I'm pretty sure that throughout history more things have been un-innovative than they've been innovative. We were just fooled by the transition to 3D that games would start seeming fresh and new all the time, and that was a pipe dream. This isn't a new problem; think back on all your favorite 8- or 16-bit games and see how many of them are just platformers or RPGs.
Heck, other than graphics, what separated Donkey Kong Country from most platformers?
t gotlag - you say publishers are 'generally unnecessary'. Where do you think developers get all that money to pay all those people to make their games? Until devs can find another dependable, stable source of income to fund their projects (and pay their salaries), publishers are far, far away from 'generally unnecessary'.
Publishers can get stuffed... if you can make a game cheaper. If you don't really *need* the unreal engine to make a fun game, they *can* be made much cheaper. All a developer needs is a single hit, and to invest all the profits into the next game. This is something valve did spectacularly well. At the end of the day, publishers are just glorified providers of Bank Loans. Loans with serious strings attached. It's the retail distributors that really matter, you can't do that part yourself easily. But marketing is generally handled better by the developer than the publisher anyway. It's the developer that should talk to the fans, do interviews, and hype the game they are passionate about. Why anyone interviews people at the publisher to talk about the game is beyond me.
Bah.
Gears of War is more innovative than people give it credit for.
Then again, this is a OLOLZ bash good games thread.
You know what guys. OH MY GOSH zelda has been doing the same goddam near perfect gameplay for years. Shit why dont they change it, add in some crazy graphics or some rolling tingle katamari game.
And SoTC is hardly innovative.
Oh Toad, you're such a card.
edit: What I'm trying to say is you can present opinions without being so confrontational.
Whoops.
I should have italicised half of that text because it was sarcasm, well, italics is the general code for sarcasm in a medium where tone of voice cant be inferred.
By which I mean these threads always devolve into such confrontational backlash, which annoys me.
Me saying that was a bit more of an elaborate way of saying 'Nintendo is doomed' every nintendo thread, which is sarcasm at the hate those threads generate.
Thanks for calling me on it though, so I could explain my reasoning.
In summary, I wasnt being an ass, just pointing out how dangerous these kinds of threads can be, especially from a person who signed up to make it.
You probably put way more thought into this post than you should have. But regardless, I know what you're talking about.
Aye. Well im treading on thin ice round these parts and I have to watch my back. One more backlash and I may be the most hated forumer out there.
Most publishers and developers are trapped in an archaic pitching and greenlighting system that punishes rational risk taking, does little to predict the market success of titles, and is poor at tapping into new market segments. No one really knows what makes a hit, so those in charge use mystical heuristics, gut checks and unreliable expert opinions. The result is large numbers of questionable titles are developed at considerable cost, only to fail financially in the market place.
This practice has both financial and human costs. On the money side, resources are wasted, publishers face instability, and accordingly, value is not efficiently passed along to the customer. On the human side, teams get burnt out, and job insecurity and team churn are commonplace. And, on the product side, innovative games as a category go unexplored. In the face of great uncertainty, the industry uses the crudest of measures to predict success – all future games are required to look exactly like recent hits.
Highly-recommended read, if you're interested in game originality or the lack thereof.
Thread over. Thanks for the link.
Essentially. They're capable of making incredibly inspired, super-original games, it's just that historically no one buys them. It's the same reason Night at the Museum makes $200m and Children of Men, which received way better reviews, made a fraction of those revenues. The only industry where the creativity = $$$$ dynamic exists is books (to an extent). It's not the producers fault, they're more than capable. The blame lies on the behavior of the consumers.
t gotlag - you say publishers are 'generally unnecessary'. Where do you think developers get all that money to pay all those people to make their games? Until devs can find another dependable, stable source of income to fund their projects (and pay their salaries), publishers are far, far away from 'generally unnecessary'.
It is really simple - publishers are harvesting the profits from a good-selling game. Most developers never see any royalties from their work. If there is no publisher, then we have two very good things:
1) Prices can be lowered, cause there is one less link in the chain, and it is the link getting the biggest part of the money.
