View Full Version : Levels of innovation.
Tr00jg
12-08-2007, 05:01 PM
Its been a long time, since we really had a nice design discussion on here.
Ive been thinking (after being dissapointed at the level of innovation at the Dream.Build.Play results) what are the levels of innovation?
To me, it is the following. Take a platform-shooter as an example.
5) lowest level of innovation:
- New weapons
- New monsters
- etc
4)
- changes in superficial gameplay, ie
> add jump-pads, portals, etc
3)
- changes in whole gameplay
> ie, now its not a shooter anymore, but a racing-shooter-platformer for example.
2)
- genre defining innovation
> ie, a total new game, it still fits into a genre.
an example is my Roach Toaster. Its something new, but it is still defined a turn-based strategy game.
1) Highest form of innovation:
- total innovation, the nirvana of game design.
> Here we have total new genres being innovated, like the first glory years of game dev.
What do you think?
UntouchableOne
12-08-2007, 10:00 PM
I think that innovation is really important in developing new games. I mean, no matter how much you change the appearance and small aspects of a game or game genre, the player will get bored of it eventually. As time goes by people need something new and creative. If another game genre was founded, a whole new realm of possibilities would be open to up developers in creating new unique original games. Current existing genres are still great to use but by recreating the same game with the same core concept will not work. We will be stuck in at infinite loop and instead of progressing we will be going no where or even going backward. Our goal ultimately is to progress in game dev so new innovations is needed.
dislekcia
12-08-2007, 11:47 PM
I think you guys are looking at things from the wrong angle: Genres have very little to do with innovation because they emerge from groupings of games using similar control schemes... Genres evolve because certain control mechanisms make sense and are great at specific types of gameplay/puzzles/challenges.
A much better view of innovation is to take your game apart on a different level and see where you can do something unique. Often you'll find that a completely innovative game (ie: Something that is 100% unique and no part of it has been done before) is hardly playable and will pick up very few fans, compared to something that only has a small amount of uniqueness combined with a lot of borrowed genre norms or standard gameplay being a runaway hit... The trick seems to be to use the unique elements to flavour all of the borrowed stuff, while the borrowed stuff is used to make the unique elements make sense to the player.
-D
ShadowMaster
13-08-2007, 06:49 AM
Well said dis.
Just a bit of food for thought.
There has been cases where a level 5 innovation let rise to a level 2 one, for example Portal. Where the new gun caused an entirely new game(from what I know).
Tr00jg
13-08-2007, 02:44 PM
@Shadowmaster: Thats true... Cant wait for Portal though.
@Dislekcia: So what you are basically saying that innovation will never take a "whole" leap forward? It is for lack of a better word, not viable right? Innovations in games will rise through innovating with each game, right?
Say for instance, a game A is about x. So if game B comes along, it innovates on A, and thus is about xy. So now game C comes along that only has y.
The leap from x to y, can happen, but no one will play it because it is too "out there", right?
dislekcia
13-08-2007, 03:01 PM
Well said dis.
Just a bit of food for thought.
There has been cases where a level 5 innovation let rise to a level 2 one, for example Portal. Where the new gun caused an entirely new game(from what I know).
That's why I don't think those "levels" make a lot of sense. You can't simply assume that you're always going to have guns in a game, for instance.
I would much rather class innovations as:
Superficial - Innovation that doesn't alter the core gameplay too much, merely there to bring a slight difference in player action as opposed to reward scheme. A slight change in an accepted control scheme, for example.
Structural - Innovation that changes gameplay experience and reward mechanisms. This could be an addition to an existing gameplay norm or a change to traditional gameplay outcomes. Playing the "other side" in an established genre, or switching how players are rewarded and completion of objectives is measured for instance.
Deep - Innovation that creates entirely new reward mechanisms that have been previously unexplored. May give rise to new genres through this, but the core is still in the effects of the rewards players experience. An example would be Katamari Damacy - the reward of clumping together and getting bigger is an expansion on exploration rewards, but the sense of wonder and astonishment that players get as the game progresses (via the loony setting and the cutscenes as well as the gameplay) pushes it to deep innovation instead of structural.
...
A more complete example would be to look at something like Guitar Freaks (arcade game, Google it) which gave players simple guitar controllers to play on and rewarded them for being good at playing songs. It was mostly superficial innovation in terms of typical Bemani concepts (Bemani - music/rhythm games) but the combination of typical arcade interconnectivity with Percussion Freaks (drumming game) made the reward of "playing in your own band" a reality... If you were good you'd get crowds watching you and applauding.
