Thoughts on Innovation from the Darkest of Places
While ranting and raving to my boyfriend about the latest installment of the Arc the Lad series, Arc the Lad: End of Darkness, after a few hours of play, I kept touching on all the aspects that really weren’t doing it for me: the battle system! The leveling system! The equipment system! It’s all different from most typical RPGs, and it’s just not working for me. And while I groused and moaned about this game that simply wasn’t fun for me, he said something that made me sit back and think. “Well … you wanted innovation, didn’t you?”
Discussion on innovation, or lack thereof, in games has popped up several times on TGC. I initially felt a little hypocritical for being so hard on a game that was apparently trying to do something different and break out of the mold. So I started thinking about the game as a whole - was it trying to be innovative? If it was trying to be innovative, was it the different aspects that were driving me crazy? Or was this just a bad game? So I began to pull apart this installment of Arc the Lad, piece by piece - the combat system, the equipment system, the way the plot was moved along, and the plot itself.
I came to the conclusion that if there was an innovative aspect of Arc the Lad, it was in trying to put together a number of fairly standard RPG elements and adding some twists to a few of them. The battle system is a different approach from the party-based system, be it active-time or turn based, but it’s like a standard hack and slash (just clunkier). The mission system was presented in a different way, but isn’t anything new if you look at its structure. The equipment system was given a new vehicle (cards), but was reminiscent of something like the materia system of Final Fantasy VII. Nothing new in the plot category, either. The developers added an online component, which I think only compounded the problems; I’ve seen theories that the relative lack of leveling system, which certainly IS different and new (and not in a positive way, from my perspective), could be part of an attempt to make the online melee and co-op battling more fair and level the field.
If End of Darkness had pulled off combining a strong plot, real-time combat system, and a relatively open mission system, smoothly integrating a single-player offline mode as well as an online multiplayer mode, and getting rid of an RPG standard (the leveling system), the game very well could have been called “innovative.” Actually, if they’d just pulled off combining a few of those aspects well, I probably would have been very impressed. Innovation doesn’t necessarily mean starting from scratch, at least not in my opinion; there’s something to be said for pulling together diverse ideas and doing it well. This Arc could have been covering new ground, but a pretty shoddy over-all presentation just put it in the category of a pretty terrible gaming experience.
Playing through this attempt at something new and different helped me to sort out some of my ideas and opinions on innovation in games. I think, if you’re working within the confines of a fairly rigid genre like RPGs, a wholesale change of pretty tried-and-true aspects, combined with watering down what is perhaps the key element of genre (in this case, a plot), is not the best way to go about trying to introduce really new and perhaps radical aspects to a game. Don’t get me wrong, I love seeing things that make me go “whoa” in a game. But I’ve played some wonderful games that have been innovative in some respects, and still relied on more traditional forms in others. If we look at other forms of media, like movies or books, very rarely does anyone present an idea that has never been done before. The differences, strengths, and innovative aspects often come from how those traditional ideas have been tweaked and trussed up. One of my favorite RPGs, Okage: Shadow King, is on my favorites list because of one aspect that I felt was innovative. The plot, one of the most important things in an RPG, follows pretty standard RPG conventions; however, the way it is “dressed up” and changed in a clever and very different way made it really stand out to me. It was only one aspect of the game, but it was done particularly well and in a particularly novel manner, and it’s why the game still stands out to me years after I first picked it up.
So what have I taken out of my experience with Arc the Lad: End of Darkness and other games? Innovation doesn’t have to mean creating brand new elements. Most of the touches that have really stood out to me in various games have been based on old concepts, but with a fresh new twist. When talking about a series, innovation doesn’t have to mean scrapping elements from earlier games, and it certainly doesn’t have to mean a radical departure from standard elements of a set genre (ie, strong plot to an RPG), if that’s the type of game we’re dealing with. Innovation, or attempt at it, shouldn’t mean ignoring key parts of a genre. I’ve played a lot of games that have had aspects that I found bothersome, but I hardly notice (or am willing to work through it) if an RPG has a really strong plot, or a hack and slash has particularly fluid and well-thought out controls.
