Both games have a nice learning curve. By newcomers I meant someone between the ages 15-25 not familiar with games. I can give that person a gamepad and let them play Journey for an hour and I'll be sure it will have some kind of an impact. Zelda or Diablo? That person will just focus on the fact that both games have too much colour and monsters (kids' stuff).
Oh and trickle down economics does not work. We toyed with it for a good 30 years, which is plenty of time, all the signs are that the economic gap between the poor and wealthy has just gotten larger and social mobility has slowed down.
I'll try a summary of the discussion:
The big players aren't trying hard enough to push boundaries. They proabably have good reasons such as that each game is a product that has to earn money but new ideas take a couple of iterations to refine. Best you can hope for is that they realize the potential in some indie game (Narbacular Drop) and pick the idea up for a AAA game (Portal).
The indies aren't trying hard enough to push boundaries. Their resources are limitted. They try to fit into niches and mostly pickup game ideas that the big players have discarded - call it nostalgia or not - because they too have to make a product that sells. As a pitch on KS or as a product on the market. Just because Indies are small doesn't mean they don't make games to earn a living.
What's the conclusion? That videogame evolution is constrained because they are a commodity not art?
And here's something to get those rather discussing US politics back on topic:
Isn't a competitive market considered the best environment to promote innovation? What about the idea that successful competitors don't copy but originate? Could the defenders of capitalsim please explain why, when it comes to games, capitalism doesn't seem to provide what capitalists always point out as it's biggest strength?
It's not like Hollywood blockbusters, YA novels and pop music are pushing the boundaries of their respective art forms. They're all pushed by corporations who's general attitude was an always is "this shit sells so lets make more of it!"
Games are actually the best example out of this bunch where big ass corporations will take a chance from time to time. When was the last time a Hollywood studio made a step that was not the safest option possible?
Again invention or originality isn't always great, and iteration isn't always bad. Lots of devs like to play it safe, even the indies who look at AAAs or other indies and go "Hey that thing sold copies, we should make something like that!" and away they go.
But if we break the various genres down far enough we'll find that core gameplay mechanics generally aren't changing all that much - probably the most significant change is that opaque mechanisms have (thankfully!) been depreciated, and health is being treated differently in FPS games. Otherwise any "originality" for the most part is through new IP or art, or different goals, and not through core gameplay. There are exceptions (like Portal and Minecraft) but otherwise innovations barely count or are just needless iterations without a core effect on gameplay, like Valve making us solve the same see-saw physics puzzle in almost every game.
Likewise, when I hear "spiritual successor to Dungeon Keeper..." I think "aping the gameplay of Dungeon Keeper, only without the charm, humor or creativity, effectively exhuming a fetid corpse and asking us to dance with it."
but Nalano, surely you've seen what brilliance can be achieved by resurrecting childhood favorites. Remember those incredible Star Wars prequels? How about Indiana Jones? The Transformers?
Let's take Tintin, which did have a feature film made of it, as well as an animated TV series. While it made a half-decent amount of money, it was basically an attempt to rake the coals of an IP that was at best dated and at worst a laughably unreconstructed curio of a bygone era. Except in a purely financial sense, worthwhile it was not, and I'd like to believe that you rate things on more than a pure financial sense.
Dungeon Keeper's humor was not an unattainable ideal. It was, however, an original effort, and this very much informs why it was so compelling in the first place. We already have too much referential humor to need a circle-jerk of "oh hey, remember this? We were born in the 80s, too!" If you're capable of creativity, make something new. If all you're doing is cashing in on another IP, what makes you think we care about what goes on in that head of yours?
Right now your comparison just doesn't make sense because you're comparing apples and oranges. Slow enough?
And thank you for ignoring this part of my reply-
"Why not a dk-like game set on a space station? Or some other wild setting, where the tone and mood is nothing like dk. Maybe a horror dk-like. I'd like to see that. Why wouldn't you?"
- and proceeding with your tunnel-vision arguments. For me this is a broader thing than just games that ape old franchises. What about Project Eternity? It sure got all you Torment fans all hot and sweaty, didn't it? Is it also now the spawn of Satan because it is a "spiritual successor", even though it has very little to do with the old game? What about Planetary Annihilation? What about Star Citizen? None of them should exist because... why exactly?
Edit: replaced broken image
DK on a space station is Startopia, surely.
Was thinking that myself
The movie was made only because Spielberg, Kennedy and PJ are rich as fuck and have their own production facilities. I don't think we have an equivalent in gaming, some rich dude that can fund a big budget game with a 95% bomb chance in the US just because.
It's Spielberg's most fun movie since Raiders of the Lost Ark. Can't wait for the glorious 48 fps sequel.
My point was that rehasing the 90s isn't innovative, it's iterative, and since a lot of indies seem to be pitching their ideas based on "Well, this is how it was in the 90s so we're just going to do that!" the idea that they're going to save us from the allegedly repetitive AAA industry is nonsense.