2) Developers will increase their revenue, they will have what is rightfully theirs.
A direct consequence of 2) is that developers will be able to fund their next game without the need of a publisher to supply them with resources.
Also, innovation also doesn't necessarily mean fun. Something innovative just means that it's new. I'd rather see a good mix of new innovations and well-polished game paradigms. Sometimes I don't want to do something brand new that doesn't have the kinks worked out. Sometimes it's enough to know that I'm having an extremely refined and well-polished experience even if people were playing similar games years ago.
I see someone remembers Majestic.
I agree. Innovation is nothing if it's not implemented well. For example, Madden's Vision Cone and Superstar Mode were innovative. They were also crappily implemented and ended up detracting from the game instead of enhancing it.
t gotlag - you say publishers are 'generally unnecessary'. Where do you think developers get all that money to pay all those people to make their games? Until devs can find another dependable, stable source of income to fund their projects (and pay their salaries), publishers are far, far away from 'generally unnecessary'.
It is really simple - publishers are harvesting the profits from a good-selling game. Most developers never see any royalties from their work. If there is no publisher, then we have two very good things:
1) Prices can be lowered, cause there is one less link in the chain, and it is the link getting the biggest part of the money.
2) Developers will increase their revenue, they will have what is rightfully theirs.
A direct consequence of 2) is that developers will be able to fund their next game without the need of a publisher to supply them with resources.
You're still not acknowledging the fact that without publishers to fund that first project, there is no game, no profits, and no money to invest in another project. Saying devs should take all the money they make from their first smash-hit, multi-million dollar blockbuster, that they just magically produced with no financial backing, really isn't an effective plan.
Cliffski is absolutely right - if you can make a game on the cheap, with your own resources, you don't have to deal with publishers. But you know what happens to small games? They don't sell much. If you want to make small games, go for it. You can probably make a living at it. But unless you really hit a goldmine and create a cheapass best-seller (which is completely unpredictable), you won't be suddenly jumping into the top-selling mass-market with your product. You can make it cheap, or you can make it big, but very rarely will you make it both.
Of course, what I'd like to see is devs stepping away from publishers and looking for major funding elsewhere, just like movie production companies are doing. Seek out hedge fund investors at big corporations, seek out well-to-do coalitions, seek out people that just want to turn a profit and know to stay out of your way. Of course, the risk here is if your first venture doesn't make them money, you're dead, whereas publishers are sometimes more willing to create a long-term relationship, even if the first effort isn't a blockbuster.
t fromalpha - you really, honestly think you can compare those two movies like that? They are totally different and I can easily give you half a dozen reasons why Night at the Museum did better that have nothing to do with their perceived 'originality'.
I'm sick of the notion that every game has to be completely different from anythig else ever. Get over it. Of course this industry is full of bullshit games. It's because the people that crave innovation and originality (like a lot of the people here) aren't the ones that are in control of what will be financially successful.
It's the same reason Night at the Museum makes $200m and Children of Men, which received way better reviews, made a fraction of those revenues.
Bad example. Night at the Museum is a children's/family movie. Children of Men is a dark hardcore science fiction movie for adults. Completely different audiences (and the family market is orders of magnitude bigger than the hardcore sci-fi market).
Really, why should I care about originality in gaming? I've played original games that were fun. I've played original games that weren't. I've played unoriginal games that were fun. I've played unoriginal games that weren't. I can't really say that the original fun games are any more enjoyable on average than the unoriginal fun games.
Guitar Hero 1/2 for PC? (obviously it didn't do the guitar-controller first but it definitely brought it to the mainstream and sold like hotcakes)
..and Spore for PC?
Really, why should I care about originality in gaming? I've played original games that were fun. I've played original games that weren't. I've played unoriginal games that were fun. I've played unoriginal games that weren't. I can't really say that the original fun games are any more enjoyable on average than the unoriginal fun games.
He's got the point I was just going to make.
I think originality is overrated, but when a developer adds just a touch of originality in their "new" game then it gives the whole game a sense of polish that can't be beat. Hence: Zelda games being ever-popular while some ideas that are brand spanking new aren't so hot.
