Modern, innovative games: "Put up or shut up"

[Rhomaios]

Here's a thread to list modern games for me to crap on that people think are innovative. Crap Games like WoW, Skyrim, or Call of Duty X will be laughed out, so don't bother. For someone who really favors the old games, what's there that is really worth it?

[Austin]

Xenoblade Chronicles. It completely revived my [previously dead] interest in RPGs.

[Rhomaios]

Xenoblade Chronicles. It completely revived my [previously dead] interest in RPGs.

 

That's actually a shock. I had heard from a lot of people that it wasn't that good, overhyped and whatnot. I bought it new but admittedly have yet to play it. Maybe I'll bump it up the list a bit.

[+wongojack]

Feel free to crap on these, but here is what comes to mind if I focus on innovation and maybe hit a few classic genres (since it is a classic gaming forum).

 

I'll put a plug in for Mass Effect. With its dialog system and 3 game story arc, I think that it did some new things for RPG interactivity.

 

Portal and Portal 2 really stretched the FPS genre to new places.

 

When Castle Crashers first came out it almost single handedly birthed a renaissance in side scrolling brawlers, incorporating a lot of new features only possible on modern platforms. This and Portal 2 also offer coop gameplay which has been a big push in modern gaming.

 

Twin stick shooters were surging there for a while and there were some innovations. Maybe look at Ultratron in that category.

 

Roguelikes are very en vogue at the moment and new games have brought innovation to that genre. I really like FTL for example.

[Austin]

 

That's actually a shock. I had heard from a lot of people that it wasn't that good, overhyped and whatnot. I bought it new but admittedly have yet to play it. Maybe I'll bump it up the list a bit.

 

That's strange to me, because I have mostly read great things about the game. I have seen a few say the battle system is "uninspired" or "nothing special", but I honestly don't understand what they are talking about (I had a blast with it). If you decide to try it, go into it without expectations or reading reviews, otherwise it could hurt your experience (obviously the game is going to look dated to a degree). That said, I do feel that if people feel negatively about it, they either, A) barely played it, B) are jaded; C) lack a soul; or, D) are on crack.

 

As far as it being innovative, the biggest things that stood out to me (asides from usual aesthetic details I could comment on, like graphics, story, scenery and sound) is the streamlined gameplay, the creative and flexible battle system, and the successful meshing of JRPG and Western RPG styles. Not to touch on all of those, but in terms of, say, the streamlined nature, I never felt hindered when I wanted to make progress or even backtrack, which heavily affected the flow of the game for me (in a positive way). Battles were quick to start and quick to end, enemies eventually began to avoid me when my character levels increased (basically, less unintentional grinding), I could save anywhere I wanted, dying simply took me back to the nearest checkpoint instead of giving me a game over (so I never felt bad when I dived into a battle I knew I couldn't win), I could warp to any previous checkpoint at any time instead of walking halfway across the world (or simply a block or two down the street) manually, etc., etc. The streamlined nature flows into the battle system as well, which is a major aspect of the game I found to be very refreshing (especially once I figured out how the chain attack system works).

[cimerians]

Everyone's definition of innovation is somewhat different in my opinion. There's too many to mention when it comes to indies like Journey and a game I'm looking forward to Viscera Cleanup Detail

 

For mainstream AAA console games I have to agree with Austin on Xenoblade and a bunch of other Wii games like No More Heroes etc.....and yeah Portal and Portal 2.

 

One game that had me enthralled with its unique system is a game from Capcom (of all companies) called Dragons Dogma. I think the Pawn system was a great and unique idea and it worked very well. One of the few games that I finished more than 3 or 4 times on multiple platforms. That's how much it impressed me.

 

Another game is Demons Souls\Dark Souls. For the first time the roguelike concept was made into a AAA title. Die and die again. The system and online network was completely different from standard RPG's.

 

There's loads more out there....

