The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
When I first started gaming on computers, there was really only one genre: text adventures. Back in those days, before many of you were born, I had to walk up hill to school both ways...er...wrong column. Back in those days, people like Steve Meretzky and Scott Adams could sit in their basements and put together a whole game by themselves. Though they were all the same type of game, they were each original in their own way. From the Great Underground Empire of "Zork" to the mystical land of "Adventure," playing them was a lot like sitting down to take part in a really good book. From these early roots sprang many of the names still active in the business: Garriot, Grigsby, Meier, Williams, and of course Meretzky, to name a few. As computing power increased, operations moved out of basements and into offices, and from offices into entire buildings. One-man outfits became small development houses, and as the market grew, were swallowed up into the multi-national monoliths of today. Somewhere along the way, innovation went out the window.
Sure, flashy graphics and stirring sound effects improve every year, but how many truly original games do you see on store shelves? In the mid-eighties there was a blossoming of new genres. Adventure games spawned Role-Playing, War games spawned Strategy, Strategy spawned Puzzle and Sports games, Action moved out of the arcade and into the home and an unholy alliance of Strategy and Action gave birth to Simulations. This massive expansion slowed inevitably, with basically only two new genres breaking ground in the last 10 to 12 years, First-Person Shooters and Real-Time Strategy. Anyone care to guess why these two genres became so incredibly popular? Because, yes you're right, they were innovative. They were new, different from anything else on the store shelves. Care to guess what games were first in these two genres? 90% of you will say Doom and Warcraft respectively, but you're wrong. A few old timers may remember Castle Wolfenstein and Dune 2, and think they were the first. Wrong again. If you're curious, drop me a line, and I'll be happy to tell you. The point is, most of today's "ground-breaking" games are in fact following trails blazed more than ten years ago.
Don't get me wrong, I love to play games. And in recent years I have seen some hope for the future. The possibilities represented by the explosion of online gaming have never been brighter, especially with the ongoing success of games like Ultima Online and EverQuest. But guess what? Not only are the both Role-Playing games, but 70% of all massively multi-player games in development right now are too. This is innovation? No, I would look rather to small developers, and the occasional eclectic genius. The fact that Peter Molyneux has left the company he founded, Bullfrog, bodes very well for all of us. Bullfrog started out with great promise, with games that veered a little left and right of easy classification; but in recent years most of their new games coming out have been sequels to such ground-breaking titles as "Populous," "Syndicate," and "Magic Carpet." They're even doing a sequel to "Theme Park" as you read this. Do I play sequels? You bet. Is it innovation? Nope. Keep an eye out for Molyneux's upcoming "Black and White" for something along the lines of what I'm looking for. Even some of the more established companies have begun to show promise lately. Of particular note are Activision's "Battlezone" (with one sequel now) and Sir-Tech's "Jagged Alliance" (with two if you count "Deadly Games"). These are cross-genre games, which defy easy classification as well.
But the key to innovation lies not in the combining of two or more genres into one product. We all know that incest does not usually produce a stronger offspring, and there are innumerable examples of cross-genre failures in bargain bins everywhere. In fact, today's definition of innovation lies more in the way a game is presented than in the way it plays. Right now, I'm playing "Panzer General 3D Assault" from SSI.The key change from previous games in the series, the one splashed all over the box and even in the title itself, is the addition of 3D rendering to the battlefield. Does this make for a prettier game? You bet. Does it make for a better game? Well, it sure does look purty. Is this innovation? Nope. Visceral thrills are cool, but I want substance under the surface. Fortunately, SSI has added enough options and changes from the previous games in the series to make this another excellent game; but it's important to note that they didn't call it "Panzer General 3: Officer Training" or "Panzer General 3: Biggest Yet!" Graphics and effects are everything today. And as for innovation, "Total Annihilation" added 3D to battlefields before, and "Myth" did so even earlier; PG3's only real claim to fame on this front is that it is the first turn-based strategy game to use 3D. Or is it? "Alpha Centauri" looks kind of 3D...
My point is, nothing is really innovative anymore. Games are prettier, faster, better sounding, and more complex than when I first started gaming. But they're mostly variations on themes 10 to 20 years old. Does this mean my "wow" factor is dead? No, but it's not the same. Will I stop gaming (a question my girlfriend often asks me)? Never. Who knows. That next box I crack open may be it, the start of a whole new genre the gaming community can mimic for the next 20 years. Woop-de-doo.
