Gamers don't want innovation.

Avatar image for nini200
#1 Posted by nini200 (11484 posts) -

According to this guy,

gamers don't want innovation. This actually has been proven true even here on GS.

When Nintendo brought Motion Gaming mainstream, gamers were begging for a traditional controller.

When games change up their formula and try new things with it, gamers whine and complain that they want the same game they've been playing back.

So what say you on this topic?

Are gamers too stuck in their ways to try new things?

(Mods, if this belongs in SW, please move it there. Thanks)

Avatar image for branketra
#3 Edited by BranKetra (51726 posts) -
@nini200 said:

gamers don't want innovation. This actually has been proven true even here on GS.

Yes, we do. It has not been proven true on GameSpot. Sorry.

Edit: I do not mean to be dismissive. Innovation is actually very important and the person who made the video in your post seems to have ignored factors other than gaming that have been affecting the video game industry.

Avatar image for BattleSpectre
#4 Posted by BattleSpectre (7989 posts) -

Gamers whine, like swine. Sometimes we need to shut the F*** Up and let companies try different things.

Avatar image for cooolio
#5 Posted by cooolio (583 posts) -

Look at Resident Evil fans that want gameplay from pre RE4 games. I can understand their anger after 6 and 5, but do we really want akward camera angles and tank controls. Those very same people wanted those features back as soon as 4 was out.

Avatar image for Renegade_Fury
#6 Edited by Renegade_Fury (19815 posts) -

I'm not watching the video, but I'll say this: change for the sake of change =/= good. That's what happened with motion gaming, because it didn't prove to be better than the traditional gamepad. More often than not, it came off as a hindrance rather than offering an improvement to the gameplay.

As for changes within franchises, the same holds true, so I think using a blanket statement like "gamers don't want innovation" is a cop out, because the issue isn't black and white.

Avatar image for groowagon
#8 Edited by groowagon (4623 posts) -

New and innovative doesn't mean better.

For example, i can innovate shit for you right now; potato-shaped controller made from rubber that you kick around your apartment to control the game. WOW! IT'S ALL NEW! FORGET GAMEPADS!

WiiMotes precision is absolute shit compared to mouse or gamepad sticks. It's more fun in a bowling game, though, and the fun-factor was the reason it sold so well for mainstream gamers. from a tech-savvy hardcore-gamer perspective, it was quite unappealing.

however, i DON'T understand gamers who don't want new things in game sequels. i don't want to play same games all over again.

Avatar image for cooolio
#9 Posted by cooolio (583 posts) -

@groowagon said:

New and innovative doesn't mean better.

For example, i can innovate shit for you right now; potato-shaped controller made from rubber that you kick around your apartment to control the game. WOW! IT'S ALL NEW! FORGET GAMEPADS!

WiiMotes precision is absolute shit compared to mouse or gamepad sticks. It's more fun in a bowling game, though, and the fun-factor was the reason it sold so well for mainstream gamers. from a tech-savvy hardcore-gamer perspective, it was quite unappealing.

This an example of analogy that we all damn well is a poor example of what the overall discussion is about. Just so we are clear, I am referring to the potato controllers ( really man, you have to do better).

Avatar image for groowagon
#10 Posted by groowagon (4623 posts) -

@cooolio said:

@groowagon said:

New and innovative doesn't mean better.

For example, i can innovate shit for you right now; potato-shaped controller made from rubber that you kick around your apartment to control the game. WOW! IT'S ALL NEW! FORGET GAMEPADS!

WiiMotes precision is absolute shit compared to mouse or gamepad sticks. It's more fun in a bowling game, though, and the fun-factor was the reason it sold so well for mainstream gamers. from a tech-savvy hardcore-gamer perspective, it was quite unappealing.

This an example of analogy that we all damn well is a poor example of what the overall discussion is about. Just so we are clear, I am referring to the potato controllers ( really man, you have to do better).

it was intentionally idiotic and extreme example of the fact that new doesn't mean better than the old. that's what this discussion is about, right?

coming up with something new is easy. coming up with something new that really works is hard.

Avatar image for deactivated-57ad0e5285d73
#11 Posted by deactivated-57ad0e5285d73 (21398 posts) -

Time has shown that there is some truth to that. People originally thought there was too many buttons on the snes controller. People originally thought the n64 analog stick was a bad idea--why it sports both. In short, the gamers need to be proven the innovation in practical use. Mario 64 is the perfect example of this.

Avatar image for The_Last_Ride
#12 Posted by The_Last_Ride (76371 posts) -

This does not apply to me, it is bs. I want fresh new things. Otherwise i wouldn't buy indie games.

Avatar image for DJ-Lafleur
#13 Posted by DJ-Lafleur (35549 posts) -

Well, I think the video is true to an extent, as I think there is probably a decent chuck of gamers that aren't as willing to adapt to something new or different, whether it be a change in a game series or something different to gaming in general.

