Starker on 23/10/2013 at 21:51
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
It is?
Do you really think Mirror's Edge innovated for the sake of innovation? Do you really think that Dice employees sat about the office flipping a coin trying to decide between making a good game or an innovative game. As if those two things are exclusive. As if formulaic games can't suck. Or innovative games can't be good.
Or that, over the long run, we don't benefit from innovation.
The point was not that Mirror's Edge innovated for the sake of innovation. The point was that innovation gets lauded as something to strive for regardless whether it's needed or not. He wasn't talking about the game, he was talking about the reaction to the game.
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Remind me when anyone's actually said that.
Remind me where anyone's said that innovation is unnecessary. I was just taking your point to the other extreme.
jay pettitt on 23/10/2013 at 23:59
Quote:
Remind me where anyone's said that innovation is unnecessary. I was just taking your point to the other extreme.
Hold up. I didn't make that point. I criticised the video for floundering about and not hitting any nail on the head. Lazily conjuring a notion of innovation for innovation's sake (whatever that is) to help it work out why innovation is apparently bad except for when it isn't bad.
I reckon, if developers really are over using the term 'innovation' it's probably got more to do with being sensitive about being seen as stagnant. I'm really not seeing the bigger corners of the games industry drowning under the weight of it's own self indulgent wild innovation festival.
Starker on 24/10/2013 at 00:14
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
Hold up. I didn't make that point.
You said that without innovation there would be no new games. Nobody was claiming otherwise.
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
I criticised the video for floundering about and not hitting any nail on the head. Lazily conjuring a notion of innovation for innovation's sake (whatever that is) to help it work out why innovation is apparently bad except for when it isn't bad.
The video is not bashing innovation at all. He is criticising the idea that innovating is something that is inherently good (for the game) and placed higher than the actual quality of a game. Also, the idea that when developers are not innovating, they are doing something wrong.
jay pettitt on 24/10/2013 at 01:48
Quote:
You said that without innovation there would be no new games. Nobody was claiming otherwise.
Great. So is innovation good or bad?
Err, it depends.
Fine. But saying it depends on whether or not it's innovation done 'for its own sake' based on 'cos I say so and a badly written article by a games journalist (forsooth) in 2008 didn't convince me otherwise isn't hitting a nail on the head.
Quote:
The video is not bashing innovation at all
No, he bashes innovation for its own sake ~ without establishing what it is, if it even happens (in any substantial way) or why it's bad.
As well as conflating that with some stuff about why innovation isn't inherently good (without investigating whether or not that's true or ever gazing beyond video game myopia) and why it shouldn't be rewarded (without establishing that it isn't something that should be rewarded).
I know the guy has to churn out umpteen articles and videos a week and not all of them are going to be gold, but that there was a lazy, uninformed rant.
Chade on 24/10/2013 at 02:24
For the purposes of this conversation, just imagine me agreeing with whatever jay says.
And possibly, in the future, with whatever jay says jay says.
A random collection of anecdotes following a theme is not an argument.
Starker on 24/10/2013 at 03:13
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
No, he bashes innovation for its own sake ~ without establishing what it is, if it even happens (in any substantial way) or why it's bad.
As well as conflating that with some stuff about why innovation isn't inherently good (without investigating whether or not that's true or ever gazing beyond video game myopia) and why it shouldn't be rewarded (without establishing that it isn't something that should be rewarded).
There are examples in the video. I don't know what kind of dissertation you were expecting, but for the purposes of what is essentially a really simple idea it is enough.
Also, it's not about whether innovation is good or not. It's about whether it is good for a specific game.
Chade on 24/10/2013 at 03:35
He states that:
1) the industry values innovation too much, and
2) innovation should only be judged by how it impacts the quality of a game.
Both these statements are virtually meaningless, because innovation is a poorly defined word, and Jim doesn't bother to describe what he considers as innovation. If Jim were to actually turn these into meaningful statements, I'm guessing I'd disagree with both. I certainly disagree with both when I substitute my own concept of innovation for his.
Finally, Jim provides no arguments in support of his position, and his random list of anecdotes, while amusing when presented in a suitably theatrical tone of voice, do nothing to change that.
Starker on 24/10/2013 at 03:53
You generalise his statements too much. He doesn't talk about innovation as a concept. He simply says that innovation has become essentially a buzzword for some developers like David Cage and this can lead to implementing gimmicky features and systems that don't necessarily benefit the game.
GodzillaX8 on 24/10/2013 at 04:05
How do you know if the innovation is good or bad until you've tried it? All Jim's basically said in that was "Bad innovation is bad, so no innovation is better" which isn't true, at all.
If they released the new Thief and the gameplay were lifted straight out of Thief 2 with new maps and shinier graphics, I'd actually be pretty disappointed. I don't want the same game that I've already played a thousand times, I want something new and different that doesn't stray all that far from the original formula. If I just wanted Thief 2 with better graphics, I'd just play some TDM FMs. In my opinion, that's what it looks like this new game is doing. Set me on fire, if you must.
Starker on 24/10/2013 at 04:23
Quote Posted by GodzillaX8
How do you know if the innovation is good or bad until you've tried it? All Jim's basically said in that was "Bad innovation is bad, so no innovation is better" which isn't true, at all.
Sigh... that's not what the guy said at all. He wasn't making statements about innovation itself, only about it being used as goal for a game and, on the flip side, to bash games that aren't "innovative enough".
Quote Posted by GodzillaX8
If they released the new Thief and the gameplay were lifted straight out of Thief 2 with new maps and shinier graphics, I'd actually be pretty disappointed. I don't want the same game that I've already played a thousand times, I want something new and different that doesn't stray all that far from the original formula. If I just wanted Thief 2 with better graphics, I'd just play some TDM FMs. In my opinion, that's what it looks like this new game is doing. Set me on fire, if you must.
And in my opinion, things like QTEs and escapes from burning buildings are totally out of place in a Thief game.
Now press X to not be set on fire.
