I do like to see innovation, after all it’s always nice to try new things, but it isn’t the be all and end all of gaming that so many make it out to be. Whilst I’m perfectly happy playing something inventive, I can be just as happy playing a lazy sequel that may very well have been knocked up during Mr developers lunch break.

Sometimes I think many (not all) avid gamers just see innovation as the hardcore way to think. Perhaps because so many magazines and websites rate games based on innovation, they feel the need to think the same way. I don’t agree with a lot of these journalists either as they seem to award games stupidly high scores just because they offer something just that little bit different from the norm.

On the other hand, sequels to games that I’ve enjoyed often offer me a comfortable familiarity, albeit with tweaks that make a great formula even better. For me this will do just fine, I simply wouldn’t want a game that I cherish to change beyond recognition when a spit and polish will suffice.

What are your thoughts on innovation?

If you want to say something perfect about the Wii, just SPIT IT OUT!!!

Innovation is awesome as long as it' s not on the expense of quality. Sadly it seems many Wii games lack quality, especially when it comes to graphics.
On the other hand, games on consoles that are supposed to be about power can actually be surprisingly innovative. Innovation isn' t only about controllers as is the case with the Wii but also about many other things.

Sadly it seems many Wii games lack quality

Yes at the moment alot of the third party games are poor but the Wii has just launched so you have to give it time.

It' s hard to make an innovative game good, but if they do then the game will most likely be great.

It' s hard to make an old game new and good again, but it deserves the same recognition if they succeed.

Innovative earns plus points, just as a game being well made earns plus points, but the best games are those that are both innovative and well made.

Some totally new innovative games are just a works of pure inspiration, and they seem to come together first time with totally new experiences that just work, eg Metal Gear, Half-life, Devil May Cry, Silent Hill etc.

But some of that is always going to be luck, and games like that are rare. It' s hard to get it all right first time, so most of the time a game franchise needs iterations of similar ideas to make it even better, and its often the sencond or third parts that get recognition eg Burnout or Zone of the Enders...Street Fighter 2 is probably the best example!

I' ve got nothing against sequels and trilogies, but it' s when the devs of a certain franchise have obviously peaked and can get away with releasing a half-arsed sequel to make money that I hate. I remember loving the first FIFA game...now look at it.

Innovation is at the heart of all of my favourite games, so in the end all the Call of Duties, Medal of Honours, Need for Speeds and Maddens can go suck it.

Innovation is the thing the industry fears. Nintendo is really the only one willing to step up and try stuff that would otherwise be tossed out at the thinking stage. And I swear the next review I read where a reviewer/critic compares the Wii' s Graphics to another system I will personally go knock down their door. Only idiots in the industry would think of the Wii in the same league as Microsoft and Sony. Last time I checked Nintendo isn' t pushing a digital format, they are about games. Graphics no longer are in the realm for Nintendo...compare Wii games to other Wii games' graphics not 360 or PS3 that is simply ignorant.

Rant over.

ORIGINAL: Alecrein

Innovation is the thing the industry fears. Nintendo is really the only one willing to step up and try stuff that would otherwise be tossed out at the thinking stage. And I swear the next review I read where a reviewer/critic compares the Wii' s Graphics to another system I will personally go knock down their door. Only idiots in the industry would think of the Wii in the same league as Microsoft and Sony. Last time I checked Nintendo isn' t pushing a digital format, they are about games. Graphics no longer are in the realm for Nintendo...compare Wii games to other Wii games' graphics not 360 or PS3 that is simply ignorant.

Rant over.

But it' s easy enough to compare the visuals of the Wii in some cases to last gen games and still come away disappointed, like far cry for the Wii, which Ign compared more to an N64 game and against an xbox game.
I haven' t bought into Wii yet, i' m far from sold. It' s a neat idea, but it' s not doing enough for me right now. I think devs are simply looking at the weaker spec and thinking we can apss off any crap on this hardware and people will accept it because of the lower spec.

Innovation is great, but i love sequels too, and it is possible to innovate within a series, to expand in new ways and so some innovation can exist within sequelitis.
Some original games are great, but they are a big risk money wise, so projects are harder to get approved, they never get the sales that crap sequels like fifa get.

It' s a shame, there needs to be a balance, i do want to see sequels of the good games out there, so long as its not a milk of the IP.

ORIGINAL: Alecrein

Innovation is the thing the industry fears. Nintendo is really the only one willing to step up and try stuff that would otherwise be tossed out at the thinking stage. And I swear the next review I read where a reviewer/critic compares the Wii' s Graphics to another system I will personally go knock down their door. Only idiots in the industry would think of the Wii in the same league as Microsoft and Sony. Last time I checked Nintendo isn' t pushing a digital format, they are about games. Graphics no longer are in the realm for Nintendo...compare Wii games to other Wii games' graphics not 360 or PS3 that is simply ignorant.

Rant over.

I think reviewers are within perfect rights to compare Wii at a graphical level when and if the games look worse than last-gen consoles. The majority of people
understand that Wii isn' t competing at that level, (that level being 360 and PS3)
but the do know that it' s part and parcel of the next-gen era which should mean
that the Wii' s graphics should at least still take a significant step up.

