Gaming Innovation

[BlueYoshi]

[color=teal]There is no solid evidence that proves that innovation has reached its peak, and the standard of some games that are yet to be released for all systems has that written all over, but sometimes you've got to look at the empty part of the glass too.

Games like Barbarian and Crash Bandicoot Fusion are just terrible for this day and age. It's partly a case of developers being lazy and not taking the time to even consider the aspects that part special games from the rest, but there are those who actually try to introduce something new but fail because it was just pulled off badly, like The Getaway.

I think that games aren't independent in their own right though. What I mean is how developers must all learn from each other, movies too in a way, if there's any hope of creating something exceptional in the future that people will enjoy playing. Mobius had a good experience bringing the famous Bullet Time into Max Payne, and as a result of this many other developers saw fit to using it elsewhere. In light of that, not only was it used to increase the aesthetics of gameplay, but it was also a good effect to help the settings of a game. For example, just before you die in Hitman Contracts, everything goes into slow-mo, thus it brings the feel to life.

Right now, I think Nintendo is the saving grace of gaming because in comparison to a lot of what you'd currently find on the Xbox or PS2 (I'm not saying that these games are bad ;)), their games stand out the most. It's clear that there has been a lack of spontaneous games recently for all systems, there were a few good releases in the past couple of years that were more than just adequate with the genre, but right now what each company really needs is a major stepping stone that screams innovation, like the one that Nintendo are climbing with the DS.

My point isn't that everyone is fresh out of ideas, of course that's impossible, but I think that research happens to be one of the factors that many developers take lightly. A lot of retro games have been accused of being good merely because the time they were released was a time when the market had just established itself and practically everything was open to everybody and everything would seem new, however, I think that's a load of bull. The difference between those games and the ones of today is that they are all very simple. Designed simply and play simply. Many games have been bombarded with features and heavy designs that have done more harm than good, and make them more liable to be put off by players.

I suppose the correct comparison would be with any type of movie. The gist of movies is to let you escape from the real world to something a bit more make-belief (in most cases anyway), as games should be. If a movie is too hard to understand and has too many turning points, then you'll gradually lose track and will abandon it in the end. Preferably, I enjoy the type of game where you can just pick it up and play on the spot. Some require more than that though, like RPGs, where there'd be some getting used to before you get into them, but that's not the end of the world because the good ones tend to make it easy on you so you don't tune out early enough, and that's another reason why I like them. Being a fan of a developing team and actually trusting a developing team are two very different things, I think.

I'm looking forward to a lot of what's on offer for the next gen, particularly Nintendo, as innovation is what they've openly promised as of the DS (and hopefully other things before that). This went on longer than I thought heh, so a long story short, how do you feel about the direction that many of this generation's games are heading, and what impact will they have on the next?[/color]

[James]

[color=#707875]Excellent post, Mr. Ninja. ~_^

This is really a great topic to discuss. It's one area that I have a strong connection to; I've written several articles about innovation in the industry. And as a result of various other articles, I've had the opportunity to do a lot of research on the subject at various times.

I should start by saying that Shigeru Miyamoto is a lot like George Lucas. I was watching a biography show about his life today and he mentioned something that stuck out to me. When Lucas spoke of technology (ie: CGI versus other forms), he said that it's not about technology itself...it's about how you use technology to tell a story more effectively.

In the case of Miyamoto and Nintendo, this is at the core of their design philosophy.

Too many people make the mistake of suggesting that Nintendo don't care about technology and that they're only interested in making games that are visually unimpressive. Apart from the obvious contradictions (Wind Waker, Metroid Prime and so on), there's the simple point that Nintendo itself has frequently made. Miyamoto has often said that technology is the device through which you offer gaming experiences.

So where Sony and Microsoft are viewed (by Nintendo) as selling hardware, Nintendo views itself as a software merchant primarily. By this I mean, Nintendo isn't saying "buy our console because it's the most powerful and has more features", they are saying "buy our console because it's the only place you'll find these games."

Nintendo understands that people don't buy a console and leave it at that. They buy a console in order to access game content. So it's the game content that is the most important thing -- but by the same token, you need technology that will allow you to deliver the best kind of content possible.

This goes back to the old discussion about polygons and so on. When PlayStation 2 was announced, Sony spent a great deal of time talking about how many polygons the system could push. Nintendo's answer was that the polygons are not what's important -- it's the paint that you cover them with, which matters. So with GameCube, they put less emphasis on the number of polygons and more emphasis on making the paint beautiful.

I know that it tends to sound like I'm propping up Nintendo to the detriment of the other companies. And to some extent that's true, but there's a reason for it. The main reason is that many people (even in the gaming media), do not understand where Nintendo is coming from.

