Where is the creativity in PC Games?

[Kasey Chang]

Think about it, all the games we got now are just new and improved version sof something we had 5-10 years ago.

Doom3? It's just Doom -- new and improved.

Warcraft III -- sequel sequel sequel

Even if you count the individual features... They mostly have been pioneered before somewhere. Heroes and such have been piorneered in Warlords Battlecry series already.

The closest thing to a "fresh" game is Evil Genius, and even then you could kinda argue it's a descendent of Dungeon Keeper 2 (sorta).

What game do you think is the most revlutionary this year, or the year before? Do you see any revolutionary games coming down the pipeline?

[Grifman]

I guess the problem is that "revolutionary" = "risk". Gamers are used to certain genres and conventions, and unless you have big bucks backing you, it's risky to stake your studio on something "revolutionary". Besides, are there really any new ideas out there?

Grifman

[Zekester]

Wildfire, Shark!, Construction Destruction.....these are just 3 games that I enjoyed, and try to pimp around here and GoneGold.

But there weren't many sympathizers.

True, they're not that revolutionary.
But they are a different and refreshing take.

[EngineNo9]

Shut up!

[bluefugue]

Some of the best games I have ever played:

Ultima III
Ultima IV
Ultima V
Civilization II
Archon 2
Unreal Tournament 2004
Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic
Gothic 2
Phantasie 3
Dark Forces 2: Jedi Knight
Jedi Knight 2: Jedi Outcast
Age of Empires 2: Age of Kings
Baldur's Gate 2
Avernum 2


Other generally acknowledged classics:

Ultima VII
Star Conrol 2
Diablo 2
Super Mario Bros. 3
Super Mario 64
Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
Warcraft 2

I don't understand why people bemoan videogame sequels. They aren't analogous to movie sequels which are usually lame. Often a videogame sequel is much better than what preceded it, because of improvements in technology, and to game mechanics, etc.

This is not to say that all games should be sequels; obviously there is plenty of room for fresh ideas too. But considering how many great games I've played that were sequels, I just can't find myself getting worked up about it. As gamers I think we very much enjoy having our genres refined over time; the wheel doesn't always need to be reinvented (though, again, some innovation is always appreciated).

This "lack of originality" isn't really a new phenomenon either. 20+ years ago it's true, games were cheaper to make and you would get some truly bizarre (and often incomprehensible) design ideas. But there were also scads of Pac-Man and Space Invaders clones, endless side-scrolling shoot em ups, and "me too" RPGs ripping off Ultima or Wizardry, etc.

[rrmorton]

It does seem we're swimming in sequels more and more, but so many of them are so good I too find it hard to complain.

The true originals are the games that invent genres like Castle Wolfenstein, Dune, Populous, Ultima Online, or The Sims. Then there are games that show a great spark of originality within an existing genre, like Kohan or Rainbow Six.

Consoles have a ton of original titles (often from Japan) like Katamari Damacy for example.

[Kraken]

Grifman's right. Originality is risky, and the AAA blockbuster market can't afford risk. Budgets are just way too high; if you're going to pour $5 million or more into a project, you had damned well better be able to forecast the return with high reliability.

The other main factor is that gamers do not like innovation. We line up to buy the clones and sequels. We don't want to read manuals or learn new game systems. We want to install a game, load it up and start playing. As long as we eagerly fork over our bucks for MOTS games, publishers will happily churn them out.

[Windows95]

What do you mean by revolutionary? We see all sorts of new stand out games every year. It sounds like you're wanting to see something completely new and different, something that has never been done before. To be honest, I don't know if that's possible. Forget marketing factors for a minute, what areas haven't been explored? It was easy in PC gaming's glory days to make something new. First of all there was nothing out there so many games were new by virture of being first. Second, there was the technology factor. Hardware used to be so limiting that every major improvement could usher in a new genre. Now we're at the point where most major ideas have been explored. Technology (while still improving) is at the point where most doors have been opened to the developer. I don't think we will see anything new or earth shattering. I think games are like literature or film now. Most of the classic ideas have been done, so rather then seeing a new idea we'll see new takes on classic ideas.

