Variety Friday: Innovation Isn't Gone
Friday, May 13, 2011 at 10:18PM Jake Livak 
Innovation is a word that gets thrown around all the time in many different contexts. That main thing I hear is that there isn’t enough innovation in the gaming industry. Now first, innovation doesn’t necessarily mean a completely new game like a game where you shoot small projectiles which turn whatever you hit into your evil minions, and to, in return, have great “environment interactive gameplay”. It can be as simple as using two different concepts together, or just doing something generic differently.
Now a good example of innovation just in the past week is Brink. Yes, it didn’t get the best reviews, but some people did still like it, but I’m not talking about gameplay, just innovation. Brink combined class-based shooter elements along with parkour and an interesting new objective system. With shooters being very bland this year (with a few exceptions of course like Crysis 2) it is nice to see something different, having more “freedom of movement” in a shooter is a great way to mix it up. But what Brink got right is that they didn’t focus entirely on their parkour, instead they just used it as a supporting element within the game and made it optional and up to the player of when/if to use it.
It also had the objective system which worked so-so. What it did do was not only having different objectives to focus on, but also make each class feel more “differing” due to objectives being class specific. Yes, they may have put too much focus on the sub-objectives but it was still a nice idea. What I believe would have been better is completely different ways to win the game and having different options for each class, while also having certain sub-objectives to give your team a distinct advantage.
For example say there are three classes; a soldier, a recon, and an engineer (which doubles as a medic). To help complete the mission the soldier could rig an important building to explode, but perhaps have it so that you needed “money” for charges such as Homefront so you couldn’t always place them. Then they could have sub-objectives of destroying enemy generators or turrets. Recons could be working towards sneaking into the enemy complexes and hacking the building’s mainframes, because the building wasn’t destroyed the new building could provide some kind of production bonus, but also allow the enemies to capture it back. Their sub-objectives could involve hijacking enemy vehicles or using strategic EMP attacks.
While engineers could work on driving vehicles and coordinating a bombardment attack on a key enemy structure which would take longer but ultimately get the job done. While having sub-objectives such as repairing deployed buildings/platforms and advancing the frontlines with tech. What this all points to is an objective based system in which everyone is valuable to the team due to having important and game changing side objectives and the ability to advance the game as any class.
But Brink was just one example of innovation in the current gaming market. There was also Crysis 2, a game based around not just shooting, but options. It allowed you to choose how to complete the objectives, sure it wasn’t that broad but it still worked along with the visor giving “tactical advice”. As mentioned in last Variety Friday there are also a lot of indie games showing great innovation! And then you can’t forget Portal 2, the sequel to one of the most innovative games to come out of a large name for a while, sure it wasn’t long but it was a puzzle game and a FPS, while also delivering narrative in a way not done before, and Portal 2 didn’t disappoint, doing the same things as its older brother. But even some smaller games which weren’t as well publicly received and still had problems provided entertainment and innovation such as Hydrophobia, a game which focuses on using your environment to kill enemies, your environment and water. This also showcases innovation on a technically standpoint, because this game had some of the best and most realistic water I have seen from a video game, and again it was used in gameplay to compliment the rest of the game.
So what I am getting at is that people need to stop using “Innovation”, or lack of it, as an excuse to blame all their problems and dislikes on the industry and the developers. Sure this may be relevant in some cases such as Call of Duty, but the industry is still blooming with innovation, you just need to know where to look!
Besides, if you really have a craving for innovation, you can always check out some older games which still show innovation not seen in this current industry, such as the original Deus Ex and Knights of the Old Republic. As the industry take more risks (such as Brink) and learn from their mistakes, there will be much more innovation in the coming years, which in the end will be good for the Industry and the gamers.
