What is all this talk of innovation in sequels?

[Hexotic]

The thing about people crying over lack of innovation is if you add too much innovation, you get just as many people crying saying the game changed too much, I dont wanna play anymore its a completely different game now..... I think they innovate enough to keep the majority happy.

[Venziir]

It depends what you count as innovation I guess. I think the single player campaign was pretty innovative from a story telling stand point. I loved going through the ship and picking upgrades for units. I felt it really brought the game forward into 2011. Sadly that same spark was missing from d3.

Oooh yeah - good point. I absolutely loved that bit too. I loved talking to the crew, picking upgrades and everything.. You are right, I don't think I've seen that in an RTS before. 'Awww, now I got all exited about Heart of the Swarm and the Protoss one.... Dang!

[Glorious Leader]

Oooh yeah - good point. I absolutely loved that bit too. I loved talking to the crew, picking upgrades and everything.. You are right, I don't think I've seen that in an RTS before. 'Awww, now I got all exited about Heart of the Swarm and the Protoss one.... Dang!

That's exactly what's missing from d3

[Digglett]

People throw around 'innovation' when they don't really know what they are talking about all the time, I stopped caring.

[Venziir]

That's exactly what's missing from d3

Not sure how it would have worked.... Well maybe... Hmmm.
.... Oooh how sweet would a Warcraft 4 with that addition be.... Urgh I think I made a mess >.>

[Poppincaps]

I think some of you guys are mistaking innovation for improvement. Sequels improve upon their predecessors (or they should), but rarely innovate. I think it's fine personally. I don't need companies to completely overhaul a game for it's sequel (in fact it'd probably make me angry unless it was done right.) The only case I would say that a company needs to change things up a little if it is a long standing series like CoD or Pokemon.

[Digglett]

The only case I would say that a company needs to change things up a little if it is a long standing series like CoD or Pokemon.

Pokemon's gameplay improves with every game. I'd say they change just the right amount without ruining the series.

[Wilian]

Ah, Blizzad innovation. Discussion I've always loved. I really feel like that they've dropped the ball of this game long ago as a company that shows the way (as they used to) to a company that takes from others and improves over it.

Now don't take me wrong, the very basic Blizzard doctrine has always been, take from something and improve upon it. But in the past improving upon something in Blizzard's terms meant expanding to a territory that wasn't there yet, while nowdays it's more about just making that what exists "better". Better being in ""'s because it is relative to one's viewpoint. To bring examples

Warcraft I, the first RTS game to bring a robust unit based skill system that could change the tide of battle if used right for the populace (And ability to select more than 1 unit at the time if I remember right, Dune lacked this feature)

Warcraft 2, the first RTS that let you drag over the units with mouse to select multiple units at once, also including improvements to their previous system of unit abilities and controllability of them

Diablo, originally intended as roguelike turn based item hunting game but at later stages developed into a an action hack'n'slash that would create entire genre of new games that to the date still spreads further

Starcraft/Brood Wars, the first RTS to really introduce heavily tied in narrative to a RTS games with well developed world shared along 3 faction that went through a progressive story one by one

Warcraft 3, the final stage of Warcraft "evolution" of unit abilities with controllable heroes being able to level up and improve skills on the way (Did you know Warcraft 3 was originally planned to be an RPG?)

World of Warcraft, the first MMO to introduce huge open world MMO without loading screen (Yah yah, continental differences), downplayed by EQ devs saying it was impossible for hardware demands, yet pulling it off. Also the pioneers of the modern instancing system we have in every MMO. It was really in it's child's steps at the time WoW was released. Some of the MMO's of the time tried to copy it while WoW was in beta due to their immense succees.

And now?

Starcraft 2 that plays exactly like SC, but with a bit more variation to the single player missions and new units
WoW expansions, adding new content but hardly anything new and innovative in the terms of gaming scene that wouldn't been done before, just iterating
Diablo 3, the same hack'n'slash as before with remade skill trees that has yet to show that they can sustain the game for as long as Diablo 2's replayability through leveling for different specs did.

From my point of view, it looks really grim and for last 8 or so years, Blizzard has done nothing more but trying to play it sure to keep sales, instead of pushing things forward that really gave them the reputation they have and what us who grew with Blizzard games have known to learn to expect from them. Sad times from my PoV.

(And for personal opinion remark, can't even start to comprehend how low their storytelling capabilities has gone with all these retcons, saturday morning cartoon enemies and Indiana Jones spoofs)

[Venziir]

Ah, Blizzad innovation. Discussion I've always loved. I really feel like that they've dropped the ball of this game long ago as a company that shows the way (as they used to) to a company that takes from others and improves over it.