Now as for games that are "new" this year? We'll if you count evil genius as being new, I'll throw out the following:

Far Cry - Finally, realistic outdoor levels and useable vehicles. Major step forward for FPS on the PC.
Soldiers: Heroes of WWII - An amazing game that's a blend of action/RTS/strategy. I'd say it's a new genre almost, but since it has StarForce it's shunned around these parts.
Dawn of War - A fresh take on RTS. Gone are many of the stale resource and individual unit management. Also we have four very different races that (almost) balance out.

These are just three games that I think advanced PC gaming this year that I have on my hard drive. Revolutionary? Perhaps not, but I think they're as close to revolutionary in PC gaming as one can get now.

[MeSlayer]

I'd say the most "new" game I've played recently would have to be Republic: The Revolution

Good luck attaching that to a genre

I didn't like it - but that in now way takes away from the fact that it was innovative and risky

I wish more companies tried to do that, more would succeed and more projects like that would get a green light.

But oh well.

[Giles Habibula]

Wildfire, Shark!, Construction Destruction.....these are just 3 games that I enjoyed, and try to pimp around here and GoneGold.

I really liked "Shark!" Hi Zeke--It figures you'd be the one to list this title.

I talked my brother into buying it, and he liked it too.

My personal all-time favorite unusual game to pimp: "Outwars" by Singletrac Studios 1997 published by Microsoft. Every time I mention it, nobody knows WTF I'm talking about--or cares. The main feature I enjoyed was the mouse-controlled (the left button fired your weapon as usual, and the right button activated the jetpack) jetpack on your back with limited power that took a few seconds to recharge--It added quite a lot of depth and strategy to the 1st/3rd person gameplay. I was enthralled by this game for months.

Singletrac Studios was the recipient of of one of only three fan letters I've ever written to game developers. And someone there responded. The other two were Buka (after I played the original "Hard Truck" (got a nice response in broken English), and whoever the developer was for "Zone Raiders".

[Zekester]

Heh, Mark i think i have Outwars!
I'll have to dig it out and try it now.

I've actually been playing '18 Wheels of Steel Across America' a lot lately.
I haven't picked up the newest game yet, because this one has cheat codes for it and i'm enjoying some of the nicer trucks

[Kraken]

Forget marketing factors for a minute, what areas haven't been explored?

There is a whole level of creative talent that hasn't yet meshed with computer games. The industry to this point has been dominated by technical geeks -- primarily young males. As gaming keeps becoming more mainstream, I think we're going to see whole new types of non-techie talent contributing new ideas. A few notable writers have made stabs at interactive storytelling, but always within the structures set up by the programmers, artists and designers -- they have provided content, but not really driven the process.

I can't specify where these breaththroughs will come from, but I do think that there is plenty of room for innovation as the techies gradually become subordinate to creative talents that have been frozen out or marginalized up to now. When you think about the settings and themes that dominate most computer games -- the whole war/fantasy thing is pure adolescent male -- there is a ton of potential for serious adult and literary innovation. Where are the games about adult relationships? Where are the serious ethical and moral explorations? How about really complex storytelling, updated for the interactive age? Even such tired literary conventions as boy-meets-girl and coming-of-age are barely used in gaming. The generation of non-technical artists coming into their age now grew up with electronic gaming, and they will not regard it as a realm apart. The industry is currently heavily stacked against non-technical people, but that can change.

Within the male techie sensibility, though, you're right -- most of the variations have ben done to death.

[dbt1949]

I just want them to remake Xcom.Sigh...............

[Carpet_pissr]

I just want them to remake Xcom.Sigh...............

Hear, hear!!

[greeneggsnham]

I'd say we're not only seeing a lot of pc sequels, but a lot of them are very flat.

Sadly (or not, actually), I think a lot of creative talent has leached over into the console side of things. I think the ever increasing development costs and decreasing profits have created a dead zone for pc development that's only now starting to be realized.

