Unless the major innovation is the business model of how they successfully carbon copied the original then split it into three full price segments I'm not seeing it. Now yeah, sure the business model does indeed plumb new depths of exploitation and could be considered innovative by suit-wearing, bollocks-taking business types, I suppose.

Maybe, but that's not what was asked ;-)

Did you people ever analyze why there are hardly any "AAA" titles that are new?
Portal was a filler, they didn't spend much money on,
because they though that even though it's a nice idea,
it would never sell stand alone, you got it free to make up for the long wait.
And they probably would have been right about that.
It's clever puzzles, a very unique style and look, and a completely fresh idea,
it must be a hit and valve knew it, they aren't that dumb and they playtested it.
I guess that's why it was released the way it was.

Thing is: We don't put 50$ of our hard earned cash on the counter,
for something this new and unknown.
We want final fantasy 3.578, always the same, over and over - we demand it, that's why they do it,
and that's why it's risky for the big guys to do something new.
Many people depend on those games, they are day to day jobs and daily bread for many,
and investors don't make it easier.

Thing with indies though: It's a couple of guys that have a cool new idea,
and they mostly do it as a hobby. It may work out, or fail miserably, but they actually sell,
mostly on the basis because it is interesting, but doesn't cost as much,
and therefore not a big loss for the buyer.
If they don't sell it's back to the normal job for 2 or 3 guys - no big deal.

Summary: EA can't afford it to experiment, i can,
because their stuff must sell - it's business, mine doesn't because it's just a hobby.
If theirs doesn't sell it's bad feedback and maybe jobs gone and then angry people.
And that's why there are hardly any "AAA" titles that are innovative.
Notch began minecraft as a hobby, now look at it.

I'm, not a insider, it's just a educated guess.
I see many people asking such questions, even the press,
but it seems so obvious to me why things are how they are.
I don't know if i make any sense here at all, but hey, if it's ridiculous what i wrote
i just move on, it's not like it's my job.

It's amazing how people remain misinformed about this even a year after Starcraft 2 came out. Heart of the Swarm and the Protoss stories are both expansions (you know, those things that have generally been replaced by DLC and most people want back?) and yet still people ignorantly attack the games because they're by Blizzard.

So much more. One of the only AAA titles (out of two) that I look forward to is Arkham City.

Am I the only one who kept trying to find a tune to go with this post? It looks like song lyrics :-D

Seriously, what's with the weird line breaks?

About your point itself, well of course. We know that's how it is. But occasionally, a AAA studio does take a chance on something innovative. Occasionally, they're even rewarded for it.

Can we think of any truly innovative AAA titles that were successful? Enough to spawn sequels, for instance? Here are a couple that spring to mind:

Lemmings
Dungeon Keeper

You don't do innovation in your AAA title you do them in your minor (read test) games you do between AAA titles when your disc is gold and the next AAA is still in the planning stages you can enjoy yourself and innovate

Lets face it, if the bottom-line is your main worry, real innovation doesn't make much sense until you run out of old ideas to rehearse.

It's unpredictable and thus, a risky venture.

To make a truly innovative game, you need decide something like: "Okay, I could probably make more money doing something else, but this idea is cool so I will stick with it".

How many large corporations do you think would do that when it's the investors that are running the show?

There are innovative AAA titles? Crap, I mostly play Indie games and have a blast with them.

But okay, since PopCap now belongs to EA, I would say Plants vs. Zombies. ;-)

Mafia 2 was not really innovative, but it was still great IMO. And Portal 2 might be seen as innovative since it added coop and some nice additions to the Narbacular Drop gameplay.

But if you mean something genre-changing, something really spectacularly new, the last AAA title I saw that was like this was cancelled. It was some FPS where you could invite people to help you or fight against you at any time during the story mode, and it sounded really great.


Innovations are done by Indie titles these days. Live with it and buy Indie titles! Sometimes Indie studios might even become AAA studios. Indie games don't even need to be innovative to be great, too. Defense Grid is just Tower Defense, but it is great on it.

Yes, it added elements from Tag - The Power Of Paint. Very innovative ;-)

Yeah. Tetris.

In Soviet Russia, triple A develops you!

It helps me when going through the stuff i wrote, today was a hard day.

I think that might be a wee bit old to use as an example. Around that time, almost anything was innovative, since nothing much had been done before ;-)

Everything I've seen about these 'expansions' suggests they're standalone titles that will not require the original to run. If that's an 'ignorant attack blah, blah, blah' then by all means show me something official that says otherwise.

Ehhh, Pong's out of the question then? But look, tennis... a ball and two deflecting surfaces, but still took the world by storm amirite?