@rtircoklled @LtReviews I'm not sure you guys have it quite right. It actually depends on your perspective a bit. Kayinnasaki--the creator of I Wanna Be the Guy--did a video where he explained how it was that he thought it was easier to get into fighters. For example, he says if you lose in an FPS, it's because the other person shoots better. But if you lose in a fighting game, you've got a puzzle to solve because there IS a way to counter almost everything. The whole setup is based on rock-paper-scissors mechanics to one degree or another, so there's always something that can beat something else. So it becomes a matter of, "He's doing something. How do I counter that?" instead of "He's just more skilled at shooting." In short, though fighters might START with a bigger learning curve, to play at a level where you're being tactical and thoughtful is actually a lot lower than with FPS games.
The basic groundwork of a fighter is simple enough that you've got a real chance regardless, even to the point where button mashing can still net you wins. Whereas if you're playing an FPS you're not able to control much space on the map because you're part of a team that has to function as a whole. Also, meaning no disrespect to hardcore shooter fans, it also seems to speak to society's need to feel like winners. If you're a player on a team in an FPS, you can blame the rest of the team for the performance if you lose and also take credit when the team wins, even if you're not a good player. With fighters, it's ALL on you, and a lot of people just don't like that. What's interesting though is that getting good at fighters actually feels a lot more like it does to get good at something in real life: you have to lose a LOT before you can succeed. In the culture we have now, though, there's a real emphasis on trying to make people feel like winners all the time, and I think this is a big part of the reason people don't want to bother with fighters. They'd rather play an FPS and feel like winners much faster, and I don't really blame them, but I'm not sure it's going to serve them in real life as well as getting good at a fighter could, particularly because of the perseverance needed to learn a game inside and out and work your ass off.
But that's just my opinion, and as I'm not much of an FPS player, I'm sure someone will call BS on it. :)
@silvergol @cachinscythe @xXxIRyanxXx Okay, but you'll have to be more specific. What technical aspects of this sky ride and sky shooting were different from things done before in other shooters? I mean I haven't played Bioshock Infinite so I'll need some details. Also, if Elizabeth is a great character and unique then okay, but I can't imagine having one unique character is enough to call a game innovative. I'm not trying to be rude of disrespectful. I'm honestly curious about this.
I also think people need to figure out the difference between "innovating" and "tweaking." The sky shooting sounds--on the surface--like just a tweak similar to what Capcom did with Resident Evil Zero where they allowed you to switch between two characters at will. I guess you could call it innovation if you wanted to, but the basic gameplay of Resident Evil was still mostly unchanged.
And that again brings us back to the problem: when are you just tweaking, when are you innovating, and when are you making a franchise into something it's not? If anybody has an answer, I'd love to hear it.
@xXxIRyanxXx What precisely was it that made Bioshock Infinite stay true to its series while "changing things up"? From what I hear the gameplay is basically just Bioshock and the only major difference is the story and setting. Granted, that might be enough, but it goes back to the fundamental problem that I think Aonuma is trying to address here: gamers want innovation but they don't want they're beloved series to stop FEELING like those series. So what exactly does that mean? What are gamers okay with changing and what AREN'T they okay with changing?
In my experience--and I'll admit I'm no developer or journalist, just a shut-in hardcore gamer who used to work for a call center for Nintendo--gamers aren't able to answer that question because they aren't actually sure WHAT they want. If you don't believe me, just take a look at Resident Evil. It gets stale due to doing the same old thing for five installments and then changes things up, gamers are happy, but ONE GAME LATER they're calling out Capcom for turning their series into an action franchise. Or look at Sonic the Hedgehog, which was frequently slammed for adding new things to the formula instead of "going back to the roots of Sonic." Then Sonic Episode 4 comes out and they're STILL not happy. Then Sonic Colors comes out, introducing ANOTHER new mechanic and they're...exceedingly pleased with it.
I'm not saying Zelda doesn't need to evolve, and I'm not saying I'm happy with the route Nintendo has taken lately. I'm tired of hearing about Mario and Zelda and Pokemon when they've got a dozen other franchises they could tap into that have been dormant for a while now. But when developers talk about the inherent contradictions of innovating while keeping something familiar, I applaud them. And if gamers DO know what it is they actually want, they'd better be willing to state it CLEARLY and emphasize what EXACTLY works and what doesn't. Anything short of that is just setting yourself up to be a victim of "corporate greed."
