|
Weeeelll....that's not quite what I was saying. I mean, I enjoy many graphical games, including ones put out by the big boys. Something doesn't have to be innovative to be fun to play. Just this afternoon I installed Irrational's "Freedom Force vs. the 3rd Reich." I understand it's basically unchanged in terms of core mechanics from the first Freedom Force, but that's ok. I really enjoyed that game and am sure I'll enjoy this one. It's not just that they ignore non-graphical games either. They ignore all games that aren't at the AAA level.
I actually greatly enjoy Halo 2's Xbox Live multiplayer component. No, it's not revolutionary, but it is highly evolutionary and is just a really well-designed experience. It's so nice to have a rankings system that means something, for instance. I also really enjoy getting together online with friends or the people I work with to chat and shoot other people up. Halo 2 makes that a very seamless experience.
This is something that thread on furniture seemed to really miss: Innovation is often not at the core of enjoyable experiences. In fact, it's usually not. It's absolutely necessary overall in the long run, of course, but individual products can be quite enjoyable without being innovative. I really like my for instance, but there's nothing innovative about it. It's just a well-done motorcycle.
That, in fact, is why World of Warcraft is doing so incredibly well. It doesn't innovate at all as far as I've seen. It just evolves the DIKU/Everquest model and polishes the #### out of it.
My point, in summary, wasn't about what kind of game is better. It's about the fact that if you want to make innovative games as opposed to evolutionary games, then you better either be Will Wright or be willing to make games with budgets a lot less than $25 million. The opportunity is there. These guys just don't want to take it, because for whatever reason the idea of working on games won't get them on the cover of PC Gamer or whatever doesn't appeal.
--matt
|