Is a total lack of innovation a good thing?

crowe

I've been playing a bunch of Titan Quest recently, and it's made me start thinking about innovation in gaming. This is because Titan Quest is both really, really fun as well as really, really derivative; it's Diablo 2. Everything from the inventory system to the interface to the gameplay (ie. clicking) to the skill tree to the randomized loot is essentially a flat out copy of Blizzard's six year old title.

There are some differences; the settings are rather distinct, for example, although their bearing on gameplay is minimal. TQ is 3D and has a defined set of maps (vs. randomized ones), and D2 represented your characters health and mana in two glass globes rather than a pair of bars, but these are relatively minor. The only difference that might matter is that TQ ships with a level editor, something that Diablo 2 didn't need at all on account of the random maps.

So my question is this: should TQ be considered a good game? It's still tons of fun to play, especially if you were a fan of Diablo 2, and it's well crafted and well balanced. Or should it be considered as less than that because it doesn't try to substantially improve the formula at all? Does anyone have any other examples of good games that were complete clones? Should game developers try and constantly improve or innovate, or is it ok to adopt an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude toward genre conventions?

Discuss.

baltmatrix

It all comes down to $. If a company can make a derivative games that is loads of fun for less than an innovative game then that's what they are going to do. A perfect example would be EA. They put out the same games every year with little enchancement and they make a killing on just about all of them. Another example would be Capcom. Just how many Megaman sequels have there been exactly? These games are MUCH cheaper for the companies to make and people still love playing them even though they are, at heart, the same game as before.

Also you can look at it this way. They make the sequels, make them well, and make their money. They then turn around and bring out a game that is very cutting edge. See that, they made their money on the unoriginal game so that they could pour money into the original one. Alot of companies are guilty of this. Ubisoft, EA, Capcom, Nintendo,etc. In order to innovate these companies need capital, and they get it from easy/cheap games to produce.

The truth is that innovation in videogames comes with great risk. We are no longer talking about thousands of dollars to make a game any more. We are talking about Millions upon millons of dollars. With that kind of risk most companies just cannot afford to take the risk of making a truly innovative game.

Apreche

I think this all goes back to the difference between favorite and best. Just because a movie, game, book or anything else isn't good doesn't mean that it's wrong to like it. On the same token, just because you like something doesn't mean it's good. Everyone likes stuff that they know is crap. Everyone hates stuff that they know is really good. Greatness of any work of art is a semi-objective judgement based upon widely-accepted criteria. Your favorite work is solely a matter of personal opinion. You have a right to like or dislike anything for any reason, so keep playing those Diablo clones. Needless to say, I won't be joining you. I got tired of Diablo games six years ago.

TheWhaleShark

AC/DC is not a terribly innovative band; while they were one of the earliest loud rock bands, their music for the most part is formulaic and not the most incredibly varied. However, AC/DC rocks the hizzouse.

Fantomas is a ridiculously innovative and experimental band; listening to them can be painful.

Granted, those are just my opinions, but it illustrates a point: innovation, or the lack thereof, is not necessarily a dealbreaker as far as judging something as being good or bad. You can make a perfectly good game that follows a formula, or a perferctly terrible game that follows the same formula.

I disagree with Scott about greatness of works of art being semi-objective; greatness is a wholly subjective concept based only on criteria set forth at the time of judgement. While it is true that there are numerous widely-accepted criteria among art critics, judgement within said criteria and overall assessment vary greatly. That variation inherently means that the judgement of art cannot be objective.

But I'll definitely admit that I like some total crap. I can make a pretty convincing argument that Cannibal Corpse is just as artistic as any classical composer, or that E.T. (the Atari game) is equal in merit to any good modern game, but those are mostly intellectual and esoteric; down in the gut, Cannibal Corpse is terrible and E.T. is an abomination. It's alright to like something that seems formulaic; as long as you get what you want out of it, who gives a shit?

Kiey

I think a lot of the innovation has been stifled by the fact that developers seem to, for the most part, be concerned with just making games look good. Granted there are some cases where developers tried to make games look good, but also did other things that made the game unique. But for the most part innovation seems to only occur with smaller developers, who have a lot of freedom, and aren't tied down to a huge publisher like 2k, Take-Two, or EA.

I think that Maxis will continue to push innovation in its own way, doing stuff that no one else would have thought of, or would have spent the time to actually do it. You've got Valve who is being innovative in their business model, which I think will allow them to develop a lot of these pet projects like Portal is. And of course there are many others, I'm just throwing out those two.

And then of course there is the Wii, which I think will inspire innovation among a lot of developers, because of its unique control system, but everyone knows that.

Now I think it's ok for companies to make sequels, really as many as they want, but they have to somehow expand or improve with each one. I think Metal Gear Solid has done that, Mario has done that, Zelda, Sly Cooper, and others. Then there are games like Grand Theft Auto, where the last 3 games have been good, but there really hasn't been much expansion on GTA3 to GTA:SA, there has been enough, but its been pretty slow. The game world has gotten larger, loading got faster, and they added a bunch more vechiles. But generally you're doing the same kinds of missions, just in different enviroments.

(I think I'll stop here since I lost my train of thought a few times while writing this.)

Apreche

As far as game developers just trying to make awesome graphics, I have a huge rant about it. To sum it up, it's all Myst's fault.

TheWhaleShark

Devs just need to learn that great graphics alone do not make a great game.

Of course, gamers need to learn that too.

Slick graphics can provide for a very nice game experience, and when applied correctly, can enhance the game greatly. However, doing so at the sacrifice of gameplay is an all-too-common problem.

crowe

Good points with the Capcom games. The horribly raped corpse of Mega Man is a perfect example of riding a franchise into the ground by making the same game over and over and over again, perhaps with a few sprite changes or level tweaks. What I would point to as the difference in this case, is that Capcom is definitely a business trying to milk a franchise. They started with a very innovative title (the original Mega Man), refined it (MM2) and having done this, then started cloning their creation many times on many systems. I would almost be shocked if they didn't turn Mega Man into a series of two dozen games and a handful of spunoff spinoffs. Iron Lore, the developers of Titan Quest, developed their game from the get-go to be a knockoff/homage (depending on your disposition towards the activity) of Diablo 2.

I think it also confuses the issue that we're dealing with a very (VERY) tightly defined genre here. The FPS genre has its conventions as well, but there are enough games made in it that we can identify where conventions have been held to and where things have been tweaked. Half-Life, as an example, kept the first-person perspective and the 3D levels from Quake and the like, and threw everyone for a loop with scripted in-game events, meaningful puzzles and a lack of load times or distinct "levels". (There are still discrete sections of game, but they certainly aren't the same as the typical "level".) Roguelikes, on the other hand, haven't had nearly as much exposure as the RTSes or FPSes and as far as public image goes, they've largely remained the domain of Diablo and its sequel, despite an impressive pedigree (see: Nethack). Does this excuse staying so close to the mold?

I'm starting to think the whole question is largely moot. There are countless movies released that are imminently enjoyable and well-crafted, despite adhering zealously to the genre formula. I happen to like Paralyzed by Rock Kills Kid, even though they sound almost exactly like U2.

Innovation is cool and all, and should be encouraged, but if a game is fun to play, it's good. End of story.