I hear the word Innovation bandied around a lot in games of late. Innovation is held up as the ideal for every new game mechanic or feature. I'd suggest that most things are actually evolutionary not innovative.
Now I've always defined Innovation as the introduction of something completely new, but I've been told that this is revolution. Is it? Many have said the Wii remote is a revolution. I would say it is an innovation.
Revolution is the complete change of a paradigm to something new. So something I would consider that the Wii remote has completely changed the interface for one console, but the other consoles haven't yet thrown out the traditional pad, and I presume aren't necessarily likely to immediately. Therefore the Wii has had a large impact as an innovation but it is not a revolution. 3D would be classed a revolution, but motion sensing isn't quite there yet.
Personally I believe innovation has its place in games, but evolution is the main driving force of development. People take other ideas and improve upon them. The best ideas survive and carry through into other games - survival of the fittest just as Charles Darwin described.
Innovation shouldn't be held with such ridiculous esteem. Many innovative ideas aren't actually going to survive. Those great ideas that do (the Wii-mote) will enter the next cycle of evolution and again the fittest will survive.
No comments:
Post a Comment