First up, I checked to see if anyone else made a thread on this topic and I did not see one so if there IS another thread that is about gaming concepts please link it and I will post there instead and have Nuu or Cody lock this one.

Now then, I have been excited for many games this year and next year but the #1 complaint that I have been hearing about new games (new IPs and old) is that the concept is not new and I have to just shake my head. Concepts in video games may not be limited but the general concepts ARE and to say that a video game (new IP or not) does not have a new concept is like noting that the air is breathable.

So I was curious what do you all think? Are there concepts that have not been tapped yet or do you believe that games are forevermore doomed to the same concepts with some minor tweaks and whatnot.

I think you kind of have to face the fact that, even outside of games, trying to create something new is almost impossible now. You can only expand on what's been made. You can see that in a chain of games.
Doom is an FPS > RE4 took it in a new direction with Third Person > Gears of War took RE4 in a new direction and added the best cover based system and so on.

Having a new IP or game concept isn't the best solution. Whether gamers like it not, CoD is a good game because they managed to find the sweet spot for FPS of this generation. In the same way we all loved Goldeneye but those mechanics have been improved upon with CoD and it's arcade style shooting. There isn't any reason to take CoD into a new direction when the formula is so strong. The same can be said for the Zelda series and the open adventure/exploration. They may add new features and little touches to the game but the core gameplay and fundamentals need to be the same.

That's not to say developers shouldn't try and explore. A lot of developers nowadays end up being a generic FPS because they want to sell. Games like Timeshift, Syndicate, Singularity, Fallout 3(debatable), The upcoming X-com all are new; or revived series, that straight away went into the FPS genre this generation.

Indeed there are is a flood of FPS game but that's because that's how generations go.
NES/SNES era - Side scrolling platformers (Mario, Megaman etc)
N64 - Collectathons (DK 64, Gex etc)
Gamecube - Action Adventure (God of War, Mario Sunshine)
Xbox - FPS
But to make that your(not yours, those people) number one complaint is pretty pathetic. They clearly aren't playing some of the most interesting games of this generation and probably think Skyrim is the best game ever. I doubt those people even play fighting games, SHMUPS(Bullet hell shooters), digital TCG, puzzle adventure etc. There's far to many genres to even complain about there being little to no new game concepts. Those people generally don't explore what they have available to them and bitch about CoD.

I believe the all genres have been explored, some, not to their fullest but I've found a crap ton of games that have brought out new concepts or changed that genre to bring something new to the table, you just have to look.....though it's not really that hard.

I agree with you, I just do not like hearing people say that the game does not break previous concepts because that is such a weak excuse.

(08-15-2012 10:43 PM)Xannidel Wrote:  I agree with you, I just do not like hearing people say that the game does not break previous concepts because that is such a weak excuse.

Indeed it is a weak excuse. If a formula works, you stay with and make slight improvements (Like RE4 to Gears). If you do something like Zelda 1 to Zelda 2, you're going to get crapped on by gamers. Not that Zelda 2 is bad but it's always been known as the black sheep of the Zelda series. If "those" people want interesting concepts then I'd love for their Skyrim to be turned into a turnbased RPG and then we'll see why their argument doesn't work.

Some games do try to break the mold and use a formula the way you aren't supposed to. Take Portal and Mirrors Edge. Both use FPS style controls and gameplay but one is a puzzle based shooter and the other is a free running parkour game.

Another example would be Bastion/Witcher 2/Alice: Madness Returns. They didn't do anything groundbreaking to their respective genres but they're good games because they used the formula well. It's like saying "oh great, another CoD game" yeah but the gameplay is going to be just as solid as always since CoD 4.

I thought the Zelda CDI games were the black sheeps in the franchise while Zelda 2 tried to be more RPG-ish with exp and what not?

This is why I like indie games, they are not afraid to try to step outside of the norm in game concepts. Look at Fez for example, a simple 2D platformer that changed into something else after 5 mins of playing. Oh, look at Braid, another platformer with Sands of Time backward moving controls that also tried different mechanics in other levels so while the broad general concepts will forever more be the same, the smaller mechanics will always change and THAT is what will make games better in the long run, not because FPS games look the same (I mean no SHIT) or because another 3rd person shooter came out that had chest high walls or regenerative health; but that games will take those concepts and work them into unique smaller mechanics.

(08-15-2012 11:02 PM)Xannidel Wrote:  I thought the Zelda CDI games were the black sheeps in the franchise while Zelda 2 tried to be more RPG-ish with exp and what not?

This is why I like indie games, they are not afraid to try to step outside of the norm in game concepts. Look at Fez for example, a simple 2D platformer that changed into something else after 5 mins of playing. Oh, look at Braid, another platformer with Sands of Time backward moving controls that also tried different mechanics in other levels so while the broad general concepts will forever more be the same, the smaller mechanics will always change and THAT is what will make games better in the long run, not because FPS games look the same (I mean no SHIT) or because another 3rd person shooter came out that had chest high walls or regenerative health; but that games will take those concepts and work them into unique smaller mechanics.

I mean Zelda 2 being the blacksheep because as you said, "Zelda 2 tried to be more RPG-ish with exp" which no other Zelda went back too because it wasn't what gamers wanted after playing Zelda 1. Black Sheep aren't necessarily bad, but they stand out due to a certain...something. The CD-i games... we don't talk about them.

I do enjoy indie games as well. As you put, Fez and Braid (have you tried VVVVV by the way?) like to make a good impression (they have to if they want to compete with big triple A games) and so far Braid and Fez(no so much) have gained the attention they deserve. But not including indie games we, can talk about other games that differ with mechanics or game concepts and end up getting shat on my gamers.

