[4cr Guest Columnist - Nick Rumas]

I owe an immeasurable amount of my love for gaming to Lucasarts. Loom, Monkey Island, Fate of Atlantis, Day of the Tentacle, Full Throttle, The Dig, Grim Fandago—the list goes on and on. Each game provided a new, innovative, and totally immersive experience that kept me far away from my middle school homework.

In contrast, it’s very disheartening to see what Lucasarts has come to these days. The groundbreaking creativity and passion that used to define the company seems to be all but lost. Everything they’ve published since Grim Fandago reeks of focus groups. Their greatest games, the ones that will be remembered, were about taking risks. The problem doesn’t stop with Lucasarts, though—risky, innovative game design is in a fight for survival.

J. Allard’s keynote address at GDC 2005, detailing the ‘HD Era’ and rapidly increasing development costs, prompted veteran game designer Greg Costikyan to say the following in a post-conference developers’ rant:

Games GROW through innovation. Innovation creates new game styles. Innovation grows the audience. Innovation extends the palette of the possible in games. The story of the last twenty years hasn’t been, as you’ve been sold, the story of increasing processing power and increasing graphics; it’s been the story of a startling burst of creativity and innovation. That’s what created this industry. And that’s why we love games.

But it’s over now.

Today, you CANNOT get an innovative title published, unless your last name is Wright or Miyamoto.

I don’t know about you, but [J. Allard’s keynote] made MY FLESH CRAWL. The HD Era. Bigger. Louder. More photorealistic 3D. Teams of hundreds. And big bux to be made.

He paints a bleak picture, indeed, but goes a bit overboard. There IS innovative software outside of that which carries the name Wright or Miyamoto, it’s just scarce. What hope, if any, is there for the possibility of wide scale innovation to thrive once again? As console and computer game development costs continue to rise, is there an alternative?

The Nintendo DS provides proof that innovation in not only possible, but can also be highly profitable. Development costs are relatively minimal, allowing developers the freedom to innovate. Let’s contrast Nintendogs and ElectroPlankton, two groundbreaking, creative titles published within the platform’s first six months. For both, production fees were likely minimal. Within one week of their respective launches, the former sold hundreds of thousands, while the latter sold a mere five thousand. The wonderful thing is that the risk has been made minimal, encouraging developers to take chances. While both titles were developed under the guidance of Miyamoto, there’s no reason that titles just as fresh and innovative can’t come from just about anywhere. Nintendo thought outside the box and took a major risk with the DS, and it’s become proof that innovation can survive.

Here’s a quote from Nintendo’s E3 Revolution press release regarding one of the unique features of its upcoming console:

Freedom of design: A dynamic development architecture equally accommodates both big-budget, high-profile game “masterpieces” as well as indie games conceived by individual developers equipped with only a big idea.

While Microsoft and Sony continue to try and turn the game development community into the next Hollywood, Nintendo is taking a different path and trying to make a genuine difference. If the DS is a sort of preview of the kind of gaming that Revolution will offer, imagine the possibilities. Iwata says that the coming generation will be decided by the best ideas, not the most horsepower. The DS has already convinced millions that he’s right.

In the end, I believe Greg Costikyan is wrong. Innovation in gaming is NOT dead—it may, in fact, have just found its stride, if Nintendo’s dual screen portable is any indication of what’s to come.

Now if someone could just convince Lucasarts…

Contributed by: Nick Rumas