Old features being hailed as ´innovation.´

This grind anyone else´s gears?

L.A. Noire is probably a good game but I've heard it's only innovation is bringing back the old adventure type games. Bastion has uninovative gameplay and a voice over that's been used in games since cd's have been able to store compressed audio.

I also hate the lack of innovation in newer games. Skyrim is so static, has a laughably limited skill system, click or click and hold combat and ditched the cool wounding system of Fallout. Not even a hardcore mode was present. It seems like the more money is involved the less surprises, innovation and chances the developers can/want to make.

Well, when something is perfect, there's very little left to innovate.

For example, the FPS has been almost perfected now (the gameplay atleast, the story is another matter), if you prefer the battlefield or TF2-type it's just a matter of opinion.

And from what I've heard, Bastion wasn't hailed as a great innovator of gameplay, more like a game with a great soundtrack, fast and rewarding (not innovating, mind you) gameplay, and a good, very well-told story along with a nice aestethic.

Skyrim was not really about the skill system, but more about creating a large, detailed world.

Games have always been almost the same, there was about a billion platforming sidescrollers in the 80:s, millions of click-adventure games and the 90:s, and now we've got brown and grey FPS' in the 2000s'.

It's not a lack of innovation, it's about different trends.

Bioware's constant boasting that SWTOR would be the first MMO where the story was important drove me to distraction last year. Every MMO worthy of the name has a story, and some are far far richer in lore than Star Wars... like say The Lord of the Rings Online.

All it was was presented differently, and it wasn't meaningful since whatever you do has no effect on the greater universe outside phased areas and your personal story. They weren't even the first to have a moral choice system in an MMO - City of Heroes introduced that in 2010, and in my opinion, did it better.

Lol'd at your triple-thread-post.

Anyway, OP, you didn't really give any examples of your thread title. The only one I can think of that's recent is Blizzard taking credit for "truly international play" in Diablo III when it's the exact same system they used for Battle.net in Diablo II.

But to be honest, not having completely new mechanics is not inherently a bad thing. Having very strong gameplay and story elements is a good thing--innovation for innovation's sake is not.

Elmoth:
This grind anyone else´s gears?

L.A. Noire is probably a good game but I've heard it's only innovation is bringing back the old adventure type games. Bastion has uninovative gameplay and a voice over that's been used in games since cd's have been able to store compressed audio.

I also hate the lack of innovation in newer games. Skyrim is so static, has a laughably limited skill system, click or click and hold combat and ditched the cool wounding system of Fallout. Not even a hardcore mode was present. It seems like the more money is involved the less surprises, innovation and chances the developers can/want to make.

Not everything needs to be innovative, you know. Innovation is essentially the discovery of a new tool to put in your toolbox. So things like 3D maps, HD graphics, certain gameplay styles, certain game formats. Doom is heralded as the most innovative game of all time not just because of it's good solid crack at a 3D environment, but also because they successfully implemented a first-person perspective.

To give you an example of how awesome that is, think about if all books were written in third person. You know, "Jeff went to the store to buy some eggs, but they were all out. He went to another and they were out too, and then even another, making him very frustrated. Finally Jeff just went home and made a sandwich." Then, somebody comes along and says "Hey, why don't you tell this from Jeff's perspective?" That story suddenly becomes "I went to the store to get some eggs, but they were out. So I went to another and another and they were out, too. Finally I got so fed up I stormed home to make a stupid sandwich." Also, if you know anything about narrative theory, first person provides a whole new set of rules and requires a totally different story structure to work (this is why movies like The Hunger Games are hard to put on screen, there is so much in a first-person book that simply doesn't work as a third-person film).

Anyway, since Doom that fundamental idea of the viewport being the character's eyes hasn't changed. It has been used in different ways, not just in FPS's but also in things like Minecraft and Portal. That is a tool in the gamemaker's toolbox. It shouldn't be used all the time, as with any tool. If you're hammering in nails you should use a hammer, not a screwdriver. Trying to force the screwdriver into the equation will only ruin your screwdriver and do a horrible job of getting the nail in.

So back to the innovation thing, if you keep looking for new tools without ever using your old ones then what's the point of even having them? Soon enough you'll have a toolbox filled with a million tools and no projects proving any of them are useful or even necessary. Innovation is all well and good, but that doesn't mean existing tools aren't valuable and should be ignored. You just have to know how to use the right tool for the job.