 

In my opinion though and some people might scoff but Nintendo for me is probably the lead in innovative games especially now that a lot of indies are showing up on the eshop. Yes it's mainly the unique controls and stuff but a lot of games are too. Not just the Wii and 3DS but the Wii U too (I think Zombie U is innovative, I also think Wonderful 101 is innovative).

[DaytonaUSA]

I find most thinks Nintendo to fall under the classic feel of quality unlike many modern games. I'd look into the Wii U if you appreciate gaming the way it used to be.

[warmachine]

Hotline Miami. If you don't like it, you must hate fun.

[Video]

It would depend on your definition of "innovation" Which to me would be to bring an entirely new play element or style to gaming. Especially things that well, get copied to hell by everybody else, cause lets face it, innovators are largely risk takers, and big game companies didn't get that way by taking risks, but by producing sure things.

 

Something like Portal springs to mind, first person, but it's a new type of game, first person puzzler, but it's hard to think of others.

 

Something like Angry birds, as a game is NOT innovative (it's just a variation on worms, or further back, artillery duel) what made it such a big thing was it's accessibility, and for that, I guess you could say it was innovative. Though I might hand it to them with the alternative weird physics in the space game.

[Jinks]

Nintendoland most innovative game since wii sports. Sure beats press X to win game on the "other" systems..

[DaytonaUSA]

Nintendoland most innovative game since wii sports. Sure beats press X to win game on the "other" systems..

 

Have to disagree... unless "innovation" is having to re-calibrate 80 times while playing one game in Blue Falcon's mini game.

[Rhomaios]

It would depend on your definition of "innovation" Which to me would be to bring an entirely new play element or style to gaming. Especially things that well, get copied to hell by everybody else, cause lets face it, innovators are largely risk takers, and big game companies didn't get that way by taking risks, but by producing sure things.

 

Something like Portal springs to mind, first person, but it's a new type of game, first person puzzler, but it's hard to think of others.

 

Something like Angry birds, as a game is NOT innovative (it's just a variation on worms, or further back, artillery duel) what made it such a big thing was it's accessibility, and for that, I guess you could say it was innovative. Though I might hand it to them with the alternative weird physics in the space game.

 

Didn't Farmville beat Angry Birds to accessibility? But even before that, everyone played Snake on their phones, and I remember it being a big hit, though not really marketable.

[Jinks]

 

Have to disagree... unless "innovation" is having to re-calibrate 80 times while playing one game in Blue Falcon's mini game.

Ok that one game dont work that well. But the rest do.

[xenomorpher]

As mentioned before the Portal series immediately comes to mind. Antichamber hasn't been mentioned and is a very unique first person puzzle game. I can't think of a game like it. The Stanley Parable also comes to mind, and again I can't think of a game like it. Dead Island I think is because it did things no other zombie game has done before it, except maybe the Dead Rising series having light RPG elements.

[Noah98]

Skylanders is innovative. The toys come to life concept has inspired Disney Infinity and the Amiibos. Entire sections of toy/game stores are dedicated to these.

[+wongojack]

I was thinking about this thread again, and I think Bioshock deserves some credit for innovating. Story really characterizes the recent generation,and the Bioshock story is great and gets lots of praise from various sources. The pure single player FPS game is becoming an oddity, and the opportunity to focus all of the development on the single player experience really paid off. I like that It also combines traditional magic and "spell casting" abilities with guns and ammo. Although, I will say that in all honestly, the gameplay didn't really live up to expectations. It is a great game, but the various abilities add all this promise of throwing enemies around or killing them with flaming killer bees. In the end, I mostly stuck to one or two attacks and then shot people in the face.

[+save2600]

Still have yet to take Skyrim (PS3) out of its shrink-wrap - and haven't been compelled to, so can't comment on that one.

 

Tried playing Y's for the PS2 the other day and almost fell asleep watching the intro. Too much "story" in these games anymore for me!

