Gamers don't want innovation, I think

If you look around the interwebs a bit, you'll see tons of gamers who cry for innovation.  Personally,  I think innovation is great, but I also realize that often games more so evolve in game design and that a generic game can be damn fun.  

That being said, I really don't think gamers want these truly innovative games that just do something different.
The most innovative game of this generation so far (basically)?  Banjo: Nuts and Bolts.  It was bashed by the press and gamers for not being the exact same thing as it's 10 year old prequel.  Now I know that giantbomb and those here typically hold this game in high regards, but it's not the popular opinion.   This game however is made incredibly well and is very unique.  You hear debates about what genre it should be put in.  It doesn't matter, but thining about it, what genre does it really belong in?  A true achievement on the innovation side.

This really applies to Rare in general on the X360-- Kameo was very different (although it was just short) and it got quite mocked (although again, not by all) and same goes for Viva Pinata.  PDZ is a different story as it feels broken in some ways and more like any other shooter (although slightly unique), easily rushed and bumped up to be a 360 game.  Still decent, but it's just not great.  Not necessarily bad though.

Anyway, I'd imagine this applies to other games as well that I have not mentioned, but do you really think that gamers even want innovation?   I think some do and an even larger group wants it, but the majority aren't willing to give things a chance.  

gamers are simple people ... they fear change

If it ain't broke, don't fix it... Pad it with extras.

I think that if you replaced "gamers" with "XBOX gamers" you might just about have it, since Rare games haven't sold well on the console from the beginning. While I love my 360, its target audience isn't exactly the hardcore. Microsoft is aiming the console squarely at Fratboys, which is why your Call of Dutys, Gears of Wars,Grand Theft Autos, Maddens, and Halos sell so well while arguably better games like Dead Rising, Mass Effect and everything from Rare struggle to find an audience.

I think gamers want innovation done well. Innovation in games that are fun. Some gamers want innovation more than others.

However, gamers are often upset when their favorite series changes (Resident Evil, Banjo Kazooie). That's really it.

"I think that if you replaced "gamers" with "XBOX gamers" you might just about have it, since Rare games haven't sold well on the console from the beginning. While I love my 360, its target audience isn't exactly the hardcore. Microsoft is aiming the console squarely at Fratboys, which is why your Call of Dutys, Gears of Wars,Grand Theft Autos, Maddens, and Halos sell so well while arguably better games like Dead Rising, Mass Effect and everything from Rare struggle to find an audience."

It depends on what you're talking about. Nuts and Bolts is innovative in a certain genre. Just like LittleBigPlanet, innovation in a certain place and not really an innovative game in general. I would say something like Noby Noby Boy is an innovation in that there isn't a genre that it can be placed in; especially when people say it's a "toy" because honestly, there is a goal, make girl bigger!

AgentJ said:

"I think that if you replaced "gamers" with "XBOX gamers" you might just about have it, since Rare games haven't sold well on the console from the beginning. While I love my 360, its target audience isn't exactly the hardcore. Microsoft is aiming the console squarely at Fratboys, which is why your Call of Dutys, Gears of Wars,Grand Theft Autos, Maddens, and Halos sell so well while arguably better games like Dead Rising, Mass Effect and everything from Rare struggle to find an audience."

Well actually all the games you spoke about sold incredbily well...
I was talking abou primarily reception by the press and forumers

Hell, people always say Rare's games don't sell, but all of their games have broken 1 million except the last two (which do still sell)
There games don't tend to sell greatly out the door, but they have legs.

"I think gamers want innovation done well. Innovation in games that are fun. Some gamers want innovation more than others.However, gamers are often upset when their favorite series changes (Resident Evil, Banjo Kazooie). That's really it."

Innovation at the sacrafice of fun and established standards is stupid, Innovation is good if you don't give every thing else up for the innovation.

Portal, Braid, and World of Goo all say hello.

Games are turning into  movies there mainstream and all about making money . Inovation = no monies

"BiggerBomb said:

"AgentJ said:

"I think that if you replaced "gamers" with "XBOX gamers" you might just about have it, since Rare games haven't sold well on the console from the beginning. While I love my 360, its target audience isn't exactly the hardcore. Microsoft is aiming the console squarely at Fratboys, which is why your Call of Dutys, Gears of Wars,Grand Theft Autos, Maddens, and Halos sell so well while arguably better games like Dead Rising, Mass Effect and everything from Rare struggle to find an audience."

Except Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto are two of the best video game franchises....like, ever."

Lol, thats fine, they can be great, but the fact is that they are targeted at, and bought by, the fratboy audience that the XBOX goes after."

