These things are evolutionary, over the last 20 years, a lot has changed in games, from a gameplay standpoint. Sure, a lot of it seems obvious now and a lot of it seems like it should have happened sooner, but the reality is that people don't play games that break the mould too much... That is... They don't sell well..
So when a revolutionary game comes out that breaks the traditions of game design... it gets overlooked.
Always.
Then, later on, people start taking bits from it and putting them into other games.. and you wind up with something new in the same old thing... The biggest issue with same-type games, is that so few bother to advance the game at all, that things seem to have stopped moving forward.
The solution seems simple enough... Keep mostly the same gameplay, and add in tons of new bits... Then, in the next game, keep the new bits, and change all the old stuff.. 50-50 it... or if thats no good, 33-33-33 or 20-20-20-20-20... Point is... if you break the new stuff up over a bunch of games, you can create a whole new genre
So go spend the next 15 years of your life trying to build a new genre, that seems fruitful.
Sound reasonable to you?
So when a revolutionary game comes out that breaks the traditions of game design... it gets overlooked.
Always.
Then, later on, people start taking bits from it and putting them into other games.. and you wind up with something new in the same old thing... The biggest issue with same-type games, is that so few bother to advance the game at all, that things seem to have stopped moving forward.
The solution seems simple enough... Keep mostly the same gameplay, and add in tons of new bits... Then, in the next game, keep the new bits, and change all the old stuff.. 50-50 it... or if thats no good, 33-33-33 or 20-20-20-20-20... Point is... if you break the new stuff up over a bunch of games, you can create a whole new genre
So go spend the next 15 years of your life trying to build a new genre, that seems fruitful.
Sound reasonable to you?