Well, I just finished reading a rant by Brian Clevinger about innovation as it pertains to video games. His theisis is that we are playing the same ol' FF with new, useless 3D graphics. His argument is that there is no innovation in the video game industry. And to a limited degree he's right. But to be perfectly honest, Wolfenstein 3D basically capped off all of the innovation in the industry as far as general gameplay goes.
How can you say that you ask? Well, it actually shows up as a simple point: There are only so many different game generes and ALL games fall into one of them. Consider, as far as gameplay is conserned, how many 'innovations' have been made in the RPG industry since Pools of Radiance for the Commodore 64? The answer come out, very little. But unlike Brian, I do not see this as a down side.
Innovation at this level really requires a basic redefinition of the genera. But doing this creates a new genera. Because of this, it is impossible to find this 'innovation' in a given genera. For example, in the beginning there whas shooters. Shooters basically dominated the arcade for 10+ years. But when 3D was introduced into the system, they created a whole new genera of games, the FPS, or First Person Shooter. No one would consider Asteroids to be anything like Half life. But the origins of Half Life, and for that matter, the whole FPS genera, all come from shooters like asteroids.
The same applies to Brians argument. The RPG genera is clearly defined. You play a role, fight monsters, talk to NPCs, solve puzzles, and save the world (Or you pet ferret) from total devistation. But because the genera is so clearly defined, when it came time to innovate and find a new way to apply the 3D system to the RPG genera, they discovered that it basically didn't need 3D to convey it's plot. 3D helped, and definately added to the experience, but RPGs where just well tuned to work in 2D. Just like our daily lives really don't need 3D, neither did the RPG. (Consider that when forced to work in 3D, humanity just breaks things up into floors, which are laid out neatly into discreet floor plans, just multi-layered 3D) In order to truely make 3D meaningful (and more particularlly required, as Brian mandates) we would need a FPRPG (First Person RPG).
Well, in single player, we have those. Zelda: A Link to the Past is an example thereof. But because of it's roots, it's technically classified as a form of Action game. And why? Because there's no overwealming need to talk to every person on the planet. Just whack the mosters (Like an FPS) and solve the puzzles. The only difference is that they don't focus on character development. If Link went and had a breakdown that took us to different periods of his past, it would magically be reclassified RPG and Brian would be happy.
But this takes us to the final point. People who play action genera games don't want to play RPGs, and vice versa. So because of this, no one had made this 'crossover' game. Many lesser innovations have been made to each system, including the totally unique sphere grid system of FFX, and the introduction of true, D&D style coustomized characters as found in Bauldor's Gate, but forcing the player to fumble his way around true 3D worlds (Which, I might add, ours is not) would not make practical sence. It would leave the players with questions like: "If the key to the chest was hidden by the gods to keep people from opening it, then why is there a convieniently placed tool for mortals just lying here helping me to get to it? The role play just wouldn't work.
But enough ranting. My blog is already 2 screenfuls per day, no reason to make it too much longer. ;)
Rant, Rant, Bitch, Bitch
Mood: Conflicted