Now look at Guitar Hero, it took the Guitar Freaks idea and Structurally innovated on it to turn it into a home-system game. They added the feeling of being a rockstar, really pushed that angle and it paid off. Oddly enough, playing with a friend is still the biggest reward the game offers.
And finally think about the upcoming Guitar Hero 3 and Rock Band. Both are Superficial innovations on the norms established by Guitar Hero and Guitar Freaks/Percussion Freaks. They're not new and they don't offer new gameplay, they just refine the rewards players experience, making them more potent and enjoyable.
-D
Tr00jg
13-08-2007, 06:39 PM
Ah, snap. Thats precisely what I was trying to convey. Thanks Dis.
Talk about Guitar Hero. Many of you have probably heard about Frets on Fire right? It is the Guitar Hero equivalent for the PC. The only difference is that you play with your keyboard. Most of you have probably played it, its free.
What astonished me about Frets on Fire is the innovative use of the keyboard, ie (hold like a guitar). Just like FPS sparked the rise of "mouses" in games, I think the current duo of mouse and keyboard still have some innovative uses left.
I cant think of an example right now, but you get what I am saying?
Gazza_N
14-08-2007, 05:22 PM
Often you'll find that a completely innovative game (ie: Something that is 100% unique and no part of it has been done before) is hardly playable and will pick up very few fans, compared to something that only has a small amount of uniqueness combined with a lot of borrowed genre norms or standard gameplay being a runaway hit...
Something that springs to mind in this regard is Homeworld, a highly innovative game no matter how you look at it. I seem to remember a lot of people complaining about the control scheme when it first came out. I for one was completely perplexed the first time I played it, because I was so used to a C&C-style RTS control scheme. Of course, once I took the time to get used to it, I started to recognize Homeworld for the gem it really was. I wonder how many never returned to the game because they struggled/refused to get used to it?
Tr00jg
14-08-2007, 06:19 PM
Say for instance, you create something that is 100% unique... Very few people will take it up, right. So wouldn't it be better to just keep going at that core idea for several iterations, until the "massess" can and will play it?
Gazza_N
14-08-2007, 06:27 PM
The way I understand it , you're saying, essentially, that you should push the unique and alien gameplay at them until they eventually give in and play it. I'm not so sure that'll work. Rather phase it in gradually, replacing accepted norms with each new game until people get used to it. Look at the original Quake. It was a stock standard shooter with a new idea - vertical mouselook. Now ID didn't bludgeon people over the head with it, saying "Use the mouse to look vertically or die". You even needed to hold down a key/mouse button to use it! They simply provided that innovation, and people took it up naturally. Now all-axis mouselook is an FPS standard.
EDIT: Oh, and Troojg, it must be said - your new ava is Win. :D
dislekcia
15-08-2007, 01:44 PM
Gazza, I think you misunderstood Troojg: I read his post as saying that we should provide easy, stable paths from normal, understandable games to completely innovative gameplay by getting to the innovation over the course of two or three games.
I agree with that. Except I'd prefer keeping it one game with well-structured progression. But if you can't do that, then it makes total sense to make sure your audience is with you and not feeling totally abandoned by this loony gameplay of yours.
-D
Gazza_N
15-08-2007, 08:11 PM
The stable, gradual introduction I agree with. I interpreted the post as saying that one should use the same innovative ideas in a series of games until people eventually come to accept it, sort of forcing it on them. If that wasn't what you meant Troojg, then I apologize for the misunderstanding. The GazzaBrain tends to do that sometimes. Please don't flame me ;).
Tr00jg
15-08-2007, 08:54 PM
I actually meant it how you interpreted it (slightly differently though). "Forcing" is a strong word. I wouldn't say you need to force it.
Release your 100% unique idea, gather a small following (there WILL be people who pick it up). Release the next game in the series (since its such a niche game, I am sure your "fans" will stick to it). Your fans will play it, think its awesome and tell their friends. Snap, you get more people playing it. Rinse, and repeat.
But I agree with Dis here. If best, it could be done in 1 game with gradual progression.
Gazza_N
15-08-2007, 09:00 PM
It didn't use "deep" innovation (as Dis terms it) but Prey is a good example of gradual introduction within a single game, I think. Remember the first time you wall-walked or gravity-flipped? Complete disorientation. Then, just as you got used to it, came the fiendish (i.e. awesome) gravity puzzles of doom.
Tr00jg
15-08-2007, 09:20 PM
Yeah, thats a great example (although I never played it). If the gravity puzzles were thrown in your face in the beginning, it would have been overwhelming.