Another way for my retarded self to get the idea out there: People enjoy certain core gameplay concepts more than other newly created and original ones. Make a hybrid of the two and you've got gold.
Guitar Hero 1/2 for PC? (obviously it didn't do the guitar-controller first but it definitely brought it to the mainstream and sold like hotcakes)
..and Spore for PC?
Really, why should I care about originality in gaming? I've played original games that were fun. I've played original games that weren't. I've played unoriginal games that were fun. I've played unoriginal games that weren't. I can't really say that the original fun games are any more enjoyable on average than the unoriginal fun games.
He's got the point I was just going to make.
I think originality is overrated, but when a developer adds just a touch of originality in their "new" game then it gives the whole game a sense of polish that can't be beat. Hence: Zelda games being ever-popular while some ideas that are brand spanking new aren't so hot.
Another way for my retarded self to get the idea out there: People enjoy certain core gameplay concepts more than other newly created and original ones. Make a hybrid of the two and you've got gold.
I agree, I don't need originatity - I need fun. But at the same time. If there isn't a steady stream of new Ideas then I can't see myself still playing games in 40 years when I retire.
Honestly, I'll play a Mario ripoff if it's fun, and I won't play some avant-guard original game if it's not fun. We should be worrying about fun, and not if some ball rolling game is a ripoff of Marble Madness or not (which it isnt.)
yes true, but the same fun, all the time stops being fun. That's good old 'law of diminishing marginal utility' (the first biscuit tastes great, the 2nd not as good, the 200th makes you ill).
WW2 FPS games were cool, until the 244th one. I know omaha beach better than I know my own street now.
One of the cool things about games is that they let us have new experiences away from our normal lives. Once those experiences become identical, the excitement, novelty and indeed *fun* wears off.
yes true, but the same fun, all the time stops being fun. That's good old 'law of diminishing marginal utility' (the first biscuit tastes great, the 2nd not as good, the 200th makes you ill).
WW2 FPS games were cool, until the 244th one. I know omaha beach better than I know my own street now.
One of the cool things about games is that they let us have new experiences away from our normal lives. Once those experiences become identical, the excitement, novelty and indeed *fun* wears off.
See, I said that.
But you said it better.
I'm 25, I'm burning out on some genres.
When your getting 5 or 6 Zelda games a decade you don't get tired, but 5-6 WWII FPS a year gets too you.
Innovation that results in more enjoyable gameplay sells well if it is properly publicized and presented such that the average gamer can understand the strange new game. Otherwise, the average gamer will not know what to make of it and will not go out of his way to try it.
Consider the games Sacrifice, Fable, and the not-yet-released Spore.
Sacrifice is a beautiful, brilliantly written, and hilarious game. It merged elements of rpg, 3rd person combat, and RTS. It was definitely a notable achievement in game design. The developers did a poor job of selling the concept, it was difficult to understand the creative vision behind the game without playing it, and it sold very poorly.
On the other hand, Spore is an odd RTS in which you can customize the character models and skins of your species, and yet Will Wright sells the concept so well and makes it so clear what his strange new game is about that tons of people are looking forward to it and will buy it as soon as it's released.
Furthermore, Peter Molyneux shows that your game doesn't even need to be good if you make the concept sound appealing enough. He whores out fantastic promises constantly, and consistently falls short of creating anything memorable. Black and White, Black and White 2, and Fable were not terrible games, but they certainly didn't present anything innovative, and they were not anything like the amazing games that Molyneux spoke of in interviews. Molyneux even publicly apologized for making Fable, and promised that Fable 2 will have everything he failed to incorporate in the original. :roll: Of course, his games sell phenomenally and he is still viewed by many as a brilliant visionary and designer because he sells the concept well.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
Blake TDo you have enemies then?Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered Userregular
edited January 2007
Has anyone heard of the theory that there are only 7 types of stories? People just mix and match the 7 types together to make new stories.