I've been more impressed with some of the recent cosole titles than I have been with even the recent pc hits. I'd argue that as pc gamers we haven't seen anything on the level of Ico, the Jak and Daxter series, Ninja Gaiden, etc in quite a while. (I haven't picked up HL2 yet, so I -do- have sleep but can't say if it's restored my faith in pc gaming). I just haven't felt really drawn into anything on the pc lately, with Dawn of War probably the only exception. I've finally gotten around to Jak & Daxter 2 (after letting everyone's comments on the difficulty put me off) and it's a great game, with what looks to be a great story. I just haven't gotten that feeling lately. And that's for J&D -2-. It's a sequel, but it's innovative.

I'm not saying that pc gaming is dead (it's not), and I'm not saying that there aren't great games out and in the pipe for the pc (there are); but pc game development is in a hard place. And some of these pressures are starting to have some very negative effects (EA, anyone?) As someone in another post said, can you create something gamers will love when everyone on the project hates their job, their company, and the project itself? And how can we get anything original when the driving design is a tired rehash?

[Dirt]

Political Machine was different.

[Eel Snave]

That's why indie games and mods are more important than ever. They're the ones who will innovate, and when they innovate, they force the industry to catch up. Look at Counterstrike. Guys who worked for cheap, and now the entire industry is chasing them. That's why PCs will always be the innovators.

Honestly, you think there's not as much of a grind on console game-makers? There has to be even more, because you can't release patches for console games. You have to hunt down every little bug AND hit a release date just like PC people. The difference is that many of them work in Japan where they're used to being workaholics.

Don't ever give up on the PC. There will always be new and exciting things to come out for it. Just because there's a rash of sequels right now means nothing.

Honestly, would you EVER see Freespace 2 on a console? How about the Baldur's Gate series? There's so many games that would never go on a console, and there will always be far more people innovating for this system that will every be innovating for consoles.

[greeneggsnham]

Eel Snave;

No, I don't expect to see Derek Smart's Freespace 3 on any console of mine.

I'd have to agree, though, that the indies are the lifeblood of pc development. Them, Stardock, and Relic. (They support their fans, their customers and their products.) I think we'll see more and more loss in the middle ground of the pc market: more nitch and indie titles, 'blockbuster' hits from the big publishers, and little esle. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Since you (kinda) brought up the subject of space sims... have you seen I've Found Her: Danger and Opportunity? It's an indie space sim demo set in the Babylon 5 universe;download it if you haven't already.

[dfs again]

Political Machine was different.

Only if you hadn't played Corporate Machine which in turn was a remake of Entrepeneur which was Stardock's attempt to make a real time 4x game that can be played in an hour. That's at least 6 years old now.

FWIW, I don't think Casey is lamenting sequels as much as originality. It's not the same thing.

In terms of storytelling, the difference between the original gold box games and Baldurs Gate is miniscule. so I have a little trouble holding up Baldurs Gate as an original franchise, but then I've been called a grump before. I'm really dissapointed with the evolution of computer role playing games, but that's another thread.

King of Dragon Pass was probably the last really original game I played, but I can still describe it in semi familiar terms. (a choose your own adventure book meets civilization set in Glorantha) I guess tranquility would fit.

I think there is still life in the sims franchise. I doubt anybody here wants to hear that.

I do find it interesting that more creative games are being produced by teams in the console world with the blessing of the corporate logo giants than in the indie PC world where anybody and his brother with a compiler can read the latest directx spec and build something.

I will look into Zekester's reccomendations. Thanks.

As Ironrod predicts, sometime in the future the industry will break out of the ghetto of gaming and into the digital entertainment field. I've no idea what that will look like. Nobody wants the movie model where we accept a passive game on rails the player can't manipulate. The other side of that coin is that as soon as you allow other players to interact with you, you will end up with griefers. How the industry handles that will probably tell us all we need to know.