"inkeiren said:

"I think gamers want innovation done well. Innovation in games that are fun. Some gamers want innovation more than others.However, gamers are often upset when their favorite series changes (Resident Evil, Banjo Kazooie). That's really it."

Actually, Resident Evil 4 was well accepted. Maybe the difference is that 4 first appeared on the Gamecube and PS2, where gamers, while hesitant at first, loved the game despite its differences. Maybe the reason why RE5 is being so reviled is because its on the 360, where people aren't used to so much variation in control schemes. "

"BiggerBomb said:

"AgentJ said:

"I think that if you replaced "gamers" with "XBOX gamers" you might just about have it, since Rare games haven't sold well on the console from the beginning. While I love my 360, its target audience isn't exactly the hardcore. Microsoft is aiming the console squarely at Fratboys, which is why your Call of Dutys, Gears of Wars,Grand Theft Autos, Maddens, and Halos sell so well while arguably better games like Dead Rising, Mass Effect and everything from Rare struggle to find an audience."

Except Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto are two of the best video game franchises....like, ever."

Lol, thats fine, they can be great, but the fact is that they are targeted at, and bought by, the fratboy audience that the XBOX goes after."

"AgentJ said:

"inkeiren said:

"I think gamers want innovation done well. Innovation in games that are fun. Some gamers want innovation more than others.However, gamers are often upset when their favorite series changes (Resident Evil, Banjo Kazooie). That's really it."

Actually, Resident Evil 4 was well accepted. Maybe the difference is that 4 first appeared on the Gamecube and PS2, where gamers, while hesitant at first, loved the game despite its differences. Maybe the reason why RE5 is being so reviled is because its on the 360, where people aren't used to so much variation in control schemes. "

I meant fanboys, not gamers in general, but I agree. I loved Resident Evil 4. I think you might be onto something with the control scheme issue."

Gamers are a confused bunch. They are like Player haters but they hate the game AND the player all in one go.

And guys, this in general is why I'll defend Rare more than anyone.
Their games are freaking awesome (except PDZ, again, different story though) yet they constantly get shit essentially.

They could make the best games ever and they'd still be capped off. 





Such good games. 

Wouldn't mind to see what else they're making.  Hopefully a Conker 2 based on games (instead of movies).  There's undoubtly KI3 in development though.

"inkeiren said:

"I think gamers want innovation done well. Innovation in games that are fun. Some gamers want innovation more than others.However, gamers are often upset when their favorite series changes (Resident Evil, Banjo Kazooie). That's really it."

Anyone who talks trash about Nuts & Bolts (for not being like Kazooie & Tooie) can go off themselves."

I just care about having fun.

It's not innovation that is the big cheese, it's when somoenone goes and perfects that innovation. An amazingly awesome example would be the steam engine. James Watt DID NOT invent it, just improved it greatly

I don't think Nut & Bolts was innovative. Thier's a difference between a good & fun idea, and something that introduces a new way to do something.

"gamers are simple people ... they fear change"

"I don't think Nut & Bolts was innovvative. Thier's a difference between a good & fun idea, and something that introduces a new way to do something. "

well yeah if you follow the industry people want 3rd person shooters that are just like gears of war, online shooters like COD4, raceing games like burnout etc etc etc

"inkeiren said:

"I think gamers want innovation done well. Innovation in games that are fun. Some gamers want innovation more than others.However, gamers are often upset when their favorite series changes (Resident Evil, Banjo Kazooie). That's really it."

Anyone who talks trash about Nuts & Bolts (for not being like Kazooie & Tooie) can go off themselves."

I'll offer my opinion on it: gamers want innovation and NEW IPs. If you innovate within a series, you have to keep quite a bit without compromising what makes it that game. If Nuts & Bolts was a different game, it probably would've scored higher. But since it was in a pre-established series, it created expectations of what it should be. N&B did not meet those expectations, and opinion was somewhat low because of that.

"BiggerBomb said:

"inkeiren said:

"I think gamers want innovation done well. Innovation in games that are fun. Some gamers want innovation more than others.However, gamers are often upset when their favorite series changes (Resident Evil, Banjo Kazooie). That's really it."

Anyone who talks trash about Nuts & Bolts (for not being like Kazooie & Tooie) can go off themselves."

I'm not saying it is right to talk trash about it. I'm just saying it is what they do. I don't hate Nuts & Bolts at all. I love good innovation. I think your and my opinion is basically the same as far as innovation in video games goes."

"inkeiren said:

"BiggerBomb said:

"inkeiren said:

"I think gamers want innovation done well. Innovation in games that are fun. Some gamers want innovation more than others.However, gamers are often upset when their favorite series changes (Resident Evil, Banjo Kazooie). That's really it."