That being said, not all gamers are against new, fresh things in gaming, and not all changes that happen are good exactly.

Avatar image for cooolio
#14 Posted by cooolio (583 posts) -

@groowagon said:

@cooolio said:

@groowagon said:

New and innovative doesn't mean better.

For example, i can innovate shit for you right now; potato-shaped controller made from rubber that you kick around your apartment to control the game. WOW! IT'S ALL NEW! FORGET GAMEPADS!

WiiMotes precision is absolute shit compared to mouse or gamepad sticks. It's more fun in a bowling game, though, and the fun-factor was the reason it sold so well for mainstream gamers. from a tech-savvy hardcore-gamer perspective, it was quite unappealing.

This an example of analogy that we all damn well is a poor example of what the overall discussion is about. Just so we are clear, I am referring to the potato controllers ( really man, you have to do better).

it was intentionally idiotic and extreme example of the fact that new doesn't mean better than the old. that's what this discussion is about, right?

coming up with something new is easy. coming up with something new that really works is hard.

Yeah, but I think that some people think innovation has to mean completely new mechanics, but I believe that bring individual mechanics together to create a unique new game can be seen as innovation. Actually, I do not think that what people are calling innovation. Look at AC. The each consecutive game barely does anything to the core mechanics or mission structure. Infamous SS is a beautiful game with fun gameplay, but it still has poor side missions just like its predecessors. GTA V is a technical marvel, but lacks any new and interesting side activities and the mission structure has not changed much.

I remember I was having a discussion with one poster on ign and he said that it would be cool if Infamous had a detailed lively city, but he said that it did not matter because all he and most of the fan base care about is using their powers. He also said the same for GTA. He said that GTA V is very detailed but no one cares because they are too busy crashing cars.

Avatar image for Randolph
#15 Posted by Randolph (10542 posts) -

Around the time of the hype of the "Revolution" (Wii) in 2005/2006 I developed a gag reflex for the word innovation. I see it, I start to throw up. That word was tossed around way too much, and very obnoxiously. "Oh this is new and different! The Wii is the only "TRUE" next gen system". *barfs* Pseudo intellectual garbage posts became associated with the word on gaming forums. People on gaming forums made me hate the Wii before I ever even got to play one, it ruined a lot of perfectly good gaming for me.

Avatar image for bowchicka07
#16 Edited by bowchicka07 (1104 posts) -

I like new idea and concepts when it comes to gaming but even more when the innovate new things with old gaming elements. Better to have the best of both worlds than stuck in the past or fixated on only innovation.

Avatar image for ariabed
#17 Posted by Ariabed (2121 posts) -

Innovation means new concepts, some people take longer to get used to new things than others. Innovation is a must or things would be at a stand still, then we would really have something to moan about.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#18 Edited by Jacanuk (13036 posts) -

@nini200 said:

According to this guy,

gamers don't want innovation. This actually has been proven true even here on GS.

When Nintendo brought Motion Gaming mainstream, gamers were begging for a traditional controller.

When games change up their formula and try new things with it, gamers whine and complain that they want the same game they've been playing back.

So what say you on this topic?

Are gamers too stuck in their ways to try new things?

(Mods, if this belongs in SW, please move it there. Thanks)

This guys success on youtube is more proof of why kids need to get away from the internet and get outside and play some football (The real FOOTball)

He has absolute no idea what he is talking about and a simple proof that he is more wrong then a blond girl thinking its time to feed cheese to the mouse, is simply taking a look at indie games, take a look at Gone Home, Papers Please, Meat Boy, Thomas Was alone, Asteria, Minecraft, Don´t starve, Spelunky, Risk of Rain, and do i really need to go on, no of course not. but lets finish of with Star Citizen because yes that game is innovative and its 40mill+ donation drive, proves what i just said even more.

So no gamers are not stuck in their ways, kids are too stuck in their ways, gamers like new games, likes "innovation" even though its just a buzzword and doesn't mean jack.

Oh, and what are you on about? been proven here on Gamespot? i dont think you really read anything on the site if you say that, because in fact the opposite is more true, that it has been disproven.

Avatar image for nini200
#19 Posted by nini200 (11484 posts) -

@groowagon said:

New and innovative doesn't mean better.

For example, i can innovate shit for you right now; potato-shaped controller made from rubber that you kick around your apartment to control the game. WOW! IT'S ALL NEW! FORGET GAMEPADS!

WiiMotes precision is absolute shit compared to mouse or gamepad sticks. It's more fun in a bowling game, though, and the fun-factor was the reason it sold so well for mainstream gamers. from a tech-savvy hardcore-gamer perspective, it was quite unappealing.

however, i DON'T understand gamers who don't want new things in game sequels. i don't want to play same games all over again.

