We need innovation in games, but not when they are not needed (Topic)

"Developers have become lazy and don't do anything new", "Publishers are afraid of innovation and innovation in games, and parasitize on the same formulas", "We got these sandboxes that I need to clean up." You have seen these and many similar complaints on gaming forums or in the comments. People complain about evil developers and corporations who only pump money out of us with their monotonous projects. And there is some truth here - this is certainly true. It is everywhere. Uniting in a large mass, hardcore gamers create with their criticism the so-called "good taste in games" by spreading this or that project due to the lack of innovation in their opinion. However, looking closely at their opinions in detail, it seems that the masses are just used to enjoying those games whose formula does not change from year to year.

Eternal Revolutionaries

Capcom released a gorgeous remake of Resident Evil 2 in 2019 and this game was more than a remake. Only the surroundings, characters and general themes remained in it, and everything else was completely redone from scratch. The best part is how we were shown the updated Mr. X. He became a real threat that really tickled the nerves. He chased us, rattling his boots. And even if you could weaken him, he would still come back to catch up and kill Claire and Leon.

He's really one of the best things the game has to offer, besides all its other goodies. But what do we find when we go deeper into the forums? There is a popular belief that Capcom ruined the game because the tyrant interferes with playing and peacefully exploring the police station.

In fact, these gamers did not like that the horror game was a great horror game that coped with its main task. Apparently, the boss in games should always be in one particular place to sit and obediently wait for your arrival. Hell, it's even scary to imagine what will be said about Nemesis [at the time of writing, RE3 Remake has not yet been released].

And if the criticism of Mr. X is not so great in relation to the love of the game, there are two more games that we talked about in a separate article about hyperrealism, which also did not escape similar criticism for innovative solutions.

RDR 2 can hardly be called the same GTA 5, although at first glance it seems that this is GTA, but in the Wild West. Those who are used to pampering us with action every 30 seconds, explosions and madness have created an open world where 50% of the meditative gameplay is based on the fact that you ride a horse, catching, as they say now, a wipe. Smooth and unhurried in order to enhance the atmosphere of the era.

Only over time, after a long relationship with the characters in your camp, will the game bring a sprightly and dramatic ending. And I don’t know about you, but I was able to capture the atmosphere and immerse myself in the smooth pace of the game, trying to act out my role, having a great gaming experience.

But again, there were a lot of people who found this previously unknown approach - the biggest drawback of the game. Like, boring and no dynamics=bad.

This reflects even more the situation with Death Stranding. Kojima fed us with mystical trailers, and at first everyone did not understand anything, but the more information was, the more we realized what awaited us. When the game was released, it was criticized in abundance about the walking simulator in the spirit of: "Hahah, what a boring game, and why do you love Kojima so much?"

At the same time, Death Stranding reminds me of Stanley Kubrick's 2001 Space Odyssey from the game world, as people also called it boring and drawn-out. Completely omitting the fact of how cocky, attractive, insane and new she was. But the game snatched away criticism, as it turned out to be hated by everyone.

Most of all we like what we have seen more than once

There was not a little criticism during the recent presentation of Baldur's Gate 3, which turned out, oh god, not a clone of the old parts. I don't care that the development is done by those who gave us the first parts we loved earlier, the main thing is that everything is different here, so this is not Baldur's Gate.

Once similar claims flew in Fallout 3, and if today you can still argue about the quality of the troika itself, they will not even argue about the succession of New Vegas, but it can hardly be called the same game as the first two parts.

How many were excited that Resident Evil 7 was in the first person, because it is not the canon of the series at all. And anyway, it was a lifeline after RE 6, which ran into nowhere and drowned the series. But when the more conservative remake of the second part came out, you know, Mr. X was there and he spoiled everything.

It was also with God of War. Despite the widespread recognition and the title of "Game of the Year 2018", there were those who turned up their noses, because after six almost identical games, the seventh was different. Wow. What then the requirement for innovation and laziness of developers can we talk about? But alas, this is not what we remember=bad. Is that how it works?

The tradition of hating Assassin's Creed makes me even more amused. In a certain century, after people accused Syndicate of stagnation, plus the whole war of assassins and templars got tired, Ubisoft released Origins and Odyssey, but people were still unhappy, since this is no longer Assassin's Creed! That is, there are no elements that everyone is so tired of!

The same, but slightly different, but the same=innovation

This leads to only one conclusion that when people demand innovations in games, they do not demand the innovations themselves, but their illusions. At the same time, the same Ubisoft know how to do this, and although I praised Origins and Odyssey, I would not be surprised if in the future they will make new sequels according to this formula, which will become the next Syndicate and Unity. This is Ubisoft - they are tricky guys. Although, who knows, I could be wrong.

We like to experience what we already know and want to experience again. Therefore, projects such as The Last of Us 2 excite us. But at the same time, we stop being susceptible to something new, calling it a bad walking simulator. The moral of my thoughts is this - there will always be dissatisfied and it is normal when someone does not like something. Another thing is to call a game bad because of its innovation, that is, real innovation.

Don't call the game bad because it offers you solutions you are not familiar with. In other words: “I guess I don’t like Resident Evil 2 Remake, because the stress in games is not mine, I prefer smooth gameplay”, not: “Capcom ruined the game because I am not allowed to calmly explore the location.”

The Topic of Article: We need innovation in games, but not when they are not needed.
Author: Jake Pinkman