Re: Is Innovative Gameplay a Dead End?

Well I don't understand... how can you counter my argument of what I think
Innovative Gameplay is (the enhancement of the user experience through new
and or improved constructs, interfaces, etc) if you have no clear sense of
what it is?  You're saying, you don't know what it is, but yet its not those
things i listed?

I'm not sure what the point of that example was... from my cursory view of
the article, his invention is not even a game.  It's some other form of
interactive entertainment, but not a game.

Gauntlet and Halo are indeed leagues apart as are their respective
gameplays.  Berserk, Robotron,  Doom, Theif, System Shock, Tribes... just
cuz they all involve shooting things doesnt mean they have the same
gameplay.  And you're on thin ice to suggest that changes in perspective
(such as 1st person from 2d top down) are an "improvement."  Your argument
flies in the face of reality.  People are not playing deathmatch Gauntlet.
They are playing games like Counter Strike, Tribes, Unreal Tournament or
America's Army.  Ive played all of these games over the years and I can tell
you that I get something totally different out of all of them.  Why?
Because the gameplay between all of them is quite different.  You cannot
play the same way in Tribes as you do in America's Army and hope to do well.
There are no health packs in AA and no jet packs either.  Frankly,
differences are so obvious to me i can't believe the need to describe the
difference.  Now if you want to talk about lack of innovation, id say there
was no real innovation in Tribes 2 over Tribes 1.

What about films?  Is there no more innovation in film?  A movie like
"Memento" is mostly just a "who dunnit" movie.  But its innovation came in
the way it was edited.... out of order which made the viewer feel just as
confused and disjointed as the main character did througout.  What about a
movie like Jurrassic Park?  Was it not something innovative to have these
huge life like CGI dinosaurs roaming around?  People had never seen anythign
like it before and the experience they sat through was quite awesome at the
time.  Same thing when Quake first hit the scene and suddenly you had fully
3d monsters.

And innovation in gameplay isn't limited to inter-genre innovations, but
also the creation of completely new types of games like The Sims.

I think the main point I'd like to get across is this.  Most people do have
a general idea of what it means to have innovative gameplay.  Most people
can see the innovations that a game like Counter Strike brought to the
Tactical First Person Shooter genre.  As best as I can tell, you're being a
word lawyer and are only arguing semantics... that you don't think
"innovative gameplay" is an accurate phrase to describe what people really
mean when they use it.  If gameplay is synonymous with genre, and innovation
is something never seen before, then naturally you'll never have "innovative
gameplay" without a brand new genre cropping up.  I don't believe thats what
most designers believe however.  They accept the phrase as an industry
phrase that conveys a desire to create more than just a copy cat with a
different skin.
-PizaZ


