EA Exec says "Gears of War has 0 innovation"

[Reality's Fringe]

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=69805

Alain Tascan, general manager for EA Montreal, has revealed that he thinks Xbox 360 title Gears of War has been overrated by reviewers - with one or two, ahem, notable exceptions.

Speaking in a panel discussion at the Montréal Games Summit, Tascan said, "What is Gears of War? I mean Gears of War brings nothing in terms of innovation to the shooter... Like, zero.

"Only two very brave UK-based journalists said, 'You know what, Gears of War is a great game but it's like what Quake was a few years ago.'" Any guesses as to who one of those might be?

"Why are people loving it so much? It's like added production value, incredible cutscenes and the best ever graphics ever. I'm sure it's going to be a great success, I can't wait to play it, but let's face that graphics are still number one," Tascan continued.

He then used the comparison of a nice looking girl you might see in a bar and go up and talk to, "And if she's smart enough, that's the gameplay.

"I'm not talking about my tastes, I'm just saying, when you go to metacritic and you see a 96 for Gears of War, then you read the critics saying, 'Okay, storyline - there's none, gameplay is not innovative...' Then I say, why did they give this 96? They were blown away by the high quality of the graphics... Myself, I prefer something more creative," Tascan concluded.

After the panel discussion was over, we grabbed Tascan to ask if he was indeed referring to Eurogamer's Gears of War review - and the answer was, "Absolutely, yes. You guys were one of the only people who had the guts to say it." So there you go.

I'm not that big on GoW, but if this isn't a fucking Pot-Kettle-Black situation, then I don't know what is. I just thought you guys might get a chuckle out of it.

[doubledown]

Phew, I'm glad NBA Live and Madden 07 does though ;)

[Roufuss]

The most hilarious thing is this fucker Tascan hasn't even PLAYED Gears of War, he even admits it in the article.

At least Gears of War didn't take content out of it for a next gen release, and then take out MORE content to charge $$$ for on the marketplace... that's innovation, thanks EA!

I just don't get why everyone is hating on Gears of War... not every game has to refine and innovate the industry. Gears of War does what it does and it does it great, and its fun as hell, and that's all that matters.

[billym99]

Phew, I'm glad NBA Live and Madden 07 does though ;)

haha, EXACTLY.

I guess that "innovation" to EA would have meant selling gears of war but then making the consumers pay via marketplace for each weapon... and they probably would have charged double for the hammer of dawn:D

[furyk]

Deep breath.

Bwhahahahahahaha.

Carry on.

[LinkinPrime]

"What is Gears of War? I mean Gears of War brings nothing in terms of innovation to the shooter... Like, zero.

Says the guy working for the company that recycles titles every year. :rofl:

[dastly75]

It's fun but I guess by his opinion, if it's not innovative, it's not fun. While that's often true for me, a game with production values as high as GoW should not be overlooked.

[Vinny]

Says the guy working for the company that recycles titles every year. :rofl:

I was just about to say the same thing... he's going to get a lot of angry emails about this. I could understand the guy having an opinion if he played the game but he hasn't.

What a fucking douche.

[Roufuss]

I was just about to say the same thing... he's going to get a lot of angry emails about this. I could understand the guy having an opinion if he played the game but he hasn't.

What a fucking douche.

That's the best part, he says it dosen't innovate yet admits he hasn't even played it... how does he know all those 96 reviews are wrong or right if he's just going by movies and screenshots?

[Apossum]

I'm just going to ignore the source here, which is blatantly hypocritical and almost comes off as a PR move to dissuade people from buying GoW?? I'll say that his bare-bones statement of "Gears of War has 0 innovation" is almost correct. The game is clearly an amalgamation of a lot of games, but it takes a lot of those elements, makes them better and mixes them perfectly. The result makes for a fucking awesome, new game that'll I'll play for a long time. And when the sequel comes out, I'll buy that on day 1 as well.

Being able to pull that off is on the same level as the concept of "innovation" IMHO.



"What is Gears of War?"


Nothing but a miserable little pile of pop and stop.

[Corvin]

I'm just going to ignore the source here, which is blatantly hypocritical and almost comes off as a PR move to dissuade people from buying GoW?? I'll say that his bare-bones statement of "Gears of War has 0 innovation" is almost correct. The game is clearly an amalgamation of a lot of games, but it takes a lot of those elements, makes them better and mixes them perfectly. The result makes for a fucking awesome, new game that'll I'll play for a long time. And when the sequel comes out, I'll buy that on day 1 as well.

