Many probably agree that innovation is fading from the industry with only a couple of innovative games coming out a year. But does a game need to be innovative to be great? A prime example would be Halo. Many would argue that it was great game, but it really wasn' t innovative. Im not downing Halo, but it is wasn' t innovative but it did everything right. The same problem can be seen in the past with titles considered " great" such as Donkey Kong on the SNES. Sure it was great but was it innovative? No, it was the same as many other side scrollers out at the time and even before it. Fast-forward back to the future and you have Katamari, which while innovative, quirky, and fun, it will never be remembered as one of the greatest games of all time. So in closing, my question is this: Does innovation automatically equal greatness? Please give examples for your arguement and be constructive about it.

No, not automatically but there are some games that are innovative and could be considered classics such as Metriod Prime 1 and 2 and Pikmin 1 and 2. Metriod is innovative because it' s a mixture of FPS and platformer. Pikmin is innovative because it' s a RTS that you actually play.

A mixture of FPS and Platformer? Thats not new. Recall a little game called Contra? It may not have been first person but it was still a shooter/platformer. As for Picmin, I really dont think it is innovative.

In a way I think Ikaruga brought a little innovation to the shooter genre but I feel the game would have been pretty good on its own even without Treasure' s color coordinating gameplay mechanics, but they certainly did add a cool element to the gameplay.

All in all, I don' t think innovation automatically equals great game nor does a game need to be innovative in order to be great. I personally don' t find the Jet Set Radio games to be that great. The cel-shaded graphics look cool and all and there are some nice gameplay elements but overall I found the games to be overrated while many others were praising them to the high heavens.

The original Shenmue offered a wide variety of cool gameplay elements, and had a few innovations of its own but to be honest with you, my first impression of the game was not very favorable. It was a great game no doubt, but it was also flawed. I remember Biohazard Code: Veronica was released about a month after Shenmue landed on Japanese store shelves and I ended up liking Code Veronica more than I did Shenmue early on, and that was my very first Resident Evil game to boot so it' s not like I was already a fan of the series.

I think most people are assuming that a game is innovative if the whole concept and execution are new. I believe that games innovate in the smallest ways. Take the controls on Turok the Dinosaur Hunter. They were perfect for moving around in 3d space. Halo wasn' t really innovative in any specific way, but it got a lot of stuff right (pacing, weapon management, regenerating shields, etc.), but isn' t THAT in and of itself innovating?

Maybe not.

Infiltrator on the Commodore 64 was innovative. You had to fly a chopper into the enemy base, and then it became a stealth mission. Two COMPLETELY different game modes in one!

Actraiser was innovative for the same reason (does that make ANY sense?). It was a top down RTS until you went to take out one of the monster generators. Then in became a side scrolling adventure. Pretty sweet!

ActRaiser didn' t have an RTS mode of gameplay. Generations would come and go in a timespan of minutes. That is not real time.

The original Act Raiser was one of the most engaging games of the 16-bit era in me opinion. Just an all around GREAT game. Too bad the gameplay department was vacationing when the sequel came out.

Any tips for that third boss? I am playing through in professional mode and that boss jumps around and pisses me off. I forget a good pattern to use. The controls in ActRaiser are splendid with the exception of landing from a jump (you do a quick forced squat which makes it hard to hit the 3rd boss).

No not at all. Admittedly innovation can be pretty nice, but a lot of games seem to be innovative just for the sake of it and in the end often turn out to be a load of rubbish. A lot of my favourite games are about as innovative as a busty blonde, but I don' t care one iota as long as they' re fun. Games like Ico are innovative in a good way, I just can' t wait to play its sequel: Shadow of the Collossus, that game looks absolutely fantastic.

I think most people are assuming that a game is innovative if the whole concept and execution are new. I believe that games innovate in the smallest ways.

I agree. Let' s look at God of War for the PS2, for example:

This game finally shows what the PS2 is capable of - that' s innovative.

The boss fights were always different - that' s innovative.

The way the story unfolded and filled in the missing gaps of Kratos' life - that' s innovative.

The many different puzzles - that' s innovative.

The level where you had to " listen" for the singing Sirens in order to find them - that' s innovative.

The awesome final boss battle with Aries - that' s innovative.

There was nothing boring or repetitive about this game - that' s innovation.

Innovation = greatness, absolutely.

Sometimes not always.