While I agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph lol and that may actually sell amongst some gamers lol

I strongly disagree with the second one as Dual Analogs are nowhere near as precise as WiiMote and Nunchuck or keyboard and mouse, how long have you practiced with a WiiMote and Nunchuck? I'm sure it wasn't long based off that 2nd paragraph. Do you know what Motion Plus is? Real question. Not trying to offend, just want to know if you do.

Dual analogs were the standard back in PS2 days (I'm referring to FPS here because in other genres such as Action and Adventure games, they are fine) but once the Wii came out with pointer controls, the level of accuracy skyrocketed up. Mouse and Keyboard are the only competition that the WiiMote has as far as accuracy and even then, the WiiMote when used correctly, has been even able to outdo mouse and keyboard in accuracy.

Here's a video to show you something you could NEVER do on Dual Analogs:

Loading Video...

Good luck getting through even one of these rounds with Dual Analog accuracy.

Mouse and Keyboard may be able to do similar but honestly not even that can keep up all the way. So that comment about accuracy has been debunked. Just because some gamers didn't want to learn it =/= it is a worse way to play certain genres of games.

On topic though, yeah I don't believe the guy in the gamers don't want innovation video looked at all the facts but the ones he presented were very interesting.

Innovation is great when done correctly I agree but sometimes when it's done correctly, some gamers are so stuck in their ways that they don't even give the new change a chance.

Avatar image for nini200
#20 Posted by nini200 (11484 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@nini200 said:

According to this guy,

gamers don't want innovation. This actually has been proven true even here on GS.

When Nintendo brought Motion Gaming mainstream, gamers were begging for a traditional controller.

When games change up their formula and try new things with it, gamers whine and complain that they want the same game they've been playing back.

So what say you on this topic?

Are gamers too stuck in their ways to try new things?

(Mods, if this belongs in SW, please move it there. Thanks)

This guys success on youtube is more proof of why kids need to get away from the internet and get outside and play some football (The real FOOTball)

He has absolute no idea what he is talking about and a simple proof that he is more wrong then a blond girl thinking its time to feed cheese to the mouse, is simply taking a look at indie games, take a look at Gone Home, Papers Please, Meat Boy, Thomas Was alone, Asteria, Minecraft, Don´t starve, Spelunky, Risk of Rain, and do i really need to go on, no of course not. but lets finish of with Star Citizen because yes that game is innovative and its 40mill+ donation drive, proves what i just said even more.

So no gamers are not stuck in their ways, kids are too stuck in their ways, gamers like new games, likes "innovation" even though its just a buzzword and doesn't mean jack.

Oh, and what are you on about? been proven here on Gamespot? i dont think you really read anything on the site if you say that, because in fact the opposite is more true, that it has been disproven.

Most of those games you mentioned are 2d sidescrollers. Minecraft is innovative I'll give you that lol that game is very creative. Star Citizen looks fantastic but is basically a much more in depth Rogue Squadron or Wing Commander which has already been proven to be a good genre. I can't wait for that game to come out either but in it's core it's just another space sim and with a $40 mil+ donation drive, you've just proven the game theory guy's assumption correct by saying that. You know how long people have been waiting on a new Rouge Squadron? Now they have something similar but better.

What are you on about? You seem offended by something that was said lol

Avatar image for wiouds
#21 Posted by wiouds (6233 posts) -

What people judge as being innovative is not the same for everyone. For example, some see the oculus rift as innovative but I see it as a gimmick and something that can easily hurt gaming.

Too many only look for the large ideal or new ideals. Coming up with new ideals is not that important as the refinement of ideals in game.

Avatar image for jer_1
#22 Edited by jer_1 (7451 posts) -

I love seeing innovation in gaming when it's not created just for it to exist. Motion gaming is pretty much precisely that in my mind, thus 99% of it just plain sucks. They could have much easily just used a traditional controller and probably ended up with a much better game. I will submit that there are a couple good motion controlled games but they are quite rare.

Inventing just to invent is not a good enough reason to be innovative.

There are some times when innovation may just be something amazing and useful, and if what people are saying about Oculus Rift is true then this is innovation that I would like to see, certainly not motion controls and absolutely not Kinect.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#23 Posted by Jacanuk (13036 posts) -

@nini200 said:

@Jacanuk said:

@nini200 said:

According to this guy,

gamers don't want innovation. This actually has been proven true even here on GS.

When Nintendo brought Motion Gaming mainstream, gamers were begging for a traditional controller.

When games change up their formula and try new things with it, gamers whine and complain that they want the same game they've been playing back.

So what say you on this topic?

Are gamers too stuck in their ways to try new things?

(Mods, if this belongs in SW, please move it there. Thanks)

This guys success on youtube is more proof of why kids need to get away from the internet and get outside and play some football (The real FOOTball)

He has absolute no idea what he is talking about and a simple proof that he is more wrong then a blond girl thinking its time to feed cheese to the mouse, is simply taking a look at indie games, take a look at Gone Home, Papers Please, Meat Boy, Thomas Was alone, Asteria, Minecraft, Don´t starve, Spelunky, Risk of Rain, and do i really need to go on, no of course not. but lets finish of with Star Citizen because yes that game is innovative and its 40mill+ donation drive, proves what i just said even more.