Now don't take me wrong, the very basic Blizzard doctrine has always been, take from something and improve upon it. But in the past improving upon something in Blizzard's terms meant expanding to a territory that wasn't there yet, while nowdays it's more about just making that what exists "better". Better being in ""'s because it is relative to one's viewpoint. To bring examples

Warcraft I, the first RTS game to bring a robust unit based skill system that could change the tide of battle if used right for the populace (And ability to select more than 1 unit at the time if I remember right, Dune lacked this feature)

Warcraft 2, the first RTS that let you drag over the units with mouse to select multiple units at once, also including improvements to their previous system of unit abilities and controllability of them

Diablo, originally intended as roguelike turn based item hunting game but at later stages developed into a an action hack'n'slash that would create entire genre of new games that to the date still spreads further

Starcraft/Brood Wars, the first RTS to really introduce heavily tied in narrative to a RTS games with well developed world shared along 3 faction that went through a progressive story one by one

Warcraft 3, the final stage of Warcraft "evolution" of unit abilities with controllable heroes being able to level up and improve skills on the way (Did you know Warcraft 3 was originally planned to be an RPG?)

World of Warcraft, the first MMO to introduce huge open world MMO without loading screen (Yah yah, continental differences), downplayed by EQ devs saying it was impossible for hardware demands, yet pulling it off. Also the pioneers of the modern instancing system we have in every MMO. It was really in it's child's steps at the time WoW was released. Some of the MMO's of the time tried to copy it while WoW was in beta due to their immense succees.

And now?

Starcraft 2 that plays exactly like SC, but with a bit more variation to the single player missions and new units
WoW expansions, adding new content but hardly anything new and innovative in the terms of gaming scene that wouldn't been done before, just iterating
Diablo 3, the same hack'n'slash as before with remade skill trees that has yet to show that they can sustain the game for as long as Diablo 2's replayability through leveling for different specs did.

From my point of view, it looks really grim and for last 8 or so years, Blizzard has done nothing more but trying to play it sure to keep sales, instead of pushing things forward that really gave them the reputation they have and what us who grew with Blizzard games have known to learn to expect from them. Sad times from my PoV.

(And for personal opinion remark, can't even start to comprehend how low their storytelling capabilities has gone with all these retcons, saturday morning cartoon enemies and Indiana Jones spoofs)

It wasn't. It was always inteded as an RPS (roleplay strategy). Even back in '98 and '99 when rumors started spreading.

[Wilian]

It wasn't. It was always inteded as an RPS (roleplay strategy). Even back in '98 and '99 when rumors started spreading.

Of course it had it's strategy elements, but one of the key features in the 1999 version (I can even scan you the interview if you understand finnish, got it right here on our Pelit lehti) was that the camera is locked on the hero and that it'll include lots of questing, looting and character progression, while the actual strategic elements were the side stuff. They removed this once came to conclusion that WC3 wouldn't just work that way properly due to how the serie had been shaped up to that point. WoW is direct sequel to the "RPG" features of WC3 and was built upon them.

[Venziir]

Of course it had it's strategy elements, but one of the key features in the 1999 version (I can even scan you the interview if you understand finnish, got it right here on our Pelit lehti) was that the camera is locked on the hero and that it'll include lots of questing, looting and character progression, while the actual strategic elements were the side stuff. They removed this once came to conclusion that WC3 wouldn't just work that way properly due to how the serie had been shaped up to that point. WoW is direct sequel to the "RPG" features of WC3 and was built upon them.

True, it was a lot more RP'ish than the Wc3 we got, but still.... Sadly no, I don't understand a word (well that's not true, I understand a few) of finnish. ... Though does the interview come with screenshots?

[Sackman]

Starcraft when it first came out was very innovative, in fact revolutionized RTS's. Diablo did the same with Action RPG clickfests. Their sequels had very little innovation because they were IMO catering to their already rabid online fanbase's of those games who more or less wanted the same games. And no, just some unit upgrades, and prettier graphics is NOT innovative, it leans more towards expansion type of more of the same but with more options. It just seems that Blizzards games for a long time now(not counting WoW or Titan) have been very more of the same than something new and innovative. Its been way too long imo since they did create something new like they did initially with those titles, especially considering how slowly they put out games and how much time they spent on those sequels.

And lets not kid ourselves, every one of those sequels could have been more interesting if they did add completely new game mechanics or some added depth to them that might be a new trend for the genre, but its almost like their rabid fanbase forces these parameters on them to be so alike the previous incarnations, they don't deviate nearly as much as they should, because they cater to a fault to that same base. Its also so based on them being 'competitive' games they cop out on that being how each gameplay session has variation through RL opponents.

Either way, i just think its lame making sequels that are so identical to the originals. When it feels like you're playing the same exact game from 10+ years ago i don't really call that improvement or something worth 7+ years in the making to play. that time spent would've been much better creating something new to give people another initial Starcraft, Diablo, etc. type of experience. I mean when i finished SC2 or even Diablo3 now, i'll walk away from both of these much more bored and probably will find their way off my harddrive. where as the original Starcraft and Diablo had been on my harddrive a good 4-5 years after their releases.

just so beat down with the same game, that they cater too much to their hardcore base that only wants SC1/Diablo over and over again w/ updated graphics, where they're losing the mass market appeal they once had. At least with me, i'm fed up with their sequels that feel exactly like their predecessors to a fault.