[LordMortis]

I don't tend to think of video gaming as having matured as seems to be thought process here, but rather that it has put up its blinders or become fomulaic. Publishers look at what is already selling and the game designer's customers are not the end users, but rather the publishers. When millions of dollars are on the line for every title nobody gets to try new ground. When there was a smaller labor of love and the concepts of the game were 2nd only it's functionality you were afforded the oppotunity to develop a vision. Now, it is expected that you build on well selling visions. This is probably a good thing for most of the populace. For us gamers who see changes in the cerebral (for lack of a better concept) as the most important purpose of a new game, there is a little disappointment.

The people who like new concepts in gaming are also the people who still sit down and play ASCII roguelikes. We are too small to be counted in dollars and cents.

[Jeff Fiske]

Children of the Nile might not look like a whole new concept, and you might think it is Pharaoh II, but it is not. There is about five man years of design into it, much to support a real place feel. For those of you who develop, you know that is not easy.

Rather that go blabing about what it is and is not, the demo will be out on the 19th. It gives you an idea of how different the game is from anything you have ever played, and the potential that the real game has. For those of you who have really wanted to play a game in a 'real place', you should give it a shot.


As far as my own .02 to this- refinement of what has been done seems to be the 'formula for success these days'. It satisfies the publisher that they are putting 5-15million for something people are interested in, they can understand 'how their game will be better', and the gamers like it because a least it feels fresh.
-I started playing a skirmish of Warhammer 40k, and thought to myself, 'What is all the hype about?' then I played the campaign and I thought it was fantastic.
-On the flipside, Lord Mortis is right. The most different game I have played in years, was ADOM- and I enjoyed the heck out of it when I lost a 14th level character because I stepped on an evil altar and was sacrificed. Sadly, we probably are too small a crowd to make the big difference.

[Kael]

Gaming revolution isn't limited by imagination but by technology. Take a look at the game innovations that you see and you will see a technology that wasn't there 5 years before hand.

[Jeff Fiske]

Gaming revolution isn't limited by imagination but by technology. Take a look at the game innovations that you see and you will see a technology that wasn't there 5 years before hand.

I get your point, but I think you are undervaluing the effect that non-technical game design has on the effect of your game-play experience, outside of technology. (Such as the Rogue-type games alluded to such as ADOM which is almost a different paradigm.)

By that definition, you might put Half-Life 2 higher on the innovation scale than I would. The technology innovation that half-life 2 does is far greater than the gameplay innovation inside it.

The first Half-life was innovative. It was decent technology for the time but it was close to revolutionary in game-design and game-play. My mind was spinning when I played it. I had never experienced anything like it before.

Half-life 2 is definitely leaps and bounds ahead in so many ways technically, but frankly inside by brain - the game feels like 'more of the same' done right. I have never seen anything like it before, I have experienced many games like it.

*Big disclaimer, I have only played the very beginning of Hl2, and there are probably some new moments waiting for me- but those will be game design elements- not because of the technology. Doom 3 - Evolution in technology, backward step in game design?)

Or take CounterStrike. Identical technology, innovative game design= new gameplay experience.

To me, this use of technology here seems a bit more innovative in terms of gameplay, than in other 'updated RTS' games-
http://www.eagames.com/official/lordoft ... 8&resID=hi

But I still think that when I play it, my brain will certainly feel - been there, done that.

The technology has little to do with innovative game designs, other than opening some doors that may have been closed before.

[Kael]

Gaming revolution isn't limited by imagination but by technology. Take a look at the game innovations that you see and you will see a technology that wasn't there 5 years before hand.

I get your point, but I think you are undervaluing the effect that non-technical game design has on the effect of your game-play experience, outside of technology. (Such as the Rogue-type games alluded to such as ADOM which is almost a different paradigm.)

By that definition, you might put Half-Life 2 higher on the innovation scale than I would. The technology innovation that half-life 2 does is far greater than the gameplay innovation inside it.

What was it about Half-Life that was innovative? Hadn't everything in it been done before, but Valve just just put it together so well and with such polish as to make it a work of art?

[Odin]

I just want them to remake Xcom.Sigh...............

My god in heaven yes!