This may come to a suprise to some people but people are still reading books. Halo wasn't a success because it introduced new elements but because it didn't everything extremely well. From the enemies to master cheif they all had character to them which I loved.
As long as the game is well built with interesting characters, scenarios and things to do I will happily give those whacky programmers my money. Sure inovative games are great. But there is nothing wrong with the occasional run through WW2 (though the amount that are about it is understandable the complaint).
Has anyone heard of the theory that there are only 7 types of stories? People just mix and match the 7 types together to make new stories.
This may come to a suprise to some people but people are still reading books. Halo wasn't a success because it introduced new elements but because it didn't everything extremely well. From the enemies to master cheif they all had character to them which I loved.
As long as the game is well built with interesting characters, scenarios and things to do I will happily give those whacky programmers my money. Sure inovative games are great. But there is nothing wrong with the occasional run through WW2 (though the amount that are about it is understandable the complaint).
There's only one kind of story: the love story. Every story you see is an extension of that theme.
I'm in the "originality is overrated" camp. It's a term that gets applied far too often to things that are "merely" clever twists and nice refinements, but I suppose my criteria for true originality might be too rigid. Besides, what's so bad about excellent, well-crafted games that use proven game mechanics/genre conventions/IPs?
Has anyone heard of the theory that there are only 7 types of stories? People just mix and match the 7 types together to make new stories.
This may come to a suprise to some people but people are still reading books. Halo wasn't a success because it introduced new elements but because it didn't everything extremely well. From the enemies to master cheif they all had character to them which I loved.
As long as the game is well built with interesting characters, scenarios and things to do I will happily give those whacky programmers my money. Sure inovative games are great. But there is nothing wrong with the occasional run through WW2 (though the amount that are about it is understandable the complaint).
There's only one kind of story: the love story. Every story you see is an extension of that theme.
Actually, there's only zero kinds of story. Somehow, we've learned how to derive something from nothing, using Prometheus' gift of fire. A story which, by the way, was also derived from nothing.
Actually, there's only zero kinds of story. Somehow, we've learned how to derive something from nothing, using Prometheus' gift of fire. A story which, by the way, was also derived from nothing.
How does that apply to Chuck Norris? Sorry, I couldn't resist...
Games are nearing their peak in terms of gameplay. Yeah, we can get better physics, graphics, etc, but developers have a decent grasp on how to make games. I think the big step now is that the stories need to be improved, both in plot and delivery.
METAzraeL on
dream a little dream or you could live a little dream
sleep forever if you wish to be a dreamer
0
Options
Blake TDo you have enemies then?Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered Userregular
Actually, there's only zero kinds of story. Somehow, we've learned how to derive something from nothing, using Prometheus' gift of fire. A story which, by the way, was also derived from nothing.
How does that apply to Chuck Norris? Sorry, I couldn't resist...
Games are nearing their peak in terms of gameplay. Yeah, we can get better physics, graphics, etc, but developers have a decent grasp on how to make games. I think the big step now is that the stories need to be improved, both in plot and delivery.
I don't think story needs to be improved, just focused in the right areas.
For example I do not care about the motivations of my little geometry wars peace.
Nor about mario, I'm fairly sure the princess has been hoisted away.
Gears however benifited imensly from the presentation.
I don't think story needs to be improved, just focused in the right areas.
For example I do not care about the motivations of my little geometry wars peace.
Nor about mario, I'm fairly sure the princess has been hoisted away.
Gears however benifited imensly from the presentation.
Focusing it in the right areas is improving it.
Though, if your point is that some games need story and some games don't, well, i totally agree. Gears, for example, had great presentation, but a pretty mediocre story, in my opinion. I mean, the voice-acting was good, the banter was entertaining, but the big-picture stuff, the driving force behind everything and everyone, just didn't do it for me. But as an employed game writer, I absolutely want to see better storytelling throughout the industry.
For the most part, games now do the things I want them to do, most games that are truly "innovative", something I really wasn't expecting I mean, (like katamari) becomes more of a curiosity, which only survives in my mind because it's kinda interesting. Honestly I would rather see a honing of things we already have seen to a more perfect form, Gears of War and Shadow of the Colossus would be an example of these, as they have taken something we have already seen, but added new components to create not something entirely new, but a more perfected form of something we have seen.