So no gamers are not stuck in their ways, kids are too stuck in their ways, gamers like new games, likes "innovation" even though its just a buzzword and doesn't mean jack.

Oh, and what are you on about? been proven here on Gamespot? i dont think you really read anything on the site if you say that, because in fact the opposite is more true, that it has been disproven.

Most of those games you mentioned are 2d sidescrollers. Minecraft is innovative I'll give you that lol that game is very creative. Star Citizen looks fantastic but is basically a much more in depth Rogue Squadron or Wing Commander which has already been proven to be a good genre. I can't wait for that game to come out either but in it's core it's just another space sim and with a $40 mil+ donation drive, you've just proven the game theory guy's assumption correct by saying that. You know how long people have been waiting on a new Rouge Squadron? Now they have something similar but better.

What are you on about? You seem offended by something that was said lol

You clearly dont have any understanding of what innovation is so do please try at least to read up on that before you try to participate in a debate.

Also no game is truly innovative, pretty much everything has been done before so even trying to act posh or "liberal" and use buzzwords like that is just dumb.

But from your response the question is more, did you really want to start a debate or just try to act clever using someone elses "work" which is terrible in itself.

Avatar image for loafofgame
#24 Posted by loafofgame (1742 posts) -

Could it be that the vocal people demanding innovation on the internet might not be the core market anymore, even though they might still think they are very important...? The videogaming audience has broadened, which means there's more 'crap' and arguably less 'good' games to be found. And some people might find enough variety in indie games, but others are really only interested in those high-end titles, which might increasingly become the domain of the more casual gamer.

One could also wonder if any true revolutions are still possibly at this point or if it's all about improving existing formulas and concepts. I mean, you can see similar developments in music (and also fashion, I believe): the time of truly new concepts and styles seems pretty much at an end. Most of what is out there now is either reintroducing or combining earlier styles and concepts. Also, the hardware might be preventing the development of new ideas in software. But trying something new in hardware seems to be even riskier than trying something new in software...

@nini200 said:

Most of those games you mentioned are 2d sidescrollers.

Now, now, Asteria, Super Meat Boy, Spelunky, Thomas Was Alone and Risk of Rain are indeed 2d sidescrollers, but they are vastly different experiences. What kind of innovation are you aiming at then...?

Avatar image for nini200
#25 Posted by nini200 (11484 posts) -

@loafofgame said:
Now, now, Asteria, Super Meat Boy, Spelunky, Thomas Was Alone and Risk of Rain are indeed 2d sidescrollers, but they are vastly different experiences. What kind of innovation are you aiming at then...?

I agree with your thesis on the broadening gamer audience.

Let's say, we take one of those franchises and shift it into a 3D platformer. That's something mentioned in the video. Some of the guy's theory I don't agree with but he does have some interesting points.

Avatar image for Lulu_Lulu
#26 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (19564 posts) -

I love me some motion controls ! Anybody who denies their significance is..... Well they're just big meanies ! :(

Avatar image for nini200
#27 Edited by nini200 (11484 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@nini200 said:

@Jacanuk said:

@nini200 said:

According to this guy,

gamers don't want innovation. This actually has been proven true even here on GS.

When Nintendo brought Motion Gaming mainstream, gamers were begging for a traditional controller.

When games change up their formula and try new things with it, gamers whine and complain that they want the same game they've been playing back.

So what say you on this topic?

Are gamers too stuck in their ways to try new things?

(Mods, if this belongs in SW, please move it there. Thanks)

This guys success on youtube is more proof of why kids need to get away from the internet and get outside and play some football (The real FOOTball)

He has absolute no idea what he is talking about and a simple proof that he is more wrong then a blond girl thinking its time to feed cheese to the mouse, is simply taking a look at indie games, take a look at Gone Home, Papers Please, Meat Boy, Thomas Was alone, Asteria, Minecraft, Don´t starve, Spelunky, Risk of Rain, and do i really need to go on, no of course not. but lets finish of with Star Citizen because yes that game is innovative and its 40mill+ donation drive, proves what i just said even more.

So no gamers are not stuck in their ways, kids are too stuck in their ways, gamers like new games, likes "innovation" even though its just a buzzword and doesn't mean jack.

Oh, and what are you on about? been proven here on Gamespot? i dont think you really read anything on the site if you say that, because in fact the opposite is more true, that it has been disproven.

Most of those games you mentioned are 2d sidescrollers. Minecraft is innovative I'll give you that lol that game is very creative. Star Citizen looks fantastic but is basically a much more in depth Rogue Squadron or Wing Commander which has already been proven to be a good genre. I can't wait for that game to come out either but in it's core it's just another space sim and with a $40 mil+ donation drive, you've just proven the game theory guy's assumption correct by saying that. You know how long people have been waiting on a new Rouge Squadron? Now they have something similar but better.

