Awhile back, in Do We Want Something Different?, I asked whether the majority of gamers really want new and innovative games. My answer to that question was “no, not really”.
Now The Escapist has an article up by Shannon Drake on the same subject. Clover Studios, a division of Capcom, was formed to create innovative products for consoles. They did. The games won awards all over the place. They didn’t sell very many.
Oh yes, there were sales, of course, but nowhere near what was expected. Despite good reviews and critical acclaim, only a small subset of the gaming community was interested.
The mass market passed them by. I don’t find that surprising, and so I’m a bit worried by upcoming games like Eschalon: Book 1 and Broken Hourglass.
The emphasis today is on graphics and physics. How pretty is the world? How realistic are the visuals? How close to “real world” are the physics of the game? And, of course, how fast is the combat?
A lot of that is basically trivial detail. “Look ma, I can pick up the hammer! Or anything else! Wooee!”. “Gosh, that looks like a real tank!”.
Everything else remains pretty much the same by genre as before. The majority just doesn’t want to stray too far from the “comfort zone”, from what is familiar across many games already played.
Repetition breeds conservatism, and a desire for more of the same. We see this in many MMOGs, such as World Of Warcraft, for example. There really isn’t much to it beyond fighting, leveling up, and treasure grabbing.
As far as “A” titles go, I don’t have a lot of hope for anything really new and exciting to show up. These games have to make money – a great deal of it – and that means, as always, sticking with the tried and true.
Independents are really the hope here. They can be successful selling relatively fewer copies of fresh games, and building their own markets. Being small in this case does have an advantage.
Whether that will happen, of course, remains to be seen. In the meantime, check out the article and see what you think.
There is innovative, and then there is different. The only one of the titles I had seen in the article was Viewtiful Joe. It was just a retro-style side scroller arcade game on adrenaline, nothing particularly innovative from my perspective, though different than the normal fare you see these days. Okami sounded interesting, but since it was a console release I usually don’t see it unless my kids are playing it.
I have to agree with the gist of the article though. The niche market may win you critical acclaim, but not sales. There is too much of an investment required in dollars and time for a AAA title to stray too far from the mainstream and mass appeal.
That’s why it’s called a niche market. Smaller development studios or independents may be able to prosper in these types of markets, but they’re going to have to be very lean and probably won’t have a marketing budget of any significance. Also, it’s unlikely that such studios or games can drive really good salaries or benefits, meaning that they won’t often get top talent. Once I win the lottery and don’t have to worry about money any more, maybe I’ll consider starting such an endeavor myself to make RPGs. :P
Why wait? Unless your current employment prohibits it? :)
Yes, I am such an instigator. Come on, what can you build in a week? In a month? In a year? In your spare time… :)
I believe that the secret is not in providing something wildly innovative and creative (as much as I’d like to…) so much as leading the audience to the edge of their comfort zone … and then gradually beyond.
Granted, there are exceptions – like everyone’s favorite poster child, The Sims. But The Sims was largely NOT a hit with the existing gamer audience – its popularity was with a brand new audience. If it had ONLY been sold to existing gamers, it would have flopped.
Anything I make in my spare time which could in any fashion be construed as related, competing with or a result of my employment is instantly owned by said employer. Even if I were to work on something, I could not publish it, even for free apparently. Yeah, I’m sure all of this would be debatable in court, but I’m really not interested in finding out in that manner. It basically boils down to “we own what you make, even in your spare time”. I put in the effort to make a proposal through the official channels once, with predictable results. If your RPG doesn’t involve “action”, they aren’t interested. :P
At any rate, I’m a game programmer, not an engine or tech guy. I’m not really interested in investing tons of time developing a 3D engine and pipleline just to work on my own thing. The most I could anticipate doing reasonably would be an old isometric tile system.
It’s also difficult to spend even more time programming at home. Despite the lack of good RPGs, I still tend to spend my spare time PLAYING games instead of working on them. :)
Well, there are a ton of game engines out there to start from :) But yeah, you have a not-so-uncommon problem there. Which is why I won’t work for a game publisher anymore.
Heh, before games, I was a programming contractor while the .com thing was still happening. My free time was spent on what I wanted with neither my contracting agency or the company contracting me having any say or claim to it. I made better money back then and worked more reasonable hours too. :P
Anywho… I’m off to buy my lottery tickets. :) If I win enough, I have a couple of co-workers that will go down the same route with me. Fortunately, one is an artist.
Back on topic, it would be nice if innovation sold games. But in the end it is a combination of marketing and “fun”. Where “fun” has to be broadly enough defined to appeal to hordes of people.
The question that comes to my mind when I read these kinds of things is: how do they know it’s the “innovation” that turned players off? What, did they give out questionnaires to a significant number of potential buyers who chose not to make the purchase?
Every game on the shelf — every genre and game type, that is — came out of nowhere in the past 30 years. New, original, “innovative”. Yet people had no trouble getting past the innovative qualities to buy and enjoy the original games in those genres.
There’s a resistance to taking a chance on something new, sure. It’s understandable; most attempts at “new and different” are garbage. People learn that and are wary. Better the thing they know they’ll like than taking a chance. If a new kind of game is really good, word of mouth will bring people around to trying it.
Most people don’t want “new and different” just for the sake of the newness and difference. No, innovation does not sell games. Why should it? People want good games. If they’re also new and different, that’s a wonderful icing on the cake.
Claiming that the unwashed masses are too dull and in a rut to appreciate innovative genius … well, I can understand how that would be easier to swallow than recognizing that my game wasn’t good enough (or realizing that I made a niche game and should never have expected many sales).
My curmudgeonly two cents.
Of course, in the beginning, everything is new and innovative, because there’s no precedent.
One problem nowadays is the cost of development. Games have to recoup that huge cost, so management is leery of anything too new or unusual.
And yes, an “innovative” game can be junk. Still, I have the feeling that many gamers prefer what they know over what they don’t, unless the product is exceptional.
I do agree that many gamers prefer what they already know, Scorpia. Some of the reason may be complacency (or whatever). But I believe there are positive reasons as well.
Everyone has a first game in a genre that hooks them. A game that creates wonderful memories. Staying with the same sort of games builds upon those good memories (good games, that is) in a kind of … synergy or feedback. People aren’t just playing the latest game of a type, they’re also replaying all the previous good memories of that type of game.
Truly new games have none of that advantage. They start building on nothing. Therefore they have to be exceptional to equal a merely good game of an established type.
My psycho-drivel of the day.