Also, as someone else pointed out, your thread name doesn't really have anything to do with the content of your OP. The thread name is complaining about old features being hailed as innovations, the OP is complaining that new games aren't innovating enough, but no connections or examples of old features being hailed as new are given.

Reminds me of the recent PAX panel where David Gaider got uproarious applause for saying things like "in the next Dragon Age game, your choices will have consequences."

Kahunaburger:
Reminds me of the recent PAX panel where David Gaider got uproarious applause for saying things like "in the next Dragon Age game, your choices will have consequences."

Maybe they thought he meant something like what I've opined (please don't necro that thread, also read my second post a few posts down for fuller explanation) about before, where the consequences in question are much broader in scope than what we have today? >.>

Naahhh they can't all be that idealistic, can they?

Can they?

The Elder Scrolls is the biggest thing for me. Every new feature added since Morrowind was just something Daggerfall had but was too expensive to include in Morrowind with the technology of the time. About the only truly new thing to hit the series since then is the dual wielding system in Skyrim. I know you mentioned Skyrim in the OP, but it goes deeper than you implied.

Lilani:

Elmoth:
This grind anyone else´s gears?

L.A. Noire is probably a good game but I've heard it's only innovation is bringing back the old adventure type games. Bastion has uninovative gameplay and a voice over that's been used in games since cd's have been able to store compressed audio.

I also hate the lack of innovation in newer games. Skyrim is so static, has a laughably limited skill system, click or click and hold combat and ditched the cool wounding system of Fallout. Not even a hardcore mode was present. It seems like the more money is involved the less surprises, innovation and chances the developers can/want to make.

Not everything needs to be innovative, you know. Innovation is essentially the discovery of a new tool to put in your toolbox. So things like 3D maps, HD graphics, certain gameplay styles, certain game formats. Doom is heralded as the most innovative game of all time not just because of it's good solid crack at a 3D environment, but also because they successfully implemented a first-person perspective.

To give you an example of how awesome that is, think about if all books were written in third person. You know, "Jeff went to the store to buy some eggs, but they were all out. He went to another and they were out too, and then even another, making him very frustrated. Finally Jeff just went home and made a sandwich." Then, somebody comes along and says "Hey, why don't you tell this from Jeff's perspective?" That story suddenly becomes "I went to the store to get some eggs, but they were out. So I went to another and another and they were out, too. Finally I got so fed up I stormed home to make a stupid sandwich." Also, if you know anything about narrative theory, first person provides a whole new set of rules and requires a totally different story structure to work (this is why movies like The Hunger Games are hard to put on screen, there is so much in a first-person book that simply doesn't work as a third-person film).

Anyway, since Doom that fundamental idea of the viewport being the character's eyes hasn't changed. It has been used in different ways, not just in FPS's but also in things like Minecraft and Portal. That is a tool in the gamemaker's toolbox. It shouldn't be used all the time, as with any tool. If you're hammering in nails you should use a hammer, not a screwdriver. Trying to force the screwdriver into the equation will only ruin your screwdriver and do a horrible job of getting the nail in.

So back to the innovation thing, if you keep looking for new tools without ever using your old ones then what's the point of even having them? Soon enough you'll have a toolbox filled with a million tools and no projects proving any of them are useful or even necessary. Innovation is all well and good, but that doesn't mean existing tools aren't valuable and should be ignored. You just have to know how to use the right tool for the job.

Also, as someone else pointed out, your thread name doesn't really have anything to do with the content of your OP. The thread name is complaining about old features being hailed as innovations, the OP is complaining that new games aren't innovating enough, but no connections or examples of old features being hailed as new are given.

"L.A. Noire is probably a good game but I've heard it's only innovation is bringing back the old adventure type games. Bastion has uninovative gameplay and a voice over that's been used in games since cd's have been able to store compressed audio."

I didn't make this thread so I could get lectured, yes it's all true what you said but I knew that already and my thread isn't about this.

So I didn't post great examples.

OT: I've learned a great deal about game design and it just infuriates me when a game doesn't challenge me, when I know it could be so much more complex. But apparantly the developers favor streamlining. Skyrim could have hardcore mode, realistic wounds, more dynamic melee swings, a reputation system etc. These things I know a developer could make in a short amount of time but can add a great deal to a game that expects you to put up with it's gameplay for hundreds of hours. When it expects that I would like it to be made on fundamentals that aren't just old gameplay elements. I want the developers to look at the games in their genre and outside of their genre and implement better systems that make full use of this current generation's technology.

I mean, this game had better combat! (it's from 2007, skyrim fro 2011).

