while i think that he is correct to some extent, i think the bigger killer of creativity are sequels. Managed to make a game that sells good? ok, just polish the graphics a bit and make some new levels and done is the next good selling title.

Maybe, but sequels are to a degree nothing but a symptom. They aren't the disease itself and actually serve to refine a genre further to a degree.

Originally Posted by naokaji
while i think that he is correct to some extent, i think the bigger killer of creativity are sequels. Managed to make a game that sells good? ok, just polish the graphics a bit and make some new levels and done is the next good selling title.

I dunno, everyone lapped up HL2, Episode 1, Episode 2 and will no doubt lap up Episode 3 as well. The reason for that is because there's a story that people want to get to the end of... In that respect, I think there are two different types of sequels. Sequels for the sake of it, and sequels that continue a story that people care about.

I agree that sequels are often lazy and unimaginative, but beyond that Cliff is right in that too many developers are bound by what has gone before. We've had a few FPS/RPG hybrids recently, but few new concepts.

On the other hand, it's bound to be increasingly difficult to think of new and original ideas this far down the line. Look at Holloywood - few films are original, most are just re-hashes of what has gone before.

One area of developement I think is lacking is variety of gameplay. Take giants citizen Kabuto, you had an RTS/FPS/racing sim/stealth game/rpg all mixed into the game at different stages.
It would be a bold step, but I reckon a re-awakening of the shoot em up genre would be a good place for some designers to start. Not sure if anyone played a game Starscape by Moonpod. A game based around asteroids but expanded upon. It's got flaws, but it's a great little game.
TBH though, I think games companies know us better than we know ourselves. Take the MMORPG genre, basically a rehash of the same gaming mechanics found in all. Deep down maybe we don't want change. We want the familiar.

sounds like my architecture program... defy the genre! dont give in! but then, in the end to make ends meat you build another walmart to put food on the table. Dont get me wrong, I love imagitve stuff and I would love to be a pioneer, its just often that you have to get some established genre work behind you before you have a leg to stand on in the not so cut and past area's of design.

Originally Posted by Tim S
I dunno, everyone lapped up HL2, Episode 1, Episode 2 and will no doubt lap up Episode 3 as well. The reason for that is because there's a story that people want to get to the end of... In that respect, I think there are two different types of sequels. Sequels for the sake of it, and sequels that continue a story that people care about.

QFT. And the HL series is obviously a story many people are genuinely interested in. I know I am.

I agree with Cliff's analysis, but I think it's only half the story. Part of the problem is that games are getting so expensive to make that the publishers aren't willing to take risks on them. I think we're seeing an evolutionary fork here between samey, relatively safe games (Half life 2, Doom 3, COD47, FIFA 2000 and hell freezes over) and innovative, low budget games (Uplink, darwinia, democracy). Occasionally there will be a crossover games that is both innovative and visually impressive (Spore), but these will be pretty rare.

I guess what I'm saying is that the lack of innovation we see in games is part in the developers and part in the publishers. I'm sure part of it is also in the game-buying public who complain when it's more of the same, but buy it anyway while eschewing innovative new games because they're not graphical powerhouses.

Originally Posted by Tim S
I dunno, everyone lapped up HL2, Episode 1, Episode 2 and will no doubt lap up Episode 3 as well. The reason for that is because there's a story that people want to get to the end of... In that respect, I think there are two different types of sequels. Sequels for the sake of it, and sequels that continue a story that people care about.

true, and i have to admit i love the half life series... (there are others i love as well), i was more referring to games like all the similar WW2 Shooters, Racing Games that tend to come in yearly renewals and such (i.e. what you call sequel for the sake of it).

i have to agree with cthippo, lack of a budget for a highend graphicsengine and little to no marketing budget hurts them as well.

Originally Posted by Cthippo
relatively safe games (Half life 2, Doom 3, COD47, FIFA 2000 ...

If you've got a suspected release date on CoD47 I'd love to hear it.

Re: the article, though: I agree completely. Yes, great games are produced strictly within genre lines. CoD4 is just shinier Counterstrike when it comes down to it, and yet it plays phenomenally and looks just incredible. On the other hand, I've been dreaming about a "genreless" game like Spore for maybe ten years now, and the news that it's finally showing up (and is actually a much more expansive experience than I had hoped for) just about brought a tear to my eye.

Too bad the first thing gaming rag editors and writers are going to do when they start their article is try to figure out what Spore's genre should be called. It will only be a matter of time before line one, page one of a whole lot of design papers is: Massively Online Singleplayer content-sharing arcade/RTS/sandbox.

Without sequels we wouldnt have the excellence of final fantasy 7, the sheer playability of warcraft 3 or, woe betide! Quake 2!

Sequels aren't the problem and id never really thought about it in the way this article describes, very interesting :)