[QUOTE="crazyfist36"]
[QUOTE="naval"] Aren't you confusing innovation with just technical improvements ?
naval
I see how it may come off like that. but incrementalimprovements will eventually lead to bigger innovations.The state of the PC is not going to turn around from one massive innovation.It first has to be seen as a viable option in itself and not assupplementary platform to consoles.For example, from a business standpoint, if developers see that producing a high end version of a multiplatform game for the PC is garnering sales for them, then they may start doing more for that platform. They will feel compelled to spend moneyon the platform, which will lead to investments from all corners, which is essential for innovation to breed.That in itself is the type of spark the PC needs. This can take the shape of in game improvements, new graphic technologies developed in partnership with ATI/Nvidia, content distribution strategies, large scale optimization, new development engines, etc... Essentially innovation can come in many forms. It is the amalgamation oftechnical improvements, money, time, ideas and research thatcarry technologies forward until a trueinnovation is born. Heck, just look at Avatar. years upon years of CGI and investments in movie technologies ultimately led to a new benchmark being set for special effects, wish I could say the same for the story/actors : )
Take a look at your last line -- Avatar spent tons of movie and all it achieved were some cool effects, rest all was pretty average. Simply speaking gameplay innvoation and budget do not really go hand in hand and technical innovation in itself does not really means much other than the initial wow factor Some of the most innovative games had pretty low budget . In fatc more the money you pump in the game, more likely you are going to play safe.Check out a game called Achron (which may very well be crappy) but the idea in it makes it more unique than any rts or any other big budget games in the past few years
Yea, but the thing is that is exactly what Avatar was gunning for. You or I might hate the story/acting etc... but JC always said it would change the way welook atfilms. In that respect, it has succeeded and could be the biggest push 3D technology in films AND GAMES could ever hope for, especially considering its billion dollar gross. Now you're seeing 3d tvs/monitors, 3d glasses with dvds, and every other film wants touse it as the next new gimmick. How long before you see it becoming staple in games??? Many games are already implementing it. Of courseevery new innovation has the ability to become overused and leave things stale.
Finally, I never said that I perceive innovation to be dictated by any singular new game. I was talking from a business/technological standpoint. Yes, I expect the games born from these technologies to bring forth new innovations into the mainstream but that was not my argument. Also, Iconsider that large budgets are the fuel that drive triple A games. If you have more money then you can do more. But that alone does not make a great "innovative" game or one that people want to play. The scope for errors/miscalculations also increase.Just look at FC2, Dark Void,Bioshock to name a few. All big budget titles but barely innovative as whole unit. Once again, innovation can be in storytelling, graphics, mecahincs, technology, etc... but they have to be brought together in a compelling manner to have a strongandlasting effect.Thisis where I agree that low budget games sometimes are moreinnovative because they are created outside the constraints of big business and budgets and simply run on ideas and imagination.Nonethelessthe point is to see what the innovation wanted to achieve and how effective it is. Once it has been achieved it can be adapted by other industries to excel their own technologies and further innovation for themselves.
Log in to comment