This may sound a bit harsh, but not only did the videogame industry rely on the "new, the unusual, and the something that stood out against the crowd", but the reality is is that early on it was actually easier to come up with something new or unusual because there was so little to go on. Almost by default you were experimenting and coming up with something new because there was so little else to copy from or be inspired by in the videogame world. Even something as simple as changing perspective could bring new innovation. Now, 40+ years into it, it's harder to come up with something truly new. Of course the same applies to every other mature industry, be it music, film, et al.
I think that the goal of setting out to make something "totally original" is misguided at best. If you really get down to it, anything that people call "original" has had clear predecessors. For instance, people talk about Thoreau's "On Walden Pond" as being totally original, even to the point of creating a whole new genre of writing, yet it's loaded with quotations and references to older works. It's easy to see where the "inspiration" for Tetris came from, and Super Mario Bros. is hardly original. I still maintain that the best way to go is to take what you have and polish, polish, polish. Even if it's something that has been done many times, such as a shmup, it's still possible to make a new one that is so much better than anything before it, that it brings people back to the genre.
I guess what I like to separate is "invention" from "innovation." Invention is a wacky, unpredictable force that is probably mythical. Who knows, maybe random things to happen from time to time that lead to new inventions. At any rate, it's no use sitting around worrying about, because there doesn't seem to be anything that even the most gifted people can do to "invent" on the spot. Innovation, on the other hand, is much more manageable and happens everyday. You simply look at existing products, think of ways they could be better, and work on interesting combinations, new applications, refinements, etc. As my example with the "shoot'em down" shows, it's often helpful to pick 2 or 3 different kind of games and think about how they could be combined into something new and innovative.
One way though I agree with your views is with experience. Today's developers have thousands of games to choose from, and they all know the many hits that came before--and that colors their views, perhaps even molding them. Back in the 80s, you had many programmers who had little to nothing to draw from, and were forced to create. True, most of what they created was obvious enough, but the point is that they were the first to do it. I seriously doubt, however, that there's no room left for new inventions, and much more for new innovations.
This may sound a bit harsh, but not only did the videogame industry rely on the "new, the unusual, and the something that stood out against the crowd", but the reality is is that early on it was actually easier to come up with something new or unusual because there was so little to go on. Almost by default you were experimenting and coming up with something new because there was so little else to copy from or be inspired by in the videogame world. Even something as simple as changing perspective could bring new innovation. Now, 40+ years into it, it's harder to come up with something truly new. Of course the same applies to every other mature industry, be it music, film, et al.
I think that the goal of setting out to make something "totally original" is misguided at best. If you really get down to it, anything that people call "original" has had clear predecessors. For instance, people talk about Thoreau's "On Walden Pond" as being totally original, even to the point of creating a whole new genre of writing, yet it's loaded with quotations and references to older works. It's easy to see where the "inspiration" for Tetris came from, and Super Mario Bros. is hardly original. I still maintain that the best way to go is to take what you have and polish, polish, polish. Even if it's something that has been done many times, such as a shmup, it's still possible to make a new one that is so much better than anything before it, that it brings people back to the genre.
I guess what I like to separate is "invention" from "innovation." Invention is a wacky, unpredictable force that is probably mythical. Who knows, maybe random things to happen from time to time that lead to new inventions. At any rate, it's no use sitting around worrying about, because there doesn't seem to be anything that even the most gifted people can do to "invent" on the spot. Innovation, on the other hand, is much more manageable and happens everyday. You simply look at existing products, think of ways they could be better, and work on interesting combinations, new applications, refinements, etc. As my example with the "shoot'em down" shows, it's often helpful to pick 2 or 3 different kind of games and think about how they could be combined into something new and innovative.
One way though I agree with your views is with experience. Today's developers have thousands of games to choose from, and they all know the many hits that came before--and that colors their views, perhaps even molding them. Back in the 80s, you had many programmers who had little to nothing to draw from, and were forced to create. True, most of what they created was obvious enough, but the point is that they were the first to do it. I seriously doubt, however, that there's no room left for new inventions, and much more for new innovations.
Matt Barton, Managing Editor
Location: St. Cloud, Minnesota, USA
Email: matt@armchairarcade.com