Innovation in games

[HHC]

Was having a discussion with Anubis on steam.

My point of view: there is little innovation in games atm, 99% of games are just clones of other games that do not offer anything new. Only once in a while a genuinely new idea is introduced and companies jump on the bandwagon to copy that idea (GTA, sandbox games, RocketLeague, etc.), without really adding new elements to it.

So yeh, I wanna know how you people feel about it.

Are you satisfied with what the gaming industry publishes or is it mostly 'meh' to you?

Where is room for improvement?
Can you think of a cool innovation that would be the next big thing in gaming?
What kind of game is missing.. what would you like to play that isn't available on the market?

And on a sidenote, how would you revolutionize Worms? Or are you just looking for the perfection of the existing set-up (WA 4.0)?

[Korydex]

I hate 95% of new games and Worms after second generation

[h3oCharles]

The Global Scale likes repetitive, that's all

[STRGRN]

it's the same thing with music, people just listen to pop music and not the innovative stuff

worms will definitely be revolutionized with our PoC schemes

[Sensei]

how would you revolutionize Worms?

Worms need VoIP!
Everyone wanna listen Godmax raging after some Aerial raping.

worms will definitely be revolutionized with our PoC schemes

Easy on the sugar, strgr...

[Husk]

play rock it leahue?

[Kradie]

Perhaps the issue here is that the older one gets, the harder it is to find a suitable game to one's taste. Nostalgia bias can be strong element within particular group that is less willing to try what is new. Understandingly so, because the new generation may prefer and even believe what is present today to be innovative. Although without some form of knowledge of the past, it is likely the today society is as content as we were back in the days.

From my perspective there aren't a lot of games in this day and age that appeals to me. Because what was and still is in my possession is what I am quite content with. Does this make me not willing to try anything new? Well both yes and no. A game called Sonic Mania is to be released soon, and this game is to borrow everything what made the more successful Sonic great, great again. Will this offer anything new? Probably not. There's likely the same elements and expectations we are used to.

Then we have Super Mario Odyssey, it looks quite fun and very classy. But are there anything new in this game? Somewhat, there's still this basic platforming and exploring. But what makes this game interesting is how Mario can control the cap for various things in order to progress, and merge himself into a wall and go play as 2D Mario.

Of course you may not even care for Sonic nor Mario. But those are 2 examples. The rest of the games  I can think of are just the same e.g Call of Duty, Battlefield, Counter Strike, Rainbow Six Siege and Insurgency.
See how I only mentioned shooters? There's nothing special about these shooters, only that they appeal to a difference broad of audience and there's nothing wrong in that. The point is, for each installment there's little to no significant updates that are made, except for maybe story and more microtransactions.

The business model is pretty old fashioned, just look at how Android OS. It has incremental updates, it updates over time without you having to buy the entire OS over again at a later stage. Apple introduced this with their OS, and I believe Microsoft is already following this business model with incremental updates.
Buying a new game for blood price + microtransaction seems to kill it for me personally. Some of these games aren't even half finished.

In the end, we are all different and have our own particular taste, best to accept this.

[melbo]

I was thinking about making a new scheme: worm's archery,but I don't have computer skills. It would be great to be able to use those training targets to apply them in the real game. Yes ideas,absolutely not concreteness
.

[TheWalrus]

Perhaps the issue here is that the older one gets, the harder it is to find a suitable game to one's taste. Nostalgia bias can be strong element within particular group that is less willing to try what is new. Understandingly so, because the new generation may prefer and even believe what is present today to be innovative. Although without some form of knowledge of the past, it is likely the today society is as content as we were back in the days.

From my perspective there aren't a lot of games in this day and age that appeals to me. Because what was and still is in my possession is what I am quite content with. Does this make me not willing to try anything new? Well both yes and no. A game called Sonic Mania is to be released soon, and this game is to borrow everything what made the more successful Sonic great, great again. Will this offer anything new? Probably not. There's likely the same elements and expectations we are used to.

Then we have Super Mario Odyssey, it looks quite fun and very classy. But are there anything new in this game? Somewhat, there's still this basic platforming and exploring. But what makes this game interesting is how Mario can control the cap for various things in order to progress, and merge himself into a wall and go play as 2D Mario.

Of course you may not even care for Sonic nor Mario. But those are 2 examples. The rest of the games  I can think of are just the same e.g Call of Duty, Battlefield, Counter Strike, Rainbow Six Siege and Insurgency.
See how I only mentioned shooters? There's nothing special about these shooters, only that they appeal to a difference broad of audience and there's nothing wrong in that. The point is, for each installment there's little to no significant updates that are made, except for maybe story and more microtransactions.