Being able to pull that off is on the same level as the concept of "innovation" IMHO.

Ignoring the obvious hypocritical point about EA recycling franchise after franchise year after year, what about Army of Two, EA's Gears of War? By the time it is released it is going to look like a GoW knock-off.

Both EA and Sony are in need of some Common Sense Consultants to put gag orders on these execs.

[PhoenixT]

HAHAHHAAHAHHAHAAHAHA *takes breath* HHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA Oh my god thats funny. Yeah that NBA 07 man what a "sweet"storyline that had and man the mechanices in madden 07 are like 100% different from any others in the series yeah EAs "raising the bar" good lord give me a break.

This companies idea of "innovation" is finding ways to advertise and make money off of games you already paid for and host your own servers for battlefeld 2142 anyone geesh. I'm about to the point of never buying any game with an EA logo on it again..ever.

[Apossum]

Ignoring the obvious hypocritical point about EA recycling franchise after franchise year after year, what about Army of Two, EA's Gears of War? By the time it is released it is going to look like a GoW knock-off.



oh wait, I wonder if this guy is one of the devs working on that game...

[KaneRobot]

I bet PR people from Sony and EA sit around daring each other to release these weirdo statements just for kicks.

Dude can have his opinion, but at least play the fucking game first...and when this comes from a house built on nothing BUT regurgitated franchises, it's probably better to just shut up. All this is going to do is garner more interest and support in GoW and draw attention to EA's hypocrisy.

Anxious to hear Mark Rein's response; he's no stranger to making a few "comments" here and there himself.

[ryanbph]

pot calling the kettle black?

[VanillaGorilla]

If you wanna be super technical, the guy works for EA Montreal, so he and his studio have nothing to do with Madden, so I don't see why everyone is bringing that whole "OMG he says no innovation yet he makes Madden the same game every year!" But the guy did say he hasn't even played the game, so he really has no right to speak on it.

[Roufuss]

If you wanna be super technical, the guy works for EA Montreal, so he and his studio have nothing to do with Madden, so I don't see why everyone is bringing that whole "OMG he says no innovation yet he makes Madden the same game every year!" But the guy did say he hasn't even played the game, so he really has no right to speak on it.

Replace Madden with any other EA title and you get the same result, so which studio the guy is from dosen't matter.

[VanillaGorilla]

Replace Madden with any other EA title and you get the same result, so which studio the guy is from dosen't matter.OK, I replace it with MVP Baseball 2005, which EA Canada (not sure if it was EA Montreal) developed, which was not only a good game, but also innovative.

[PyroGamer]

"Why are people loving it so much? It's like added production value, incredible cutscenes and the best ever graphics ever. I'm sure it's going to be a great success, I can't wait to play it, but let's face that graphics are still number one,"
Fail.

[Bigsauce]

Are we really looking for innovation? IMO, no. I'm not looking for Halo3 to be innovated. I'm looking for them to tweak what they have mastered. Much like what GoW has done. They might not have came up with anything absoluting new but they DELIEVERED on what they said. The game is fun and that should be the bottom for every gamer.

[Roufuss]

OK, I replace it with MVP Baseball 2005, which EA Canada (not sure if it was EA Montreal) developed, which was not only a good game, but also innovative.

Well, I guess you got me there, since I didn't play any of the MVP games so I'm not sure how EA innovating baseball.

I like their games, but innovative is never a word I'd put in the same sentence as EA. Need for Speed, Madden, Fight Night, all of these are things that barely change from iteration to iteration except for one major difference.

[elsnow77]

who cares if there isn't any innovation the game is fun as hell. And i don't think they innovated anything, but they took aspects from other games, and perfected it

[VanillaGorilla]

EA tends to "innovate" 1 year, then ride that for the next 10. The dual stick controls for Fight Night, were innovative. Therefore, they will stay the same until 2015, at the latest.

[Roufuss]

Are we really looking for innovation? IMO, no. I'm not looking for Halo3 to be innovated. I'm looking for them to tweak what they have mastered. Much like what GoW has done. They might not have came up with anything absoluting new but they DELIEVERED on what they said. The game is fun and that should be the bottom for every gamer.