Sure, flashy graphics and stirring sound effects improve every year, but how many truly original games do you see on store shelves? In the mid-eighties there was a blossoming of new genres. Adventure games spawned Role-Playing, War games spawned Strategy, Strategy spawned Puzzle and Sports games, Action moved out of the arcade and into the home and an unholy alliance of Strategy and Action gave birth to Simulations. This massive expansion slowed inevitably, with basically only two new genres breaking ground in the last 10 to 12 years, First-Person Shooters and Real-Time Strategy. Anyone care to guess why these two genres became so incredibly popular? Because, yes you're right, they were innovative. They were new, different from anything else on the store shelves. Care to guess what games were first in these two genres? 90% of you will say Doom and Warcraft respectively, but you're wrong. A few old timers may remember Castle Wolfenstein and Dune 2, and think they were the first. Wrong again. If you're curious, drop me a line, and I'll be happy to tell you. The point is, most of today's "ground-breaking" games are in fact following trails blazed more than ten years ago.
Don't get me wrong, I love to play games. And in recent years I have seen some hope for the future. The possibilities represented by the explosion of online gaming have never been brighter, especially with the ongoing success of games like Ultima Online and EverQuest. But guess what? Not only are the both Role-Playing games, but 70% of all massively multi-player games in development right now are too. This is innovation? No, I would look rather to small developers, and the occasional eclectic genius. The fact that Peter Molyneux has left the company he founded, Bullfrog, bodes very well for all of us. Bullfrog started out with great promise, with games that veered a little left and right of easy classification; but in recent years most of their new games coming out have been sequels to such ground-breaking titles as "Populous," "Syndicate," and "Magic Carpet." They're even doing a sequel to "Theme Park" as you read this. Do I play sequels? You bet. Is it innovation? Nope. Keep an eye out for Molyneux's upcoming "Black and White" for something along the lines of what I'm looking for. Even some of the more established companies have begun to show promise lately. Of particular note are Activision's "Battlezone" (with one sequel now) and Sir-Tech's "Jagged Alliance" (with two if you count "Deadly Games"). These are cross-genre games, which defy easy classification as well.
But the key to innovation lies not in the combining of two or more genres into one product. We all know that incest does not usually produce a stronger offspring, and there are innumerable examples of cross-genre failures in bargain bins everywhere. In fact, today's definition of innovation lies more in the way a game is presented than in the way it plays. Right now, I'm playing "Panzer General 3D Assault" from SSI.The key change from previous games in the series, the one splashed all over the box and even in the title itself, is the addition of 3D rendering to the battlefield. Does this make for a prettier game? You bet. Does it make for a better game? Well, it sure does look purty. Is this innovation? Nope. Visceral thrills are cool, but I want substance under the surface. Fortunately, SSI has added enough options and changes from the previous games in the series to make this another excellent game; but it's important to note that they didn't call it "Panzer General 3: Officer Training" or "Panzer General 3: Biggest Yet!" Graphics and effects are everything today. And as for innovation, "Total Annihilation" added 3D to battlefields before, and "Myth" did so even earlier; PG3's only real claim to fame on this front is that it is the first turn-based strategy game to use 3D. Or is it? "Alpha Centauri" looks kind of 3D...
My point is, nothing is really innovative anymore. Games are prettier, faster, better sounding, and more complex than when I first started gaming. But they're mostly variations on themes 10 to 20 years old. Does this mean my "wow" factor is dead? No, but it's not the same. Will I stop gaming (a question my girlfriend often asks me)? Never. Who knows. That next box I crack open may be it, the start of a whole new genre the gaming community can mimic for the next 20 years. Woop-de-doo.
Theres loads of innovative PC games...
Bear in mind that the gaming industry has changed quite a lot since 1982
Bear in mind that the gaming industry has changed quite a lot since 1982
Innovation will never die. Right now there's definately a somewhat lax approach to new and innovative games, but that's something that was bound to happen eventually.
I think in the near future fresh new innovative games will be flooding our PC's. After all, there will come a time when the public won't buy the same old games time and time again.