 

Currently have many of the "latest" games, but simply cannot get into them. Or haven't yet. By the time you install, perform updates, watch the intro and try to play the game with all its goofy controls, cinematics that take over every whatever seconds/minutes, etc. - my attention is shot. Time to move on to something else. Something that doesn't involve modern gaming. Guess most of them are just too innovative for me.

[xenomorpher]

I was thinking about this thread again, and I think Bioshock deserves some credit for innovating. Story really characterizes the recent generation,and the Bioshock story is great and gets lots of praise from various sources. The pure single player FPS game is becoming an oddity, and the opportunity to focus all of the development on the single player experience really paid off. I like that It also combines traditional magic and "spell casting" abilities with guns and ammo. Although, I will say that in all honestly, the gameplay didn't really live up to expectations. It is a great game, but the various abilities add all this promise of throwing enemies around or killing them with flaming killer bees. In the end, I mostly stuck to one or two attacks and then shot people in the face.

The System Shock games basically did the same thing before, they were the inspiration after all for Bioshock, but I agree with you. BioShock was more streamlined and easier to get into for the average gamer. I also think the gun and "magic" combination gameplay is handled better in Bioshock as well.

Edited January 27, 2015 by xenomorpher

[+Random Terrain]

If the game is innovative, but linear, I'd rather play Skyrim where I have more freedom. If Skyrim is too easy for you, crank up the difficulty.

[DaytonaUSA]

Ok that one game dont work that well. But the rest do.

 

The DK game? Have you gotten past the part where you go back and forth? I rest my case. Aggravation isn't innovation, and that's all that game was for me. But I digress.

 

There's not much innovation anymore. It's why I've been focusing on older stuff. I'll be honest, if it wasn't for games like SW BF III coming, and the fact I use my XB1 to talk to my best friend in Canada, I wouldn't have much use for a modern console. I find modern games to be horribly dry and devoid of fun, and the reason this is a reality is because everything has to be a franchise. Everything has to be safe. Everything has to be beatable. Everything has to be generic.

 

When was the last time you saw a character as cooky as Dig Dug, or a game as out there as Rez? Frankly, I think indie scenes are where all creativity is at now a days, but the problem there is two fold. 1. The assumption that anything with 8 or 16 bit graphics is awesome... because 99% of indie games are rendered this way, and it's f***ing annoying. 2. Many indie games simply aren't made by talented/experienced enough people to create something that feels polished.

 

The problem is that the people who ARE making polished games, are working for companies like EA who are literally sucking out the soul of what games used to be. We have no games like Clayfighter (graphically speaking, not gameplay), we have no racing games with music like F-Zero where the music was original, catchy, and wasn't licensed, and we have no color (apparently everything has to be rendered in the same engine to look as boring as humanly possible).

 

Call me jaded, and maybe I am, but most of modern gaming can suck it. I've been gaming since the NES, and it's gotten worse and worse since the DC era, and frankly, I don't see that turning around unless there's another crash.

Edited January 27, 2015 by DaytonaUSA

[+wongojack]

/\/\/\ I know where you are coming from Daytona, but you don't have to try very hard to see the lack of innovation in previous gaming generations. The NES library is just a pile of 2D platformers over and over again. The Genesis is basically the same thing. Both have some exceptions or additional genres that are just as copycat, but that is exactly what we have now.

[DaytonaUSA]

/\/\/\ I know where you are coming from Daytona, but you don't have to try very hard to see the lack of innovation in previous gaming generations. The NES library is just a pile of 2D platformers over and over again. The Genesis is basically the same thing. Both have some exceptions or additional genres that are just as copycat, but that is exactly what we have now.

 

I totally agree. I'm not saying there wasn't a wave of shovelware for old systems. But the non-shovelware, the meat and potatoes.. just felt so much more creative and significant.

 

Seriously, in 20 years, will ANY copy of Call of Duty be worth more than a penny? Generic, online will be cut off, hand holding, extremely common.... this is what we have to look forward to in the future. Collecting worthless coasters that weren't that fun to play even when they were fully working.

