Comments on: Game Innovation? http://segonmedia.com/2007/12/12/game-innovation/ Yet Another Media Criticism Blog Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:43:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: http://scuba-sm.livejournal.com/ http://segonmedia.com/2007/12/12/game-innovation/comment-page-1/#comment-8 http://scuba-sm.livejournal.com/ Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:20:25 +0000 http://segonmedia.com/2007/12/12/game-innovation/#comment-8 I think there's a breadth and depth to the games industry that is a bit foreign to the general public. There are games that have amazing technical innovations, but are fairly poor games; they rely on a gimmick, such as a new lighting technique, or physics engine to make the game interesting. Once you're aclimated to the gimmick, the game ceases to be interesting. You also have games that are a bit like drug store paper backs. They're a dime a dozen, they're not all that creative, but they'll distract you for a while. I think that market niche in the gaming industry is currently filled by the glut of tactical first person shooters. There are also games that are immensely entertaining, well put together, and have nearly limitless replay value. These are the games that everyone raves about, and people play for years. These are also the games that tend to win awards and get a lot of recognition. The last group of games are what I like to call the Video Game Canon. These are the games that moved video games forward as an art. Among my friends, these are the video games that we make each other play because we feel like playing them gives you a bit more insight on why games are made the way they are now. Usually, they fall into the previous category, but not always. I think we need some sort of unique recognition for these games, but it can be hard to sift them out from all the great games that didn't really advance the art. I think there’s a breadth and depth to the games industry that is a bit foreign to the general public. There are games that have amazing technical innovations, but are fairly poor games; they rely on a gimmick, such as a new lighting technique, or physics engine to make the game interesting. Once you’re aclimated to the gimmick, the game ceases to be interesting.

You also have games that are a bit like drug store paper backs. They’re a dime a dozen, they’re not all that creative, but they’ll distract you for a while. I think that market niche in the gaming industry is currently filled by the glut of tactical first person shooters.

There are also games that are immensely entertaining, well put together, and have nearly limitless replay value. These are the games that everyone raves about, and people play for years. These are also the games that tend to win awards and get a lot of recognition.

The last group of games are what I like to call the Video Game Canon. These are the games that moved video games forward as an art. Among my friends, these are the video games that we make each other play because we feel like playing them gives you a bit more insight on why games are made the way they are now. Usually, they fall into the previous category, but not always. I think we need some sort of unique recognition for these games, but it can be hard to sift them out from all the great games that didn’t really advance the art.

]]>