I think in the near future fresh new innovative games will be flooding our PC's. After all, there will come a time when the public won't buy the same old games time and time again.
Don't know about P.C games, but innovation in topics certainly is.
Asphalt wrote:
> gamecube games make me go wow.
Good for you !
> gamecube games make me go wow.
Good for you !
gamecube games make me go wow.
When I first started gaming on computers, there was really only one genre: text adventures. Back in those days, before many of you were born, I had to walk up hill to school both ways...er...wrong column. Back in those days, people like Steve Meretzky and Scott Adams could sit in their basements and put together a whole game by themselves. Though they were all the same type of game, they were each original in their own way. From the Great Underground Empire of "Zork" to the mystical land of "Adventure," playing them was a lot like sitting down to take part in a really good book. From these early roots sprang many of the names still active in the business: Garriot, Grigsby, Meier, Williams, and of course Meretzky, to name a few. As computing power increased, operations moved out of basements and into offices, and from offices into entire buildings. One-man outfits became small development houses, and as the market grew, were swallowed up into the multi-national monoliths of today. Somewhere along the way, innovation went out the window.
Sure, flashy graphics and stirring sound effects improve every year, but how many truly original games do you see on store shelves? In the mid-eighties there was a blossoming of new genres. Adventure games spawned Role-Playing, War games spawned Strategy, Strategy spawned Puzzle and Sports games, Action moved out of the arcade and into the home and an unholy alliance of Strategy and Action gave birth to Simulations. This massive expansion slowed inevitably, with basically only two new genres breaking ground in the last 10 to 12 years, First-Person Shooters and Real-Time Strategy. Anyone care to guess why these two genres became so incredibly popular? Because, yes you're right, they were innovative. They were new, different from anything else on the store shelves. Care to guess what games were first in these two genres? 90% of you will say Doom and Warcraft respectively, but you're wrong. A few old timers may remember Castle Wolfenstein and Dune 2, and think they were the first. Wrong again. If you're curious, drop me a line, and I'll be happy to tell you. The point is, most of today's "ground-breaking" games are in fact following trails blazed more than ten years ago.
Don't get me wrong, I love to play games. And in recent years I have seen some hope for the future. The possibilities represented by the explosion of online gaming have never been brighter, especially with the ongoing success of games like Ultima Online and EverQuest. But guess what? Not only are the both Role-Playing games, but 70% of all massively multi-player games in development right now are too. This is innovation? No, I would look rather to small developers, and the occasional eclectic genius. The fact that Peter Molyneux has left the company he founded, Bullfrog, bodes very well for all of us. Bullfrog started out with great promise, with games that veered a little left and right of easy classification; but in recent years most of their new games coming out have been sequels to such ground-breaking titles as "Populous," "Syndicate," and "Magic Carpet." They're even doing a sequel to "Theme Park" as you read this. Do I play sequels? You bet. Is it innovation? Nope. Keep an eye out for Molyneux's upcoming "Black and White" for something along the lines of what I'm looking for. Even some of the more established companies have begun to show promise lately. Of particular note are Activision's "Battlezone" (with one sequel now) and Sir-Tech's "Jagged Alliance" (with two if you count "Deadly Games"). These are cross-genre games, which defy easy classification as well.
But the key to innovation lies not in the combining of two or more genres into one product. We all know that incest does not usually produce a stronger offspring, and there are innumerable examples of cross-genre failures in bargain bins everywhere. In fact, today's definition of innovation lies more in the way a game is presented than in the way it plays. Right now, I'm playing "Panzer General 3D Assault" from SSI.The key change from previous games in the series, the one splashed all over the box and even in the title itself, is the addition of 3D rendering to the battlefield. Does this make for a prettier game? You bet. Does it make for a better game? Well, it sure does look purty. Is this innovation? Nope. Visceral thrills are cool, but I want substance under the surface. Fortunately, SSI has added enough options and changes from the previous games in the series to make this another excellent game; but it's important to note that they didn't call it "Panzer General 3: Officer Training" or "Panzer General 3: Biggest Yet!" Graphics and effects are everything today. And as for innovation, "Total Annihilation" added 3D to battlefields before, and "Myth" did so even earlier; PG3's only real claim to fame on this front is that it is the first turn-based strategy game to use 3D. Or is it? "Alpha Centauri" looks kind of 3D...
