[IGDA_indies] indies and innovation

[Brandon J. Van Every]

Ronald Hobbs wrote:
> [Savage] might not be
> innovative in the sense that it exposes a new genre,  but it
> is the first hybrid of its kind, [...]
>
> [Spartan] was quite short on the innovation,
> which again shows that indie != innovation.

Neither title was a contender for Innovation In Game Design.  I
seriously doubt that either of 'em qualified as Finalists on that basis.
Rather, they probably both made it to the Finals on the basis of
Technical Excellence.  Realize that the grand prize is for Innovation
Overall.  This means looking at the game as a whole - art, audio, game
design, technical - not just as individual parts.  Does it hang together
well?  Is the intangible experience of playing the game better overall?
That's the basis upon which Savage won.  I think it picked up its points
by being very well executed and having some innovation.

> Some of the mainstream games are highly innovative,

Name 'em.

I'd give some innovation points to Ghostmaster.  Can't think of anything
else last year.  Caveat: I'm oblivious to consoles, I only follow what's
on PCs.

> but in the end the majority of both mainstream and indie
> games are simply rehashes.

I'm not sure indies produce enough titles for us to even have a good
sense of 'the majority'.  Unless you want to talk about everyone who's
ever written a cheesy breakout game.  I tend to dismiss trivial efforts
as beneath my radar.  I have done a lot of evaluation of titles on
RealOneArcade, actually.  I forgot about all those that I looked at last
year, so that puts my game demo evaluation count up considerably.


Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

When no one else sells courage, supply and demand take hold.