When Satoru Iwata talks about making games "more simple", some in the media automatically translate that to meaning "dumbed down, kids games". But no, that's not what he's saying.

Iwata is actually making a reasonably complex point about the evolution of games. He's saying that over the years, game interaction has become more complex. We've gone from using a joystick and one button, to controller layouts with multiple sticks, buttons and more. Iwata feels that for new players (people who haven't yet played games, whether they are old or young), this creates a somewhat steep learning curve. His solution is to simplify interaction methods -- not to dumb down games themselves, but to make interaction easier and more fluid. Enter DS.

So this is what he's saying. But so many people go out there and jump all over a little translated quote, simply because they are not willing to do the research, or to go out there and find out more information. As a gamer and as a game journalist, it's a constant frustration of mine.

In comparison, I think that people tend to understand Sony and Microsoft a lot more, because their direction is more palatable...in the sense that it's a more logical evolution, particularly because it mirrors the evolution that we've seen in other industries (as with mobile phones, personal computers and so on).

In today's industry, I tend to agree that more and more companies are making cookie-cutter games. Everyone wants to be the next GTA. To some degree, this is very understandable; games are becoming more expensive to develop and as a result, companies have to make safer and safer bets in order to make money. But by the same token, this create stagnation in the market. And therefore, it's like a catch 22 -- people only like those games because that's the only choice they have. You're not giving them the choice to buy interesting and unique new software.

In regard to development costs specifically, it's a really dangerous issue right now. Many of the smaller developers are being swallowed up by bigger publishers, because they can't afford to move to the next generation of games. This happened during the 2D-3D shift; making 3D games is far more expensive than making 2D games. It requires a larger team of staff, more powerful hardware and more hardware research. The end result is that many companies who are only just surviving in the 2D era end up dying out when 3D arrives.

Although we're in a more gradual stream of evolution (ie: 3D to better 3D), costs are still rising all the time. There was once a time where you never needed to write lengthy scripts and pay voice actors. There was a time when you never needed to develop sophisticated game engines -- the cost of which can be in the millions at times.

Different companies have different solutions for that. Microsoft has provided a new XNA initiative for developers and Sony is apparently going to be adopting an open-source system for PS3 (or something close to that, at any rate). Even in the PC world, you see a lot of companies licensing game engines (eg: Doom 3 engine), simply because it's far too expensive to develop their own.

All of this also relates back to what I've said about comparisons between DS and PSP being totally moot. The two machines are completely different. Their games are completely different, their hardware is completely different, their price and target markets are completely different.

But because the gaming media (and many gamers) are still in the 1990's mindset (that everyone is automatically in competition with everyone else and that there are no nuances to the market), we get these silly comparison articles and everything. Although I don't have a [i]huge[/i] problem with that, as such, I do think that it's symptomatic of the fact that many people have the wrong interpretation of the market and the direction it's moving in.

There are suggestions that rising costs and shrinking design innovation could lead to another early-80's-style collapse. In Japan, that looks like a very realistic proposition. In North America and elsewhere, it's not such a problem; those other markets are keeping the Japanese giants afloat. But for how long? The market reaction in those territories could well be a generation behind, for all we know. And that will also depend on what Sony and Microsoft do with their next consoles.

There's so much more to say about all of this, it's such a big topic. But I'll open the floor for someone else. ~_^[/color]

[BlueYoshi]

[quote name='James][color=#707875']Excellent post, Mr. Ninja. ~_^[/color][/quote]

[color=teal]Thanks.

I think you have gotten all the facts down there. People really don't realise that there is a lot more to the industry other than what is seen in games. The DS has a sort of mistaken identity, as it has been compared to the PSP, considered as the next in line of the GameBoy systems, and has been negatively judged by the media because of its unheard of concept. Come to think of it now, these allegations are somewhat crude, but ever since it was put in the spotlight at this year's E3, a lot more has been unveiled about it and people managed to wrap themselves around the concept.

The PS2's DVD player probably can fit into the category of being innovative. I mean, that hadn't been pulled off anywhere else before, and backwards compatibility was a wise move, but when you think about it from Nintendo's perspective, these so-called inventions don't help the games at all. Hardware and technology don't surface how games are supposed to be, and certain add-ons are more or less an appeal to juice up the system's prestige.[/color]

[James]

[quote name='Wingnut Ninja][color=teal'] I mean, that hadn't been pulled off anywhere else before, and backwards compatibility was a wise move, but when you think about it from Nintendo's perspective, these so-called inventions don't help the games at all. Hardware and technology don't surface how games are supposed to be, and certain add-ons are more or less an appeal to juice up the system's prestige.[/color][/quote]

[color=#707875]This is an important point, which has become more important in recent times.

