Indie game innovation?

[Gilzu]

It's about a week or so that I'm working on a concept for a new game. It strokes me that each and every idea I had was "too much like". I've also noticed more than a couple of posts complaining about the death of Indie innovation (maybe due to the casual games fever).

But when looking back at the most innovative & successful games, they all took some of the basic concept of the most used genre of that time and added that magic touch that makes it so special.

I could have used the same old clichés, but take a real good look at this one:

We all remember probably the first game ever made, Pong (http://www.pong-story.com/ ) which produced many, many clones.

Somewhere it was evolved to a game called Breakout ( http://breakout.freeonlinegames.com/ - for all of you nostalgic ppl), I remember playing it on my XT-Turbo (6MHz of processor speed, CGA - 4 colors – YAY!!!).

I probably made my point by now, since you all know this is almost(?) the oldest, most used concept for a game. Then again, we are all reminded how a concept could be used and still be innovative. Should I even bother reminding the legendary DX-BALL ( http://www.ldagames.com/dxball2/screenshots/ ) ?

.
.
.
On to my point
.
.
.

Then, not a while ago, NurimGames comes with an announcement for a new game based on the same concept ( http://forums.indiegamer.com/showthread.php?t=479 ).

Now there you have the 1,000,000th breakout game......... Wrong!

I think that everyone who watched that thread and viewed the screenshot automatically knew that adding dynamic objects to a Breakout game really hits the spot. It's something that never been done before, it adds so many variables to the gameplay, enriches the gameplay (finding in each level a new dynamic object) and… I'll let you think of the rest. I doubt if anyone will call BreakQuest as "just another casual game".

I could have made the same point with Gish, or any other great game that went out in the last 2-3 years. Difference is, that even before it came out, people in this forum knew it was a great concept.

[Savant]

So ... what is it that you're wanting to discuss here?

[Sharpfish]

Yeah - BreakQuest rocks.. but I also have to ask - what is your question/discussion ?

[MadSage]

I wouldn't worry too much about your game being too similar to another, as long as it has something special and you can market it well. So many games have reused an old concept and sold very well. Some don't even add anything to the original concept. Just look at the amount of sequels out there. Bejeweled is one such success - the concept was nothing new.

One thing you have to be careful of is not to over-complicate the original concept. Simple is best! I remember playing Bejeweled 2 and thinking it was over-complicated. The new modes are just too difficult and therefore not much fun, so it's easy to put down. Where as the original concept was very simple, easy to get into, and addictive for many people.

I'd be very surprised if anyone can create an entirely original game these days...

[Gilzu]

lol... forgot all about it...

anyway, my question is when do you know that your concept is innovative enough to be considered better than the others?

I know that adding graphics is a minor improvement (unless you're doing a game which its immersion is the center - FPS for example), doing some nice new bonuses is also good, but not that ground breaking.

so what changes in the game concept/design does make the difference?

[Sharpfish]

I can't answer that right now - all I will say is stay clear of cloning either ZUMA or CHUZZLE or you will get hunted down and burned at the stake! ;)

[cliffski]

you know you are innovative when there are no games that you can play that show you how to do what it is you are doing. Ie, we all know how minimaps work in an RTS, how gun selection works in an FPS, how stats are used in an RPG. If you find yourself scratching your head thinking "how do i do this then?" then its original. And originality is good :D

[Diodor Bitan]

If fellow game developers kick themselves for not having thought of it first, it's original. :eek:

[NuriumGames]

Well, thanks for the comments about BreakQuest :)

By the way I'm now doing an original matching puzzle game.

If fellow game developers kick themselves for not having thought of it first, it's original.
That's what happens when the idea is original and profitable :D

[Escapee]

Nirium, You deserved to be extremely proud of break quest as it's the only arkanoic game that i ( or possibly many others ) would like to play forever.:)

[Ronkes]

anyway, my question is when do you know that your concept is innovative enough to be considered better than the others?

It's like being in love, I guess; you just know. But maybe that's just me being arrogant. :D

If you describe your game in terms of other games, you don't have an innovative concept. "It's like Breakout with physics." That's a clear concept, it sounds like a lot of fun and it could result in a very original game, but I don't consider it an innovative game concept.

It's pretty much a frame of mind. If you start your design with a thought like "let's make the Sims with weapons" then I think innovation will be pretty hard, even though that concept is, well, quite original, I guess. When I designed Trichromix (http://www.trichromix.com/), I started with a blank piece of paper and I didn't think of any other computer games. The result is a game that you can't describe in terms of other games even if you wanted to.

If fellow game developers kick themselves for not having thought of it first, it's original.

I agree with Diodor on this one (although I don't think this is the only criterium) and for me his game Pax Galaxia (http://www.diogames.com/PaxGalaxia.html) is a nice example of such a game. Thanks for that one Diodor; it's been months since I bought it, but I still play it regularly. :cool: I hope it's selling well.

