Gamers Killing Video Game Industry, Gamers Don't Know What They Want!

Yes, innovative, if not completely unique, you could do that on that poorly accepted military shooter, "spec ops", the whole switch characters realtime inside of the same scenario-timeframe. Still pretty grand.

Had a lot of pitfalls too, but can't say they weren't cause by the amount of new they used.

That being said, I really do believe, at the very least the AAA title market, will have a collapse. Too many publishers will keep hopping onto the same in-the-now fad type game, and all their titles will eventually simultaneously fall apart when people finally do stop buying something that has been done before by 4 different publishers to death. Who knows if that will move more money into indie games, keep it the same, or move less money into them? All I know is, the first time the publishers dump money into a sure idea, and it doesn't produce a return as people stop reacting based on hype on overmarketed trends, they aren't going to be able to innovate and we might see EA or even Activision take the leave from the market. And that I am not sure is scary or good, that might be the loss of a treasure as far as we know, even if they aren't acting proper nowadays with all this simcity design stupidity.

Spec Ops wasn't about the gameplay. It's about a message. It's showing you how horrific the wars in games actually are. It's arguably a parody. Also comparing that to GTA is just silly, they're completely different.

I still think you're being ridiculously hyperbolic. There's plenty of new IPs coming out and some old ones being renewed. The market does not solely consist of repetitive sequels.

Yes I am going to skip over that, because to me it felt like a gimmick.

Edit: You could argue that the amount of people who do think three main characters is 'innovation' shows the dismal state of AAA gaming today. Compare "three characters" to "holy **** mp actually works" (quakeworld) or "and now we have a real ladder system to go with it" (brood wars). Doesn't seem all that innovative then, does it?

Change =/= innovation
Innovation == a fresh new idea that chances something significantly

also for clarity, I don't think AAA gaming is going to collapse. I think we're going to have the same dynamic as the movie industry. Hollywood vs Independent, AAA vs Indie

It is an innovation within the franchise and is most certainly not a gimmick. It's a new mechanic used persistently throughout the game and the game allows for plenty of interactions.

If it was a gimmick it would appear twice in some heavily scripted moments of a couple of main story missions and then never see the light of day again.

Ugh why do I even do this

Yeah, debating with people when you have no intent to even consider their opinions is pretty pointless.

Thank you for informing me of the fact that I do not listen to people. You've opened my eyes to the truth and I will be grateful for the rest of my life.

Please.

Well technically, reading isn't the same is listening. But I get ya drift

I mean, is there any point to your "ugh" post? All it shows it what I said - a lack of intent to consider opposing opinions. Which is funny, because you're both basically debating whether a game is good or not (for certain standards of good, in this case relating to innovation).

Which is subjective, and thus not objective. Which means it's perfectly possible to have two dissenting opinions and yet agree to disagree in a mature fashion.

Y'know. Instead of saying "ugh" like you're some kind of homo sapiens superior who people don't just listen to.

You are right, still, do you get why I am getting a bit annoyed by this particular thread? edit: though I disagree with your view of the subject of the discussion. In my mind, it's a discussion about what innovation is.

What people consider "innovative" is also subjective, because the boundaries vary massively depending on the person. It's similar to debating the "immersion break" factor that often comes into gaming (and humour).

If you were discussing an objective factor, such as model fidelity or some other technical quality (like max frames per second) . . . then there would be a right and a wrong.

Immersion varies from person to person. By definition, it cannot be objective.

I'd have to agree that just because a positive change is new to a franchise, that doesn't necessarily make it innovation. Innovation is more along the lines of "bringing something new to the whole table", not just within your own franchise, and I'm pretty sure most literal definitions agree that innovation is original.

That said, fresh ideas can almost always be improved. I think the pursuit of "innovation" for every. single. game. is kind of overrated. Personally, my top 2 "dream games" are just well done mish mashes of already existing titles.

i lol'd at col_jessups "Modern battlefield of duty 6 : Assassin's of FIFA"

All i have in my head now is......
Total Planetary Supreme Annihilation Commander.........
Nuff said..... lol

I do not agree. You do not say "I personally feel like steam engines weren't all that innovative" or "that Roman military wasn't all that innovative in my opinion." Innovation is not something with subjective value, you simply compare a development to its context and then you see how different it is. Where you draw the line is certainly subjective, but the definition is not; Geers is not using that definition, that's why I'm annoyed.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear.

How can something be significant if it is limited to itself? Also, I thought we were talking about AAA gaming, not GTA

* innovation within video games.

Let's not change the argument here. Actual innovation in video games is incredibly rare in the sense of "we invented irrigation" as these are conceptual mechanics. However, that doesn't mean that progress cannot be innovative in some way.

The Roman Legions were completely innovative. Nothing like that had been done before.

The evolution of a Roman sword (gladius) also went through innovations. But improving on a weapon's design is not innovative in itself.

Innovation is in the eye of the beholder....

meaning like "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" ..
We each see innovation from a different perspective and have different opinions on what is truly innovative and what isn't.

Even within it's own scope, I'd consider that change a renovation rather than an innovation, but w/e

So you agree with my definition of innovation but also not at the same time?

Ok.

Your attitude is simply great, you know that.

No, I do not agree with you. You're touting innovation as some objective fact without, in fact, realising that there are innovations that are subjective in their qualities and benefits.