[citation][nom]fulle[/nom]@chaohsiangchenBioshock isn't even remotely "classic" worthy. System Shock, maybe, but thats another example of a game that came out around 1998 when 3D Gaming was at its peak point in innovation. When you walked the store and Halflife (the original, before counterstike even existed), and Homeworld (first decent 3D real time strategy game) were in the PC section, and Consoles had titles like Goldeneye, Zelda Ocarina of Time, and FF7.Bioshock a classic? You have to be out of your mind. That, or you weren't a gamer 10 years ago. You probably weren't even around for the rise of Diablo II, and don't understand how most current MMOs are just a copied formula.Innovation is dead. They can't even make a fighting game better than SC for Dreamcast in the last 10 years. The last time I was impressed by a shooter was HL2 FIVE YEARS AGO.[/citation]
Oh yes, Bioshotck *will* be a classic. A few games are classic but they copied game play from other older games, just made it right. There are games which are full of innovative idea, but were total screw up. Some innovation didn't take off because the company who developed it didn't figure out how to use it, or couldn't market it due to hardware limit. In the end, innovation doesn't make games classical. Good games make themselves into classics.
Remember CellFactor just a few years ago? The use of "massive" physics is astounding, but no one has physics card at the time. Homeworld is another example. After a few short-lived hits, the game genre simply died into oblivion, deader than flight sim. Yes, it was spectacular when it first released, but when people had enough of them, they went back to play SC (Starcraft) or C&C General. If you still remember, there was such an innovative game called Time Shift just a few months ago. How'd that go? Far Cry 2 is another example of innovative idea gone south. Ubi team tried to do things that has never been tried before, but they simply didn't put too much effort on game play and story. You put too much emphasis on innovation, but fail to see good games are not just about innovation.
There is no innovation in Serious Sam at all. What they have done is to put massive classic Doom style, none stop, mindless action with some decent music and lame joke. That works just fine. Then let's talk about COD2 and COD4. To be honest, what Infinity Ward did was mere "done it right." Lucas Arts seldom push innovation on game development, but, yet, many games they've done are instant classic, including most of those SCUMM-based games. Innovation is good, but most innovation takes time to mature. Games aren't just about technical innovation. It is also about story, presentation, design and game play. Making a good game is more like an art than an engineering project, and people should keep that in mind. For example, both id Tech 4 and Source engine have similar features which both include codes to run simple physics. However, while id team was trying to figure out ways to scare you, Valve team was trying to make use of physics engine. Similar engineering level, different outcome.
There are also games that contains zero innovation, but the IP was then screwed up by "innovation." For example, Star Control series is totally screwed by Activision. When they tried to implement full motion picture and quasi-3D combat, they totally failed. It leave us with no new Star Control game ever since.
And why do you expect anything new from any fighting game release? Fighting game is popular, but most overdone genre of all games.
BTW, I don't play console and I don't like RPG due to Diablo II. That game bored me after 2 hours. Went back to RTCW and never look back.