Reggie Fils-Aime recently gave a speech about Nintendo's approach with DS. He began by talking about Game Boy and how Nintendo has fought off nine competitors over the last 15 years.

One of the more interesting elements was a discussion about "applications that are native to the hardware environment."

For example, Fils-Aime said that one of the current trends is to combine multiple functions into one product. But he warned that this must be done carefully. He pointed out that people may not want to buy a toaster that is combined with a coffee machine. He also spoke about PDAs that include phone technology and how nobody uses them as a phone.

The overall point he was making is that adding more components into a product isn't [i]necessarily[/i] the best solution. Some combinations are not going to work and consumers won't always warm to certain combinations. Or they'll use one element in preference to another.

This actually occurred in the early stages of the PS2's life in Japan. You may remember that The Matrix was the highest selling "software" for PS2 in Japan for quite some time -- a movie, not a game. DVD movie sales were cannibalising PS2 game sales.

From my perspective, I personally don't mind having a DVD player in a game system -- but only if I didn't own a DVD player already. Since I own one (and since a DVD player on its own is superior to Sony's "add-in" DVD player), I don't necessarily want to spend those extra bucks to get a hybrid machine.

At the same time, Fils-Aime spoke about Sony's PSX, which is a [i]huge[/i] example of this idea of technology conglomeration. It's a PS2, a DVD player, DVD burner, hard drive and Internet access point. It can do a billion things at once and it looks gorgeous.

But it didn't sell. It reminds me of the phrase, "Jack of all trades but expert in none."

Fils-Aime also mentioned that Sony's EyeToy (a far cheaper and "inferior" product to PSX) was doing huge business worldwide. Isn't it funny that a machine seen as being far less technologically advanced and cool -- yet still having a very important purpose as an entertaiment device -- was the far more popular product?

The EyeToy is more popular because, as Fils-Aime puts it, it is more entertaining. And that's the point he was making; people will buy what is more fun and not what is more powerful.

This also brings me back to the discussion about PSP and DS.

One of the PSP's biggest drawcards is that it can play PS2 games on the road. However, Fils-Aime draws this strategy into question.

He uses simple logic. The kind of games on Game Boy and DS are generally the kind of games that you can pick up and play for a few minutes at a time if you like. In other words, they're the kind of games you can play for short bursts while you're in the car or on the bus.

At the same time, PSP is receiving what are primarily PS2-ports. Assuming that people [i]do[/i] want to play replicas of PS2 games on the road, you also have to ask yourself how they're going to find the time to play these games. How many times do you go on a three hour bus trip or plane flight?

You could counter that by saying that people will still want to play PSP at home. But Fils-Aime points out that if this is the environment, people tend to prefer playing on their big TV with their stereo system going, rather than on a little screen. In that sense, DS is not marketed or aimed at the people who want to play at home. It's aimed at those who want to have a game experience on the road, where a larger commitment of time is not always necessary.

Of course, there are always exceptions to all of this. I'm sure that PSP will still have plenty of games that you can play in quick bursts.

So I'm not trying to create a watertight case or anything like that, I'm only saying that these are the questions behind the philosophy. And these are some of the reasons why Sony is already demonstrating its inexperience in the handheld market.

From my perspective, I'm personally excited about PSP. But I'm only excited about it if I can play PSP-exclusive games. I do not have an interest in playing PS2 ports on the road, as I simply don't travel for long distances very often.

On another subject -- but still related to innovation -- Fils-Aime said that over the last decade or so, many companies have focused their innovation efforts on the screen. In other words, the goal has been to make on-screen visuals look better.

But as we know, we're at the stage now where many of these enhancements are incremental. Yes, the display technology gets better and yes, games tend to look better as the technology improves. But because this change in incremental and because many of the more subtle changes are never going to be noticed by most people (like plugging your progressive-scan enabled system into a non-progressive scan TV; technology's there but can't be seen), there is a need to develop change in other key areas.

One area is in interaction. This is possibly the most important area for the next ten years.

If screen graphics are always improving and if it is a given that graphics will always get better, what else can you improve and innovate with? One thing you can do is change the way that players actually connect with the game content.

Afterall, when you do that, you aren't just affecting what they see. You're affecting how the game itself plays. Which is more important? If you play a game that looks better than anything you've seen, but feels identical to everything you've played before...or you play a game that looks great but that also feels completely new and different to anything you've experienced? You decide.

This is precisely why you will see Nintendo taking advantage of a variety of technologies and concepts (which include touch-screen sensitivity and potentially gyroscopic technology).

