Whatever happened to creativity in the gaming industry?

Everybody keeps bashing Nintendo for rehashing all of their franchises, but Microsoft and to a lesser extent Sony and all third party developers are no better.

Sure we get the occasional new great IP. Assassin's Creed, LBP, Red Dead Redemption (I don't count Revolver towards it.) Those are all amazing (at least ACII is). Some promising games in the future such as Bulletstorm are looking cool. And yet, its just another FPS.Most of our quality gaming experiences are coming from rehashes of old franchises. Kojima recently announced his "taboo" project might be MGS5.

With his talent, what exactly is keeping him from making another franchise that will one day be as treasured as MGS?

Ubisoft just announced the revival of Rayman. What is keeping Ubisoft from making another mascot thats just as likable as Rayman? TheRabbids were awesome, but they quickly overplayed them. We're getting the sixth Halo game this year, but why can't Microsoft find someone to make something new that will be as impactful as Halo when that first launched? Kirby's Epic Yarn was announced at E3, it looks amazing. But, it looks absolutely nothing like any Kirby game before, so why bother throwing the Kirby label on it? They could've used the opportunity to create a new character.

Its comforting to hear Miyamoto is making another new character centric franchise. Nintendo usually inspires everyone else in the industry, for the better or worse.

In order to progress as a species Humanity must bring forth new ideas and not keep relying on old ones, even something as trivial as a game franchise. I'm hoping the 2010s will be similar to the 1990s in that a lot of new ideas and franchises are introduced.

Clearly you have missed the point of gaming if you include Nintendo amongst your list of not so creative devs.

Perhaps you're looking in the wrong places?

Nintendo is the most creative IMO, because it's not so much about coming forth with something new than it is working something familiar into something extraordinary. For instance, I wasn't the biggest fan of SMG; I had little hope for the sequel. However,SMG2 isone of my all-time favorite games now. Its because they took something and simply made it better. I don't care about innovation, though, all I want is a good game. Innovation or creativity is not required there, and I've always had the most fun with franchise games.

Cuz its expensive and risky.

Dead Space, Mirror's Edge, Bayonetta, Brutal Legends, and im sure others im forgetting. Werent all of these new, original series that didn't sell very well? Well... Now you know why studios would rather stick with a franchise instead of making a new one.

I don't think this is a completely new problem, check the SNES era, we had tons of 2D platforms with tons of generic mascots, similar to the N64 era, when tons of generic 3D games were everywhere, still those gens gave us a lot of fantastic and original games, and while this gen is all about generic shooters, there are still games that shine because of their originality.

Buy a gaming PC. ;)

Rising development costs causing most developers to pump out the same tripe?

Clearly you have missed the point of gaming if you include Nintendo amongst your list of not so creative devs.

kontejner44

e3 this year: mario, zelda, icarus, kirby.... thank god for these new franchises that prove ur point

also, i slightly agree with the main point of the topic. some franchises need to die(cod and halo after reach comes out) but hey if gamers still want them then they will still make them. supply and demand.

I guess I just miss the 90's where everything was new, extremely likeable and longlasting. As much as all the other games mentioned above are awesome, none of them were completely spectacular like the games of the late 90's, and I doubt any of them will stick with us like Metal Gear Solid or Ocarina of Time did back then. Back in the 90s we didn't need to dig deep, new ideas were placed right in front of us. The same situation is happening with the movie and music industries, back then everything was handed to us on a silver platter and we don't need to dig deep.

I guess the main developer that needs their creative edge back is Nintendo, they're experts at making characters but they've just been riding easy the past decade, I hope starting with Miyamoto's new invention they'll enter a creative streak again mirroring the 90s

I don't think this is a completely new problem, check the SNES era, we had tons of 2D platforms with tons of generic mascots, similar to the N64 era, when tons of generic 3D games were everywhere, still those gens gave us a lot of fantastic and original games, and while this gen is all about generic shooters, there are still games that shine because of their originality.

madsnakehhh

But all those games were very likeable and interesting. I guess a part of me just misses the lighter hearted games of the 90s compared to all the dark games coming out now :oops:

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

Clearly you have missed the point of gaming if you include Nintendo amongst your list of not so creative devs.

fubarfoote

e3 this year: mario, zelda, icarus, kirby.... thank god for these new franchises that prove ur point

also, i slightly agree with the main point of the topic. some franchises need to die(cod and halo after reach comes out) but hey if gamers still want them then they will still make them. supply and demand.