Nice example. :P
UntouchableOne
15-08-2007, 09:26 PM
There are many angles to look at innovation in the sense of developing games that players will enjoy. I previously looked at it in a way where game genres should evolve. The point that dis gave is true, by borrowing aspects from other games and developing on the concept, new INNOVATIVE games are possible but how would players react to new genres(if ever created). Would they be absorbed by the game due to curiosity or drawn away,sacred to leave the "comfort zone" of the current conventional genres that we all have been used to playing. I think by experimenting with a variety of ideas(even if they might seen outrageous), new fun games could be created or even that different genre. It may seem illogical to think about creating a new genre as the current ones have proved to be effective but it must spark some curiosity within all developers minds when thinking of innovation with respect game development.
Gazza_N
15-08-2007, 09:35 PM
Agreed. There are so many aspects of a game that can be changed or given a new twist, and everyone wants to do something new. I like to think that this is what everyone in this community is striving to do, and it shows!
As for creating a new genre, I'm not so sure... Dis was on the money when he described how genres are formed (but then again, he has all sorts of academic learnings in Game Theory that we don't :P). Following his logic, creating a new genre would not only mean creating entirely new challenges in the game, but also an entirely new way to interact with them. I think you could do one, but both?
UntouchableOne
17-08-2007, 11:40 PM
Possibilities are endless when you have a truely creative mind so all we have to do is find that super creative person...
Gazza_N
18-08-2007, 08:30 PM
Well, sure. Now and then you'll get some visionary who comes up with something new, but don't you sometimes think that we're approaching a limit when it comes to new game mechanics? I mean, it's good and fine to look back at designers such as Will Wright and Peter Molyneux, but they emerged when gaming was in its infancy and there were many situations and modes of play yet to be created. I honestly wonder if there really is any space for "deep" innovation anymore, or whether we're doomed to mix, match, vary and refine existing mechanics...
Tr00jg
19-08-2007, 12:24 AM
No, I believe that there is always space for "deep" innovation. They say creativity is the ability to link 2 or more seemingly non-related "ideas" together. I say there is still room for "deep" innovation.
But there is 1 thing I think is pretty much set and that is how the game world is viewed. What else can you do? We ARE limited to 2-3 dimensions. I have thought of a 4th-person game, but it wont really work. :P
/2yuuzaki
19-08-2007, 12:38 PM
If we look at "comercial"games, the one thing that is being improved all the time is graphics. Gameplay are really set (for the most part) in most new games - and I think that that's really sad. The games you guys develop are changing this pretty much - because games are developed here that focus more on the idea/gameplay than fancy graphics, and I think that this is awesome! I don't think that trying to create a new "genre" is always possible, but like Tr00jg said, we can always create something new with the great thing called creativity. I think that new types of games and complete revolutions in gamedev will happen by themselves - we don't have to force it to happen. I really think that even the creators of the first games didn't think of creating new genres. They just made games that they knew would be fun, and I think that this is something that all of us can do and enjoy! :)
(sorry for the long reply - got a bit carried away)
Gazza_N
19-08-2007, 02:18 PM
I'd quote the above post for emphasis, but... (Just kidding! You should see some of the essays people come up with - this doesn't even come close :) ).
Round of applause. I think you make a great argument - build games that are fun. Let arbitrary classification take care of itself. I realize this point was kinda made earlier, but still...
dislekcia
19-08-2007, 02:22 PM
Personally I find the most interesting ideas tend to be "throwaway" concepts you just blurt out at random times...
I mean, I totally ignored the idea behind Drawkanoid for ages until I was driving somewhere with Miktar and used "Arkanoid without a paddle" as a joke. He stared at me for about 3 minutes and before insisting that I make it. I did. It got shown to people at E3.
Never dismiss an idea, no matter how silly. It might just be utterly awesomepants.
-D
Tr00jg
19-08-2007, 03:46 PM
Yep, indeed. I agree with Ryuuzaki. I make the games I want to play and what I think will be fun. At the end of the day that is what matters. :)
@Dis: Yep! Look at Katamari Damacy... "Lets make a game where you roll things into a gimongous ball". That sounds like a throwaway idea. :P
Gazza_N
19-08-2007, 04:33 PM
"What if I made a turn-based game where you have to clear roaches from a level using a wide range of units?"
"What if I made a game where you controlled a giant worm of doom and eat innocent people and tanks?"
"What if I made a turn-based combination of top-down shooter and RTS?"
"What if I made a sci-fi management game based on opening fast-food restaurants in space?"
"What if I made a game where you reflect beams of light using mirrors to reach a destination?"
Ridiculous at first glance, but definitely not in practice. This community is awesome! :D
Tr00jg
19-08-2007, 05:12 PM
"What if I made a turn-based game where you have to clear roaches from a level using a wide range of units?"