Edited January 27, 2015 by DaytonaUSA

[+wongojack]

Tried playing Y's for the PS2 the other day. . .

 

You've got some strong opinions, and I can easily see where you are coming from. However, I would say that I don't really think of the PS2/Xbox/Cube generation being particularly good at storytelling. I think that really came around in the next generation.

 

Localization could also be a problem with a game like Y's

[DaytonaUSA]

I've tried getting into Y's so many times. Always makes me want to fall asleep. Not my cup of tea.

[Keatah]

Still have yet to take Skyrim (PS3) out of its shrink-wrap - and haven't been compelled to, so can't comment on that one.

 

Tried playing Y's for the PS2 the other day and almost fell asleep watching the intro. Too much "story" in these games anymore for me!

 

It that "innovation"? Boring your customers to tears?

 

Currently have many of the "latest" games, but simply cannot get into them. Or haven't yet. By the time you install, perform updates, watch the intro and try to play the game with all its goofy controls, cinematics that take over every whatever seconds/minutes, etc. - my attention is shot. Time to move on to something else. Something that doesn't involve modern gaming. Guess most of them are just too innovative for me.

 

Yes all that. I've frequently gone to client's houses as a guest of honor and I never had any desire whatsoever to play their modern console games, no matter how extensive their library, no matter how elaborate (and I mean + $50K) their A/V systems and game rigs are..

 

I tried a few PS4 and WiiU things. I felt like I was having to work through some sort of pieced-together movie or something. I'd rather watch a real movie! One that will entertain me without having to work at it. I mean that's what movies are for. To let you go slack and be swept away into another world.

 

Not to mention the amount of interruptions and prerequisite learning was such a turn off. And the updating process. Ughhh!! I tried 6 games out in the period of 2 hours more or less. And 4 of them needed downloading or updates. As a result I spent the remaining 15 or 20 minutes actually going through the tutorials. I don't think I ever got into a game for real. Not one I could reset after my mistakes, and begin again. Not without waiting more. All of us got tired of this put it all (console and controllers and jewel cases) back on their picturesque shelf. It's almost more fun to look at and admire the collection than it is to work through the games.

 

It seems there is a contradiction forming here. On one hand the internet speeds your brain up pretty fast. And things are supposed to happen at warp speed. And yet in reality the tedium of modern gaming stretches and slows down the experience. You're getting jerked and pulled and pushed in all directions. And after you get thoroughly shook up, you're ramrodded with a shoddy console experience - where you babysit the machine in tedium.

 

While back in the day games like Modem Commbat or PlayCable or even "online" one-on-one play against your bud in Doom and Quake might have been innovative, just because it worked then doesn't mean it will work now. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should. This is what makes modern game systems pale in comparison to the older material.

 

The other overlooked advantage of the classic 8-bit era was instant on functionality. If I wanted to play "Atari" (generic plea to parents for TV time) I could do so as quickly as finding a cartridge and turning on the power switch. Contrast that with the 45+ minute experience I had at a bud's house when the PS4 had to do some updates through a shoddy internet connection. The connection was shoddy because of downed lines and snow storm. Just don't give me any of that shit that "the experience" would have been good if it was done properly. It is impossible. Our old "Atari" games were programmed right and worked without bugs. And the few bugs we found were considered tricks and loopholes and easter eggs.

 

 

The DK game? Have you gotten past the part where you go back and forth? I rest my case. Aggravation isn't innovation, and that's all that game was for me. But I digress.

 

There's not much innovation anymore. It's why I've been focusing on older stuff. I'll be honest, if it wasn't for games like SW BF III coming, and the fact I use my XB1 to talk to my best friend in Canada, I wouldn't have much use for a modern console. I find modern games to be horribly dry and devoid of fun, and the reason this is a reality is because everything has to be a franchise. Everything has to be safe. Everything has to be beatable. Everything has to be generic.

