That said, I almost completely agree with you. Perhaps I am just that bit too young to truly be able to enjoy really old games despite my respect for them, and I certainly hope I am able to enjoy a game regardless of its graphics but still… Equally good gameplay with better visuals and sound is still, well, really good.

Kotaku had an article which I didnt really like last week about “Where are all the next gen games?” claiming we have seen no “next-gen” games this generation. It uses a very narrow definition of ‘next-gen’ which I do not entirely agree with, but it may be worth hunting down as it parallels with what you are saying a little bit. I would find the link if it wasn’t 5am and I wasnt on my way out the door to work!

Heh, I think I’ve had this argument with myself several times. I have a natural affinity for certain genres, and it frustrates me to see what feels like backward progression. It’s not about waiting for these genres to surprise me; so much as it is a frustration that each hardware generation leads to a reset. That said I don’t accept that these genres are in any way “played out” and that new ideas and the use of technology in new ways is not possible.

Outside of these genres I’ve seen some really interesting things done on the iPhone, however I’ve also see an overwhelming number of games retreading old tropes; the same is true of Flash games and XBLA titles.

There’s a innovation in game design out there, though we may disagree on how much, I think a lot of smaller developers have been able to thrive by working on platforms that have remained stable for several years. However if we see another mass generational change in technology how much time will be wasted simply getting those once innovative designs to work with the new technology? Time that could be better spent creating something that couldn’t have existed without that very same new technology.

There’s a lot of innovative game design happening out there, but if you only looks for it in first-person shooters, real-time strategy game, platformers, etc., you’re going to be disappointed. The big moves have already been made in those types of games, and no increase in the amount of computing power is going to change that.

If you want innovation you should search out new kinds of games! Don’t limit yourself to waiting around for old kinds of games to surprise you.

My concern is not with a lack of innovation so much as with the push for higher fidelity in graphical representation causing a retrograde progression in what is possible. I’ll admit my focus on first person shooters might have skewed my statements; however the same situation does occur in other genres.

The number of units available in real time strategy games peeked with Total Annihilation and after that most games never approached that scale game was able to put on screen at once, it took three years before that scale of battle could be depicted again in, Shogun: Total War and it was a further four until Rome: Total War was able to achieve the same effect with polygonal character models.

The size and complexity of levels in the Tomb Raider series increased with each title until a change of technology in Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness cause that trend to stop, and by Tomb Raider: Legend the size of levels had been greatly reduced. Even the latest title, Tomb Raider: Underworld, struggles to feature levels that are as sprawling and complex as those in the earlier titles. In a game that is primarily focused on exploration and spatial navigation that has a big influence on the play experience.

My more specific concern is that the technology we have at our disposal isn’t being used to create new designs, only to recreate the ones that have come before, or ones that could have been made before. What does Zelda: The Wind Waker do that was not possible at a lower fidelity on the Nintendo 64?

That said, as you rightly pointed out there have been noticable design innovations, the most revelant of these being games that make a significant use of real-time physics; Rag Doll King Fu simply couldn’t have been made ten years ago, nor could physics heavy puzzle platformers like Trine or Little Big Planet.

Not that I’ve played it, its mind-boggling complexity scares the bejeezus out of me.

Still, as (or if) the priority for graphical realism plateaus, hopefully that energy will be diverted to everything else that makes up a gameworld. Maybe that’s speciously thinking this era’s tech is special; to paraphrase Bill Gates, 1GB of video RAM ought to be enough for anybody. But when, for example, Thief 3’s levels are smaller than its four year-old predecessor’s, something’s gone wrong. Why is every console effectively retired just when it’s starting to be fully exploited? It looks like this generation might be different, and maybe we won’t have to reinvent a higher poly-count wheel at the expense of any other possible advance.

I think a key point is that the cost and resources needed to create a game—and, as the author focuses on, create and maintain large worlds and many people—is increasing. And there’s no doubt that this is true.

I’ve heard many times that the biggest opportunity that comes from the “next-gen” hardware is that it unlocks more ambitious types of gameplay—complex physical systems or AIs or worlds or whatever that respond to the player in more complicated ways—ways that would not have been practical with less powerful machines. Yet most of the time, those technologies have been harnessed to make their graphics look more realistic.

At the same time, this shifts resources from trying to use processing power to rather break paradigms in gameplay. And every time another “generation” comes around, teams are set back again. Monetarily, the cost has apparently been relatively low enough for most large developers to not hurt them too much. But I wonder, really… it’s true, for instance, when you render people with more detail, you can render less people. The cost is both in your computer processor and in the artists and modelers who have to make their textures, etc. look sufficiently good in High Definition.

“With each consecutive hardware generation it takes time to achieve what was possible at the end of the previous generation.” This opening sentence resonates deeply with me.

Innovation in game design happens all the time, it’s just that it happens in the design of new games, not when you refine a well understood formula like the first-person shooter.