I take both forms as Innovation (Ive never seen boss battles like SotC, and Ive never seen close quarters combat like GoW before), but tend to prefer the second kind over the first.
Also, if theres any area I'd like to see a major Innovation in, it would be in making a better story, and being able to move the story not just through cut scenes but to be able to weave it into the action, so playing and story and character development can happen at the same time.
This is one area that I felt that SotC did a very good job working toward, the game had very little cut scenes, and almost no dialog, but the story was told through the player's actions, the art and game play seemed to suggest the story as the game was playing. I would love to see more of this.
No innovation or development in games such as Twilight Princess and Gears? You're wrong. The two games are built upon familiar templates, because those templates have become familiar for a good reason. They work. Very well. These templates, however, are just templates. The actual content in the games is where the differentiation lies.
You problem is that you're oversimplifying what it is to be, say, a Zelda game. You have taken the idea that in Zelda games you shoot with a bow at monsters, and since both the original Zelda does this, and so does Twilight Princess, that they are very similar and therefore that development in the game is dead and Twilight Princess is a worthless, boring creation. That is bollocks, if only for the simple reason that you're not asking how you're doing these things. The original Zelda was, obviously, unique. You moved around with a D-Pad, shot arrows in straight lines, and swung your sword straight ahead of you. Ocarina of Time developed this basic template further, and put it in a 3D world. Now you can aim your bow anywhere, you can swing your sword anywhere and the entire nature of the puzzles, essentially the core of the game, has changed. You could say "I'm still doing box puzzles", but now you're doing them with a totally new perspective, with more detail paid attention to height, width, etc etc. It's a whole new level of box puzzle. Twilight Princess took this a step further, with it's motion controls, aiming the bow and arrow and all that. You still have a Zelda template underneath all this, but the actual content has changed drastically. The gameplay changes, but because you're still playing as Link and going into dungeons, it's somehow boring and stale? To me this is like complaining that all movies are now stale, because they are all created by using shots. It's not the fact that it is a shot that matters, it's how you use the shot, and the use of these shots in Zelda games have definitely developed over time.
I'm obviously using Zelda as an example here, but it works for nearly any good game you can think of. Is Metal Gear Solid 3 boring, since all you're still doing with Snake is sneaking around? Never mind how you sneak around with Snake, the fact that he is still sneaking after all this time makes it completely boring.
Posts
Publishers can get stuffed... if you can make a game cheaper. If you don't really *need* the unreal engine to make a fun game, they *can* be made much cheaper. All a developer needs is a single hit, and to invest all the profits into the next game. This is something valve did spectacularly well. At the end of the day, publishers are just glorified providers of Bank Loans. Loans with serious strings attached. It's the retail distributors that really matter, you can't do that part yourself easily. But marketing is generally handled better by the developer than the publisher anyway. It's the developer that should talk to the fans, do interviews, and hype the game they are passionate about. Why anyone interviews people at the publisher to talk about the game is beyond me.
Bah.
Aye. Well im treading on thin ice round these parts and I have to watch my back. One more backlash and I may be the most hated forumer out there.
Also, that Crush looks brilliant.
Essentially. They're capable of making incredibly inspired, super-original games, it's just that historically no one buys them. It's the same reason Night at the Museum makes $200m and Children of Men, which received way better reviews, made a fraction of those revenues. The only industry where the creativity = $$$$ dynamic exists is books (to an extent). It's not the producers fault, they're more than capable. The blame lies on the behavior of the consumers.
It is really simple - publishers are harvesting the profits from a good-selling game. Most developers never see any royalties from their work. If there is no publisher, then we have two very good things:
1) Prices can be lowered, cause there is one less link in the chain, and it is the link getting the biggest part of the money.
2) Developers will increase their revenue, they will have what is rightfully theirs.
A direct consequence of 2) is that developers will be able to fund their next game without the need of a publisher to supply them with resources.