I think the new feature in LA Noire was the face technology and how they tried to incorporate it (with mixed results, I say) into the gameplay. Most people acknowledged upon its release that it was otherwise a kind of point-and-click adventure.

Were people calling Skyrim's skill system or combat innovative? I saw it as a devolution, even from Oblivion. They threw out Athletics, Speed, and Acrobatics. I think they underestimated the importance of movement in games. I think there's a hardcore mode mod on PC, but I'm doing it wrong playing it on the 360. I'm highly jealous of that. It would boost the role-playing aspect a ton for me, as I love survival mechanics to death.

Elmoth:
OT: I've learned a great deal about game design and it just infuriates me when a game doesn't challenge me, when I know it could be so much more complex. But apparantly the developers favor streamlining. Skyrim could have hardcore mode, realistic wounds, more dynamic melee swings, a reputation system etc. These things I know a developer could make in a short amount of time but can add a great deal to a game that expects you to put up with it's gameplay for hundreds of hours. When it expects that I would like it to be made on fundamentals that aren't just old gameplay elements. I want the developers to look at the games in their genre and outside of their genre and implement better systems that make full use of this current generation's technology.

First of all, I didn't mean to seem as though I was scolding you. But when you make claims when there's proof of the contrary, don't be surprised if you get a lecture ;-)

Anyway, Skyrim is one game. Do you know how many hundreds (hell, thousands if you include all the games released on Newgrounds and whatnot) are released every year? AAA games only scratch the surface of what's out there. And that surface is made up of the least risky, least different, least mentally/emotionally challenging, most easily marketed and most watered-down products available. Go hop on steam and grab a few indie games on Steam for a few bucks each. Basing your analysis of the games industry and ALL game trends on AAA games is like basing an analysis of all contemporary films on summer blockbusters.

You say that Skyrim could use more blood, I think that would be obnoxious and take away from the aspects of the combat system I enjoy. That is getting into very subjective territory, and I'm sure there are mods which cover quite a few of those (know there are already a lot of animation and HD model packs available). Yes it could probably use more dynamic movements and the models are definitely less than impressive, but Bethesda has never been known for these things. They have been known for delivering huge open worlds, and you cannot deny that Skyrim is huge and the environment is filled with a lot of interesting and intricate details (and a LOT of research into old Nordic and Celtic art).

I do perfectly agree with your last statement, mixing and matching of gameplay elements doesn't happen quite often enough and there is a lot of potential there. Though I think Skyrim does a bit of that already, by eliminating the "pick a class from the start and stick to it NO MATTER WHAT" thing and allowing people to choose by free experimentation, which is very much in line with how people naturally learn and make decisions.

I'm not saying you're totally wrong, it's just not as black-and-white as you're making it out to be. Talking about "developers" of games as a collective is like talking about "directors" of films as a collective. Would you lump Alfred Hitchcock and Martin Scorsese into the same group as Michael Bay and M. Night Shayamalan? Of course not. They are totally different directors with totally different approaches and totally different understandings of film, yielding totally different results.

Lilani:

Elmoth:
OT: I've learned a great deal about game design and it just infuriates me when a game doesn't challenge me, when I know it could be so much more complex. But apparantly the developers favor streamlining. Skyrim could have hardcore mode, realistic wounds, more dynamic melee swings, a reputation system etc. These things I know a developer could make in a short amount of time but can add a great deal to a game that expects you to put up with it's gameplay for hundreds of hours. When it expects that I would like it to be made on fundamentals that aren't just old gameplay elements. I want the developers to look at the games in their genre and outside of their genre and implement better systems that make full use of this current generation's technology.

First of all, I didn't mean to seem as though I was scolding you. But when you make claims when there's proof of the contrary, don't be surprised if you get a lecture ;-)

Anyway, Skyrim is one game. Do you know how many hundreds (hell, thousands if you include all the games released on Newgrounds and whatnot) are released every year? AAA games only scratch the surface of what's out there. And that surface is made up of the least risky, least different, least mentally/emotionally challenging, most easily marketed and most watered-down products available. Go hop on steam and grab a few indie games on Steam for a few bucks each. Basing your analysis of the games industry and ALL game trends on AAA games is like basing an analysis of all contemporary films on summer blockbusters.