What are you on about? You seem offended by something that was said lol

You clearly dont have any understanding of what innovation is so do please try at least to read up on that before you try to participate in a debate.

Also no game is truly innovative, pretty much everything has been done before so even trying to act posh or "liberal" and use buzzwords like that is just dumb.

But from your response the question is more, did you really want to start a debate or just try to act clever using someone elses "work" which is terrible in itself.

You're really offended huh? That's the only reason for adding insults to a simple debate Lol

I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

Avatar image for maynardburger
#28 Posted by maynardburger (187 posts) -

@wiouds said:

What people judge as being innovative is not the same for everyone. For example, some see the oculus rift as innovative but I see it as a gimmick and something that can easily hurt gaming.

Too many only look for the large ideal or new ideals. Coming up with new ideals is not that important as the refinement of ideals in game.

Just because you think virtual reality is 'gimmicky' doesn't mean it isn't innovative. That's not a matter of debate, that's just you refusing to accept any positive terms for something you don't like. I cant think of anything in gaming that is *more* innovative than virtual reality.

I'd also like you to explain how virtual reality is going to hurt gaming, cuz I've thought about it for a few minutes and I cant think of anything. But perhaps you've thought of something I haven't, so I'm interested.

And anyways, refinement is great, but refinement is also the result of the many safe, boring choices that many games take nowadays. Instead of trying something new and exciting, they do something already done, but their own take on it. Isn't automatically a bad thing, cuz refinement can lead to good results, but it stagnates creativity.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#29 Posted by Jacanuk (13036 posts) -

@maynardburger said:

@wiouds said:

What people judge as being innovative is not the same for everyone. For example, some see the oculus rift as innovative but I see it as a gimmick and something that can easily hurt gaming.

Too many only look for the large ideal or new ideals. Coming up with new ideals is not that important as the refinement of ideals in game.

Just because you think virtual reality is 'gimmicky' doesn't mean it isn't innovative. That's not a matter of debate, that's just you refusing to accept any positive terms for something you don't like. I cant think of anything in gaming that is *more* innovative than virtual reality.

I'd also like you to explain how virtual reality is going to hurt gaming, cuz I've thought about it for a few minutes and I cant think of anything. But perhaps you've thought of something I haven't, so I'm interested.

And anyways, refinement is great, but refinement is also the result of the many safe, boring choices that many games take nowadays. Instead of trying something new and exciting, they do something already done, but their own take on it. Isn't automatically a bad thing, cuz refinement can lead to good results, but it stagnates creativity.

VR has been around since most of you on this forums parents was a twinkle in their dads eyes.

So calling VR innovative now, is sure a stretch and even though there certainly is a new way of incorporating it, its not really innovative.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#30 Posted by Jacanuk (13036 posts) -

@nini200 said:

You're really offended huh? That's the only reason for adding insults to a simple debate Lol

I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

Ahh i thought you might just be someone who didn't really want to debate but just advertise some youtube shit.

Thanks for not proving me wrong.

Avatar image for maynardburger
#31 Edited by maynardburger (187 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@maynardburger said:

@wiouds said:

What people judge as being innovative is not the same for everyone. For example, some see the oculus rift as innovative but I see it as a gimmick and something that can easily hurt gaming.

Too many only look for the large ideal or new ideals. Coming up with new ideals is not that important as the refinement of ideals in game.

Just because you think virtual reality is 'gimmicky' doesn't mean it isn't innovative. That's not a matter of debate, that's just you refusing to accept any positive terms for something you don't like. I cant think of anything in gaming that is *more* innovative than virtual reality.

I'd also like you to explain how virtual reality is going to hurt gaming, cuz I've thought about it for a few minutes and I cant think of anything. But perhaps you've thought of something I haven't, so I'm interested.

And anyways, refinement is great, but refinement is also the result of the many safe, boring choices that many games take nowadays. Instead of trying something new and exciting, they do something already done, but their own take on it. Isn't automatically a bad thing, cuz refinement can lead to good results, but it stagnates creativity.

VR has been around since most of you on this forums parents was a twinkle in their dads eyes.

So calling VR innovative now, is sure a stretch and even though there certainly is a new way of incorporating it, its not really innovative.

VR has never existed as it does now.

The way these modern VR displays is innovative and the way that games are incorporating VR is innovative and will continue to be innovative since it really is a fresh pasture for game development. There was a very primitive go at it a while back, but the technology sucked and no game developers were actually serious about it whatsoever. Things are different now. Motion controls are available, we have advanced head tracking, possibilities for body tracking and walking/running, and a ridiculous ceiling of potential. There really isn't a more ripe 'innovative' area than virtual reality at the moment since it involves such a new way of approaching game design.

