next »

[Lemming]

Hey, nice that the podman decided to elaborate.

There's a difference between great innovation and great implementation. Innovation is cool, but unless done right it won't even be remotely playable. If the IGF is about overally judging "good games" as winners, it won't encourage innovation just as much.

A really tight implementation of mechanics that have already been introduced will probably be way more enjoyable. I don't think that innovation is what makes an indie title. Heck I'd even consider a Super Mario World romhack as indie, but that might just be me. Remember that it doesn't have to be new to be good. It just has to be good.

Focus on innovation on the other hand could bring out some flippin' great ideas. People can then be inspired by and reuse these ideas to make something enjoyable. This would encourage genre evolution a lot. It has potential to more widely increase the spectrum of game ideas, gameplay mechanics that are "available" to us.

Anyways, sorry that the disconnected rambling didn't follow a red line. I like Eres' multiround system which cuts out 50% of the games for each round. That way the finalist will have way larger consensus among the judges.

Oh, and I'm all for a TIGF, dunno how it'd work out though. TIG has the potential to expand and reach out to a lot of people, putting forth games that we find cool. I'd love to see separate categories for "good games" and "innovative games".

[jonschubbe]

I'd love to see separate categories for "good games" and "innovative games".

I agree with what you said before this but an innovative concept could make the game good. They should be judged together as one 'overall' between the two: 'Good' and 'Innovative'. It shouldn't just be about innovation as much as it should about being a good game to play and have an exhilarating time, and vise versa. Like I said before, it's a competition for computer video games, not just interactive experiences. The Nuovo award is going to be about more innovation rather than 'fun' factor to allow the games that might not be 'games' (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/game) per-say, but they are offering new types of interactive experiences into the definition of what games are.

[Glaiel-Gamer]

there was a discussion a while ago in a different thread about "what is innovation?". Closure is pretty much just a puzzle platformer that follows the paradigm of "neat mechanic + puzzles = game", akin to braid and portal and others which have been popping up lately. Gish was just a mish-mash (gish-gash?) of platforming + physics + puzzles. Art games follow a pretty standard formula too, Every Day The Same Dream is pretty much "moody atmosphere + depressing ending = art game", and yet these titles get praised for innovation too.

Innovation is a really tough word to define, like "indie", and "game", and "art", and "art game", etc. Every game has at least some degree of innovation in it, otherwise every game would be a bit-for-bit copy of a previous game.

You shouldn't really rank games on a scale of "innovativeness" either, cause sometimes innovation is a bad thing. I've seen games which take a well established genre then change something stupid that makes the game less fun. It's an innovation ya, but it's not a good innovation. Part of making a game is knowing WHEN to innovate, and when to just keep established paradigms cause they work. If you had to control Braid by shouting explicatives into a microphone, sure it would be even more innovative, but it wouldn't be a good innovation.

[mr. podunkian]

You shouldn't really rank games on a scale of "innovativeness" either, cause sometimes innovation is a bad thing. I've seen games which take a well established genre then change something stupid that makes the game less fun. It's an innovation ya, but it's not a good innovation. Part of making a game is knowing WHEN to innovate, and when to just keep established paradigms cause they work. If you had to control Braid by shouting explicatives into a microphone, sure it would be even more innovative, but it wouldn't be a good innovation.

i don't know if this post is in reply to me, but don't misinterpret what i'm saying. i'm not calling for games that innovate for innovation's sake, but for the rewarding of games that do try to take a risk. in fact, i think i made this point quite clear earlier:

a well done, fun game does not an innovation make, and sometimes (very often, in fact), an innovation doesn't a fun game make. i feel there's a very big reason games like braid and fez are identified closely with both indie gamers and mainstream gamers alike -- it's because these games manage to do both. i'm not saying every IGF should have its braid or fez, because that's impossible, but i'm saying for fuck's sake NOT ANOTHER EXCITEBIKE.

