I'm guessing that the pic relates to the recently released concept art for PotC: At World's End...

Eventually all of the blockbuster games are going to start running together - the only real difference will be whether you're fighting the Locust or the Chimera. At which point no one will feel compelled to buy the new games, because they won't be much different from the old games.

@ alexanderwales
I highly doubt that. See: Madden. People love "more of the same with a shiny coat of paint". In fact, they eat it up.

Personally, I like Gears a lot and think it is deserving of awards even though I recognize it's not
"a revolution".

I picked up Gears again last night after not playing since a little before Christmas, and sorry, but it is still fun as all hell. I'm all over the innovative games as well, but I don't argue 'why' if a game is fun. I just enjoy it.

And not to take your comment too literally alexanderwales, but I will - Gears of War and Resistance: Fall of Man are extrememly different games. Both great, but both very different.

I can understand where the writer of that article is coming from, but I've been bored with gaming for a long time. I got to the point where I never even had to read the manual to know how to play the game. We've done everything so many times before. I won't knock Gears of War, because it does what it should do, but casual it isn't. It is indeed a "gamers" game. I know that I won't be seeing my grandmother playing Gears anytime soon.

I've never really been a big fan of Nintendo. Generally speaking, they've never really made games that I was thrilled about. However, this generation, I'm going to support them, because I feel like we need a shakeup in the business. There are many of us who still cling to the old way to doing things. That's fine. There will be fun games to play, nothing will change that. But there needs to be a change.

Right now, I want strange, off the wall games, but I also want some of the old franchies I used to play (and still play to some extent) to get "reinvented". Or at least have companies TRY to reinvent them. I think this is why you see so many people wanting this or that game on the Wii.

Should people still be enjoying games like Gears of War? Absolutely. However, trying something new isn't a bad thing either.

Gears of War kicks sixteen different kinds of ass...but saying that it's more of the same only indicates a lack of actual playtime with the game. Visually, it's stunning...I mean, honestly-lives-up-to-the-hype stunning. Further, the addition of cover-based play, while not revolutionary, IS _evolutionary_. Gears is a gamer's game, bar none. And it IS a major achievement to produce a game that's single-player is AS compelling as it's multiplayer and vice-versa. Few games have ever managed it to the degree GoW has...and this is due to top-notch developers doing what they do best.

But by the same token, dismissing a game FOR it's innovation is equally flawed thinking. If we accepted that, we'd have no Katamari...and that would be BAD.

I've never subscribed to the groupthink that says a game must be original in order for it to be good. I've played plenty of great games that made only marginal improvements over their predecessors. I've also played a lot of "innovative" games that hardly entertained me at all.

I'm not saying that the game industry doesn't need innovation. However, it really irks me the way people constantly write off great games simply because they follow a tried and true formula. There are a lot of things that go into making a great game, originality is just one small piece.

that picture is also the cover to Thomas Friedman's "The World is Flat," a terrific book and a must-read.

I don't seem to remember "growing up" on stuff like Gears. Mario, Zelda, and Mega Man are more like it.

But in any case, I view Gears as more of an evolution than revolution. I can't tell you how many times I've played Resistance and wished that I could just pop in and out of cover like in Gears.

Now if only everything wasn't mapped to the A button...

Sorry, he's wrong.
I would go and see a blockbuster movie. I would most likely NOT give it a Best Picture award.

There are two ways a game or movie can create a positive experience: 1. do something new, or 2. do something old, but do it better than it's deen done before.

Most blockbuster movies have derivative formulas, but are very well made. And for that, they need huge budgets, talent, and ever improving special effects. The problem is, for every blockbuster movie, there are several movies that attempt to follow the same formula, but don't have the budget and talent to pull off the experience. For every "Spiderman", there is a "Catwoman".

Likewise, a blockbuster game can do something old, but do it very well. The problem again is, for every blockbuster game, there are poor imitations trying to cash in on the genre. For every "Halo", there is a "Warpath".

I think Gears flaunts the conventional mega seller ethic in a lot of ways, regardless of its hype: first, it's a new IP (and in fact, most of the best games this year were new IP). Second, third person shooters have never been as well executed. Third, it adds a lot in a lot of places to make the shooter genre feel new again. Whether it was active reload, or a well done cover mechanic, drop in co-op, it all contributed to make a game with roots in an existing genre feel fresh. So I don't see how it was as derivative as some of the people bashing it would say it is. And also, it was by far the best implementation of the various genre parts it was inspired by in console gaming last year, and arguably ever. It was the pinnacle of the form. And that makes it great, and worthwhile.

http://eat-sleep-game.com

Mr. Snow "self-prescribed" doesn't make any sense, perhaps you meant to say "self-proclaimed" instead? You'd better correct that before you post it on the internet for all the world to see...

"But the idea behind discounting a single game's achievements for lack of innovation seems slightly flawed"

Tell that to Gamespot. Nearly every "innovative" game gets a low score, while the conventional (i.e. the same old ones we've played for 10+ years) are always rated outstanding.