"What if I made a game where you controlled a giant worm of doom and eat innocent people and tanks?"
"What if I made a turn-based combination of top-down shooter and RTS?"
"What if I made a sci-fi management game based on opening fast-food restaurants in space?"
"What if I made a game where you reflect beams of light using mirrors to reach a destination?"
Ridiculous at first glance, but definitely not in practice. This community is awesome! :D
We are the win! I cant wait to see more!
dislekcia
19-08-2007, 07:03 PM
Oh man, that's an awesome slogan:
"Game.Dev - We are the win!" ;)
-D
kurtkz
20-08-2007, 09:01 AM
Hehe, how about:
"Game.Dev - We are teh win"? :)
Thaumaturge
27-08-2007, 05:16 AM
Heheh, that is a good slogan! ^_^
"What if I made a game where you controlled a giant worm of doom and eat innocent people and tanks?"
Did I miss one of the competition games? o_o I don't remember that one...
Unless it was Cyber Jam, which alas I didn't manage to get working (I think that it's simply that my Java runtime is probably out of date; I haven't gotten around to updating it and testing this hypothesis.)
One way or another, I want to play that game!
But there is 1 thing I think is pretty much set and that is how the game world is viewed. What else can you do? We ARE limited to 2-3 dimensions. I have thought of a 4th-person game, but it wont really work. :P
Well, we may be stuck with only representing three spatial dimensions, but a game that utilises motion along a fourth spatial dimension is quite possible, I believe. It would be modelled as either changes in the geometry of the gameworld, or switching to new worlds as one moves along the fourth spatial dimension.
(This inspired by my recent speculation on beings (in this case, I was thinking of faeries and their otherworld) existing in a separate set of three dimensions, or, perhaps more interestingly (to me, at least), in the same three dimensions, but offset along a fourth, in the same universe as us, but imperceptible and untouchable, since we only operate within our three. If they were capable of operating in all six spatial dimensions in the former case or moving along the fourth spatial dimension in the latter, then they could interact with us, and seem to appear and disappear at will.
Similarly, I'm pretty sure that other, perhaps completely different worlds could, theoretically, exist moments behind us in time or moments ahead (or further, of course), which we of course do not interact with or perceive, simply because by the time that the earlier has reached the later's point, the later has, of course, moved on. However, and this I also find interesting (presuming that my ramblings here are at all coherent and logical), if we were to achieve time travel, and this speculation turned out to in fact be correct, we could find ourselves visiting not our own past or future, but entirely other worlds.
Hmm... does that perhaps solve the grandfather paradox...?
[/second tangent of the night])
Tr00jg
27-08-2007, 08:15 AM
Interesting rambles Thauma. Your "other" worlds idea reminds of Zelda (the ones with time travel and season change). Theoretically you can go onto infinity with extra spatial dimensions, but that is just a theory. Wiki tesseract. Ive been pondering on how this in a game.
As for the giant worm. It was a game by UncleSam. It made the top20 list at http://www.experimentalgameplay.com for quite a while, and a really popular twist from that called Death Worm is huge on GMC.
Gazza_N
27-08-2007, 09:04 PM
Get some sleep, Thaum. ;)
I'd recommend you check out the Uber super awesome Game.Dev Game.Showcase (http://www.greatgamesexperiment.com/games/GameDotDev) for more awesome games that everyone's put together.
[Off topic]
Actually, Thaum, I'm going to prod you to write something like your musings above and stick it on DevArt. Your account's been as quiet as mine lately. Unforgivable.
[/off topic]
Thaumaturge
28-08-2007, 08:36 PM
Sleep? Sleep? Sleep is for mortals! :P
Thank for the link - it does indeed look interesting! ^_^
As to my musings, thank you both for your comments. I'm not entirely sure as to what I might make of them that I might place on DevART - they're not exactly art, as such, I don't think. ^^;
Heh, yes, my account has been quiet - if one were to find cobwebs in cyberspace, one would probably find them on my DeviantART account. :P
To be honest, I don't really upload to DeviantART any more - I fell pretty far behind in commenting on others' work, lost the will to go through all of that (it's a pretty huge pile by now, even if I comment only on some times, I think), and am loath to upload when I am not commenting on others' work... ^^;
As for the giant worm. It was a game by UncleSam. It made the top20 list at http://www.experimentalgameplay.com for quite a while, and a really popular twist from that called Death Worm is huge on GMC.
If I have found the correct game - Killer Worm, which does indeed seem to be by Unc1354m - then thank you very much for pointing me to it! It's a fun little game. I love the B-grade black-and-white horror movie theme, and the music is wonderful. ^_^
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.