All the creativity is in those titles young man, it's not about new IPs, it's about new gameplay ideas.

What's so special about new IPs anyway? Unless it's something like Portal or Mirror's Edge where it is completely brand new gameplay.

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

Clearly you have missed the point of gaming if you include Nintendo amongst your list of not so creative devs.

fubarfoote

e3 this year: mario, zelda, icarus, kirby.... thank god for these new franchises that prove ur point

also, i slightly agree with the main point of the topic. some franchises need to die(cod and halo after reach comes out) but hey if gamers still want them then they will still make them. supply and demand.

Creativity doesn't just lie in making new franchises :? SMG was incredibly creative in using gravity in countless ways to change the platforming experience, for instance.

i dont see the fun in playing as the same characters over n over again. why not make new ips with the new creative ideas?..... i mean it doesn't work anywhere else does it? no one wants harry potter books to keep going or more twilight movies to come out. eventually things should end

[QUOTE="kontejner44"]

Clearly you have missed the point of gaming if you include Nintendo amongst your list of not so creative devs.

fubarfoote

e3 this year: mario, zelda, icarus, kirby.... thank god for these new franchises that prove ur point

A game doesn't need to have a new 3D character model or a new 2D sprite to be original.

I was once the biggest MGS fan on the planet, but I'm probably not gonna buy any more games coming out. They concluded the story perfectly in 4 but decided to keep dragging it on. Just let it die already.

i dont see the fun in playing as the same characters over n over again. why not make new ips with the new creative ideas?..... i mean it doesn't work anywhere else does it? no one wants harry potter books to keep going or more twilight movies to come out. eventually things should end

fubarfoote

Why is it boring to play as the same character in different circumstances? Already, Mario has been in 2D platformers, 3D platformers, fighters, sports games and RPGs.

To answer the later question, getting new ideas that actually work is harder than one might think. Miyamoto is, however, working on a new series.

Whatever happened to creativity in the gaming industry?n00bproof

[QUOTE="fubarfoote"]

i dont see the fun in playing as the same characters over n over again. why not make new ips with the new creative ideas?..... i mean it doesn't work anywhere else does it? no one wants harry potter books to keep going or more twilight movies to come out. eventually things should end

calvinsora

Why is it boring to play as the same character in different circumstances? Already, Mario has been in 2D platformers, 3D platformers, fighters, sports games and RPGs.

To answer the later question, getting new ideas that actually work is harder than one might think. Miyamoto is, however, working on a new series.

I don't count Mario as a rehash, I just think of Mario as a character representing multiple franchises. Mario doesn't count. The gaming industry needs Mario to survive :P

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

[QUOTE="fubarfoote"]

i dont see the fun in playing as the same characters over n over again. why not make new ips with the new creative ideas?..... i mean it doesn't work anywhere else does it? no one wants harry potter books to keep going or more twilight movies to come out. eventually things should end

n00bproof

Why is it boring to play as the same character in different circumstances? Already, Mario has been in 2D platformers, 3D platformers, fighters, sports games and RPGs.

To answer the later question, getting new ideas that actually work is harder than one might think. Miyamoto is, however, working on a new series.

I don't count Mario as a rehash, I just think of Mario as a character representing multiple franchises. Mario doesn't count. The gaming industry needs Mario to survive :P

I agree; his versatility keeps things endlessly going. I wouldn't be against new IPs per se, but sometimes, it's good to know when something will really just rock, as I do with a number of other series.

Creativity doesn't just lie in making new franchises :? SMG was incredibly creative in using gravity in countless ways to change the platforming experience, for instance.

calvinsora

Interesting, we have yet to see games (even those from the more powerful PS3 and Xbox 360) that use gravity in the way Galaxy and its sequel does.

In a business like the video game industry, creativity means little if the companies cannot profit from it. There is creativity in the industry, but much of it made little money.

