'm wrong).
Personally, I play video games for enjoyment. And while a game that isn't fun will likely fall flat on its face, it also needs to be more than fun for it to earn a place in my heart. There's a lot of things I do for enjoyment over fun, and from these things I derive more value than as I would from the base definition of 'a game.'
I hope I didn't miss the point or step on anybody's toes.
I'll read it again. I noticed typos before and thought I had changed them. Maybe I missed some? I don't know. My comments are riddled with awful typos because I wrote them from my bed on my phone and I was either going to sleep or just waking up.
I agree that there is a difference between fun and enjoyment. I never thought about it like that but you're right. Shit, the dictionary backs you up. I still think fun is priority number one. I think with a high enough degree of fun that fun evolves into enjoyment.
And as I said in some of my other post there are more factors involved in innovation than just "I have a good idea." The topic could have been expounded on, and at the risk of beating a dead horse I probably will sometime down the road, but innovation without fun is nothing. He who does it first is not who does it best and is therefore irrelevant. However fun can survive and be enjoyed without innovation.
And of course it's all subjective. Like any argument worth its weight the debate is a bottomless pit. As for my money I side with the idea that fun is what comes first. I agree there is a difference between fun and enjoyment but I think fun is still the root of it.
I think to some extent you're also discussing depth and depth is really the culmination of all the aspects of the game. But what is depth without fun? Can there be depth without fun? There should be more outside of fun to add to the depth of the experience but again there's nothing without fun. Fun is the root, the foundation, all does or should build upon that.
Miyamoto doesn't "try to innovate" because there's no "try". He's a virtuoso and has no idea how much effort anyone else would have to go through to come up with new features and tweaks for a franchise the way he does. Also I've read that Nintendo bases hardware specs on Miyamoto's requirements for next-generation games... so he's in opposite situation of "working with limited hardware".
Be fair to those other developers. Heavy Rain had a lot of emotional tension even if it turned out to be very superficial after the fact, and Molyneux' games with Bullfrog like Populous and Syndicate were amazing fun and broke a lot of ground. They're the opposite school of thought (invent everything, create everything from scratch) but I'm sure if they had someone with a big red pen to cross off all their stupid ideas and force them to make the good ones more concise - the way low hardware specs used to do - their games would be just as good.
Miyamoto doesn't "try to innovate" because there's no "try". He's a virtuoso and has no idea how much effort anyone else would have to go through to come up with new features and tweaks for a franchise the way he does. Also I've read that Nintendo bases hardware specs on Miyamoto's requirements for next-generation games... so he's in opposite situation of "working with limited hardware".
Be fair to those other developers. Heavy Rain had a lot of emotional tension even if it turned out to be very superficial after the fact, and Molyneux' games with Bullfrog like Populous and Syndicate were amazing fun and broke a lot of ground. They're the opposite school of thought (invent everything, create everything from scratch) but I'm sure if they had someone with a big red pen to cross off all their stupid ideas and force them to make the good ones more concise - the way low hardware specs used to do - their games would be just as good.
Much agreed. "Innovation" for "innovation's" sake sucks.
"...fun can be the most unoriginal and uninspired game you've ever played." This. Sometimes it's all that matters.
Also, the word "chackles" reminds me of my family.
It is as true in games as it in food, tech, or retail.
I know what you're basically is saying is that innovation doesn't always equal fun, but I find well done creativity sometimes makes stuff MORE fun.
Ah, fapped.
I can't believe any man is such a vituoso of innovation that he just shoots it from his fingertips and that explains it. That's just too grave a simplification.
@HoodedMiracle
But is creativty and uniqueness innovation? No.
@NateT
Yeah that is the basic theory of innovation, especially in corporia, but it's only a theory of innovation and can be challenged. And sometimes innovation produces a need. Like the Internet did.
I can not think of any innovation that did not forfill some need, from the back scratcher to the h bomb to Dtoid.