You say that Skyrim could use more blood, I think that would be obnoxious and take away from the aspects of the combat system I enjoy. That is getting into very subjective territory, and I'm sure there are mods which cover quite a few of those (know there are already a lot of animation and HD model packs available). Yes it could probably use more dynamic movements and the models are definitely less than impressive, but Bethesda has never been known for these things. They have been known for delivering huge open worlds, and you cannot deny that Skyrim is huge and the environment is filled with a lot of interesting and intricate details (and a LOT of research into old Nordic and Celtic art).

I do perfectly agree with your last statement, mixing and matching of gameplay elements doesn't happen quite often enough and there is a lot of potential there. Though I think Skyrim does a bit of that already, by eliminating the "pick a class from the start and stick to it NO MATTER WHAT" thing and allowing people to choose by free experimentation, which is very much in line with how people naturally learn and make decisions.

I'm not saying you're totally wrong, it's just not as black-and-white as you're making it out to be. Talking about "developers" of games as a collective is like talking about "directors" of films as a collective. Would you lump Alfred Hitchcock and Martin Scorsese into the same group as Michael Bay and M. Night Shayamalan? Of course not. They are totally different directors with totally different approaches and totally different understandings of film, yielding totally different results.

I've got a totally different idea about these things in my head than what I write down here. I suppose i'm just not as good as changing my thoughts into words as you are.

And I know it's not all black and white, New Vegas improved handsomely on Fallout 3 and there's nothing in the mechanics that can't be fine tuned or changed with mods.

It's just that a lot of developers appear to be content to only really change the fundamentals of their games when under pressure to do so.

The most abhorrent example of his to me is the dialogue system in Skyrim. There's no character in any sentence, no wit, no choices and not a way to use your skills in them like in New Vegas. In my opinion your character is the most dull player insert I can imagine.

And by letting the player do anything and master most skills. (I.E. You can defeat dragons with bows even wihout any perks in it) it seems to render the freedom in character progression, precisely what it tries to do, meaningless.

SecretNegative:
Well, when something is perfect, there's very little left to innovate.

For example, the FPS has been almost perfected now (the gameplay atleast, the story is another matter), if you prefer the battlefield or TF2-type it's just a matter of opinion.

And from what I've heard, Bastion wasn't hailed as a great innovator of gameplay, more like a game with a great soundtrack, fast and rewarding (not innovating, mind you) gameplay, and a good, very well-told story along with a nice aestethic.

Skyrim was not really about the skill system, but more about creating a large, detailed world.

Games have always been almost the same, there was about a billion platforming sidescrollers in the 80:s, millions of click-adventure games and the 90:s, and now we've got brown and grey FPS' in the 2000s'.

It's not a lack of innovation, it's about different trends.

If I remember correctly the narration of Bastion was heralded for its ability to describe so many little details while failing to become repetitive and how well it kept its flow.

Not sure if it applies, but Fez seems to be popping up in my head.

Kahunaburger:
Reminds me of the recent PAX panel where David Gaider got uproarious applause for saying things like "in the next Dragon Age game, your choices will have consequences."

haha stay class Bioware fanboys/girls. I saw that and thought the same thing.

Elmoth:

I've got a totally different idea about these things in my head than what I write down here. I suppose i'm just not as good as changing my thoughts into words as you are.

And I know it's not all black and white, New Vegas improved handsomely on Fallout 3 and there's nothing in the mechanics that can't be fine tuned or changed with mods.

It's just that a lot of developers appear to be content to only really change the fundamentals of their games when under pressure to do so.

The most abhorrent example of his to me is the dialogue system in Skyrim. There's no character in any sentence, no wit, no choices and not a way to use your skills in them like in New Vegas. In my opinion your character is the most dull player insert I can imagine.

And by letting the player do anything and master most skills. (I.E. You can defeat dragons with bows even wihout any perks in it) it seems to render the freedom in character progression, precisely what it tries to do, meaningless.

New Vegas didn't improve on Everything from Fallout 3 - it was a much smaller, less open game than its predecessor. Skyrim is a large, open-world game that isn't about character interaction at all, and is more for Sandbox Fun "Do anything, be anyone" than having your character be an actual character. You're certainly not supposed to take him/her too seriously.

As far as the skill thing goes: Yes, you can kill a dragon with a weapon you've not invested heavily in, but it becomes much easier when you do invest the perks.

Scow2:

Elmoth:

I've got a totally different idea about these things in my head than what I write down here. I suppose i'm just not as good as changing my thoughts into words as you are.

And I know it's not all black and white, New Vegas improved handsomely on Fallout 3 and there's nothing in the mechanics that can't be fine tuned or changed with mods.

It's just that a lot of developers appear to be content to only really change the fundamentals of their games when under pressure to do so.