[Diodor Bitan]

I agree with Diodor on this one (although I don't think this is the only criterium) and for me his game Pax Galaxia (http://www.diogames.com/PaxGalaxia.html) is a nice example of such a game. Thanks for that one Diodor; it's been months since I bought it, but I still play it regularly. :cool: I hope it's selling well.

Thanks! The game is doing rather well (around 3 sales a day), so not worth kicking oneself over moneywise just yet :) But since this is not the business forum :D

[Gilzu]

If you describe your game in terms of other games, you don't have an innovative concept.

What about BattleZone? it was very innovative - you can sum it up as "RTS from FPS viewpoint"

[Vorax]

In this day and age it's next to impossible to come up with a truly unique idea - not that it can't be done, but its VERY VERY VERY VERY rare. Even if you think it's an original idea, it has probably been done in some shape or form and what you really have done is innovated or re-invented, rather then invented.

Exhibit A:

When I designed Trichromix (http://www.trichromix.com/), I started with a blank piece of paper and I didn't think of any other computer games. The result is a game that you can't describe in terms of other games even if you wanted to.

I could describe Trichromix as a new twist on Leapn' Lizzards (http://tvwbooks.com/leapinlizards.htm) but with square boards, and shapes instead of lizards :)

The last truly unique video game was Pong :D

-- DOH! I forgot Pong is really just a Ping Pong clone - with less polish ;)

[puggy]

99.999999999999999999999% of all games made today have something in common with other games. take the recently released "the movies" game. It's very inovative in the fact that you can actually make a movie from a game. But when you look at it, it feels a bit like "The Sims" in it's interface and a bit like "theme park" in it's gameplay (or of many other tycoon games).

Being inovative means making a game with something special in it compared to other games, for example B&W is basically populus with big creatures in it (anyone seeing something in common with all but one 1 games i mentioned, all make by a certain person) but it's very inovative the way they did it.

There's plenty of things that can be done, i have more ideas than time allows. You just need to look at all the games (online and offline), see what they do, get a pen/pencil, several notepads and just write down ideas nomatter how stupid they are, then go over your ideas and start forming some potential games on paper, you should have about 20-30 game ideas at least to choose from, then think which ones you would really like to do, you could do and if your in it for the money how well you think they could do, then you know which one of your ideas to choose from.

[Ronkes]

I expected to get a bit of heat over this. :D

you can sum it up as "RTS from FPS viewpoint"
But then you're naming genres, not games. Yeah, I know, you can just change it to "C&C from with a Quake perspective", but I'm talking about mindset here: how do you describe your game while designing it.

In this day and age it's next to impossible to come up with a truly unique idea - not that it can't be done, but its VERY VERY VERY VERY rare.
I never said it was easy. ;)

I could describe Trichromix as a new twist on Leapn' Lizzards but with square boards, and shapes instead of lizards
I don't know Leapin' Lizzards and the web site you provided doesn't tell me enough about the game's rules to decide whether I agree with your description (so, until convinced otherwise, I don't :P).

But even if you're right, I never said that a game isn't innovative if it can be described in terms of other games, I just said that it isn't innovative if you describe your game in terms of other games (to) yourself.

I believe that true innovation can only come when you start blank, not with an existing game in mind. Of course you'll pull in concepts from other games and other media along the way; it just shouldn't be the basis for your design if you want to innovate. I probably have a stricter interpretation of innovation than most, though.

Also, I consider 'original' and 'innovative' to be seperate concepts. I'd say that Grim Fandango is original but far from innovative, but I consider The Sims and Sim City to be innovative.

Finally, innovation is a designer's choice. You don't have to be innovative - and arguably not even original - to design a great game.

[esrix]

I do think that innovation counts for something. However, it is not THE deciding factor in whether or not someone picks up your game.

I believe that, as long as a game is fun without deliberately and obviously ripping off another game, then you have done your job.

Yes, there are some stipulations as to what can be constidered "ripping off". However, sometimes one wants to also put their own spin on a game concept or even make a game similar to one that is already out there as a learning experience (I've read so many forum posts that suggest making a Tetris-esque clone as a first project for a beginning game developer).

On the professional level, though, if your game is "another first person shooter", do your best to make it as fun as possible. For the most part, it doesn't matter if it features the same weapons and vehicles (presuming the game is based on the real world and not something science fiction-esque like Unreal or Halo). If the game manages to grab the player and get them to have a good time, then it is worth playing :)

[Pluvious]

Being "truly innovative" would mean you design some new technology for a game that means you can do something really unique. When making a game stick with coming up with original or unique "concepts".

Its actually a smart idea to copy a game but you need to make changes that you are "inspired" to change if you want to make something original. If you go in thinking you just want to make a copy and change some stuff so it seems different then you are copying. If you go in thinking this game could use some changes and I'm bringing in this, this, and this as new ideas (because that is what would make it better)...then you are being original.

[Ronkes]

I agree. It's just that I personally prefer to start with something original and pull in different aspect from existing games than the other way around. But that's just the way I work; it's the end result that counts.