Avatar image for nini200
#32 Edited by nini200 (11484 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@nini200 said:

You're really offended huh? That's the only reason for adding insults to a simple debate Lol

I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

Ahh i thought you might just be someone who didn't really want to debate but just advertise some youtube shit.

Thanks for not proving me wrong.

I debate with people that can debate without insults lol :D

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#33 Posted by Jacanuk (13036 posts) -

@maynardburger said:

@Jacanuk said:

@maynardburger said:

@wiouds said:

What people judge as being innovative is not the same for everyone. For example, some see the oculus rift as innovative but I see it as a gimmick and something that can easily hurt gaming.

Too many only look for the large ideal or new ideals. Coming up with new ideals is not that important as the refinement of ideals in game.

Just because you think virtual reality is 'gimmicky' doesn't mean it isn't innovative. That's not a matter of debate, that's just you refusing to accept any positive terms for something you don't like. I cant think of anything in gaming that is *more* innovative than virtual reality.

I'd also like you to explain how virtual reality is going to hurt gaming, cuz I've thought about it for a few minutes and I cant think of anything. But perhaps you've thought of something I haven't, so I'm interested.

And anyways, refinement is great, but refinement is also the result of the many safe, boring choices that many games take nowadays. Instead of trying something new and exciting, they do something already done, but their own take on it. Isn't automatically a bad thing, cuz refinement can lead to good results, but it stagnates creativity.

VR has been around since most of you on this forums parents was a twinkle in their dads eyes.

So calling VR innovative now, is sure a stretch and even though there certainly is a new way of incorporating it, its not really innovative.

VR has never existed as it does now.

The way these modern VR displays is innovative and the way that games are incorporating VR is innovative and will continue to be innovative since it really is a fresh pasture for game development. There was a very primitive go at it a while back, but the technology sucked and no game developers were actually serious about it whatsoever. Things are different now. Motion controls are available, we have advanced head tracking, possibilities for body tracking and walking/running, and a ridiculous ceiling of potential. There really isn't a more ripe 'innovative' area than virtual reality at the moment since it involves such a new way of approaching game design.

VR is VR mate, that VR today has better graphics and comes in a smaller package doesn't make it any different than the VR being showcased in the 80´s and early 90´s, so yes Rift comes in a small package but so does computers, chips, etc.

So nope VR is old skool ;)

Avatar image for loafofgame
#34 Edited by loafofgame (1742 posts) -

@nini200
said:

Let's say, we take one of those franchises and shift it into a 3D platformer. That's something mentioned in the video. Some of the guy's theory I don't agree with but he does have some interesting points.

Does that mean you are mainly focusing on innovation within franchises (a first person Assassin's Creed, for example), and not so much on innovation in general (for example, introducing a successful version of the front third person or the bottom up perspective)?

That's another thing, by the way: a lot of people complain about the lack of innovation, but they hardly ever explain what they mean with innovation or what kind of innovation they would like to see (and also, within which genres), which makes the use of the word pretty meaningless. A lot of people talk about a lack of innovation in general, but they often tend to play specific genres only, which means they're really just complaining about those specific genres...

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#35 Posted by Jacanuk (13036 posts) -

@nini200 said:

@Jacanuk said:

@nini200 said:

You're really offended huh? That's the only reason for adding insults to a simple debate Lol

I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

Ahh i thought you might just be someone who didn't really want to debate but just advertise some youtube shit.

Thanks for not proving me wrong.

I debate with people that can debate without insults lol :D

You might want to go back and read your first response then and get that broom into the closet

Avatar image for wiouds
#36 Posted by wiouds (6233 posts) -

@maynardburger: Sorry I am not an immersion cultist that just bows down in worship of it First off the OR is just 3D goggles with head tracking. I do not consider it that important to a VR. In face I believe that VR can be shown on normal screen.

Few games would be improved by going First person like the OR was made more and many games would be hurt when that is forced into a game. A number of game developers will try to force first person into game the make use of the OR.

Avatar image for Old_Gooseberry
#37 Posted by Old_Gooseberry (3957 posts) -

I've liked how physics have been used more and more in games, first game I saw it used where it was fun to see in action was in Halo, since then lots of games have used them in their own ways. Thats the kind of innovations I like, not bad ones like kinect or bad controllers like on the Wii like groowagon was talking bout.

Maybe someday we'll have some really amazing motion controls that react better then any gamepad can, but since its not there yet its not fun to struggle with current attempts. Not many gamers want to be waving their arms and legs around playing a game, we just want to sit back and relax, this is why we do this.

Better graphic innovations, physics and bigger open games is what i want.

Avatar image for turtlethetaffer
#38 Edited by turtlethetaffer (18688 posts) -

It depends. For me personally, I always love trying out new kinds of games or ones that are unorthodox, but I also find comfort in knowing I'll always have my Marios and other old franchises to return to. Keep in mind that games cost a lot of money to develop, which means its really risky to do so, so often times devs won't take a ton of risks when they know people love what's come before.