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

Creativity doesn't just lie in making new franchises :? SMG was incredibly creative in using gravity in countless ways to change the platforming experience, for instance.

thom_maytees

Interesting, we have yet to see games (even those from the more powerful PS3 and Xbox 360) that use gravity in the way Galaxy and its sequel does.

In a business like the video game industry, creativity means little if the companies cannot profit from it. There is creativity in the industry, but much of it made little money.

Indeed, innovation as a selling point is not the way to go.

[QUOTE="thom_maytees"]

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

Creativity doesn't just lie in making new franchises :? SMG was incredibly creative in using gravity in countless ways to change the platforming experience, for instance.

calvinsora

Interesting, we have yet to see games (even those from the more powerful PS3 and Xbox 360) that use gravity in the way Galaxy and its sequel does.

In a business like the video game industry, creativity means little if the companies cannot profit from it. There is creativity in the industry, but much of it made little money.

Indeed, innovation as a selling point is not the way to go.

mario might be the only exception to the rule, but zelda dev. needs to die. also msg. oh n for the love of god stop making pokemon games

Well pretty much every time a game that is original and/or innovative is released gamers punish the well meaning devs by not buying it and instead spending their money of the next big shooter, rpg, racing game and so on. Sequels are praised for the tiniest things they improve, while original games instead of being praised for what they do well and for doing something new are picked apart and destroyed in reviews.

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

[QUOTE="thom_maytees"]

Interesting, we have yet to see games (even those from the more powerful PS3 and Xbox 360) that use gravity in the way Galaxy and its sequel does.

In a business like the video game industry, creativity means little if the companies cannot profit from it. There is creativity in the industry, but much of it made little money.

khoofia_pika

Indeed, innovation as a selling point is not the way to go.

I wouldn't attribute their success down to just innovation. It wasn't for me, at least, I bought both systems only for the games. But I was more going with innovation in games, not systems.

[QUOTE="khoofia_pika"][QUOTE="calvinsora"]

Indeed, innovation as a selling point is not the way to go.

calvinsora

I wouldn't attribute their success down to just innovation. It wasn't for me, at least, I bought both systems only for the games. But I was more going with innovation in games, not systems.

Well pretty much every time a game that is original and/or innovative is released gamers punish the well meaning devs by not buying it and instead spending their money of the next big shooter, rpg, racing game and so on. Sequels are praised for the tiniest things they improve, while original games instead of being praised for what they do well and for doing something new are picked apart and destroyed in reviews.

rzepak

Doing something new doesn't warrant praise unless it's done well. Games that were considered superb with additional content and improvements is an even better experience. Being original isn't an automatic key to gaming success, which is part of the reason many of the innovative games don't take flight. Debasing games just because they're in a franchise is just as silly as ignoring a game because it's different.

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

[QUOTE="thom_maytees"]

Interesting, we have yet to see games (even those from the more powerful PS3 and Xbox 360) that use gravity in the way Galaxy and its sequel does.

In a business like the video game industry, creativity means little if the companies cannot profit from it. There is creativity in the industry, but much of it made little money.

khoofia_pika

Indeed, innovation as a selling point is not the way to go.

Sure, products with financial backing from Nintendo can sell.

But think of all the devs that have ever tried something new that didn't have millions of dollars to advertise it? Why do you think so many games are the way they are nowadays?

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

[QUOTE="khoofia_pika"] That is why the Wii and the DS have sold like crazy?khoofia_pika

I wouldn't attribute their success down to just innovation. It wasn't for me, at least, I bought both systems only for the games. But I was more going with innovation in games, not systems.

You confused by my new avi? :P

I got suspened for a week for making a thread like this. I demand justice.

[QUOTE="khoofia_pika"][QUOTE="calvinsora"]

I wouldn't attribute their success down to just innovation. It wasn't for me, at least, I bought both systems only for the games. But I was more going with innovation in games, not systems.

Raymundo_Manuel

You confused by my new avi? :P

[QUOTE="khoofia_pika"][QUOTE="calvinsora"]

Indeed, innovation as a selling point is not the way to go.