 

When was the last time you saw a character as cooky as Dig Dug, or a game as out there as Rez? Frankly, I think indie scenes are where all creativity is at now a days, but the problem there is two fold. 1. The assumption that anything with 8 or 16 bit graphics is awesome... because 99% of indie games are rendered this way, and it's f***ing annoying. 2. Many indie games simply aren't made by talented/experienced enough people to create something that feels polished.

 

Well yes.. Safe, beatable, generic.. All that.. All that in order to appeal to the growing number of unsophisticated and less-demanding, modern, progressive, gamers. And let us not forget the flighty temporary nature of the cloud and internet connectivity and the mindset that those technologies breed. There is no permanence. No sense of accomplishment as you build your collection of airhead games that require a temporary server for activation (activation through updating, not direct activation like a type-in serial number).

 

I don't think many "indie" games are worth my time either. I dislike the cookie cutter graphics and necessity to be online or have some online component of the game be too prominent. That and the crude harsh incomplete feeling. The last indie game I got into was Angry Birds.

 

 

I totally agree. I'm not saying there wasn't a wave of shovelware for old systems. But the non-shovelware, the meat and potatoes.. just felt so much more creative and significant.

 

It didn't feel more creative and significant. It actually was (and still is) more creative and significant!

 

It is important to understand the reason why. Back then the technology, the medium, and the concept was all new. The notion of using microscopic transistors and electronics (microelectronics) to play something on the family TV was new and novel. And only the best and brightest and most creative individuals had the foresight and talent and brains to create for this medium. And they did it out of a genuine desire to explore the new art form.

 

In the old days every storage bit counted and was carefully examined before a game went to market. Gameplay was tweaked to near perfection. Games could be learned after reading a 3 page leaflet instruction "manual". You were challenged to do better. Your imagination was fired up. Going between levels was instant if you were into cheating and editing stuff on the computer back them. Games were collectible. Games were unique.

 

Today big-name franchises cost millions or billions. Games are sent to market while full of bugs. So much money is wasted on frivolity and and stuffage. A hundred billion gigabyte game is full of that FMV crap and cutscenes. You're bogged down in DRM and frustrated with DLC. I often feel that in modern gaming the real objective is to test your patience.

 

Today it is all about transferring money from your wallet to the corporate coffers. It will be done via the most efficient and cost-effective means possible. It matters not if something is shoddy & shallow, dumb and depthless. As long as the marketing departments make it look picturesque it's all good - from their perspective. The hell with yours.

 

 

Seriously, in 20 years, will ANY copy of Call of Duty be worth more than a penny? Generic, online will be cut off, hand holding, extremely common.... this is what we have to look forward to in the future. Collecting worthless coasters that weren't that fun to play even when they were fully working.

 

We don't even have to go out 20 years. Games have been falling off the servers for some time. And, clearly, 75% of today's games will be unplayable within 10 years. Or sooner. Contrast that to the entire VCS library playable today on original still-functional hardware or emulation.

 

 

The problem is that the people who ARE making polished games, are working for companies like EA who are literally sucking out the soul of what games used to be. We have no games like Clayfighter (graphically speaking, not gameplay), we have no racing games with music like F-Zero where the music was original, catchy, and wasn't licensed, and we have no color (apparently everything has to be rendered in the same engine to look as boring as humanly possible).

 

Call me jaded, and maybe I am, but most of modern gaming can suck it. I've been gaming since the NES, and it's gotten worse and worse since the DC era, and frankly, I don't see that turning around unless there's another crash.

 

I would argue that it's gotten worse during the NES and SNES era. If not that then after online gaming and updating became the norm.

 

There are a couple of good platformer games on the NES, but only a couple. Out of how many published? Eh?

 

Modern business analytics and the continued dumbing down of consumers will ensure there is never a crash. A gradual decline or re-organization of the market, sure. But never a crash like the in mid 80's.