As of recently, Nintendo as a whole has been spouting quotes akin to "Innovation is the key to success.", and the like. While that may be true to an extent, it's not necessary to completely redesign the way we play games. Innovation, after all, doesn't mean a new invention. I'm not bashing innovation in videogames here, but I just wanted to point out that it's not as necessary as Nintendo wants it to seem. Why, look at all of our retro games that we still keep playing. Are they innovative? No, we beat them already. Are there more surprises left in it? Not if you beat them. But you still keep playing them, and innovative at the core or not, the games were stellar, short and simple.
Another potential problem with innovation is that nothing lasts. In the generation after the Wii, we'll look back on it and laugh, since we'll have new technology that far surpasses the Wii's controller. The same can be said for the DS's touch screen; in the future, we will have multi-touch screens, and we'll just laugh at the low possibilities of the DS's touch screen. There will be no everlasting games for the DS and Wii if what I say is comes true. Advances in technology, apparently, can also be bad. The truth of the matter is that if there are more obstacles, the easier it is to make something. The more freedom a developer gets, the harder it is for the dev to create a gimmick-less, legendary game. Why do you think we've been seeing less and less games that will be remembered as legendary nowadays? Sure, we have stellar games, but none can rank up with the NES, SNES, and N64 classics of the Golden Age.
That's because there were more obstacles in developing the older games. Developers only had a couple of buttons for using in games. Now, with the Wii, they have a whole unexplored world... This is a good and bad thing at the same time, since developers practically have no boundaries, but it's tough to create games that will be considered the best of the best... Why, already, there are tons of gimmicky games for the DS that are innovative for the sake of being innovative. Pac-Pix. Electroplankton. Many more. These games won't be remembered as classics by the majority of gamers, but games like Super Mario World and Ocarina of Time will be. This is because these games weren't innovative at the core; they were innovative in different parts. In Ocarina of Time, some of the items were new and innovative. That kind of innovation is what's needed, not innovation that completely breaks apart all of the things made in the videogame industry.
Of course, there are exceptions... Twilight Princess looks like the first no-gimmicks Wii title, but as for the rest... The rest break the mold, and I'm a bit worried that developers will have too little obstacles, and that they'll just insert gimmicks by the hundreds instead of giving us a gripping story, legendary gameplay, perfect controlers, and awesome graphics. This is just a very large concern for me, seeing if the Wii will offer only gimmicky titles, I'll have no more incentive to play new videogames. Why bother at all, if we'll be seeing works of art, like Electroplankton, instead of full-fledged adventures like Ocarina of Time?
Another potential problem with innovation is that nothing lasts. In the generation after the Wii, we'll look back on it and laugh, since we'll have new technology that far surpasses the Wii's controller. The same can be said for the DS's touch screen; in the future, we will have multi-touch screens, and we'll just laugh at the low possibilities of the DS's touch screen. There will be no everlasting games for the DS and Wii if what I say is comes true. Advances in technology, apparently, can also be bad. The truth of the matter is that if there are more obstacles, the easier it is to make something. The more freedom a developer gets, the harder it is for the dev to create a gimmick-less, legendary game. Why do you think we've been seeing less and less games that will be remembered as legendary nowadays? Sure, we have stellar games, but none can rank up with the NES, SNES, and N64 classics of the Golden Age.
That's because there were more obstacles in developing the older games. Developers only had a couple of buttons for using in games. Now, with the Wii, they have a whole unexplored world... This is a good and bad thing at the same time, since developers practically have no boundaries, but it's tough to create games that will be considered the best of the best... Why, already, there are tons of gimmicky games for the DS that are innovative for the sake of being innovative. Pac-Pix. Electroplankton. Many more. These games won't be remembered as classics by the majority of gamers, but games like Super Mario World and Ocarina of Time will be. This is because these games weren't innovative at the core; they were innovative in different parts. In Ocarina of Time, some of the items were new and innovative. That kind of innovation is what's needed, not innovation that completely breaks apart all of the things made in the videogame industry.
Of course, there are exceptions... Twilight Princess looks like the first no-gimmicks Wii title, but as for the rest... The rest break the mold, and I'm a bit worried that developers will have too little obstacles, and that they'll just insert gimmicks by the hundreds instead of giving us a gripping story, legendary gameplay, perfect controlers, and awesome graphics. This is just a very large concern for me, seeing if the Wii will offer only gimmicky titles, I'll have no more incentive to play new videogames. Why bother at all, if we'll be seeing works of art, like Electroplankton, instead of full-fledged adventures like Ocarina of Time?
] ) saying something like that just doesn't make sense... we need innovation or these games we play, the people that make them, they're just in a huge rat race.
