All this detail.. to what means? - by Scott Weiland
june gloom on 14/5/2010 at 03:40
jesus christ the above post is everything wrong with TTLG
Zygoptera on 14/5/2010 at 03:58
Meant The Void as the very pretty "indie" type, of course, though the context should make it clear I think.
Quote Posted by Aja
iterative vs innovative?
So by the definition that seems to be going here, something's only innovative if it's never been done before? Very little qualifies for that. In fact, nothing does. Everything is iterative. Maybe not the Big Bang.
Nope, but
everything in HL2's implementation had been done before and was logical extension of pre-existing stuff. "Physics puzzles" have existed since, what, Repton or whatever the game was where you'd die if you tunneled under boulders or destabilised them. Pressure plates, pushing buttons or whatever, throwing stuff, using the environment, it's all been done before, and has all been integrated into plot too. The only original thing is that it integrates it into a 'gun' (and even then one could argue SS2's psi amp, if one wanted to be argumentative). I'm willing to set a low threshold for originality or innovation but not that low.
Quote:
.. because they weren't as cleverly implemented as in Half Life 2. It innovated by taking something that wasn't really so interesting and making it worthwhile. Prey might have had portals first, but... well you get the idea.
I have no real problem with that, even considering its rather subjective nature. Except that what you're describing is
not innovative by any definition, taking previously developed systems and improving them is the absolute essence of iteration.
Perhaps an example? Alpha Protocol's dialogue system is not innovative. It's been done before with Fahrenheit/ Indigo Prophecy and even if the dialogue in AP and its integration into the story and branchings etc etc are better than IP's that
still will not make it innovative. Doesn't mean it won't be good or better than previous uses, but it ain't original and ain't innovative.
I know people love HL2, this argument has been had before and is peripheral to the subject matter in many ways so I won't push it further.
Aja on 14/5/2010 at 04:17
I don't love HL2, I just think you're setting the bar for innovation almost impossibly high.
Sulphur on 14/5/2010 at 06:07
Quote Posted by Zygoptera
So, we have motion sensing controls (at present Wii only, the
least graphical intensive console) Darwinia, Braid, The Void, The Path, WoG (effectively
all indies, certainly none of them AAA and only one of which has anything approaching AAA- or graphical arms race, if you prefer- graphics, The Path) a citation of genre blending as an innovation without any supporting evidence (Mass Effect blends RPG and Gears' 3p action gameplay yet is it even
slightly innovative?) and HL2 which simply iterates existing principals- sheesh, psi pull in SS2 is 90% of the gravity gun and I'd bet NV could write a script to turn it into one pdq- and using something like force push to shift boxes around in various Star Wars games covers the rest of HL2's "innovations" physics wise. As EvaUnit implied HL2 is almost entirely iterative in this regard, and most others really, not that that necessarily makes it a bad game, of course.
So let me get this straight. Are we going to be arguing the definition of 'innovative' here? Do you mean to say that, because the Wii is the least graphically intensive console today, that means it has no AAA titles at all? That any innovations on its part can be discounted? Because that's a pretty damn fallacious way of dealing with this argument.
Secondly, when genres have been hashed out, blending them is the logical next step, agreed. But when it comes to gaming, it involves changes to gameplay mechanics that you wouldn't otherwise have. You cite Mass Effect as a poor example of this; SS2 blended FPS and RPG mechanics - it might not have been the first game to do so, but I guess that wasn't innovative or fresh to any extent, was it?
Quote:
Primarily though, your citing of indies is facile, and pretty much an admission that you haven't read what was written, to whit:
Quote:
Ideally eye candy should be pursued to the extent where it adds to immersion, but I get this sad feeling that the so-called 'graphical arms race' takes place these days because there happens to be a demand for it.
and further clarified by
Quote:
But to some point in the past, gameplay mechanics also enjoyed some innovations. That 'these days' comment was factoring that in, FYI.
ie the reference is clearly to AAA "graphical arms race" titles so all your Braid's, WoG's and Paths are
irrelevant and simply suggest you're arguing a point you'd like to have been made, rather than the one which actually was.