I see someone remembers Majestic.
I agree. Innovation is nothing if it's not implemented well. For example, Madden's Vision Cone and Superstar Mode were innovative. They were also crappily implemented and ended up detracting from the game instead of enhancing it.
Cliffski is absolutely right - if you can make a game on the cheap, with your own resources, you don't have to deal with publishers. But you know what happens to small games? They don't sell much. If you want to make small games, go for it. You can probably make a living at it. But unless you really hit a goldmine and create a cheapass best-seller (which is completely unpredictable), you won't be suddenly jumping into the top-selling mass-market with your product. You can make it cheap, or you can make it big, but very rarely will you make it both.
Of course, what I'd like to see is devs stepping away from publishers and looking for major funding elsewhere, just like movie production companies are doing. Seek out hedge fund investors at big corporations, seek out well-to-do coalitions, seek out people that just want to turn a profit and know to stay out of your way. Of course, the risk here is if your first venture doesn't make them money, you're dead, whereas publishers are sometimes more willing to create a long-term relationship, even if the first effort isn't a blockbuster.
t fromalpha - you really, honestly think you can compare those two movies like that? They are totally different and I can easily give you half a dozen reasons why Night at the Museum did better that have nothing to do with their perceived 'originality'.
Bad example. Night at the Museum is a children's/family movie. Children of Men is a dark hardcore science fiction movie for adults. Completely different audiences (and the family market is orders of magnitude bigger than the hardcore sci-fi market).
Really, why should I care about originality in gaming? I've played original games that were fun. I've played original games that weren't. I've played unoriginal games that were fun. I've played unoriginal games that weren't. I can't really say that the original fun games are any more enjoyable on average than the unoriginal fun games.
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
Ladies and gentleman of G&T, I introduce you to two of my great friends: The Wii, and the DS.
Kirby Canvas Curse
WarioWare Smooth Moves/Touched
Elite Beat Agents
Wii Sports
Guitar Hero 1/2 for PC? (obviously it didn't do the guitar-controller first but it definitely brought it to the mainstream and sold like hotcakes)
..and Spore for PC?
He's got the point I was just going to make.
I think originality is overrated, but when a developer adds just a touch of originality in their "new" game then it gives the whole game a sense of polish that can't be beat. Hence: Zelda games being ever-popular while some ideas that are brand spanking new aren't so hot.
Another way for my retarded self to get the idea out there: People enjoy certain core gameplay concepts more than other newly created and original ones. Make a hybrid of the two and you've got gold.
There was also that 3d fighting game where the objective was to take panty shots of your opponent.
Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
I agree, I don't need originatity - I need fun. But at the same time. If there isn't a steady stream of new Ideas then I can't see myself still playing games in 40 years when I retire.
Scholar and a Gentleman? Critical of bad science and religion? Skeptobot - Is for you!!
WW2 FPS games were cool, until the 244th one. I know omaha beach better than I know my own street now.
One of the cool things about games is that they let us have new experiences away from our normal lives. Once those experiences become identical, the excitement, novelty and indeed *fun* wears off.
See, I said that.
But you said it better.
I'm 25, I'm burning out on some genres.
When your getting 5 or 6 Zelda games a decade you don't get tired, but 5-6 WWII FPS a year gets too you.
Scholar and a Gentleman? Critical of bad science and religion? Skeptobot - Is for you!!
Consider the games Sacrifice, Fable, and the not-yet-released Spore.
Sacrifice is a beautiful, brilliantly written, and hilarious game. It merged elements of rpg, 3rd person combat, and RTS. It was definitely a notable achievement in game design. The developers did a poor job of selling the concept, it was difficult to understand the creative vision behind the game without playing it, and it sold very poorly.
On the other hand, Spore is an odd RTS in which you can customize the character models and skins of your species, and yet Will Wright sells the concept so well and makes it so clear what his strange new game is about that tons of people are looking forward to it and will buy it as soon as it's released.