Just look at Donkey Konga. The game looks fine; there's nothing revolutionary about its looks, but there's also nothing wrong with them. What's different is the way the game plays. You use bongo drums instead of a controller. The difference is profound; if you've read the E3 impressions, you'll know that the game received a glowing report from everyone who came into contact with it. It [i]feels[/i] like something fresh and new. It doesn't just [i]look[/i] pretty.

If we follow this idea to its logical conclusion, we may very well end up with games that look totally photorealistic.

Once that happens, how will any game ever feel new again? Perhaps then developers will have to focus on the actual art style a lot more. But the most likely answer is that developers will try to find new and fun ways of interacting with games, to give them a very different feeling.

This idea (about graphics reaching a plateau) is something that Nintendo are already trying to address. Nobody else -- not Microsoft or Sony -- are doing that in any significant way right now. Both Sony and Microsoft [i]will[/i] eventually face this reality. And I'm sure they'll come up with something. But right now, their focus is on adding more hardware features and making better in-game graphics. Nintendo takes all of those things for granted (in other words, they know that graphics will get better and they will include that as part of their strategy), but they do recognize that there's a far-reaching situation involved beyond that.

Sony did something very Nintendo-like with EyeToy, though. They put fun and [i]fun innovation[/i] first. And what happens when you do that? You achieve significant success. While I'm not personally a huge EyeToy fan, I do acknowledge that it's a hugely successful product for Sony. And for good reason; they deserve kudos for delivering something like that.

Again, there is still so much to talk about here. But maybe my post will give everyone some thoughts about where to steer the discussion.[/color]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

If I may add my opinions...

I am not quite from the "other camp," as I think I understand Nintendo's viewpoints and have been pretty much up-to-date with their statements regarding design direction. But as a long-time gamer myself, I haven't seen such a need for innovation as there may be (and Nintendo says there is). While I obviously don't have anywhere near the grasp of the current state of the industry as does Nintendo (or Sony and Microsoft, for that matter), lately I've seen not so much a lack of innovation as a lack of [i]actually good games[/i].

The last few games I've purchased (or put on my to-purchase list) were X-box games, which as far as I know isn't doing so awesome in Japan anyway. I've bought squat for my GCN since FF:CC came out, and before that I think it was just Mario Kart: DD (so many double letters :eek: ) and Prince of Persia (which I'd have gotten for X-box but I think it was a gift). ...Eh, I don't have a PS2 and so far haven't had the urge to buy one because I don't like a single exclusive game on it enough, lol.

While I must admit that the games I've enjoyed most in recent times were indeed innovative in one way or another (even Halo--there was never a co-op mode like Halo's before, and it had highly interactive vehicles), they were games that excelled in almost every aspect besides innovation as well. (Zelda, Metroid Prime (which I enjoyed a *bit*; the gameplay bogged me down), Ninja Gaiden, Morrowind (for me, anyway), etc.)

Which is why I'm not sure why there's such a huge deal about innovation. Pretty much every quality game to come out has had innovative design somehow (with the exception of KOTOR, which is basically NWN in 3rd person with a higher quality campaign). I can't think of a game that excelled in every aspect besides innovative design and failed to do well because of that (if you can, then tell me one there could be something I can't think of).

Eh, I'm ranting. I've had this reply up all day long and keep coming back to it occasionally to type a paragraph, lol. Anyway, I think that if Nintendo's more "innovative" products do extremely well in comparison to more "run-of-the-mill-designed" games, then they'll have made their point quite well. But, if compared to Halo 2 and Half-Life 2 and PSP and Resident Evil 4 and what not, their products [i]don't[/i] do extremely well, then I'd say the innovation tactic is more baloney (ummm, bologna) than enlightenment. We'll see as far as all that goes, though.

...But an important thing to note is that Nintendo, well, almost always delivers on all aspects of game design. Really and truly, Nintendo games are usually good all around. So if they also have some fresh ideas thrown in, then that will only be an advantage over the competition. That's why I'm not too worried about Nintendo's future at this point. How much their success will depend on innovation over the rest of what makes Nintendo games great, though, is hard to say right now.

RANTING!!!! Ok, I thought of something else. Innovation is all well and good, but to really sell it you need some great marketing. That's why the Eye Toy probably did so well. It's innovative, ...it's stupid... but it's Sony, and Sony markets stuff like a beast. That's what Nintendo should work on maybe. Because the PSP [i]may[/i] actually encroach on the handheld market Nintendo controls due to Sony's marketing skills.

(Also, I don't find it too illegitimate to compare the DS and the PSP. You have to realize that the people making comparisons DO, undeniably, fall into the audience that is targeted by BOTH of the handhelds. For these people to NOT compare the handhelds would be more bizarre than comparing them.)