Anyone who talks trash about Nuts & Bolts (for not being like Kazooie & Tooie) can go off themselves."

I'm not saying it is right to talk trash about it. I'm just saying it is what they do. I don't hate Nuts & Bolts at all. I love good innovation. I think your and my opinion is basically the same as far as innovation in video games goes."

No, no. I wasn't saying you were. I was commenting on your "however, gamers are often upset when their favorite series changes (Resident Evil, Banjo-Kazooie.)" Those people can go off themselves."

The problem isn't so much innovation as it is marketing.  How the hell do you market Nuts and Bolts?  As a kids' game that's sort-of a platformer, but reliant upon building vehicles and getting puzzle pieces?  The average consumer is going to look at it, and rightfully go, "Huh?"  It's not that it's a bad game, by any means, but it's hard as hell to develop market strategies for something so unique.  Great games like Halo and Call of Duty are fairly easy - "you shoot and kill aliens and terrorists.  Oh, and you can shoot your buddies, too."  See?  Nice.  Easy.  Marketable.  Mario's the same way.  "It's a platformer.  It's a Mario game."  People know what they're getting with a platformer or a Mario game.  It's never going to stray too far from an established, well-known formula, which isn't a bad thing.

I think that's ultimately the doom of many great, innovative games.  Shadow of the Colossus, Psychonauts, Beyond Good and Evil, Valkyria Chronicles... they're all great games that deserved more recognition, but how can you explain to the common person what exactly those games are and why they deserve to be played?

Innovation is overrated, and it has caused many games that could have been very successfull to drop-kick themselves in the balls (not sure how that would be humanly possible, but still) and produce mediocre to absolutely terrible games simply in the name of doing something new.

Innovation has to have a good game attached to it for people to care. Giving them something which is different to everything else but also shitty puts people off. It's video games 101.

"Innovation is overrated, and it has caused many games that could have been very successfull to drop-kick themselves in the balls (not sure how that would be humanly possible, but still) and produce mediocre to absolutely terrible games simply in the name of doing something new."

The most loved console in the world, the Nintendo Wii, is condemned by self-proclaimed "hardcore" gamers (meaning everyone reading this post). That in itself confirms this thread.

"The most loved console in the world, the Nintendo Wii, is condemned by self-proclaimed "hardcore" gamers (meaning everyone reading this post). That in itself confirms this thread."

"BiggerBomb said:

"Jayge said:

"Innovation is overrated, and it has caused many games that could have been very successfull to drop-kick themselves in the balls (not sure how that would be humanly possible, but still) and produce mediocre to absolutely terrible games simply in the name of doing something new."

On the flip side, you have Square Enix games."

I literally did the "oh shit, oooooh" cringe when I read that :-)"

Smug, I thought you had to go somewhere?

Portal, Braid, Flower, LBP. All successful games. Sure games want innovation, when it is done right.

"Jayge said:

"Innovation is overrated, and it has caused many games that could have been very successfull to drop-kick themselves in the balls (not sure how that would be humanly possible, but still) and produce mediocre to absolutely terrible games simply in the name of doing something new."

On the flip side, you have Square Enix games."

You could say that Jayge, but outside of their two big series in FF and DQ, there has actually been a good amount of new good games. Ever play TWEWY?

"WilliamRLBaker said:

"BiggerBomb said:

"Jayge said:

"Innovation is overrated, and it has caused many games that could have been very successfull to drop-kick themselves in the balls (not sure how that would be humanly possible, but still) and produce mediocre to absolutely terrible games simply in the name of doing something new."

On the flip side, you have Square Enix games."

im stupid today could ya explain that for me? (not pissed or any thing but i wanna understand the joke)"

The joke is that SE games haven't done anything different at all in like 10 years, and they've mostly been mediocre at best lately."

I played a fair amount of Lego Racers on the N64.  All Banjo: Nuts and Bolts did was allow you to fly and go into water.  That's just "evolution", like you described.  No big deal.  I just think it's a waste... I mean, if I wanted to bring Banjo back, I wouldn't think "hey forget about why everyone loved Banjo, lets just make lego racers with banjo on the cover!".  I'm not saying it's a bad game, just don't praise it for innovation.

How about all of those FF spinoffs, like My life as a king, putting echoes of time on both the wii and ds, major minors majestic march, valkyrie profile: covenent of the plume, and Crystal defenders? Square is an easy punching bag for having 13 Final Fantasies, and 10 Dragon Quests, but they really do a lot of different stuff that people dont realize.

i could play samurai warriors 2 for the rest of my life and i would be happy ;o