[Alex May]

I think remakes are fine if they add stuff. No problem with this and don't see why it shouldn't be rewarded. Joe Danger has a lot of extra stuff they've added, stuff that I think makes it move beyond just a remake. I think there's emergent gameplay potential in the UGC they've got going on, no? But yeah your point is the tagline yadda yadda

[Glaiel-Gamer]

I count 9/20 games this year that are by most definitions "innovative", a couple that are innovative in some category or another, and only about 3-4 that could be considered "polished games in an established genre"

[Jolli]

how to make better igf:
no metroidvanias

[PlayMeTape]

What? I don't think theres any nominee this year that I'd call a metroidvania. Even though a few of them contain elements that are common in metroidvanias.

[team_q]

I think Eva just hates Aquaria, seeing as that's been the only Metroidvania to grace the short list in at least the last 5 years.

[Tommunism]

What? I don't think theres any nominee this year that I'd call a metroidvania. Even though a few of them contain elements that are common in metroidvanias.

Christoffer, replying to eva implies that eva writes something worth replying to.

[brog]

What? I don't think theres any nominee this year that I'd call a metroidvania. Even though a few of them contain elements that are common in metroidvanias.

therefore is ALREADY better igf so what is whole discussion about?

[PlayMeTape]

I seriously do not get some of the "hate" being thrown around. I'm just happy lots of people take the time to actually make games I enjoy! Humanity is spoiled...

[moi]

For me "innovation" is a stupid word, just like "art".
Also, IGF is a big wankfest.

[Jolli]

What? I don't think theres any nominee this year that I'd call a metroidvania. Even though a few of them contain elements that are common in metroidvanias.

I think Eva just hates Aquaria, seeing as that's been the only Metroidvania to grace the short list in at least the last 5 years.

metroidvania, platformer, same thing

Christoffer, replying to eva implies that eva writes something worth replying to.

you sure do too!!

[Krystman]

Also, IGF is a big wankfest.

Sure, it is. That's the whole point. Name one Festival that isn't.

[Lemming]

I agree with what you said before this but an innovative concept could make the game good. They should be judged together as one 'overall' between the two: 'Good' and 'Innovative'.

What I meant, or probably should've meant, is that innovation should somehow be promoted. I'm not sure this is really a big an issue here on tig, where people reward and/or appreciate cool new ideas. Maybe just let the neat innovative ideas that somehow isn't as good as other games be noted as "but these ideas were pretty neat, we'd like to see 'em developed".

Yeah, that's definitely better. Let's pretend I said that.

[jonschubbe]

I agree with what you said before this but an innovative concept could make the game good. They should be judged together as one 'overall' between the two: 'Good' and 'Innovative'.

What I meant, or probably should've meant, is that innovation should somehow be promoted. I'm not sure this is really a big an issue here on tig, where people reward and/or appreciate cool new ideas. Maybe just let the neat innovative ideas that somehow isn't as good as other games be noted as "but these ideas were pretty neat, we'd like to see 'em developed".

Yeah, that's definitely better. Let's pretend I said that.

Yeah definitely! I think that's what the Nuovo Innovation Award is supposed to do.

[cactus]

people who are dissatisfied:
cactus (said 'bored', he's kinda seemed depressed recently anyway)

I didn't really fully explain myself in my post. I do feel dissatisfied with the finalists in this year's IGF, BUT... I'm not saying I saw a ton of entries that I thought deserved to get nominated that didn't get a nomination.

That's the big thing that I feel bad about. There were undoubtedly a lot of good games in there, and many of them got a nomination, but I didn't see many games that got me excited. I feel like the nominees were selected mostly based on production values, possibly because there wasn't much else to go by (afaicr from when I looked through the entrants).

Most of the games that would've felt fresh or interesting I had already heard about or played over a year ago

Anyway, I've got high hopes for 2010. I feel like it will be the best year in quite a while

[Melly]

Perhaps I should go ahead and organize the "Melly's Always Right Awards".

[Lemming]

Perhaps I should go ahead and organize the "Melly's Always Right Awards".

Yus.