A few days ago someone on Emipre Avenue posed a question and I responded to it - in as few words as possible. I hate taking up other people's virtual space and therefore minimized my thoughts as much as possible. But since this is my very own personal sandbox I do not have such qualms and will happily and verbosely rant away.
The original question from Cliche Studio was:
What change would you most like to see in the game industry?
I responded:
I would like more originality and ingenuity in game design and less reliance on previously successful models. It would be particularly nice if the widening gap between indie developers and AAA studios could be closed in the process. And one more thing...that is better explained in this old blog post than here in 50 words or less.
I also referenced my blog a while back, entitled Game (Community) Development.Cliche then posted two follow up questions/comments, which were:
What precisely do you mean when you mention this gap?
and
so mainly less reliance on sure things and formulae and more taking chances and risks with new things/innovation?
I thought about it and constructed a response I considered appropriate. Then I realized that my appropriate response was overwhelmingly long. So I'm posting it here. It goes something like this:
Yes. Less reliance on formulae and more innovation are exactly what I am suggesting. Technology has changed, the word has changed, the composition of the gaming community has changed – but we’re still playing games using the same models. Part of that repetition can be seen in the perpetuation of sequels. Some sequels are great and the serial format can be useful in telling a larger story and adding layers to a universe. They allow fan to explore more aspects of the game world, and when done well developers take the opportunity to expand game play trying different game mechanics, puzzle types and expanded abilities. Most sequels offer less in the way of greatness – if you’re making a game in the same vein just to capitalize on previous financial success that’s a cop out. Often sequels end up feeling like expansion packs with a couple of extra maps and a new weapon or two.
I find that a lot of games fail to make use of new platform technology. Part of that is the fault of platform developers’ lack of innovation. Some examples of good implementation can be found in the Nintendo DS/Dsi/3ds system. If you’ve played Zelda for the DS then you know what I’m talking about. Being able to make travel notes on your map was awesome and useful and alleviated a lot of frustration. For one quest you were required to close the DS and reopen it (with the game still running) to reveal the text on the upper screen (the DS became the chest for that sequence).
In terms of the gap between AAA games and those of the indie variety, I am directly referring to the tradition of innovation in indie games versus the formulaic tendencies of many AAAs. AAA properties, as of late, have more often than not become rehashed versions of something that was innovative or interesting – a long time ago.
“Thatgamecompany” made a game a couple of years back called flower. It almost certainly won’t be of interest to everyone, and it was rather short, but it was engaging and unique, sold well and got positive reviews. Describing the concept would become a bit wordy I think so just go check out a few videos on youtube, and then you’ll understand why I like it and bring it up now. (The company’s follow up “Journey” is due to be released this year and looks equally interesting.) Minecraft is becoming exceedingly popular of late and is also a great example of what Indie games are doing well. Being able to build and manipulate your environment in meaningful ways is interesting, and appealing and just plain cool. I can’t think of any AAA games released in the not so distant past that allow you to do this. This is disappointing. Games like Star Wars Galaxies proved that people REALLY like to manipulate and personalize their environment and characters in ways that are meaningful to them. People played that game long after it stopped being a decent game because they liked the itemization and creative outlets they were allowed in game (they’re still playing it –until December anyway).
There are some interesting things coming out of the big studios. Notably in Lego Indiana Jones you can create your own maps and then play through them. I’ve never picked it up but I doubt that the feature is as integrated as I would like. There are also probably strict limits on what you can do. Maybe not. Epic Mickey is also something to look at when designing future games. The game reviews were mixed/positive but most of the concerns around the game were things like camera control and vocalizations but the concept itself was generally considered appealing and the story and game mechanics meshed well.
Does that clarify things? Because I am going to stop writing now.