Did
you read that properly? That was a complaint about today's games focusing on graphics and not gameplay innovation. Which is a load of tosh, because your AAA games have always focused on graphics.
Innovation has never been the sole defining point of AAA games; fuck, you could say 99% of mainstream titles for the past 15-20 years or so have just iterated and expanded on what's been done before them in bigger ways because the ideas have been proven 'safe'.
How far back are you willing to go before you can say most of the industry was focused on 'innovation'? The days of Thief and SS2 and Deus Ex? No. Those games were 'iterative' too. The time of Tomb Raider and Quake, then? Nope, super iterative on Super-freaking-Mario and just about everything id had made before. The original System Shock, then? Hell no, it makes use of everything hashed out by LGS while developing Ultima Underworld.
You can draw a straight line from Wolfenstein to Rage, and you're going to find that everything in between owes something to what came before it. To make a blanket statement that in the past 'games enjoyed some gameplay innovations' is a ludicrous claim that there is no innovation to be had today. It's rose tinted glasses and you know it.
When you have titles like Shadow of the Colossus and Mirror's Edge pushing at the margins, when you have games
finally attempting to integrate narratives with gameplay in meaningful ways, and when you have things like Natal and 3D TVs (no matter how much I might hate both ideas) on the horizon, I find it grating to read that there's less innovation in the industry today.
Ko0K on 14/5/2010 at 06:51
Don't put words in my mouth just because you don't understand what someone is trying to communicate. You decided to pick on the part about me being nostalgic because you wanted to be a troll, but the meat of my response to the OP was that immersion was ideal goal.
Fuck off.
(edit)
Quote Posted by Sulphur
We're done.
Oops, not quite apparently.
Sulphur on 14/5/2010 at 07:08
Quote Posted by Ko0K
Don't put words in my mouth just because you don't understand what someone is trying to communicate. You decided to pick on the part about me being nostalgic because you wanted to be a troll, but the meat of my response to the OP was that immersion was ideal goal.
Fuck off.
Yes, games focus so much on graphics that gameplay takes a back seat as compared to the past where 'gameplay enjoyed some innovations'. And this is all related to immersion being the ideal goal.
If I were a troll, I'd be baiting you. I don't think that's worth the effort in your case. And if you think I'm still trying to, you've got issues far worse than your handle suggests.
Ko0K on 14/5/2010 at 07:13
Quote Posted by Sulphur
Yes, games focus so much on graphics that gameplay takes a back seat as compared to the past where 'gameplay enjoyed some innovations'. And this is all related to immersion.
If I were a troll, I'd be baiting you. I don't think that's worth the effort in your case. And if you think I'm still trying to, you've got issues far worse than your handle suggests.
Instead of adding to a meaningful discussion by sticking to constructive points, you decided to make an attempt at irking someone. Typical troll behavior, if you ask, well, just about anyone.
Speaking of baiting, why did you bite on that bait after declaring that "We're done"? Pathetic.
Sulphur on 14/5/2010 at 07:18
Interesting. So you've just declared yourself to be a troll.
You're a winner. Toodle-oo.
Ko0K on 14/5/2010 at 07:20
Quote Posted by Sulphur
Interesting. So you've just declared yourself to be a troll.
You're a winner. Toodle-oo.
You can't tell the difference between making an observation and making a declaration. No, you win. :rolleyes:
(edit) By the way, you went back on your words about our interaction being 'done' four times in the same thread, five, if you include your response to Zygoptera's quote of my posts. Don't you think it's a bit too much to ask that people give your words any credibility at this point?
PigLick on 14/5/2010 at 08:12
jesus christ Kook, you make your annual "come out my hole post some swear words hurr hurr" appearance, jesus there could have been 2 pages of interesting, meaningful discussion about the direction of games, but nah fuck that lets just wail at each other.