Castlevania: Lords of Shadow borrowed elements of Shadow of the Colossus (For 2 bosses...wow) God of War/Dantes Inferno with Castlevania lore and all that got was "Meh meh meh this game is a Shadow of the Colossus rip-off" despite the fact the game was good but apparently Shadow of the Colossus is too sacred to be touched. Or the new Sony Battle game. They took the formula of Smash Bros but changed it to make it different but still interesting such as: being able to perform combos like Marvel vs Capcom 3 and building meter like Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat, but all that game gets is "It's a rip-off meh meh meh". So, to go back to the initial post, sometimes I don't see why developers should try to be different. Gamers complain if there is too much of the same ol' same ol' and then when a developer take a game series with working mechanics and change it slightly with new gameplay concepts it's called a rip-off.

...what do?

Edit: I tried to give you more rep but it took away my old one and then put you back down to 3(even after adding more +1s)

Like what was already stated, there will always be a mainstream genre for an era and console. But there will always be original ideas and concepts. Ever heard of Scribblenauts?

I've had a heated discussion on the 'Can the industry make new stuff' topic years ago on the Wonderking forums. And as I was kinda young, it did make me reconsider a crapload of stuff.

First off, just because something similar already exists, it doesn't mean, in any way, that it isn't new. For example, for someone who hasn't played any of the Devil May Cry installments, God of War will be a completely new experience. Heck, I was saying that to my friend just yesterday as he was saying he started playing GoW 2 and he'd never heard of DmC. I had to say DmC was 'God of War style' for him to comprehend what kind of game it was.

Second, I think it's pretty clear to me that a game/movie/w/e doesn't need to have a brand new concept (to me) to actually be any good. I'm a huge fan of detective series. They share the exact same core, but they are still exciting to watch.

Something that really bugged me yesterday while watching Darksiders II review by the GameStation is that Lisa Foiles said that 'because it was a mix of zelda, dmc, darksouls, castlevania and other games, it didn't bring much new'. WHAT?
The game freaking MERGED a heck-load of game styles into a concise, well made game. How's that not innovative? How many games can you list that successfully merged many playstyles into a working one? It's pretty new to me, if you'd ask.

Exactly, there's nothing wrong merging certain genres together. But when you do, you get crapped on (Like Castlevania). I loved Darksiders because it was so similar to Zelda yet had it's own take on it. It was about being one of the four horsemen in a world that's falling apart. The gameplay mechanics borrow a lot from Zelda which is good. Having a button assigned to a certain item, with similar puzzle elements and quite basic(in a good way) combat. It makes no sense.

Also GoW and DMC are too very different style of games. DMC(and Bayonetta) takes a few months to master the controls. GoW is a pretty basic mash Square button.

TL;DR the thread.

If I get what you're saying, I do believe that people in the industry are running out of ideas but normal people like you and me haven't.

If many of us who have these ideas get into the industry and somehow get these games into the market we could see some nifty decent games.

I have ideas for games, one of them is an prison in which people have to fight in to get out, they fight in a cage. You fight in groups of five and you have to take down another group of five which the guards choose, the main character would be a sort of grimdark faggot who doesn't tell people why he is here, but eventually does, the game would be similar as the Warriors game play wise, and the prisoners and guards will throw stuff into the cage that you could use (rocks, bricks, chairs, sometimes even a gun) and the story would sort of movie like, cutscene wise, you also have to train your character like in Ready to Rumble to put up his strength, stamina etc. (I know this isn't a thread to show off gaming ideas, but it's just an example of what I could think of for a game)

I'm not saying that we need more idea guys, but if the concept can be remade to be different, then it could change the concept to be different for everyone else.

Take FPS's, that used to be arcade shooting, now there is realism and arcade, there are even TPS's now.

Strategy have changed to be TBS and RTS.

Believe me, we haven't run out of ideas yet, but in terms of something revolutionary (2D to 3D for example) won't happen for a long time.

I believe the above is relevant if I read everything correctly.

^Must you use the word "faggot"?^

Exploring new ideas is necessary (we wouldn't have games like ICO and Shadow of the Colossus if people didn't try new things). But I also think, as pretty much everyone has already stated, improvement is a crucial part of game development. Progress, to put it simply. Games need progress. That's why, unlike with most movies, game sequels are almost always better than their previous installments (not to say classics won't still be classic); because after designing the first game, the designers have an amalgam of ideas and concepts on how to improve when making the sequel. They know what it is that made their game great, and what hurt it, and they can try new and exciting ideas to counter that. New technology also allows them to try things they might not have been able to do in previous installments.

Now, getting away from the topic of improvement/progress (we understand those things are very important), I'll give a little bit of my opinion on technology progression. I think, new technology always allows for new game concepts. Touch-Screen's, in particular, have changed gaming quite a bit in recent years, and the same can be said for gyro-sensors (at least to a degree) and movement tracking.

I think (fully immersive) Virtual Reality is still something gamers and developers hope to achieve some day, and right now we're really close (what with 3D gaming and more immersive gameplay with things like Wii and PSMove), giving us a closer feeling to being in the game. It's still a bit of a longshot from truly feeling like you're in the world of the game, but it's a lot closer than we've been in the past.

But that's all more about the progression of technology, and less about the actual concepts of games.
What would be required for a new game concept? I think an original model (a process of making a game). I think this is something that Thatgamecompany understands well. I think an original model would mean taking concepts we already understand, and using them in ways we've never considered, or in ways that aren't expected. I'll be honest, I'm really not even sure how to do this.

Anyway, another thing that I think is worth talking about is mixing genre's.

this thread is tl;dr