@WCK619 Oh? You mean he's acting just like a GAMER?! Who would sooner see EA stop making games which are such a necessary part of our livelihood--unlike say food, water, shelter--and let Bank of America foreclose on numerous homes?
GAMERS are the ones who feel sorry for themselves and whine constantly about it. Spector comes out with a couple press releases and suddenly he gets blanketed with mean-spirited slapdash labels like "thin-skinned" and, apparently, "rich who are not happy and want those with less money to feel sorry for them." Doesn't sound like gamers at ALL!!
Except it totally does, and we'd better take a long look in the mirror before we project our own self-hatred onto someone who actually works for a living.
@HonorOfGod @OuTLaWzGamer Couldn't agree more! Let's see...30 years ago was 1983. By then, Nintendo had already saturated the market with Mario games, Pokemon games, Zelda games, Metroid games, Star Fox games...uh...wait...Nintendo didn't even release the NES until 1985. Hmm...Metroid didn't reach prominence until Super Metroid in 1994 and then went on EXTENDED HIATUS. Star Fox started in the early 90's. Zelda didn't become prominent until Link to the Past. Pokemon started in the late 90's, Pikmin started in 2001...yeah well played. (Sarcasm)
You wanna argue that Nintendo has been playing it safe in the last 5 years, be my guest, cause they HAVE, and I'm getting sick of it. But particularly during the Gamecube era they were taking plenty of risks, both with existing franchises and new ones. Chibi-Robo, Geist, and Odama are just three examples of their attempts to do different things that nobody gave any sort of attention to. Meanwhile the woefully underappreciated Excitebots remains completely unnoticed for the Wii.
I know what you guys are trying to say, but at least get your facts straight before you say it.
@meatz666 @cachinscythe @SurlyPotato Excite Truck is technically part of the same franchise as Excitebike, yes, but the gameplay--from what I've played--isn't the same at all. And the same goes for the follow up: Excitebots. Essentially, they are racing games where you can't just win by taking first place; you have to acquire a set number of stars by completing tasks on the course and/or doing stunts. You get a certain number of stars for coming in first, but they usually aren't enough to "pass" the track, so you have to focus on other things like stunts, tree runs (where you go into the trees and avoid crashing while driving fast), getting big air, and also hitting rings in midair. Combined with the steering mechanics--which were unique due to it being a launch title, but aren't so unique now--it was just a lot of fun. Excitebots tightened up the controls, added in about 50 doses of "crazy" to the point where you're doing stuff like making sandwiches, bowling, hitting home runs, and transforming your vehicle for short periods of time, and multiplied the overall content by about 10. I'm still trying to finish completing everything that game has to offer.
So it probably IS a variation of what you call "stapling." Hope that clears up your question. :)
@meatz666 @cachinscythe LOL I believe it. Seriously though, if you have a chance, try some of the others I mentioned. Cause I honestly think--even if the level of quality didn't reach 360 or PS3 levels--that there was a ton of good stuff on Wii that nobody tried out. From Zack and Wiki and de Blob--kiddie games with insanely awesome gameplay--to RPGs like Fragile, Xenoblade, and The Last Story, to more mature fare like Madworld, I think Wii's library was vastly underrated. And I don't say that as a Nintendo fanboy. (I own more 360 games than Wii games and the worst that can be said is I'm an EX Nintendo loyalist.) I say that as a hardcore gamer, which I am first and foremost.
@Tiwill44 I'll cop to that. Infamous WAS more unique than the latest GOW or Uncharted games. And it's a phenomenal game. Don't get me wrong. I'm just not sure it's "innovative" in the sense that people speak of the term. But again, the definition is subjective.
As for the idea of combining all those elements together for the first time, I suppose you can argue that makes for "innovation," but if you'll forgive me taking this to its logical extreme to demonstrate what I feel is a potential inconsistency, doesn't this mean that someone could take COD's gameplay and Final Fantasy's storytelling style and RPG elements, mix them into a new property, and the result would be "innovative"? Perhaps it would, but I'm suspicious of whether people would see it that way.
Actually, that might not be such a bad game. LOL :)
cachinscythe's comments