This is how I think as well, but I've noticed ever sense the Wii came about there is this grass roots movement that "graphics don't matter" and "if a game dosen't innovate, it's garbage".

[PyroGamer]

It's quite obvious why he said this:

He is trying to slam GoW in hopes of attracting attention to Army of Two (the game he is currently in charge of up at Montreal).

Army of Two's supposedly "innovative" system of multiplayer jump-in control of an AI teamate was taken away by Dom, and now Army of Two is nothing but a GoW rip-off.

That's it, just gaming politics, that's the only reason he supports the Eurogamer review: because it bashes Army of Two's competition.

[KaneRobot]

This is how I think as well, but I've noticed ever sense the Wii came about there is this grass roots movement that "graphics don't matter" and "if a game dosen't innovate, it's garbage".
I've already been over this elsewhere, but you're right.

Blame Nintendo on that first quote, since it came from their PR guy's mouth and people decided to parrot it, as if it were right. It's too bad, since the people who think those things have their heart in the right place, but their had stuck up their ass. True, graphics aren't everything. But innovation isn't everything either.

In any game that is truly outstanding, no one element of the game is "bigger" that the game itself. And it goes without saying that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

[Zoglog]

This is why I don't understand why people bashed on Saints Row so much for not being innovative. They're willing to defend Gears but not Saints. Saints Row had some very solid single player and sprawling environments. Granted the multiplayer was pure ass.

Either way granted, the co-op in and AI in army of two are supposed to be signifigantly better and more in depth so I guess we'll see how that turns out. All I know so far is that the Gears of War co-op AI sucks really badly heh.

[PR Mega X]

Once upon a time, Dead Rising was the reason I was going to buy a 360. Then I played it. And now it isn't.

Having started playing GoW last night on my cousin's 360 and continuing today, I have decided that this game is the reason I will buy the system. Dead serious.

Innovative or not, this Gears of War is fucking awesome

[Kayden]

Pretty Shinies != New

[psychobrawler]

People go places like Cedar Point every year to ride the new roller coaster. It's usually not anything new, but it's bigger, faster, steeper, or loopier than the one before. And millions of people who like roller coasters will trek across the USA for a 2 minute ride because they want that rush.

Gears pulled the gaming equivalent of this off in spades. It's another shooter, just with the highest production value and best graphics this new gen of consoles has seen so far. Every little detail is perfected. You want innovation? Drop in, drop out co-op; active reload; chainsaw bayonet... They're a bunch of little things, but the sum total is drastically improved over the run-of-the mill shooter.

As far as the Wii and stuff like that, I don't think that innovation is more important than graphics. It's definitely more important if you can't pull off the graphics. Wii's innovation spiel is a PR move to cover up the fact that they're selling everyone a new gamecube with a cool controller for twice the price. I can't wait to play Zelda, but stuff like Far Cry on the Wii just makes me cringe.

[Apossum]

This is why I don't understand why people bashed on Saints Row so much for not being innovative. They're willing to defend Gears but not Saints. Saints Row had some very solid single player and sprawling environments. Granted the multiplayer was pure ass.

Either way granted, the co-op in and AI in army of two are supposed to be signifigantly better and more in depth so I guess we'll see how that turns out. All I know so far is that the Gears of War co-op AI sucks really badly heh.


That's because Saint's Row is basically the same thing as GTA and was born out of a single idea-- get a GTA game out on the 360 before Rockstar does.

GoW is different because it is obviously influenced by a lot of different games and movies, but it combines those influences to make something better than the sum of its parts.

[starman9000]

I don't own a 360, have never seen a demo of GOW and have never even read a review of GOW, but I'm going to go ahead and agree with Mr. Tascan.

[Indonesia]

he is jealous. So far EA cannot make game like that.

[orntar]

It's quite obvious why he said this:

He is trying to slam GoW in hopes of attracting attention to Army of Two (the game he is currently in charge of up at Montreal).

Army of Two's supposedly "innovative" system of multiplayer jump-in control of an AI teamate was taken away by Dom, and now Army of Two is nothing but a GoW rip-off.

That's it, just gaming politics, that's the only reason he supports the Eurogamer review: because it bashes Army of Two's competition.

bingo.