I’ve read a lot of reviews on TGC for really cool games that are really innovative, at least in my mind - but they don’t seem to fit into a specific, narrow category. When trying to define what exactly a puzzle game is, I have a hard time thinking of what makes a puzzle game. The category is so broad and encompasses so many different types of games, its hard to pin it down. RPGs, on the other hand, have some more specific aspects that generally define the category. I think an apt comparison here would be between writing a poem with a very set form (say, a haiku) and writing free verse; a haiku has some rigid requirements for what makes it a haiku, but within that, you can do a lot. In genres that have more clearly delineated expectations of “what they should be,” I’d really prefer innovative baby steps over wholesale change that just doesn’t work. A little twist on a system here, another twist over here: almost every franchise does it, and I think doing it to a greater degree across the board (franchise or not) could really yield some positive results. I think less of an attempt at doing some wholesale change, and more of an effort of tweaking older systems in a new manner (or looking towards stellar examples of what they were after), very well could have saved Arc the Lad: End of Darkness from the category of “nice try, terrible execution.” I think innovation in all aspects of a game is something to aspire to, but not at the cost of a decent gaming experience. Obviously, well-implemented, innovative, and creative change is the goal, but I really don’t think all developers are suited to it. Games are supposed to be fun entertainment - naturally, it’s possible to do that with innovation, but it isn’t worth sacrificing the fun of a game in the name of doing something new.
none
30. June 2005 at 17:31
“Games are supposed to be fun entertainment - naturally, it’s possible to do that with innovation, but it isn’t worth sacrificing the fun of a game in the name of doing something new.”
Excellent point and I think it is something that both gamers and game developers need to keep in mind. Yes, we are all screaming for innovation but in truth we aren’t screaming for something radical. If anything, it is as you said, what we really want is to take the best of the existing games out there and then innovate by changing or removing the worst of the games out there. Most of the time this innovation will only change a small aspect of the game but its effect with regards to enjoyment can be quite dramatic indeed.
So what’s the best way to innovate? Well if you want to know which way to go then sometimes the best thing to do is to look back at where you’ve been. As you said, look to the past at these old tried and true concepts. For there we’ll see what we enjoy the most, so we can retain those qualities. At the same time, however, we’ll see where we’ve made mistakes. And above anything, we must learn from those mistakes because if we don’t, then we’ll just keep repeating them over and over again until it is no longer possible to recover from them. Sometimes I always wish there was some big repository on big game successes and big game failures that game developers could go to for research before they started a game so that they would know what to do and what not to do and then work within those borders to create their games.
It would be no different than an artist painting on a canvas with borders. They are limited with those borders but, if anything, those borders also help them to define, create, and focus on more of what they want to get across. And that is no different compared to any other medium, as they all have their limitations and borders. Hopefully with time we will come to understand this more and more until the point that we’ve refine it enough that game design can truly become an art form as others have said it will.
30. June 2005 at 18:24
“It would be no different than an artist painting on a canvas with borders. They are limited with those borders but, if anything, those borders also help them to define, create, and focus on more of what they want to get across. And that is no different compared to any other medium, as they all have their limitations and borders. Hopefully with time we will come to understand this more and more until the point that we’ve refine it enough that game design can truly become an art form as others have said it will.”
Nollind, I like this paragraph a lot. It’s taking me to a lot of different places. To me one of the greatest challenges I see game designers facing is deciding which border to push, how many borders to push, and how to balance what they want to extend and what they need to maintain to make a quality and successful product.
