New posts

Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="RageBurner, post: 28549, member: 5434"] That's a big part of my argument, actually. I too believe innovation isn't and shouldn't be a goal; video game is art, and art is about self expression, first and foremost. Innovation CAN happen, but save for very specific cases (I can think of two, which I will detail further below), there's rarely a fundamental shift in the medium. That's not inherently at negative thing, it is just how it goes. What I'm trying to say is that innovation for its own sake isn't necessarily a net positive. As for those examples, let's analyze them now. Example 1: Resident Evil. I shouldn't need to detail this to anyone; even as someone that hates the genre, it is undeniable that it had a massive influence and was innovative. It also created a deluge of similar games (some even by Capcom themselves!) and it's true they have been successful to varying degrees, depends on who you ask. Are these games on the bleeding edge compared to where its inspiration once was? probably not, but that shouldn't be a factor that denies their existence. Ultimately quality is the decider. If we are going to be strict, then Sweet Home (the game that inspired RE) is the only game that matters in this space, but that stance is untenable. Example 2: Monster Hunter. My favorite franchise, I have much to say about it, but I will try to condense it. It did something to the Action RPG space that no other game had quite done before, even though it contains elements we've seen before (fighting monsters, crafting with materials, exploring 3D environments). The series is 20 years old now, still going strong (next game coming out next month). Because it created something new, it obviously inspired many games that tried to follow its general framework but do their own thing (God Eater, Lord Of Apocalypse, Soul Sacrifice, Freedom Wars, Wild Hearts, Toukiden to name but a few). As a fan, I tried almost all of these. Did they resonate with me as strongly as Monster Hunter? do I like them as much? not at all, but they are trying new things within a known framework and I like them for that reason; that's iteration, experimentation. As a curiosity, let me propose a tail end of argument example: Let's compare Pokémon and Monster Rancher. The former is... well you guys know what it is; it's probably the worst case of excessive self iteration there is, and I personally abandoned the franchise a long time ago (after gen 6) so in this specific case, I can completely get behind [USER=73]@Gorse[/USER]'s point. And then you have Monster Rancher, it itself iterated not only on Pokémon on some level, but also Digimon with its focus major on raising, rather than battling; it's pretty cool and fresh despite its long dormancy (I believe the last entry was on the DS. I know there's that Kaiju crossover thing on the Switch but I don't count it). The thing is, others have tried, and have done better in different aspects (there's even Monster Hunter Stories 1 and 2, pretty fun games!), so are they less worthy because of a derivative phenomenon? honestly I think not. Ultimately, developers are faced with something of maniqueist dilemma - they have to create something that sells that still fits within what they would like to make. It's one of the reasons that derivatism is inevitable. Creating and iterating are inseparable sides of the same coin. What you have is a piece of art, but also a product. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Online statistics

Members online: 160

Guests online: 420

Total visitors: 580

Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads: 14,342

Messages: 344,046

Members: 890,673

Latest member: Mongrel_

Reply to thread

Online statistics

Forum statistics

Advertisers