The most abhorrent example of his to me is the dialogue system in Skyrim. There's no character in any sentence, no wit, no choices and not a way to use your skills in them like in New Vegas. In my opinion your character is the most dull player insert I can imagine.

And by letting the player do anything and master most skills. (I.E. You can defeat dragons with bows even wihout any perks in it) it seems to render the freedom in character progression, precisely what it tries to do, meaningless.

New Vegas didn't improve on Everything from Fallout 3 - it was a much smaller, less open game than its predecessor. Skyrim is a large, open-world game that isn't about character interaction at all, and is more for Sandbox Fun "Do anything, be anyone" than having your character be an actual character. You're certainly not supposed to take him/her too seriously.

As far as the skill thing goes: Yes, you can kill a dragon with a weapon you've not invested heavily in, but it becomes much easier when you do invest the perks.

So the skill system isn't there to be actual complex skills, but to make things easier? And it's not about character interaction? Your saying Skyrim is an action game and a hiking simulator.

New Vegas had less dungeons, that doesn't make it less complex. The main quest can be completed with four different factions. Not just guards comment on your godlike hero status, people comment on world events. And there's about triple the quests than in Fallout 3, with more than half having choices and different outcomes. Just because Bethesda games focus on generic dungeon with enemies waiting for you to comb the world, doesn't mean that New Vegas is bad because it doesn't contain that. It shouldn't be played like a Bethesda game, doing just one endless playtrough walking around and killing things collecting shiny things.

Elmoth:

And I know it's not all black and white, New Vegas improved handsomely on Fallout 3 and there's nothing in the mechanics that can't be fine tuned or changed with mods.

It's just that a lot of developers appear to be content to only really change the fundamentals of their games when under pressure to do so.

The most abhorrent example of his to me is the dialogue system in Skyrim. There's no character in any sentence, no wit, no choices and not a way to use your skills in them like in New Vegas. In my opinion your character is the most dull player insert I can imagine.

Heh, New Vegas "improved" by simply taking the most popular FO3 mods, watering them down a bit, and building them in. ;)

I think with Skyrim there was too much of a "not-invented-here" attitude among the TES team. Notice how the dialog system is pretty much exactly the same as in Oblivion, but with the persuader circle removed. They wanted to keep the same style as Oblivion, rather than jumping over to the superior system developed for Fallout 3. The only things they grudgingly brought over was a "take all" button and the idea of perks.

Well, okay, occasionally a PERSUADE and/or INTIMIDATE option shows up... but that's about it.

Still, I'll forgive them for that since they managed to make magical combat much more fun than Oblivion. Melee could still use some work, but it's at least a little better.

Elmoth:
So the skill system isn't there to be actual complex skills, but to make things easier? And it's not about character interaction? Your saying Skyrim is an action game and a hiking simulator.

New Vegas had less dungeons, that doesn't make it less complex. The main quest can be completed with four different factions. Not just guards comment on your godlike hero status, people comment on world events. And there's about triple the quests than in Fallout 3, with more than half having choices and different outcomes. Just because Bethesda games focus on generic dungeon with enemies waiting for you to comb the world, doesn't mean that New Vegas is bad because it doesn't contain that. It shouldn't be played like a Bethesda game, doing just one endless playtrough walking around and killing things collecting shiny things.

Considering a "skill" is nothing more than an aptitude, then yes, it is to make things easier. They also open up a lot of unique abilities that define your characters aptitude in their specialized fields.

Skyrim's a Sandbox Hiking, Action, and Looting simulator, with a deep world with enough NPC depth to make it believable, if not quite perfect. It's NOT a Bioware game, where the core mechanic's the Dialogue Wheel.

And I never said New Vegas was less complex: I said it was smaller and more linear: Not linear in the sense of story progression, but of actual character movement: You have to jump through hoops in specific orders, and if you want to explore, you just get eaten by Deathclaws (And if you beat them, you're rewarded with an expanse of jack shit). I never said New Vegas is bad: It's a different game, different franchise, and different developer than Skyrim.

Sixcess:
Bioware's constant boasting that SWTOR would be the first MMO where the story was important drove me to distraction last year. Every MMO worthy of the name has a story, and some are far far richer in lore than Star Wars... like say The Lord of the Rings Online.

All it was was presented differently, and it wasn't meaningful since whatever you do has no effect on the greater universe outside phased areas and your personal story. They weren't even the first to have a moral choice system in an MMO - City of Heroes introduced that in 2010, and in my opinion, did it better.