It's a double edged sword in the end. It'd be cool to see more new ideas, but at the same time I know why more unique games are never as popular (games are pricey to purchase and some people don't want to spend money on a game type they aren't familiar with when they can purchase a part of a genre or series they know they will enjoy).

Avatar image for maynardburger
#39 Posted by maynardburger (187 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@maynardburger said:

@Jacanuk said:

@maynardburger said:

@wiouds said:

What people judge as being innovative is not the same for everyone. For example, some see the oculus rift as innovative but I see it as a gimmick and something that can easily hurt gaming.

Too many only look for the large ideal or new ideals. Coming up with new ideals is not that important as the refinement of ideals in game.

Just because you think virtual reality is 'gimmicky' doesn't mean it isn't innovative. That's not a matter of debate, that's just you refusing to accept any positive terms for something you don't like. I cant think of anything in gaming that is *more* innovative than virtual reality.

I'd also like you to explain how virtual reality is going to hurt gaming, cuz I've thought about it for a few minutes and I cant think of anything. But perhaps you've thought of something I haven't, so I'm interested.

And anyways, refinement is great, but refinement is also the result of the many safe, boring choices that many games take nowadays. Instead of trying something new and exciting, they do something already done, but their own take on it. Isn't automatically a bad thing, cuz refinement can lead to good results, but it stagnates creativity.

VR has been around since most of you on this forums parents was a twinkle in their dads eyes.

So calling VR innovative now, is sure a stretch and even though there certainly is a new way of incorporating it, its not really innovative.

VR has never existed as it does now.

The way these modern VR displays is innovative and the way that games are incorporating VR is innovative and will continue to be innovative since it really is a fresh pasture for game development. There was a very primitive go at it a while back, but the technology sucked and no game developers were actually serious about it whatsoever. Things are different now. Motion controls are available, we have advanced head tracking, possibilities for body tracking and walking/running, and a ridiculous ceiling of potential. There really isn't a more ripe 'innovative' area than virtual reality at the moment since it involves such a new way of approaching game design.

VR is VR mate, that VR today has better graphics and comes in a smaller package doesn't make it any different than the VR being showcased in the 80´s and early 90´s, so yes Rift comes in a small package but so does computers, chips, etc.

So nope VR is old skool ;)

Its like you didn't even read what I said.

Avatar image for Articuno76
#40 Edited by Articuno76 (19784 posts) -

Game Theory did a follow up video explaining that innovation actually is what people want. It's just that they don't know what those innovations are if you focus test them:

Loading Video...

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#41 Posted by Jacanuk (13036 posts) -

@maynardburger said:

@Jacanuk said:

@maynardburger said:

@Jacanuk said:

@maynardburger said:

@wiouds said:

What people judge as being innovative is not the same for everyone. For example, some see the oculus rift as innovative but I see it as a gimmick and something that can easily hurt gaming.

Too many only look for the large ideal or new ideals. Coming up with new ideals is not that important as the refinement of ideals in game.

Just because you think virtual reality is 'gimmicky' doesn't mean it isn't innovative. That's not a matter of debate, that's just you refusing to accept any positive terms for something you don't like. I cant think of anything in gaming that is *more* innovative than virtual reality.

I'd also like you to explain how virtual reality is going to hurt gaming, cuz I've thought about it for a few minutes and I cant think of anything. But perhaps you've thought of something I haven't, so I'm interested.

And anyways, refinement is great, but refinement is also the result of the many safe, boring choices that many games take nowadays. Instead of trying something new and exciting, they do something already done, but their own take on it. Isn't automatically a bad thing, cuz refinement can lead to good results, but it stagnates creativity.

VR has been around since most of you on this forums parents was a twinkle in their dads eyes.

So calling VR innovative now, is sure a stretch and even though there certainly is a new way of incorporating it, its not really innovative.

VR has never existed as it does now.

The way these modern VR displays is innovative and the way that games are incorporating VR is innovative and will continue to be innovative since it really is a fresh pasture for game development. There was a very primitive go at it a while back, but the technology sucked and no game developers were actually serious about it whatsoever. Things are different now. Motion controls are available, we have advanced head tracking, possibilities for body tracking and walking/running, and a ridiculous ceiling of potential. There really isn't a more ripe 'innovative' area than virtual reality at the moment since it involves such a new way of approaching game design.

VR is VR mate, that VR today has better graphics and comes in a smaller package doesn't make it any different than the VR being showcased in the 80´s and early 90´s, so yes Rift comes in a small package but so does computers, chips, etc.

So nope VR is old skool ;)

Its like you didn't even read what I said.

I read what you said and what you think is wrong

All you are mentioning have been done before, have been done in terms of virtual reality, the problem back then was just that tech wasn't there to make it a product viable for release to the public, even the treadmill has been done, and the design is almost 100% duplicate of the same i tried out in the mid 90´s as a kid at a local gaming expo.

