ID:13576
 
A lot of games strive on doing something new. Coming up with the new innovative battle system or way to traverse a world map is what many game developers think is the claim to fame. Well, although it can be the claim to fame, what's exotic isn't always what works.

I have here 3 games that are the first (or widely-believed to be the first) to perform their system, and do it right enough to be hailed as amazing. I also have 3 games that are unique in a significant way, but their system simply fails.

Games that are innovative in a good way:

Pacman (mazes) - Pacman did a lot that they first did in this nation-wide hit. A maze-like gameplay in a maze-like world gobbling pellets in a maze-like pattern. No matter what Pacman did, if it didn't do it like it did the maze concept, I doubt people would have flocked to it with so much enthusiasm.

Chrono Trigger (battle system) - Chrono Trigger is another game that did so many things right, but what kept players jumping for joy was the amazing battle system. The shape of a battle, no random encounters, and consideration for teamwork between combinations of members of a party. Seriously, Chrono Trigger is an example of pure excellence in a battle system, and it is considered one of the best battle systems to this day. I guess innovation was the seed for something greater.

Super Smash Bros. (free movement) - A fighting game was well-known for being on a flat area, usually not very big, fought on by two battlers who had a strict engine to work by. Nintendo decided to not only unite many great Nintendo characters, but also make a field worthy of 4 simultaneous players with platforms, items, and tricks galore.

Okay, but what about games that failed in their attempts?

Harvest Moon: A Wonderful Life - This game paid a good sum of attention to Harvest Moon's base concepts, but widely changed a good amount of it to fit a new concept. I don't fully understand what it wanted to do, but it was obvious to me that this wasn't going to be like previous Harvest Moon installments. What was different? Well in other Harvest Moons, you're given nothing and must bring it all to greatness in an explorative environment, where you can enjoy a farming world. In this game, you're given plenty, and are forced to repetitive gameplay and shallow townspeople from the get-go. Ugh.

Final Fantasy VIII (draw magic) - The common belief as to how magic should work is that it is infinite. You have magic forever and ever, and your only limit is an abundant source of power known as MP (magic points). FFVIII wanted to take a new look, and make it similar to items, where you can run out of the spell altogether, even if you could use other spells. This concept was failed, because magic that you run out of, was basically the same as using items. Turns out most people don't like the urgency of running out of crap like that.

Metal Gear (stealth) - Metal Gear was an NES game hailed as a classic by many gamers and fans of the franchise. Although the NES one was a remake, many people have not tried Hideo Kojima's original version. What made the stealth of this game so poor was the fact that the player never had the chance to use it at certain times where it would be needed. when making certain map changes, you were already in the enemy's line of sight, thus you at times take damage before you even had a chance to react or move. It would take until further installments for the stealth element to be done in a realistic or workable way.
I suppose innovation in gaming is a mix of doing things new and doing them right.
I think what you said sounded okay, but I was rather disappointed with your reasons for showcasing Pacman, Chrono Trigger and Super Smash Bros. What you wrote for each of them, more or less, amounted to "just because" while you actually wrote why some people didn't like aspects of Harvest Moon, FF8 and Metal Gear.

Personally, I thought Chrono Trigger had its own annoyances that made up for a lack of random encounters - regular enemies that were 100% unavoidable. In the long run I found them more aggravating to fight alone rather than having a random group pop up after some time had passed.

I also think you sensationalized Pacman a bit. At that time, I don't think there was much ground explored for videogames so even the most basic of ideas would have been interpreted as something new. I think that leads into Super Smash Bros a little bit, because (as far as I know) a fighting game with that feeling of character freedom on stages hadn't been explored much, if at all.

In general, I liked what you wrote. Innovation for the sake of innovation is overrated. It just has to be fun.
Sarm said:
Innovation for the sake of innovation is overrated. It just has to be fun.

Somewhat. Mario Party 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are all great fun- that doesn't mean you should buy each one, though; they're practically all the same.

Innovation keeps things fresh, which is an essential part of an experience too!
I can't respond in detail to your post, because I haven't played most of those games. But I like the fact that you are putting thought into this subject. As Sarm said (and Elly quoted), "innovation for the sake of innovation is overrated," but innovation that results in a genuinely intriguing game is a whole different story. (Katamari Damacy for PS2 is, to me, a prime example of worthwhile innovation.)
I mostly agree with everything Sarm said. In terms of your argument, I think you're relying on the fact that everyone loves/respects Pacman/Chrono Trigger/Super Smash Bros. to uphold your argument. This is a blog, not a school essay, I know, but your argument could use some help.

More importantly, I was totally jumping on your Pacman example before Sarm said anything. I agree here 100% with him: Pacman came out at a time where so few ideas had been thought of, I'm not sure it's allowed to be called "innovative." I guess, technically, it is innovative, but this "maze" wasn't a stroke of genius.

I want to disagree with Elation, because while the base idea of Mario Party is the same (NOT innovative), the games are very different in terms of the the mini-games, mostly. Several people have argued that Mario Party X is better than Mario Party Y because the games were less chance-based/had more variety. I noticed this as well. I couldn't tell ya which was which, but certain Mario Party's are a thousand times better than others. And some just break your controller (Mario Party 1).

Anyway, like Gughunter said, the fact that you're putting this much thought into this idea is good, but there's so much more you can do with it. I'd say you revise your argument, pick more/better examples for each case, and talk about how it can actually influence the future of gaming and how YOU would theorize a solution to games that are innovative, but are just plain crap. Then, I'd send it to RPGFan's editorial section (so few readers submit, a big deal is made about it when someone does). Hop on it!
Spore
Mmm. Your example of the first metal gear... didn't seem like it was anything to do with innovation being good or bad, simply the developers messing up the implementation.
Looking back at my work in the positive argument section, I agree that my argument toward the reason why the innovation was good (specifically the Super Smash Bros part) was hollow. I said what previous games were, I said what this game was, but I needed to make an overall call on "why".

About Pacman being out when innovation was a scarce concept (everything was new), it's hard to shun the concept of innovation in a time like that, because gaming really did have boundaries back then. There really were concepts that shot out in the olden days (one example to plug in would be battery back-up saves as first brought by Legend of Zelda on the NES). When I look back, the maze reasoning was a bad idea. A much more innovative part could've been how Pacman was the first character in a game with an identity (name).

As for that period having no real existance of innovation, I disagree. All because there was a lot of unexplored territory doesn't mean that you can't call it innovation. What was hot and new back then might be boring to us now. In 50 years, some games we saw today as innovative might be said by people then to be run-of-the-mill.

As for the argument that I'm relying on the popularity of the first three games; I try not to pick games that people will agree with just because they like it, I try to find the best examples. That's partially why the highly acclaimed Metroid Prime and Skies of Arcadia: Legends ended up on the 'bad' list in my previous entry. The reason Pacman, Super Smash Bros, and Chrono Trigger ended up being praised is because I feel a great deal of their success is due to the highly innovative feature(s) they supplied. I wouldn't pick some game like Final Fantasy Tactics or Super Mario Bros 3, because they didn't do anything truly innovative. They were just one of the best of their fields.

As for my description of Metal Gear being poor implementation of the innovation, part of innovation is indeed the implementation. Sometimes all of the innovation is the implementation. Some people consider touch-screen monitors to be an innovation, but it just simply places a heat-sensitive input surface over an output device (a screen). Innovative? Somewhat. Purely implementation? Yes.

Heck if Final Fantasy VIII found a better way to implement the Draw system, it might have been a great innovation.