Sorry but it isn't just hardcore people who enjoy how close to the original D3 and SC2 is. I love SC2, mostly MP. I love D3, and I loved D1 (didn't really play much D2 admittedly). I have brought new friends to D3 and old ones alike and we love it. D3 is not about pushing boundaries and changing the game, D3 is about reliving the experience of D2/1 with a more robust, enrossing and expanded story telling system, a few game play QOL changes, and a way for Blizzard to continue to profit from it for years to come. It has expanded the graphics - while keeping a very strong random gameplay element, and it has also expanded its art flavour to be much more pleasing than the dank and dusky colours always found in D1/2 - now you pass through a myriad of different areas and colours rather than just dungeon browns and blacks.

You don't like the game, thats fair enough, but don't put people into two groups "hardcore stopping blizzard from innovating" and apparently "softcore wanting everything to change". It isn't like that at all, rather, it's everything in between those 2.

[Wilian]

True, it was a lot more RP'ish than the Wc3 we got, but still.... Sadly no, I don't understand a word (well that's not true, I understand a few) of finnish. ... Though does the interview come with screenshots?

It has few screenshots of orcish defense towers. Not all that much was revealed back then apart from their ambitious plans of mixing RPG and strategy with 3D graphics :P

[Venziir]

It has few screenshots of orcish defense towers. Not all that much was revealed back then apart from their ambitious plans of mixing RPG and strategy with 3D graphics :P

Meh, screw the finnish... Gief interview

[Wilian]

Meh, screw the finnish... Gief interview

Just give me a while, I can send it as PM at some point. I've archived all my Pelit-magazines (Pelit = games in finnish) since 1996 to 2012 and I've not been all that accurate with what mag is where. <.<

[reckoner04]

Mass Effect and Assassin's Creed sequels were innovative? How so? Btw I agree with the OP! A sequel shouldn't deviate too much from its prequels, and so far Blizzard has delivered innovation every time they started a series. I'd really like to know what they're going to do with Titan, but I guess I'll have to wait some years yet

Also there is still some new stuff to find in their current games (which are all sequels if you don't count WoW). The biggest ones probably being the RMAH and the Marketplace, also some stuff from WoW's expansions (though I don't know lots about other MMO's so that might be untrue). People should also look more at the little things, which they basically nail perfectly ("polish").

[Glorious Leader]

Not sure how it would have worked.... Well maybe... Hmmm.
.... Oooh how sweet would a Warcraft 4 with that addition be.... Urgh I think I made a mess >.>

That's just an example of what's missing. Any significant evolution of the game would be welcome. Instead what we got was something that felt like it was from 2006 married to a facebook game with micro transactions. I don't mean to be hard but it's really disappointing. People bitched about sc2 and cataclysm but I never felt ripped off. I enjoyed both. I got moneys worth out of both. The ending of d3 was so underwhelming it was really the last straw...

[Sj]

The problem with innovation is the risk vs. reward aspect.

The development and operational costs of an MMO are absolutely astounding. Why do you think so many MMO's fall into the "WoW-clone" category? It's a tried and true recipe that people buy into. Look at The Secret World for example; it's an innovative concept with innovative character development, and most complaints I've seen on the forums is that it has too many features that don't fall into the poster's comfort zone (as in it's too different from WoW). Sure there are plenty of other things wrong with the game, but the overall package and experience is good when not held up to the usual MMO yardstick.

A couple of posters said it above; people want something different and innovative, but when they get it, they complain about it being too different. People are naturally adverse to change.

[Poppincaps]

Pokemon's gameplay improves with every game. I'd say they change just the right amount without ruining the series.

Oh trust me my love for the pokemon games is unmeasurable, but I know they aren't innovative.

---------- Post added 2012-05-21 at 05:52 PM ----------

The problem with innovation is the risk vs. reward aspect.

The development and operational costs of an MMO are absolutely astounding. Why do you think so many MMO's fall into the "WoW-clone" category? It's a tried and true recipe that people buy into. Look at The Secret World for example; it's an innovative concept with innovative character development, and most complaints I've seen on the forums is that it has too many features that don't fall into the poster's comfort zone (as in it's too different from WoW). Sure there are plenty of other things wrong with the game, but the overall package and experience is good when not held up to the usual MMO yardstick.

A couple of posters said it above; people want something different and innovative, but when they get it, they complain about it being too different. People are naturally adverse to change.

This is exactly what I try to tell people. People say SWTOR was terrible, but they spent so much time innovating with the voiced quests that they couldn't possibly add everything WoW has in its 7 years. People expect way to much and at this point WoW has a hold on the MMO market.

[Deleted]

While I always like to see innovation in sequels of series I have thouroughly enjoyed sometimes I also want the sequel to remain the same type of game just...more stuff to do.
Innovation is great but there is also nothing wrong with keeping things the way they were. Unless there was a problem somewhere down the like of course.

Innovation isn't always or necessarily better.