[Zoglog]

bingo.

Actually that's only half of it. If Army of Two does have all the cooperation scenarios it promises, it will take the co-op element way above what Gears of Wars did. The main bulk of Gears Of War's Co-op moments came from splitting paths, but nothing beyond that.

honestly speaking Gears of War Didn't have much in terms of innovation for co-op any more than PDZ did. But then again Gears of War was much more damn fun to play Co-Op.

[orntar]

Actually that's only half of it. If Army of Two does have all the cooperation scenarios it promises, it will take the co-op element way above what Gears of Wars did. The main bulk of Gears Of War's Co-op moments came from splitting paths, but nothing beyond that.

honestly speaking Gears of War Didn't have much in terms of innovation for co-op any more than PDZ did. But then again Gears of War was much more damn fun to play Co-Op.

people always reference older material though.

it will be likened to gears. and someone will even say

"the way co-op/tactical was supposed to be in gears"

[bortle]

honestly speaking Gears of War Didn't have much in terms of innovation for co-op any more than PDZ did. But then again Gears of War was much more damn fun to play Co-Op.

The innovation isn't the idea of having co-op, it's how it plays. As you said Gears is way more fun to play co-op (or any multiplayer) than PDZ or really any current game IMO.

[psychobrawler]

The bottem line is that there's a sudden trend in gaming to confuse the word "innovative" with the words "really fucking fun". I'll take the latter every time.

[asianxcore]

Go Madden.

I don't think GoW is treading any new ground, but I feel that the game does a lot of things better than it's predecessors. Obvious train of thought I guess.

[rabidmonkeys]

Need for Speed, Madden, Fight Night, all of these are things that barely change from iteration to iteration except for one major difference.

Have you ever played Fight Night? It's one of the most innovative titles out there and was the first to go with two analog sticks instead of face-buttons. Don't get me wrong, this guy is a grade A douche and I understand you were just re-iterating the point that EA in general is the publisher equivalent of a cow's third stomach; they just regergitate the same title year after year only to swallow it back down and puke it back up year after year like it was somehow different, but to call fight night non-innovative is incorrect.

[Roufuss]

Have you ever played Fight Night? It's one of the most innovative titles out there and was the first to go with two analog sticks instead of face-buttons. Don't get me wrong, this guy is a grade A douche and I understand you were just re-iterating the point that EA in general is the publisher equivalent of a cow's third stomach; they just regergitate the same title year after year only to swallow it back down and puke it back up year after year like it was somehow different, but to call fight night non-innovative is incorrect.

The very first Fight Night for PS2 was innovative to a point, yes, but all the recent iterations (including FNR 3) have gone backwards... the career mode in FNR 3 was just flat out horrible.

Not to mention that half the time, using the buttons is alot easier and quicker than using the sticks... it's a good idea but the execution needs to be reworked imo.

[Apossum]

FN3's controls reminded me of Death by Degrees...lol

[Kayden]

The bottem line is that there's a sudden trend in gaming to confuse the word "innovative" with the words "really fucking fun". I'll take the latter every time.

"really fucking fun" is highly subjective. At what point does "really fucking fun" become "same shit as last year?"

For some people, never. However, more and more people are growing tired of the same old whore with a new color lipstick approach developers are taking.

I used to love RPGs, now I find them tiresome leveling treadmills laced with fetch quests staring androgynous teens fueled by the rage of their dead brother/burned village/stubbed toe.

[LinkinPrime]

Once upon a time, Dead Rising was the reason I was going to buy a 360. Then I played it. And now it isn't.

Having started playing GoW last night on my cousin's 360 and continuing today, I have decided that this game is the reason I will buy the system. Dead serious.

Innovative or not, this Gears of War is fucking awesome

Off topic...but you should seriously give Dead Rising a try, I almost didnt buy it after playing the demo, but I'm sure glad I did.

[trq]

The bottem line is that there's a sudden trend in gaming to confuse the word "innovative" with the words "really fucking fun". I'll take the latter every time.

Yeah, but is "really fucking fun" still really fucking fun after you're on Really Fucking Fun 15: More Fucking Fun?

Doubtful. Yes, fun is the bottom line, but if a game can't bring something new to the table, something I haven't basically been playing for the past ten-plus years -- Dare I say it? Something innovative -- why do I need to buy it, exactly? After all, I already own games just like it ... but not as pretty.