Raymundo_Manuel

Sure, products with financial backing from Nintendo can sell.

But think of all the devs that have ever tried something new that didn't have millions of dollars to advertise it? Why do you think so many games are the way they are nowadays?

Budgets happened. And publishers found out what the mainstream likes most, and decided to do that forever.

It's not that there's no more creativity, but the really out-there ideas are dying off. It's dangerous to think outside the Industry Standards Box, so you have to try to be creative within that (this is why genre hybrids are popular right now - the components are proven, but the experience feels fresh).

Budgets happened. And publishers found out what the mainstream likes most, and decided to do that forever.

It's not that there's no more creativity, but the really out-there ideas are dying off. It's dangerous to think outside the Industry Standards Box, so you have to try to be creative within that (this is why genre hybrids are popular right now - the components are proven, but the experience feels fresh).

Cherokee_Jack

You're seriously arguing budget when several Ps3 and XBOX360 games are only praised for their graphics? :roll:

[QUOTE="Raymundo_Manuel"]

[QUOTE="khoofia_pika"] That is why the Wii and the DS have sold like crazy?khoofia_pika

Sure, products with financial backing from Nintendo can sell.

But think of all the devs that have ever tried something new that didn't have millions of dollars to advertise it? Why do you think so many games are the way they are nowadays?

I read it, but it's a list of games made by devs with big $$$ to promote the games except Okami, but surprise surprise that game didn't sell as well as the other titles mentioned.

It seems in your blog the idea is to create a game, perfect it, and then overhaul it. It's not a bad idea, but it requires years of investment, and $$$, and that just doesn't seem to be a possibility for a lot of devs nowadays with the price of development. Especially if that first game doesn't take off.

Just think of some of the games you listed in your blog: Pokemon, Zelda, GTA, MGS. Now think of the companies behind them. Nintendo is the largest gaming software company in the world, GTA gets tons of advertising (moreso than 95% of games it seems, but this costs big $$$), and Konami in the mid 90's was at their peak as far as I know. They were one of the big dogs in the SNES days. Point is they all have the money to make this possible.

It also doesn't help with how mainstream gaming seems to have gotten (at least on the console front). How many devs have collapsed this gen because they couldn't produce a blockbuster hit? Most people don't want to go that route, and therefore the ONLY option is to copy and paste from what others have done. It's why companies keep producing shooters. I'd go out on a limb and say these devs would love to make innovative games all day long if it meant their company could stay afloat. A lot of them used to before this gen.

It's still possible to find an abundance of innovation and creativity though, but it's just in a different hiding spot. Shun handhelds, or PC gaming all you want (not just you, but people in general), but there are just hundreds upon hundreds of games coming out for each platform that are rich with creativity, and devs with a passion to produce it.

[QUOTE="Cherokee_Jack"]

Budgets happened. And publishers found out what the mainstream likes most, and decided to do that forever.

It's not that there's no more creativity, but the really out-there ideas are dying off. It's dangerous to think outside the Industry Standards Box, so you have to try to be creative within that (this is why genre hybrids are popular right now - the components are proven, but the experience feels fresh).

VauxhalI

You're seriously arguing budget when several Ps3 and XBOX360 games are only praised for their graphics? :roll:

If you want inovation then play the PC, it's that simpleohthemanatee

[QUOTE="khoofia_pika"][QUOTE="calvinsora"]

Indeed, innovation as a selling point is not the way to go.

calvinsora

I wouldn't attribute their success down to just innovation. It wasn't for me, at least, I bought both systems only for the games. But I was more going with innovation in games, not systems.

The innovation in most of the games is a result of hardware innovation.

It's a mix of increased dev cost, recession and the console audience.

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

[QUOTE="khoofia_pika"] That is why the Wii and the DS have sold like crazy?kontejner44

I wouldn't attribute their success down to just innovation. It wasn't for me, at least, I bought both systems only for the games. But I was more going with innovation in games, not systems.

The innovation in most of the games is a result of hardware innovation.

I didn't buy the games for the innovation either ;)

[QUOTE="ohthemanatee"]If you want inovation then play the PC, it's that simplekhoofia_pika