The business model is pretty old fashioned, just look at how Android OS. It has incremental updates, it updates over time without you having to buy the entire OS over again at a later stage. Apple introduced this with their OS, and I believe Microsoft is already following this business model with incremental updates.
Buying a new game for blood price + microtransaction seems to kill it for me personally. Some of these games aren't even half finished.

In the end, we are all different and have our own particular taste, best to accept this.

welcome back kradie

[HHC]

Perhaps the issue here is that the older one gets, the harder it is to find a suitable game to one's taste.

This is very true. The more games you try the more you're looking out for that special game that has elements of old games you like + the additions you've always wanted to see implemented in it.

Lately I've been looking for a game where you can play a little less active role as a player.. where you just sit and watch the CPU do stuff.
The most interesting thing I found was saltybet, a site where you watch hundreds of characters face each other in street fighter-like battles on random maps borrowed from all popular fighting games. Every new round you place a bet (with fake cash) for which character you think will win and then you just sit and watch the CPU AI operate both characters. It's quite funny and relaxed, but I guess it too gets old after a bit.
Here's the link: http://www.saltybet.com/

I think there's a market for these kind of games.. now with the current trend to watch ppl play games on YouTube instead of playing them yourself.

Maybe I'm a little overplayed 

But yeh, it's concepts like these that I'm talking about. I wish companies had the ingenuity to take games further than just being 'games'. If you see games as interactive media... there's a lot more possibilities that go beyond the traditional singleplayer or multiplayer setup of 'press A to achieve mission Z'.

Sandbox games & open world games were a true revolution, but IMO they haven't quite reached their potential yet. They have never really gone further than GTA or minecraft.

[Korydex]

Lately I've been looking for a game where you can play a little less active role as a player.. where you just sit and watch the CPU do stuff.

Cookie Clicker

[GeneralEcchi]

It's like emotions, if you never feel sad before you can never know what happy is like 
So yea, I'm okay with shitty game being made

[Kradie]

Perhaps the issue here is that the older one gets, the harder it is to find a suitable game to one's taste.

This is very true. The more games you try the more you're looking out for that special game that has elements of old games you like + the additions you've always wanted to see implemented in it.

Lately I've been looking for a game where you can play a little less active role as a player.. where you just sit and watch the CPU do stuff.
The most interesting thing I found was saltybet, a site where you watch hundreds of characters face each other in street fighter-like battles on random maps borrowed from all popular fighting games. Every new round you place a bet (with fake cash) for which character you think will win and then you just sit and watch the CPU AI operate both characters. It's quite funny and relaxed, but I guess it too gets old after a bit.
Here's the link: http://www.saltybet.com/

I think there's a market for these kind of games.. now with the current trend to watch ppl play games on YouTube instead of playing them yourself.

Maybe I'm a little overplayed 

But yeh, it's concepts like these that I'm talking about. I wish companies had the ingenuity to take games further than just being 'games'. If you see games as interactive media... there's a lot more possibilities that go beyond the traditional singleplayer or multiplayer setup of 'press A to achieve mission Z'.

Sandbox games & open world games were a true revolution, but IMO they haven't quite reached their potential yet. They have never really gone further than GTA or minecraft.

While this idea sounds innocent in practice, it will eventually lead to a gambling problem. and I think we have enough of that going on already. Eventually these companies will want to give players a choice whether to use fake or real money to further their progression. It could be that fake money would limit their interaction with the game, meaning that real money would be a clear winner if you want to gain something significant in return.

Everything gambling related is designed to keep you from leaving, these types of shenanigans are already in casinos and gambling websites. So Imagine a game where you are playing, the game will give you the illusion of reward but in reality the company behind the game(s) are the ones that makes a profit.

E.g As soonest you give off the command to your bet(AI) fighter/racer or slot machine, the game is already determined the victor and loser,  and you will have to wait until it is played out.

In the end I think it is a bad idea and a shady practice that wouldn't benefit the consumers.

[HHC]

I'm not advocating betting, but it does take the game further than merely 'spectating'. AFAIK the site has no intention to work with real money, so I'm cool with that. It's a means of getting involved in a game without actually taking the controls. I can't think of many alternatives to that other than chatting/stats tracking or some kind of god powers.

[Husk]

Bart I've been on saltybet since 2012