I'm not really sure how trying to make games BETTER (once again, there's that innovation) counts as a bad thing. Or why it's suddenly Nintendo PR, as if people haven't been saying graphics aren't the end all be all for years already. I mean, if you think innovation is a gimmick, you must not play Xbox Live, or use a D-pad/analog stick, or play any games that aren't on cartridges, all of which were pretty major innovations that improved gaming in some way.

None of which actually applies to Gears; I think its particular blend of shooting is fairly unique.

What a stupid fucking backlash. What's next? "Quality is overrated! Bring on more games that play like shit! Huzzah!"

EDIT: Or what Kayden said.

[I AM WILLIAM H. MACY]

"we Didn't Make, Don't Buy It, It Sucks Also Check Out The New Ultra-special Edition Ps3 Version Of Madden It Only Dropped 3 Feature Modes From The Current-gen Version, Or Get The Collector's Edition For Only $20 More And Get 1 Exclusive Mode And Some Commercials For Our Other Awesome Games"

EDIT:
Damn it I wrote that in caps, just pretend it's all in caps when reading

[tiredfornow]

The guys just pissed GoW actually delivered on what they promised.... an awesome game.

[fraggedbylaggers]

He is right. EA could have done better at this game. They would charge 100 points for an extra round of bullets, 200 points for a cool shirt for your character to wear (The shirt would read "I am an asshole-shoot me now"). Oh and not to mention they would sell you a program that, for 400 points, would actually play the game for you.

[psychobrawler]

"really fucking fun" is highly subjective. At what point does "really fucking fun" become "same shit as last year?"

For some people, never. However, more and more people are growing tired of the same old whore with a new color lipstick approach developers are taking.



The thing is, they don't have to be exclusive. A game can be really fucking fun regardless of whether or not it's innovative. It can also be innovative and completely fucking boring. I just don't get this new mindset that some people have that a game can't be a 95% rated title without reinvinting a genre.

And yes, fun is highly subjective, but I'll take the review of the critics he's bashing over the review of this guy who admits to not having played the game. Playing is believing. And I'm absolutely loving Gears of War.

[Corvin]

It's quite obvious why he said this:

He is trying to slam GoW in hopes of attracting attention to Army of Two (the game he is currently in charge of up at Montreal).

Army of Two's supposedly "innovative" system of multiplayer jump-in control of an AI teamate was taken away by Dom, and now Army of Two is nothing but a GoW rip-off.

That's it, just gaming politics, that's the only reason he supports the Eurogamer review: because it bashes Army of Two's competition.

Is there an echo in here? :)

[jrutz]

What the fuck - does Sony have EA in its back pocket or what?

[Roufuss]

What the fuck - does Sony have EA in its back pocket or what?

No, EA hates the PSP.

[elsnow77]

i don't know why everyone is dissing the AI. i think its actually pretty good. Although, a couple of times Dom will just get stuck behind a wall and not follow me. But usually i tell Dom to go out and attack, while i stay behind covering, and shooting. It's almost always a suicide but he kills a couple guys before he dies, and once you kill all the guys, he automatically re-spawns, so no big deal

[Zing]

At least Gears of War didn't take content out of it for a next gen release, and then take out MORE content to charge $$$ for on the marketplace... that's innovation, thanks EA!

It's pretty innovative for the shareholders. Whoever thought of this idea is a genius.

[Ma12kez]

It may not be "innovative," but they nailed the co-op experience for me. It's not the best co-op game ever, but it's definately one of the best since the era of Turtles in Time/Double Dragon/Bad Dudes/Streets of Rage. Co-op gameplay (especially online/over Live) is what's missing in most games these days, but it looks like it may make a comeback if this game is any sign. Just need to allow more save files and fix up the save system a little.

[coolz481]

I like Gears pretty well, but now that I'm about 75% through the campaign mode, I can't shake the feeling that I'm replaying Resident Evil 4 to a certain extent - the mansion/Fenix's house, mine cart, lava environments, etc. I hope Capcom has different ideas in store for RE5 because Gears has already answered the question of what the RE4 environments would look like rendered in 720p.

[dafoomie]

Stealth bomber to kettle, stealth bomber to kettle, come in kettle...

[Noodle Pirate!]