"Particle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Hey PizaZ,
>
> Well that rather is the point, isn't it: There isn't any clear sense of
> Innovative Gameplay that I can find, and more often than not its an
> obscurist term than a clarifiying one. At its most honest level, I think
its
> a sort of Holy Grail goal, a mysterious relam of synthespians, reactive
AI,
> holo interfaces and other similar dreamers aspirations which are nice. But
> sort of missing the point. (example:
> http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20031029/littlejohn_01.shtml)
>
> Your list below encompasses a wide range of game elements (constructs,
> interfaces, etc), and then you suggest that those elements are the
> innovation. I don't disagree with you that these elements did not exist at
> one time or another. But the root gameplay that the games with all those
new
> elements contain is still operating on the same basics. Games are still
> shooting, exploring, solving, management and so on, and these paths are
well
> worn at this stage. Gameplay-wise, there isn't a vast difference between
> Gauntlet and Halo, for example.,
>
> What has grown over the years is the increased capacity for games to
depict
> a fantasy-with-rules. Gauntlet and Halo are obviously leagues apart, but
> they are so because the elements have been improved, from perspective to
> graphics, audio to AI, digital to analog controls. What has improved is
the
> "synthesis".
>
> particle
>
> "PizaZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > I think when people talk about "innovative gameplay" they are talking
> about
> > bunch of different things.  Let's see if we all can come up with some
sort
> > of definition for the phrase "innovative gameplay" OK ?  I'm going to
try
> > and piece one together and hopefully others will modify it in whole or
in
> > part til we have something more complete than is already out there.
> >
> > Innovative Gameplay (as applied to 'video games')  -    Any new or
> > fundamental changes to game mechanics, constructs, interfaces, and
> metaphors
> > that offers the player unique and/or enhanced experiences.
> >
> > Ok, so to understand what it means to create innovative gameplay is, we
> need
> > to understand what game constructs, mechanics, metapors and interfaces
are
> > right?
> >
> > Types of constructs:
> >     - Levels
> >     - End bosses
> >     - Power Ups
> >     - the NPC (non player character)
> >     - the cut scene
> >     - the in game scripted event (scientist getting pulled into air duct
> by
> > monster)
> >     - the Flag (as in capture the)
> >     - the Score Board / The High Score (the basis for so many coin-op
> arcade
> > games)
> >     - the Quest or sub-mission
> >     - the Fatality
> >     - the combo move
> >     - the alt fire weapon function
> >     - the sniper zoom view
> >     - the vehicle that works in First Person (like the Hovercrafts in
> Tribes
> > 1)
> >     - the selectable player class
> >     - the instant replay (particularly in sports games)
> >     - the turn based combat sequence (like in the Final Fantasy series)
> >
> > Types of Game Mechanics (Goals and SubGoals or perhaps "mechanics" is
> > synonymous with rules and objectives?  What about game modes lik
> deathmatch
> > versus capture the flag... where do those fall in?)
> >     - find the keys
> >     - kill monsters
> >     - find the switch/lever/button/etc to advance
> >     - manage your city
> >     - make your sims happy
> >     - capture the flag
> >     - increase experience points - "level up"
> >     - eat all the wafers, eat the power pills, get to the next level
> >     - learn the uber cool combo moves to kill your opponent while
> performing
> > really cool combo moves on them
> >
> > Types of Metaphors (maybe these are really just the same as genres?  Or
> > maybe roles since role types even between God style games are fairly
> > different):
> >     - Player as actor in an interactive movie (think games like Wing
> > Commander 3 and 4)
> >     - Player as God
> >     - Player as Head of State/Commander of Space Colonies/Fleets
> >     - Player as controllable avatar
> >     - Player in soldier/warrior in the first person (maybe this actually
> > marks a trend away from metaphors??)
> >     - Player as pilot in the first person
> >     - Player as coach or general manager
> >     - Player as an entire sports team (hehehe)
> >
> > Perhaps innovation in user control interfaces and graphical interfaces
> count
> > too or would those fall under constructs?  things like
> >     - mouse look
> >     - ducking
> >     - skiing (part of what makes Tribes fun)
> >     - the transparent HUD
> >     - the "buy screen" (as in Tribes and Counter Strike)
> >     - the inventory (as in RPG's)
> >     - the swing gauge (as in golf games)
> >     - voice over IP (semi-real time player chat)
> >     - multiplayer itself
> >     - the persistant online world
> >
> > Anyways, at one point in time, none of the above things existed... and
> then
> > suddenly they appeared and offered the player new experiences.  I'd
> further
> > count as "innovation" substantial improvements to existing constructs or
> the
> > clever combining of existing constructs in new ways.  Well anyways, this
> is
> > my rough stab at answering the question what is "innovative gameplay."
> >
> > -PizaZ
> >
> >
> >
> > "Particle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > I wrote a blog post about this subject recently: (See
> > > particleblog.blogspot.com)
> > >
> > > As a designer, I cannot help get the feeling that most videogame
> designers
> > > are massively wasting their time by focussing on the wrong end of the
> > stick,
> > > as it were. I'd be interested to hear some opinions on the matter.
> Thanks.
> > >
> > > particle
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>