[ernestpazera]

I don't innovate much at all.

I take a game that already exists, like Lights Out (http://www.learn4good.com/games/board/allout.htm), change it to a hex grid, come up with new art, and change it into Honeycomb (http://www.playdeez.com/default.asp?View=Item&ItemID=1).

Then I take another game that already exists, like Branch (http://members.gamedev.net/TANSTAAFL/branch.jpg), change it to a hex grid, come up with new art, and change it into Hexircuit (http://www.playdeez.com/default.asp?View=Item&ItemID=2).

Then I take yet another game, Carcassonne (http://russcon.place.org/RussCon/carcassonne/tiles.html), take out some of the complexity, put it on a hex grid, change the theme, and make it into ChemHex (http://www.playdeez.com/default.asp?View=Item&ItemID=3).

And finally, I take No Mess (http://www.mapletop.com/index.html#NoMess), and get most of the way to making it into Fyvinaro (http://www.playdeez.com/default.asp?View=Item&ItemID=6).

I use the exact same trick each time.I take a game on a square grid, and put it on a hex grid. Some day when I've got time, I've got more games that I can do the same thing with.

But I don't call myself innovative. Sure, I tweak a concept, and technically any modification of an original idea is "innovation," but it's not mind-blowing earth shattering brand new idea kind of stuff. Basically, I would more call what I do "evolving" an existing idea into a slightly different, although essentially the same, form.

A customer doesn't decide to buy a game based on how innovative he thinks it is. "Y'know, I'd buy this here game, but I just don't feel that it is innovative enough..."

Instead, people buy games because they think they are fun.

Fizzwizzle (sorry to pick on you, grub) is basically sokoban with more complex physics. It is cute, it is fun, and with level packs it is easy to add lots and lots of value to it. It is polished. But not innovative.

[smiles]

It seems like innovation is what game developers strive for when being compared to other developers/games, but it's definitely the "fun" aspect which makes a game good. It's exactly the same things with movies. Why all the sequels? Why the same plots? Oh, this movie is just like that old one! If a movie is good, then it really doesn't matter if it's original or not. There were gangster movies before the Godfather, and space movies before Star Wars...but those movies are flat-out entertaining movies with a great story to tell.

[cliffski]

A customer doesn't decide to buy a game based on how innovative he thinks it is. "Y'know, I'd buy this here game, but I just don't feel that it is innovative enough..."



No, but when I see screenshots of a new WW2 FPS or RTS I don't bother even downloading the demo, because I already paid for 1 of each. Ditto most new historical RTS games. Theres only so many FPS games a person needs.
When I see a game like Gish, or Space Station Manager, or Tower of Goo, or Cute Knight, I DO download the demo, because its something I haven't done before.

[Ricardo C]

That is a good point... I tried Democracy just because the concept sounded so radically different. I didn't know if I'd enjoy it, but I knew I had to at least check it out.

[Savant]

Well, as a counterpoint, I've had sex before but that doesn't mean I'm done with it. ;)

[Diodor Bitan]

No, but when I see screenshots of a new WW2 FPS or RTS I don't bother even downloading the demo, because I already paid for 1 of each. Ditto most new historical RTS games. Theres only so many FPS games a person needs.
When I see a game like Gish, or Space Station Manager, or Tower of Goo, or Cute Knight, I DO download the demo, because its something I haven't done before.

One would think you're a game developer and as such you're in a very narrow market segment, so you're statistically unimportant. Nonetheless, the same game literate segment that appreciates an original game includes game reviewers with access to large audiences.

[Pluvious]

The game I'm currently working on has elements of many different games that I've played and enjoyed but hasn't really gotten it exactly the way I want in any of them (strategy, rpg, tactics, fantasy, exploration, and collectable card games).

By adding in the best aspects of each, working ideas around to make up new concepts, and just generally adding in my own brainstorms I feel I have a unique/original idea. However, I wouldn't say its completely innovative, as people can probably relate to many of the game concepts.

[Ronkes]

A customer doesn't decide to buy a game based on how innovative he thinks it is. "Y'know, I'd buy this here game, but I just don't feel that it is innovative enough..."

To a degree, I think that's true. That's why I said that innovation is a designer's choice. I like to (try and) innovate, because it's more fulfilling to me, not because I think it's necessarily wise from a marketing point of view.

On the other hand, I do believe there are players out there who will buy a game because it is innovative (I'm one of them). All first-person shooters look the same to me and I don't care much for them to begin with, but they seem to be the bread and butter of the hardcore gaming industry. So, when a game comes along that has something new to offer, I'm interested.

...but those movies are flat-out entertaining movies

Frankly, I'm a bit bored with 'flat-out entertaining movies'. Sure, some of them are worth watching, but they don't have the impact on me that, say, an Alexandra's Project (http://www.vertigoproductions.com.au/alex.html) has.

My point is, there is an audience out there that enjoys games that are different. There are players who are on the look-out for something they haven't experienced before. Whether you want to cater for that audience or not is, of course, entirely up to you.