Innovation vs Quality vs Fun: Which is more important

[ThisIsNoName]

This is just something I've been turning around in my head for a while: When creating a game is it more important to focus on innovation, quality, or fun, or is it better to not have a specific focus?

EDIT: I just realized that this wasn't the best worded question (Aren't all games supposed to be fun? )

What I meant by fun was more guilty-pleasure type fun. For example, the Naruto: Ultimate Ninja Storm series has some of the most simple fighting game mechanics I've seen, and I know that each games is going to be pretty much like the last, but it's still one of my favorite fighting game series, even compared to games like Street Fighter and BlazBlue (Holy run-on sentence, Batman).

[LateWhiteRabbit]

Well, everyone says they want innovation, but most don't. People like games that are fun and of good quality. Innovation may win some fancy award, but it usually doesn't win an audience.

[Gambit74]

Depends on your definition of quality. I usually don't mind the art so long as it's tolerable nor the music as long as it fits the mood of the story, but the writing should be good, as in not full of spelling/grammar errors and can get the point of a scene or opinion across.

[ThisIsNoName]

I guess I was talking more about quality of storytelling, especially if there is a clash between the three. For example, you can always increase the quality of the art, and it won't get in the way of the other two.

However, adding an innovative new game mechanic might disrupt the flow of the story, sacrificing quality. Creating a quality story might prevent the player from getting straight to gameplay, sacrificing fun. Using a tried and true gameplay style might be much more fun, but sacrifices innovation.

Those are more of the situations I was referring to, where adding one type takes away from another. Hopefully this is a bit more clear.

[gekiganwing]

Innovation is good. Trying to create something offbeat and avant-garde is admirable. But there's a possibility that your innovative visual novel might not be enjoyable. Perhaps people will find it to be too unfamiliar, or incomprehensible, or any number of negative things.

Quality is good. Creating a great story and/or an excellent gameplay experience is admirable. But there's a possibility that your quality VN might be too familiar, or there might be a problem in balance of game versus narrative, or any number of other negative things.

Both of these statements can be summed up in Mark Twain's observation on originality.

...Now, if you're trying to *sell* a game, originality can be anything but beneficial. If you look at lists of cult classic video games, you'll see some games which were inventive for their time, but which were not among the top-sellers. Unless you can sell directly to an audience looking for innovative content, it can be challenging to get people to pay money for something besides the latest iteration of Mario or Tetris or Madden or...

However, adding an innovative new game mechanic might disrupt the flow of the story, sacrificing quality. Creating a quality story might prevent the player from getting straight to gameplay, sacrificing fun. Using a tried and true gameplay style might be much more fun, but sacrifices innovation.

Makes sense. If you're emphasizing gameplay, it's okay to downplay story and characterization. If you're putting emphasis on writing, then you don't want any gameplay to be a hindrance or a distraction. Finding a balance between the two is difficult. See story versus gameplay ratio for addtional observations.

[nyaatrap]

Quality and Fun are necessities. Innovation is optional. I hate creators who are making innovative games with low-quality and no fun to play. They're nothing more than self‐satisfaction.

[LVUER]

Fun. Though definition of fun varies from person to person. Is there any reason why you want to play a game with hyper giga-amazing photo-realistic 3D graphics, fully voiced, available in 21 different language, bombastic award winning music... but completely boring to play? So boring that you will fall asleep after playing it for 30 minutes, except for those who have insomnia?

After fun, comes quality, and lastly innovation. This is my personal opinion though...

[aestate]

I don't think innovation is quite so important. There's a reason why the tried-and-true methods are as they are, and I guess people are just more comfortable with familiar types of gameplay.

SO, I'd say it's a toss-up between quality and fun. Quality because I'm a real grammar nerd and I like well-written stories, and looking at gorgeous art or GUI is always great. Fun because, well, what's the point of playing a game if you're not enjoying it? ;P

[Kitten the Cat]

Fun is the most important factor in a game. Without fun, there would be no reason to continue playing. That's why you can have low-budget games that people will keep playing - because they're fun.

Quality is something that you can't ignore though. Sometimes the quality of the game can affect the fun. If you ship a game full of bugs, it will severely impact the experience of the player, and that will make the game less fun.

