By Jim Drewes - June 27, 2005

---

Change comes from refinement, not innovation

Nobody would argue that in the gaming world change is good. Our industry has grown substantially in the past decade, and we are now seeing members of the community stating that the growth is starting to diminish and that game innovation is beginning to stagnate. Although the methods of change and the manifestations of change aren’t as visible as they once were, industry growth is still booming and innovations are still being made. Many students of game design, industry developers, and gaming enthusiasts are crying out for a paradigm shift. The argument is that the industry will remain stationary if we don’t do away with the old and herald in the new. Others of us are members of a different camp, who believe that this is a load of bunk and that change and innovation are staring us straight in the face – it just doesn’t come with a funky Japanese title or some radical game play mechanism.

Game play innovation was all that existed in the beginning. It is easy to lament the loss of the good old days of Atari, when each game was an entertaining foray into what creates an interesting game. Those days, however, are gone. Perhaps the most important concept to note is that video games are simply a medium for entertainment. As such, there is only so much we can reasonably do with that medium. Just as when slapping paint on a canvas was first developed as a medium for artwork, the first few self portraits, landscapes, and images of a bowl of fruit were interesting partially in an innovative respect. Since fruit baskets have become commonplace, the art world has been driven forward with refinements on the existing medium – from Picasso’s abstractions up to today’s explorations on fractal art. Certainly there is art that exists on an innovative level, but soon even those innovations will become blasé and refinement will be needed to continue the forward motion. Conceptually, this can be applied to the gaming industry as well.

Before the concept of refinement can be discussed, it is important to define what sorts of changes are desired and what sort of changes drive the gaming industry forward. Technology and technological capabilities are elements that have always been closely tied to the industry. Those who believe that the current genres aren’t progressing innovation would also believe that gaming technology doesn’t need to be enhanced to produce change. After all, games on the new handheld or mobile platforms are really just utilizing decade old technology.  However, gaming and computer technology continue to push the envelope, which serves to form an environment of one-upmanship and thus keep the wheels of the industry turning. If the latest shooter doesn’t demand higher frame rates at higher resolutions, what would drive hardware manufacturers to create technology that will allow the next “big thing” in the gaming world?  So the gaming industry and the hardware industry continue to race forward technologically, but does enhanced gaming and computer technology really enhance the entertainment value of video games in general? Those arguing that revolutionary changes are the only thing that can save the video game industry would undoubtedly respond that enhanced technology doesn’t necessarily increase the entertainment value of games. Examples are abundant of successful games being developed which use several year old technology. Simply pointing out that games are often developed without utilizing bleeding-edge technology doesn’t actually comment on the value of advancing technology. Games considered to be radically different, like Katamari Damacy, wouldn’t exist had predecessors not pushed for the development of three-dimensional graphics. Dance Dance Revolution may have never been created had we not advanced past single-axis single-button controllers and simple beep-click sound.  Thus, although games such as Katamari may satisfy some enthusiasts as being driving forces in the industry, games that propel graphics and technology forward inevitably contribute a greater gift to the gaming community. Advancing technology is akin to providing an artist with better brushes or more colors. By giving developers greater tools, it is possible that they may only produce some superficial eye-candy, but it is also equally possible that they may produce something truly earth shattering. So the next time someone complains that the first person shooter genre is putting a stop to industry innovation, simply point out that without games like that leaning on the hardware industry, new tools to develop innovative games may never be created.

[  1 |  2 |  3 | Next: (Debunking the conceptually innovative games) >> ]

1: Change comes from refinement, not innovation 2: Debunking the conceptually innovative games 3: Conclusion