Graphics no longer are in the realm for Nintendo...compare Wii games to other Wii games' graphics not 360 or PS3 that is simply ignorant.

How can graphics no longer be " in the realm" for Nintendo? They are, just not
at a stupendously movie-like push as many polygons way as the other two
companies. It' s probably the same thing as with the controller, both 360 and PS3
controls can still be compared to Wii controls, however, they don' t faff about
saying " Now that' s not fair, we are using the same control methods as previous
gen."

I wouldn' t necessarily call minus points on the Wii for graphics, but when a game
comes out that simply says " I am from last-gen, pick me up at excelled prices" , I
think I have permission to at least raise an eyebrow or two, even with Zelda
(which by the way is an amazing game), I still have to look at it and think, that' s
something I' d expect to see from last gen, and in actual fact, I am sure last
gen would have probably performed that better. (Still an amazing game though).

but the best games are those that are both innovative and well made.

I see your point, but I don' t 100% agree with you. I regard some sequels (Streets of Rage 2 and Zelda: twilight Princess are just two examples) that happen to be more or less the same as their predecessors to be some of the best games ever.

Innovation is great, but i love sequels too, and it is possible to innovate within a series, to expand in new ways and so some innovation can exist within sequelitis.

But is there some exceptions for you? For example do you play every Zelda game released, knowing that it offers much of the same thing with mere tweaks to the mechanics, yet still gaining equal amount of enjoyment out of each new instalment, or do you find that you' re not enjoying it the same because of a lack of freshness?

How can graphics no longer be " in the realm" for Nintendo? They are, just not
at a stupendously movie-like push as many polygons way as the other two
companies.

Yeah, visuals are aways going to be important whatever the companies focus may happen to be. But I must say that playing a Wii game is for me, like stepping backwards in time.

ORIGINAL: ginjirou

Innovation is awesome as long as it' s not on the expense of quality. Sadly it seems many Wii games lack quality, especially when it comes to graphics.
On the other hand, games on consoles that are supposed to be about power can actually be surprisingly innovative. Innovation isn' t only about controllers as is the case with the Wii but also about many other things.

Thats the whole reason why NIntendo has not opted to have a system with graphics comparable to 360 or ps3. The introduction of motion sensing technology is new for most developers and perfecting its implementation takes time and resources. Look at how ' badly' the hyped up Red Steel turned out - the motion sensing was not implemented very well and probably needed more time (a couple months more?). If HD graphics were added to the mix well $#!t, add another 6 months to a year of production costs and you have yourselves a very undesirable position (for developers). I think many people here don' t realise this and think that including motion sensing technology is a piece of cake. GIve it time, i' m confident after a year or so the developers will be able to properly utilise motion sensing technology thus freeing their development time for improving the graphics of Wii games.

Who cares.. Wii has really enjoyable games and offers something different from the rest..


Wait till what Nintendo has instore for its next Console If your a graphics Whore.. (they have been looking into some crazy technology / patents.

It would of took alot more resources / time and effeort to have come up with the Wiimote, than a Upgrade of Horse power.

Let Nintendo take it one step at a time FFS.

Thats the whole reason why NIntendo has not opted to have a system with graphics comparable to 360 or ps3. The introduction of motion sensing technology is new for most developers and perfecting its implementation takes time and resources.

Yeah, at this point the focus is placed firmly on the brand spanking new controller, whilst pretty visuals are seemingly the last thing on the vast majority of developers minds right now.

Look at how ' badly' the hyped up Red Steel turned out - the motion sensing was not implemented very well and probably needed more time

I really don' t think the controls are as poorly executed as most people make out. They just take a bit of time to get used to. Sure, they could be better but they could also be much worse than the end result.

Who cares.. Wii has really enjoyable games and offers something different from the rest..

I agree to an extent, though admittedly a game that both plays and looks fantastic is my ideal game.

ORIGINAL: Calintz

Innovation is great, but i love sequels too, and it is possible to innovate within a series, to expand in new ways and so some innovation can exist within sequelitis.

But is there some exceptions for you? For example do you play every Zelda game released, knowing that it offers much of the same thing with mere tweaks to the mechanics, yet still gaining equal amount of enjoyment out of each new instalment, or do you find that you' re not enjoying it the same because of a lack of freshness?

For zelda, i have never really enjoyed a zelda game, but i find TP pretty good which i am playing on the cube. Now i tend to at least try all sequels of a series i like. EG DMC2 not as good as the first though i liked the additional moves. If it is a franchise i love, then i am not bothered if there is nothing really new. Legacy of kain, I loved soul reaver to soul reaver 2. to blood omen 2 and didn' t notice much of a change, although i liked the changes in defiance. Innovation doesn' t make or break a game for me, it' s just a nice bonus, and great when i start getting tired of the same old thing.

Innovation doesn' t make or break a game for me, it' s just a nice bonus, and great when i start getting tired of the same old thing.

I agree. I usually don' t mind games or sequels offering me more of the same, just as long as the formula is good to start with, of course. But there does come a point when things start feeling stale. For example I' ve been getting increasingly tired of the GTA series since San Andreas and I can only hope that GTA4 offers me a fresh experience, akin to the feeling I got when I first played GTA3.