My point is, nothing is really innovative anymore. Games are prettier, faster, better sounding, and more complex than when I first started gaming. But they're mostly variations on themes 10 to 20 years old. Does this mean my "wow" factor is dead? No, but it's not the same. Will I stop gaming (a question my girlfriend often asks me)? Never. Who knows. That next box I crack open may be it, the start of a whole new genre the gaming community can mimic for the next 20 years. Woop-de-doo.
Sure, flashy graphics and stirring sound effects improve every year, but how many truly original games do you see on store shelves? In the mid-eighties there was a blossoming of new genres. Adventure games spawned Role-Playing, War games spawned Strategy, Strategy spawned Puzzle and Sports games, Action moved out of the arcade and into the home and an unholy alliance of Strategy and Action gave birth to Simulations. This massive expansion slowed inevitably, with basically only two new genres breaking ground in the last 10 to 12 years, First-Person Shooters and Real-Time Strategy. Anyone care to guess why these two genres became so incredibly popular? Because, yes you're right, they were innovative. They were new, different from anything else on the store shelves. Care to guess what games were first in these two genres? 90% of you will say Doom and Warcraft respectively, but you're wrong. A few old timers may remember Castle Wolfenstein and Dune 2, and think they were the first. Wrong again. If you're curious, drop me a line, and I'll be happy to tell you. The point is, most of today's "ground-breaking" games are in fact following trails blazed more than ten years ago.
Don't get me wrong, I love to play games. And in recent years I have seen some hope for the future. The possibilities represented by the explosion of online gaming have never been brighter, especially with the ongoing success of games like Ultima Online and EverQuest. But guess what? Not only are the both Role-Playing games, but 70% of all massively multi-player games in development right now are too. This is innovation? No, I would look rather to small developers, and the occasional eclectic genius. The fact that Peter Molyneux has left the company he founded, Bullfrog, bodes very well for all of us. Bullfrog started out with great promise, with games that veered a little left and right of easy classification; but in recent years most of their new games coming out have been sequels to such ground-breaking titles as "Populous," "Syndicate," and "Magic Carpet." They're even doing a sequel to "Theme Park" as you read this. Do I play sequels? You bet. Is it innovation? Nope. Keep an eye out for Molyneux's upcoming "Black and White" for something along the lines of what I'm looking for. Even some of the more established companies have begun to show promise lately. Of particular note are Activision's "Battlezone" (with one sequel now) and Sir-Tech's "Jagged Alliance" (with two if you count "Deadly Games"). These are cross-genre games, which defy easy classification as well.
But the key to innovation lies not in the combining of two or more genres into one product. We all know that incest does not usually produce a stronger offspring, and there are innumerable examples of cross-genre failures in bargain bins everywhere. In fact, today's definition of innovation lies more in the way a game is presented than in the way it plays. Right now, I'm playing "Panzer General 3D Assault" from SSI.The key change from previous games in the series, the one splashed all over the box and even in the title itself, is the addition of 3D rendering to the battlefield. Does this make for a prettier game? You bet. Does it make for a better game? Well, it sure does look purty. Is this innovation? Nope. Visceral thrills are cool, but I want substance under the surface. Fortunately, SSI has added enough options and changes from the previous games in the series to make this another excellent game; but it's important to note that they didn't call it "Panzer General 3: Officer Training" or "Panzer General 3: Biggest Yet!" Graphics and effects are everything today. And as for innovation, "Total Annihilation" added 3D to battlefields before, and "Myth" did so even earlier; PG3's only real claim to fame on this front is that it is the first turn-based strategy game to use 3D. Or is it? "Alpha Centauri" looks kind of 3D...
My point is, nothing is really innovative anymore. Games are prettier, faster, better sounding, and more complex than when I first started gaming. But they're mostly variations on themes 10 to 20 years old. Does this mean my "wow" factor is dead? No, but it's not the same. Will I stop gaming (a question my girlfriend often asks me)? Never. Who knows. That next box I crack open may be it, the start of a whole new genre the gaming community can mimic for the next 20 years. Woop-de-doo.