It's quite obvious why he said this:

He is trying to slam GoW in hopes of attracting attention to Army of Two (the game he is currently in charge of up at Montreal).

Army of Two's supposedly "innovative" system of multiplayer jump-in control of an AI teamate was taken away by Dom, and now Army of Two is nothing but a GoW rip-off.

That's it, just gaming politics, that's the only reason he supports the Eurogamer review: because it bashes Army of Two's competition.

It would be great if CliffyB made a press release quoting what that guy said as his own but switching Gow with army of 2 once its released. :lol:

[Kendal]

Stealth bomber to kettle, stealth bomber to kettle, come in kettle...:rofl: :rofl: :applause:

[Rozz]

Hmm.... well... EA has put out some innovative days in their day, such as SSX and MVP Baseball, but they were followed by (mostly) boring, rehashed updates (save for SSX Tricky, which was actually improved). Many of EA's titles get stale fast because of this.

[Sarang01]

This is how I think as well, but I've noticed ever sense the Wii came about there is this grass roots movement that "graphics don't matter" and "if a game dosen't innovate, it's garbage".

I'm not saying better graphics are a bad thing but I also don't think more intuitive gameplay one might call innovative and draw more people in is a bad thing either. Is Nintendo using this as a substitute for the graphics capability that the Wii can't provide? Absolutely. Is this neccessarily a bad thing? No because I think we're headed in the direction of the supposedly phony Nintendo ON and the Wii is the first step from Nintendo.
Originally part of the reason I wanted Nintendo to be successful for the Wii is because I like getting into the game more but I also want Nintendo to survive because they're the only GAME company left that makes consoles. Now with their bullshit gouge move on the $250 price point I'd like to say I don't care if they crash and burn eventually but I'd like to see thee Wii's setup survive. Oh btw the crash and burn sentiment does heartily go for MS and Sony, I'd rather a GAMING company take their place making consoles.

[dafoomie]

Joystiq has an article that outlines why innovation and gameplay are good, but also why graphics are important. Not that I want to rip on the Wii or Zelda, but its an important point.
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/11/11/nintendos-new-zelda-falls-flat/
In the latest Zelda, the game's designers have been forced to sabotage game play to atone for the console's graphical shortcomings. Example: roadside signs are illegible. In Zelda, merely reading signs becomes laborious and annoying. You must first walk up to the sign. You must then press the controller's "a" button. When you do this, the game zooms in on the sign (taking a moment to do this). The game then shows you the text of the sign. Finally, having read the sign, you must hit another button to zoom away from the sign and regain control of your character.

To read a sign in The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, merely stand in the street and look at it. Signs (by design) are meant to be read from afar. Zelda's clumsy sign-reading is just one example of how graphical shortcomings result in decreased immersion and a lower overall fun factor. Oblivion won praises for its immersive feel. Zelda falls short of the bar set by modern virtual worlds.

This simple example demonstrates the importance of graphics to game play. There are plenty of other game play elements affected by the Wii's weaker graphical engine. One more example: at one point the player must catch fish in order to solve a puzzle. Thanks to the indistinct graphics, it's actually impossible to tell how much of your bobber is underwater, making it more difficult to know when to set the hook in order to reel in a fish.
Gameplay is important, but immersion is also important, and graphics are a big part of that. You can have a Katamari Damashii with tons of innovation and little on the graphical end, and still have an immersive and fun game. But, when the graphics detract from gameplay and immersion, as in the Zelda example, it hurts the game.

Also, something does not have to be innovative to be good, theres nothing wrong with taking an established formula and doing it well. Has Final Fantasy really been that innovative? This ties into the Eurogamer article on Gears of War, the same reviewer that panned it for "not being innovative", gave Resident Evil 4 a 9, Half Life 2 a 10... Were those more innovative? He calls Gears of War a template shooter... Which template had this kind of gameplay where cover is so important and fairly seamless? That in itself is a gameplay innovation.

Eurogamer's article smacks of typical European high brow, nose in the air arrogance and distaste for anything American. This guy gave Rallisport Challenge and a bunch of other rally race games great reviews, games that appeal to a European audience, and games that have been done to death.

[delirium266]

Eurogamer's article smacks of typical European high brow, nose in the air arrogance and distaste for anything American.

But...Half Life 2 was made by Americans.