"10. Sorry, he's wrong.
I would go and see a blockbuster movie. I would most likely NOT give it a Best Picture award." - tickmenanny

Right on the money, man.

The argument has merit. But I disagree.
While it is possible for a well presented, finely tuned version of an old formula to be deserving of high praise, Game of the Year cannot claimed.

2006 didn't just see innovation. It saw arguably the most innovative developments in gaming since the movement to 3 dimensions back in the 16 to 32 bit era.

With that level of innovation, can we really say that the most significant game of the year was a game like GOW? A self-confessed derivative 'blockbuster'?

IMO, GOW marks the beginning of the high budget, low innovation titles of the next generation. But that's just me.

So Joystiq has opted to defend their decision for GoW's Game of the Year award by fabricating a world in which the evils of the hardcore gamers' yearning for innovation has doomed the "different and misunderstood games."

This is absolutely pathetic. Absolutely no piece of art, written word or games for that matter are praised for their overabundance of conformity. It is exactly the lack of innovation that hurts GoW, not diefies it.

I'm sorry your staff couldn't find a better game for 2006 to give an award to. 2006 was, quite possibly, one of the worst years for gaming since its inception. It sucks and it's tough, but at least have the balls to admit it. You guys disgust me.

"Tell that to Gamespot. Nearly every "innovative" game gets a low score, while the conventional (i.e. the same old ones we've played for 10+ years) are always rated outstanding."

Well, if a game is better because of its firm foundation, its score should reflect that. Innovation should be rewarded based on recommendation despite flaws, not by overlooking issues with a game. That's the kind of thinking that may kill the Wii.

LOL @ NoHitHair

Seriously, if this disgusts you, you have a lot of bigger problems at hand.

Gears of War is easily one of the most evolutionary shooters to ever come out on multiple levels. Not because of it's fantastic story line or ability to shoot while flicking your wrist and throwing your controller at your TV. It's is because it takes so many things that we (as gamers) have loved about other games and puts them in one delicious place.

1. Amazing Graphics
2. The first well-performed cover system
3. Low bar to entry (hi, the A button doing everything opens up it's playability to a larger audience)
4. Active Reload (paper mario, anyone ;D) changing the reload mechanic entirely
5. Cinematic Gameplay camera
6. Stereotypically delicious dialogue
7. Great feel and control
8. integrated co-op

Gears didn't have to redesign a console (::cough:: controller ::cough::) in order to get people to buy it - they bought it because on many levels it is a complete step up from most shooters anyone has ever played. Go ahead haters, keep on hating, it's only going to get better from here on out. :)

The problem is that games sites like Gamespot and IGN have categories for Gameplay and Graphics (and even sound!) but don't have a category for Innovation.

Therefore a generic game that slightly improves on a previous game's gameplay and graphics is going to get a better agregate score than an innovative game with simple, unpolished graphics and gameplay.

If you look at sites like GameRankings you'll see that the PS3 consistently gets higher scores than the Wii, and the PSP gets higher scoring games than the DS.. but peopleare flocking to the nintendo consoles and ignorng the sony ones in droves.. goes to show something must be wrong with the way so-called gaming sites review games.

The way the gaming cycle works is as follows:

1 - Company makes an innovative but unpolished game people love.
2 - Genre grows as others copy the formula and make small changes or improvements.
3 - The big companies throw millions at the genre and a few highly polished genre-killers apear. This is the height of the cycle.
4 - All subsequent games are compared to the genre-killer. Few can make significant improvements and smaller developers can't compete. Genre shrinks.
5 - A few late stage classics appear, slightly polishing gameplay, but by this time the genre has been abandoned by all but the most hardcore.

This can be seen time and time again in genres like Point and Click adventures, RTS games, FPS games etc..

Nintendo's model relies on constantly creating new genres with innovative games. These are much cheaper to produce, but more risky. Thats why they need memorable cross-genre icons such as mario who can quickly be attached to any new genre.

The MS, EA, Etc.. model relies on creating the expensive genre-killers such as Halo, Gears, Starcraft, etc. This ivolves much more money, but is less risky.

However the genre contraction means they rely on people like nintendo to keep creating new genres. Gears of War might be selling ike hotcakes among the hardcore still involved in that genre... and no question its the most highly polished so far.. but its not making as much of a dent in the sales charts as you might expect, because the genre ismostly limited to a small hardcore these days.

i discount gears of war for being a noob-ass console shooter game. granted, for console shooters its probably the best of the lot, but thats like saying its the fastest sloth in the world.

i can see why it sold a lot. it generated a lot of hype, its easy to play, its got the best graphics seen anywhere...

but please, don't call it hardcore. none of those things matter to hardcore gamers.

you guys need to pick up a pc, hunt for a copy of quake iii arena... and see what a true, pure, hardcore shooter is all about

^ proves my point about genre-killers and hardcore gamers i feel.. ;-)