I would say innovation is the least important. Most games are just rehashes of the same core mechanics, because they're tested and proven. But it doesn't mean to say you shouldn't innovate. I think one should start with innovating features, rather than a whole game experience. That way you still get the best of both worlds.

[Auro-Cyanide]

Having any combination of the above could make for a good game, but having all three is what will make it great. Games don't necessarily need to be fun or have quality or innovation, but they should be engaging. Something that we find engaging might not be what we define as 'fun' but it's something that we get something else out of. Maybe it's a thought or feeling, maybe it's a question. If you we're playing a game about, say, the Holocaust, it's unlikely you would classify it as fun, but that doesn't mean it would be a bad game, if you get what I mean.

VNs in my opinon need a good dose of innovation, by which I don't mean doing crazy stuff. So much of what is done is done by default. Text box at the bottom, sprites in the middle etc. Which isn't a bad thing, but there is a lot of room to grow if people look and start asking questions about why they are doing something in the first place.

Finally, quality is always a good thing. Quality of story, quality of writing, quality of art and music. All of these help make the game more engaging.

None of these things exist in isolation and all of them serve a greater purpose within the game. Our goal is to make a game engaging for the audience, whatever route we take.

[TrickWithAKnife]

I think all things need to be done in combination. Who cares if a game is really interesting, if you've already played 20 games that are similar.

I have a feeling that the community might be a little more biased towards writing, as many are writers themselves. I could be completely wrong though.

For me, I consider myself more of a gamer. A shallow gamer at that.
The art is what attracts me to the game initially, the same way the cover of a book would. The only exception is if I am familiar with the previous work of the creators, and was impressed before.

Next is the writing. If the game can't hold my attention for the first 5 minutes of playing, the chances of me continuing drop rapidly.

As for innovation - I love it. If your writing or art could be easily dropped into another persons game without anyone noticing, then you are not making good use of the engine itself. Everything needs to be connected. Everything needs to feel like it could only work together.

Of course, none of what I said applies to things like KNs and VNs.
But if you are meant to be making an interactive game, where is the originality in clicking through page after page of text?

Anyway, that's the humble opinion of someone who is fairly new to all this, and has only just started their first game.

[Fungii]

Depends what you'd like to be recognised for? I've enjoyed games of low quality and innovation, but I've also appreciated rubbish things with pretty visuals or for taking things in a new direction.
I think it's fun that brings in the audience, though.

[Destiny]

I would rather say "Innovation" isn't very important then what is more important.

The game should have at least minor qualities and it should be fun (even horror games can have a fun aspect, it's just not the kind of laughing fun but thrilling fun).
Innovation isn't that important, at least to me. I mean, just talking about a videogame series, they sometimes are exactly the same in gameplay, story progress, even theme of story (like Final Fantasy or the first Pokemon games or Harvest Moon). They are still very addicting and well liked. Innovation is cool, but not neccessary. And if I have to choose between innovation, quality and fun, I would say "it's hard to decide between quality and fun", not caring about innovation at all

[Tetiel]

Definitely fun, but it really depends on what type of game you're making. Does anyone remember Nanaca Crash? That type of game has been done a gazillion times before and is still being done, but there was something about it that made it incredibly addictive. I would play that for days on end trying to beat someone else's score lol It did have relatively good quality graphics I suppose, but I doubt that really mattered. It was based off of an H game, so I suppose it should count as a guilty pleasure xD

Obviously, though, if you're doing something beyond mini game you at least need to add a couple more things like quality and sometimes innovation. However, keep in mind there is something very important - the nostalgia element, which is incredibly powerful. It's why I just spent $35 on FFIV for the vita. There was nothing really innovating, the graphics weren't really updated, it's not exactly that fun either, but there's extended gameplay? It's also the reason why one of my friends buys every single pokemon game out there despite the fact that they don't change much outside of an extended pokedex (usually - to be fair, I have not played any beyond Diamond so I may stand corrected).

[Blane Doyle]

Fun and quality is slightly higher for me. Innovation is WONDERFUL. But... if that innovation is in something boring or clunky or just plain bad then what is the use of it? I think it is best to have all three, but what are the odds of that happening all the time?