[trq]

Joystiq has an article that outlines why innovation and gameplay are good, but also why graphics are important. Not that I want to rip on the Wii or Zelda, but its an important point.
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/11/11/nintendos-new-zelda-falls-flat/

Gameplay is important, but immersion is also important, and graphics are a big part of that. You can have a Katamari Damashii with tons of innovation and little on the graphical end, and still have an immersive and fun game. But, when the graphics detract from gameplay and immersion, as in the Zelda example, it hurts the game.

Also, something does not have to be innovative to be good, theres nothing wrong with taking an established formula and doing it well. Has Final Fantasy really been that innovative? This ties into the Eurogamer article on Gears of War, the same reviewer that panned it for "not being innovative", gave Resident Evil 4 a 9, Half Life 2 a 10... Were those more innovative? He calls Gears of War a template shooter... Which template had this kind of gameplay where cover is so important and fairly seamless? That in itself is a gameplay innovation.

Eurogamer's article smacks of typical European high brow, nose in the air arrogance and distaste for anything American. This guy gave Rallisport Challenge and a bunch of other rally race games great reviews, games that appeal to a European audience, and games that have been done to death.

I would agree that's a very good point, although kind of made with a crap example, perhaps. I mean, you have to click on signs to read them in Zelda, while you can read them just by looking at them in Oblivion? That's nice for Oblivion, but you still have to click on a book and read the pages once they fill the screen, don't you? Can't quite just look down and read the pages while you're standing next to it, like you would in the real world, right? Does that now suddenly make Oblivion less immersive? If we apply the standards of the Joystiq article across the board, that's what we're arguing for.

We're dealing with technology here. There will ALWAYS be limitations. And usually, there's nothing wrong with them. The technical limitations of the PS2 are what resulted in Okami's watercolor look, rather than the realistic look they originally planned, and that game is plenty immersive. It's "creativity limitations" that are the problem.

Let's remember that all of the games we play and love and are considered classics are, or were at one time, innovative. Final Fantasy was innovative. Resident Evil was innovative. Resident Evil 4 was innovative (look it its influence on Gears of War and Metal Gear Solid 4). Half-Life was innovative. Were they all nice looking games for their time? Yeah. But that's not why they're classics.

[dafoomie]

I would agree that's a very good point, although kind of made with a crap example, perhaps. I mean, you have to click on signs to read them in Zelda, while you can read them just by looking at them in Oblivion? That's nice for Oblivion, but you still have to click on a book and read the pages once they fill the screen, don't you? Can't quite just look down and read the pages while you're standing next to it, like you would in the real world, right? Does that now suddenly make Oblivion less immersive? If we apply the standards of the Joystiq article across the board, that's what we're arguing for.
You read signs far more often than you'd need to read a book. Plus, in real life, the expectation is that you could just look at a sign and read a sign from a fair distance, while you'd have to pull out a book and turn to the page you want in order to read it. So yes, Oblivion having readable signs (among quite a few other things) makes it more immersive than having to click on a sign, wait to zoom in, then click back out, and wait to be brought back to what you were doing.

This doesn't mean Zelda is a bad game, but graphics and immersion are important elements of any game, innovation doesn't necessarily trump all if your game is made less enjoyable by graphical or gameplay limitations. I don't buy the argument that a game can not be great if its not innovative. There are plenty of all time classic games that did absolutely nothing new, they just did it better.

Gears of War has great graphics, great gameplay, and its at least somewhat innovative. Whats wrong with that? I don't care that theres little in it that hasn't been done before (though I'd argue the gameplay is somewhat unique for a console shooter), what they do is done extremely well.

Okami is a great example. It took lemons and made lemonade... It became extremely immersive in spite of limitations. Zelda unfortunately did not go that route in this circumstance. Okami was very innovative in this area, while Zelda was not.

[-Never4ever-]

I just don't get why everyone is hating on Gears of War... not every game has to refine and innovate the industry. Gears of War does what it does and it does it great, and its fun as hell, and that's all that matters.

People are just arguementive sons of bitches that just can't help but go against the grain, that's why.

OMFG, you can't read the signs in LoZ:TP?! That's . . . a slight convience. Guess it'll just be a not that perfect 10.