So again read up on your VR history mate, because its nothing to do with innovation. almost all have been done before.

Avatar image for Ish_basic
#42 Edited by Ish_basic (4799 posts) -

@Articuno76: Game Theory did a follow up video explaining that innovation actually is what people want. It's just that they don't know what those innovations are if you focus test them

it's like the old saying usually attributed to Ford (the car guy), if I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said "a better horse." People in general don't know what they want until you put it in front of them. It's not stupidity; it's just you can't crave what you've never experienced.

To the original video: you can't make everyone happy. Unhappy people are louder. So whatever you do, someone is gonna whine, and thanks to the internet, they can whine to the four corners of the earth at the speed of light. It doesn't mean they reflect the overall feelings of the community.

Why do we put so much stock in youtube analysis? Used to be it took a labcoat and a PhD to fool people; now you only need a neckbeard.

Avatar image for maynardburger
#43 Posted by maynardburger (187 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:

@maynardburger said:

@Jacanuk said:

@maynardburger said:

@Jacanuk said:

@maynardburger said:

@wiouds said:

What people judge as being innovative is not the same for everyone. For example, some see the oculus rift as innovative but I see it as a gimmick and something that can easily hurt gaming.

Too many only look for the large ideal or new ideals. Coming up with new ideals is not that important as the refinement of ideals in game.

Just because you think virtual reality is 'gimmicky' doesn't mean it isn't innovative. That's not a matter of debate, that's just you refusing to accept any positive terms for something you don't like. I cant think of anything in gaming that is *more* innovative than virtual reality.

I'd also like you to explain how virtual reality is going to hurt gaming, cuz I've thought about it for a few minutes and I cant think of anything. But perhaps you've thought of something I haven't, so I'm interested.

And anyways, refinement is great, but refinement is also the result of the many safe, boring choices that many games take nowadays. Instead of trying something new and exciting, they do something already done, but their own take on it. Isn't automatically a bad thing, cuz refinement can lead to good results, but it stagnates creativity.

VR has been around since most of you on this forums parents was a twinkle in their dads eyes.

So calling VR innovative now, is sure a stretch and even though there certainly is a new way of incorporating it, its not really innovative.

VR has never existed as it does now.

The way these modern VR displays is innovative and the way that games are incorporating VR is innovative and will continue to be innovative since it really is a fresh pasture for game development. There was a very primitive go at it a while back, but the technology sucked and no game developers were actually serious about it whatsoever. Things are different now. Motion controls are available, we have advanced head tracking, possibilities for body tracking and walking/running, and a ridiculous ceiling of potential. There really isn't a more ripe 'innovative' area than virtual reality at the moment since it involves such a new way of approaching game design.

VR is VR mate, that VR today has better graphics and comes in a smaller package doesn't make it any different than the VR being showcased in the 80´s and early 90´s, so yes Rift comes in a small package but so does computers, chips, etc.

So nope VR is old skool ;)

Its like you didn't even read what I said.

I read what you said and what you think is wrong

All you are mentioning have been done before, have been done in terms of virtual reality, the problem back then was just that tech wasn't there to make it a product viable for release to the public, even the treadmill has been done, and the design is almost 100% duplicate of the same i tried out in the mid 90´s as a kid at a local gaming expo.

So again read up on your VR history mate, because its nothing to do with innovation. almost all have been done before.

You are very much mistaken if you think everything that VR can do has been done already.

Seriously, we're just dipping our toes in the water at the moment. What happened before was nothing. Just having it available on a personal level opens up huge amounts of developers to mess around with it and come up with new ideas, many of which are already in development. The VR you experienced as a kid was extremely primitive and basically garbage compared to what we're capable of now.

Avatar image for Lulu_Lulu
#44 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (19564 posts) -

Gamers want Role Playing Elements.... Its the only thing I hardly hear them complain about.

Avatar image for loafofgame
#45 Edited by loafofgame (1742 posts) -
@Ish_basic said:

To the original video: you can't make everyone happy. Unhappy people are louder. So whatever you do, someone is gonna whine, and thanks to the internet, they can whine to the four corners of the earth at the speed of light. It doesn't mean they reflect the overall feelings of the community.

Why do we put so much stock in youtube analysis?

Sigh, I agree. People are very quick to see majorities in the loudest commenters or stats based solely on internet activity. User reviews, comment sections, forums, youtube; they're all questionable sources at best and you can't rely on them to make generalisations. Not that I'm not guilty of doing that sometimes, though. It's so tempting. I actually just did it in my first sentence. Argh, I see what I want to see!

Avatar image for Black_Knight_00
#46 Edited by Black_Knight_00 (21082 posts) -

Can't blame people for sticking with what they like best. it's up to developers to entice people into broadening their horizons.