Furthermore, Peter Molyneux shows that your game doesn't even need to be good if you make the concept sound appealing enough. He whores out fantastic promises constantly, and consistently falls short of creating anything memorable. Black and White, Black and White 2, and Fable were not terrible games, but they certainly didn't present anything innovative, and they were not anything like the amazing games that Molyneux spoke of in interviews. Molyneux even publicly apologized for making Fable, and promised that Fable 2 will have everything he failed to incorporate in the original. :roll: Of course, his games sell phenomenally and he is still viewed by many as a brilliant visionary and designer because he sells the concept well.
[spoiler:e8defb7d02]Just kidding.[/spoiler:e8defb7d02]
This may come to a suprise to some people but people are still reading books. Halo wasn't a success because it introduced new elements but because it didn't everything extremely well. From the enemies to master cheif they all had character to them which I loved.
As long as the game is well built with interesting characters, scenarios and things to do I will happily give those whacky programmers my money. Sure inovative games are great. But there is nothing wrong with the occasional run through WW2 (though the amount that are about it is understandable the complaint).
Satans..... hints.....
There's only one kind of story: the love story. Every story you see is an extension of that theme.
Games are nearing their peak in terms of gameplay. Yeah, we can get better physics, graphics, etc, but developers have a decent grasp on how to make games. I think the big step now is that the stories need to be improved, both in plot and delivery.
dream a little dream or you could live a little dream
sleep forever if you wish to be a dreamer
I don't think story needs to be improved, just focused in the right areas.
For example I do not care about the motivations of my little geometry wars peace.
Nor about mario, I'm fairly sure the princess has been hoisted away.
Gears however benifited imensly from the presentation.
Satans..... hints.....
Though, if your point is that some games need story and some games don't, well, i totally agree. Gears, for example, had great presentation, but a pretty mediocre story, in my opinion. I mean, the voice-acting was good, the banter was entertaining, but the big-picture stuff, the driving force behind everything and everyone, just didn't do it for me. But as an employed game writer, I absolutely want to see better storytelling throughout the industry.
I take both forms as Innovation (Ive never seen boss battles like SotC, and Ive never seen close quarters combat like GoW before), but tend to prefer the second kind over the first.
Also, if theres any area I'd like to see a major Innovation in, it would be in making a better story, and being able to move the story not just through cut scenes but to be able to weave it into the action, so playing and story and character development can happen at the same time.
This is one area that I felt that SotC did a very good job working toward, the game had very little cut scenes, and almost no dialog, but the story was told through the player's actions, the art and game play seemed to suggest the story as the game was playing. I would love to see more of this.
You problem is that you're oversimplifying what it is to be, say, a Zelda game. You have taken the idea that in Zelda games you shoot with a bow at monsters, and since both the original Zelda does this, and so does Twilight Princess, that they are very similar and therefore that development in the game is dead and Twilight Princess is a worthless, boring creation. That is bollocks, if only for the simple reason that you're not asking how you're doing these things. The original Zelda was, obviously, unique. You moved around with a D-Pad, shot arrows in straight lines, and swung your sword straight ahead of you. Ocarina of Time developed this basic template further, and put it in a 3D world. Now you can aim your bow anywhere, you can swing your sword anywhere and the entire nature of the puzzles, essentially the core of the game, has changed. You could say "I'm still doing box puzzles", but now you're doing them with a totally new perspective, with more detail paid attention to height, width, etc etc. It's a whole new level of box puzzle. Twilight Princess took this a step further, with it's motion controls, aiming the bow and arrow and all that. You still have a Zelda template underneath all this, but the actual content has changed drastically. The gameplay changes, but because you're still playing as Link and going into dungeons, it's somehow boring and stale? To me this is like complaining that all movies are now stale, because they are all created by using shots. It's not the fact that it is a shot that matters, it's how you use the shot, and the use of these shots in Zelda games have definitely developed over time.
I'm obviously using Zelda as an example here, but it works for nearly any good game you can think of. Is Metal Gear Solid 3 boring, since all you're still doing with Snake is sneaking around? Never mind how you sneak around with Snake, the fact that he is still sneaking after all this time makes it completely boring.