I can't wait for dumb fucks to start complaining about the having to deal with title screens :lol:

[Mechanix]

Who cares about innovation? Well I don't. I just wanted this to be a bloody as fuck, ridiculously fake shooter and that's exactly what I got, and I'm happy.

[trq]

You read signs far more often than you'd need to read a book. Plus, in real life, the expectation is that you could just look at a sign and read a sign from a fair distance, while you'd have to pull out a book and turn to the page you want in order to read it. So yes, Oblivion having readable signs (among quite a few other things) makes it more immersive than having to click on a sign, wait to zoom in, then click back out, and wait to be brought back to what you were doing.

The book issue was an arbitary example; there are an infinite number of them for any game you care to name if you start including things like having to click on signs as "technical limitations." I could have mentioned the floaty animations when you play Oblivion in 3rd person. It's not like it's a crippling framerate, or shoddy collision detection (well...). But the graphics hurt the gameplay and immersion here too, even on a nice new console like the 360.

I'll sum up this way: there have always been technical limitations, and there ALWAYS will be. But there are NEVER any limitations on creativity, so there's no excuse for when a game doesn't have any.

It's still amusing that this criticism is coming from EA, though. I mean, that's irony, folks.

though I'd argue the gameplay is somewhat unique for a console shooter.

Yeah, agreed.

Okami is a great example. It took lemons and made lemonade... It became extremely immersive in spite of limitations. Zelda unfortunately did not go that route in this circumstance. Okami was very innovative in this area, while Zelda was not.

Well ... that seems like taking a lot for granted, considering how much of Zelda any of us have played. Not that Okami isn't an excellent game, but it's not like I couldn't find some minor technical point to grouse about if I really wanted. For example, it would be more immersive if you just fought monsters as they roamed the fields, rather than having to go to a cordoned off RPG-style battle screen. That doesn't bother you? Once again, my point, ladies and gentlemen.

[dafoomie]

Well ... that seems like taking a lot for granted, considering how much of Zelda any of us have played. Not that Okami isn't an excellent game, but it's not like I couldn't find some minor technical point to grouse about if I really wanted. For example, it would be more immersive if you just fought monsters as they roamed the fields, rather than having to go to a cordoned off RPG-style battle screen. That doesn't bother you? Once again, my point, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm not trying to paint Zelda as a bad game. I'm just saying, some of the criticism of Gears of War comes from people who say its not "innovative" enough, that its all graphics. My point is that all aspects of the game, gameplay, immersion, all of it matters. The example I used was just to show how graphics can impact gameplay and immersion a great deal, beyond just looking pretty. Innovation also doesn't make a great game alone. Derek Smart's Desktop Commander was full of innovation... And it was terrible.

There are plenty of fair criticisms for Gears of War, the campaign is extremely short and multiplayer options are a little limited. But lets not get into this debate with the Eurogamers of the world about how it can't be a great game if its not radically innovative, thats just silly.

[jtrey333]

Speaking of first-person shooters... there was one that EA put out. What was it called... oh yeah, BLACK. While I liked the game a lot, one thing it certainly did NOT have going for it was innovation. Did Black bring anything new to the first-person shooting genre? Um, no. Did I complain while playing it? No. But a high-profile EA exec certainly shouldn't be spouting off his mouth about Gears of War when his own company's product brought even LESS inovation to the first-person shooter.

[Bigsauce]

Speaking of first-person shooters... there was one that EA put out. What was it called... oh yeah, BLACK. While I liked the game a lot, one thing it certainly did NOT have going for it was innovation. Did Black bring anything new to the first-person shooting genre? Um, no. Did I complain while playing it? No. But a high-profile EA exec certainly shouldn't be spouting off his mouth about Gears of War when his own company's product brought even LESS inovation to the first-person shooter.

Wow, I totally forgot about that "jem" of a game. No multiplayer and about a 10 hour single player campaign. Well worth the price. /sarcasm.

Like someone else said, I believe this guy is just pissy because Epic beat them out the gate for kickass Co-Op. I'm sure when they release Army of Two they'll make wild PR statements saying "we've come out with the first ever Co-Op game" or something. Just wait and see. Crazy EA & Sony. At least they're always a good laugh.

[CaseyRyback]

I bet he made those remarks because Brothers In Arms uses the same gameplay mechanic (hiding and flanking) and they are now publishing that series. Plus BiA uses the unreal engine.