......

you stole my post!! >.< i was gonna say that (or something like it)

Don't make presumptions about things you haven't played: LA Noire is atrocious.

I remember a company with a particularly obnoxious DRM requirement (probably Ubisoft, can't quite remember) listing "unlimited installs" as a 'positive feature'. That was a laugh.

Kahunaburger:
Reminds me of the recent PAX panel where David Gaider got uproarious applause for saying things like "in the next Dragon Age game, your choices will have consequences."

Gaider's the idiot who said they'll retcon player decisions if it gets in the way of writing a story they want.

It's actually difficult to believe that the same team of people who made Origins made DA2.

Elmoth:
This grind anyone else´s gears?
Bastion has uninovative gameplay and a voice over that's been used in games since cd's have been able to store compressed audio.

While other games did have voice over narration, Bastion's narrator not only had scripted lines but it also commented on the player's actions in real time. Ruck's would comment when the player was low on health, did too many dodges, what drink perks they selected and had lines for every weapon combination in the game.

I remember a few months ago a game being announced and someone here going apeshit over the 'innovations' that were really just bringing back old features but I can't remember what it was.

^ oh yet that was it: Dragon age 3.

G-Force:

Elmoth:
This grind anyone else´s gears?
Bastion has uninovative gameplay and a voice over that's been used in games since cd's have been able to store compressed audio.

While other games did have voice over narration, Bastion's narrator not only had scripted lines but it also commented on the player's actions in real time. Ruck's would comment when the player was low on health, did too many dodges, what drink perks they selected and had lines for every weapon combination in the game.

Well, if I remember correctly, Fable had that same thing. "Your health is low! Do you have any potions? Or food?"

VeryOddGamer:

G-Force:

Elmoth:
This grind anyone else´s gears?
Bastion has uninovative gameplay and a voice over that's been used in games since cd's have been able to store compressed audio.

While other games did have voice over narration, Bastion's narrator not only had scripted lines but it also commented on the player's actions in real time. Ruck's would comment when the player was low on health, did too many dodges, what drink perks they selected and had lines for every weapon combination in the game.

Well, if I remember correctly, Fable had that same thing. "Your health is low! Do you have any potions? Or food?"

Oh my god, seriously! That's just an example of an alert message. By your logic every game with some sort of narrated tutorial with a generic npc telling you to "press A to jump!" has the same innovations as Bastion. Ruck from Bastion wouldn't say what you just said he would, he would say something like...
"The kid's on his last legs, wonder if he's got any more of that magic juice to make him better." that's not even a good line (I just made it up), but it's actual dialogue instead of just an alert message.

"Black Ops 2 is supposed to have meaningful choices that branch into different endings."

I'm paraphrasing, of course, but hearing that makes me want to print out a giant poster of Deus Ex with "BITCH PLEASE" written all over it and mail it to Activision.

Kahunaburger:
Reminds me of the recent PAX panel where David Gaider got uproarious applause for saying things like "in the next Dragon Age game, your choices will have consequences."

Oh yeah, and the armour changing to look different on different characters, and the stuff that's been in RPGs for ages?

Yeah. That didn't deserve a round of applause. That deserved a pity clap. If you think that's new and some massive deal - you need to be pitied.

And his little disclaimer that they aren't talking about any specific games, as he was probably a bit cautious thanks to the ME3 promises that were made and not delivered on that got a lot of people upset I found kinda funny too.

Aircross:
"Black Ops 2 is supposed to have meaningful choices that branch into different endings."

I'm paraphrasing, of course, but hearing that makes me want to print out a giant poster of Deus Ex with "BITCH PLEASE" written all over it and mail it to Activision.

They never said it was a new gameplay innovation though, it's something new to revitalize the COD franchise. Would you rather them of not done anything new in fear of it being something that had been done by a game before? I guess you would, because you can't change if someone else has done it before you. By your logic, the creators of any 3d platformer after Super Mario 64 should be mailed a copy of Super Mario 64 with the caption "Bitch Please" on it.

Anyone remember Armor Core games on the PS1? All three games were compatible with each other's save date so when you beat one campaign you can then transfer your equipment and cofiguration on your memory card to the next game and continue onward. That was awesome but I don't think many knew about this feature. Everyone knows about Pokemon trading though.

Kinda similar to what Skylanders tries to do but sticks a memory chip that is accessed by surface contact. I can't really say the concept itself is that new.

Now for a simple idea: Co-op 3D platformer.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here