A canvas of a painting can be of infinite variety. Yes, there is a “standard” but a brick wall, a piece of wood, cardboard, or photograph can all be a canvas on which to paint. The combination of extending and redefining borders as well as working within them adds to the definition of a piece of art and significantly influences its message. A video game has some many opportunities to innovate, some that are well defined and explored like the conflict, characters, and plot that make an innovative and unique story, and others like graphics, physics, AI, community building …. argh…the list can go on for quite some time. One of the problems I see is how infrequently we see truly unique art direction. I could write about that forever, but there are some many games that have the same art styles and there are so few Icos, Viewtiful Joes, Okamis, Wind Wakers, and Electroplanktons.
But back to my initial point, the decision about what to innovate has to be one of the most fun and dangerous decisions to make. Then once made, having the direction to balance that with all of the other possibilities that a game must deal with is quite a production challenge. I have tremendous appreciation for painting and art and there are infinite things that can be done with paint, a brush, and a canvas. The challenge to create innovation for a painter is great. I almost wonder if creating a game has even a greater challenge as the very fact that you have to create direct interactive experiences that have so many boundaries to address in its creation makes finding the balance and the small detail within which to innovate and be recognized as innovation an incredible task. To illustrate, I’m not sure that having a great plot within a RPG whose battle engine is identical to Grandia II (one of the best I think) would be seen as innovative. There has to be a balance of a few boundary buster elements to be seen as an innovative title.
As I mentioned at the beginning – Nollind, I liked your paragraph and it took me to a few different places. As a result I think this comment may have gone in a few too many different places :-).
30. June 2005 at 18:50
Well, I guess I just look at some very broad, general aspects (turn based battle, party systems, etc.) - at the bare bones of it, it’s a pretty standard thing, but I haven’t seen many games that have been EXACTLY the same, even when working within set parameters. I pointed out Okage’s plot because it was the aspect that really, REALLY stood out to me when I played the game - I found it to be funny, witty, and irreverent, even though at a very basic level, it followed RPG tropes. It was kind of like watching a quirky, flying-under-the-radar play vs. the formulaic blockbuster. I think ASPECTS of a game can be innovative without the whole thing being considered innovative across the board. Does that make sense?
Really, my issue with Arc was that they could’ve done anything as long as they kept a strong plot. That is my bias as a gamer speaking - but games are no different than any other media, no one is looking for exactly the same thing. :) But I have a lot of respect for taking something old and being able to build upon that (I’m currently playing - and loving - a gorgeous game that is a futuristic update of the classic Kurosawa film, Seven Samurai), which is really what you’re going to wind up doing anyway in a rigid genre. Even more free-form games are taking inspiration from SOMEWHERE … we are what we are because of our past. I’m sure an RPG will come out at some point that is just earth-shattering in its differences from what has come before (in a positive way), and that will set a new standard. Just like new waves in painting, movies, books, etc. But I think it takes an especially talented team to do something extraordinary like that, and I’m not so sure that it should be “the goal.” I think those sort of things just … happen. The right time, the right idea, the right team - it all sort of comes together. Baby steps, however, can be very intentional, be very positive changes, and still reverberate down the line - and realistically, much more doable for “average” companies.
1. July 2005 at 09:08
Excellent points. I often feel that we spend too much time waiting for revolutions and not enough time wanting evolutions. This is why I wish there were more 2D and isometric games on the market today, it’s like we left a whole generation of game design in the closet without trying to figure out how to fine tune it correctly.
1. July 2005 at 13:17
I’m with you on the whole “innovative baby steps” thing. Revolution is not the sign of an established media form. People complain about the lack of new genres for games; how there is nothing but shooters and platformers and RTS, etc. But it’s not like people are inventing new types of books or movies all the time. The innovation that is meaningful is the stuff that lets us see old worlds in new ways.
I think that the most revolutionary PC software in the last ten years is Neverwinter Nights. It has a robust player editor that has led to persistent worlds, single player mods, regular epic campaigns. And it’s hardly innovative in the way we usually think of things. It allows standard D&D plot creation and the usual kill the foozle plots, but it has led to a wealth of excellent player created content and forged a real bond between the developer and the community.