I think the triple A scene has been making games based on the same blueprint. I'm necessary saying that they're making bad games, or that the design they're using is flawed. But we haven't seen anything experimental that feels "fresh" for a long while.

Video games have always been about innovation. That's why.

There are third rate platform games that are as good or better than some of the best platform games from the 8-bit/16-bit era but they don't get the attention because they feel "old". We don't want to see the same movies over and over again. We don't want to play the same games over and over again. The gaming industry thrives on creativity and "newness". If we don't have that, all we have are prettier versions of what we already have. Graphics get old--sometimes immediately after the initial shock wears off. What's left is what's important.

Every gen has offered compelling new ways to play. Be it complexity, Mode 7, motion controls, online, transitioning from 2D to 3D, or what have you. That's what has kept us engaged. Even a game like Grand Theft Auto III, Gears of War or Call of Duty can come out of nowhere and take a simple mechanic and tweak it, setting the pace for an entire generation. But after a while, that starts to feel like "been there, done that" and it's time to evolve, again.

Every single New Super Mario Bros. game is great. But, at this point, they feel old. Being "good" isn't good enough, anymore.

I'm with d21 on this one! We don't need innovation all the time, but we do need new thing from time to time. Just look at last gen; that gen dragged on so long and the consoles were pushed to their limits and nothing new happaned with the games by the end. And that has carried over to this gen somewhat as well. We as gamers wanna play something we haven't played before. We want new experiences. You can't force innovation, it'll come by itself. All you can do is hope for the right timing

The only thing that bothers me about the term 'innovation' is it's used as some blanket metric for quality. It's about as tired and overplayed as the term 'next-gen gameplay'. What the fuck does that even mean? And if people have such a grasp of what gameplay should look like now, why are they wasting time complaining about not seeing it in current games, online, instead of opening their own goddamn game studio and developing this awe-inspiring new method of gameplay? I'm convinced anyone who uses the term 'lacks innovation' or 'next-gen gameplay' in any article or review, lacks actual objective writing skills, and simply shouldn't be employed any longer in their current position.

For me, what matters most is that the game is good, whether innovative or not. If it is innovative and great, awesome! I'll enjoy it all the more. If it's a game based on an existing title but still fun, I'll likely enjoy it still. For as long as Ninten games have been around, I still enjoy them. Well, most of them... TwT;

I think refinement can sometimes be pushed aside and downplayed in the name of innovation. Refinement, which may be seen as many small innovations combined, can be better than changing things up that already worked.

Why waste resources making something different when it may not make it better?

That's entirely subjective and you ask the wrong questions. Innovation makes things different which is what a lot of people like (at least when it comes to gamers who have a passion for it, pretty much a helpless minority among all consumers). If something doesn't add new stuff, why buy/play it when you've seen/played it before.

Let's continue with "discussions" (read: personal opinions) about "AAA" and other terms :D

The big thing that I dislike about innovation is that people use it as an excuse, like saying that you can't say a game is bad if it was "innovative." (Also some companies use it as an excuse for bad business practices ala EA and Dungeon Keeper). Innovation shouldn't be seen as meaning quality but there is a point when innovation is needed. Take New Super Mario Bros. There's nothing wrong with the game, but people are tired of it because it makes little to no changes. On the other hand, many 3D Sonic games try to hard to innovate the formula and take away what made earlier games great.

Innovation is important in certain cases but it isn't always necessary and quality should be put first.

Are we talking about innovation as it affects sales?  Because the innovations in the WiiU and Xbone did not make the sytems bad or "worse", even if it could be argued that they didn't help (or possibly hurt) sales.  I don't think that the innovations in those consoles are what caused them to sell considerably worse than the PS4, and I don't think that the lack of innovations on the PS4 is what caused it to sell so well.  I think this is one of those situations where correlation does not imply causation.

Innovation might not always being a driving force for sales, but it is important to try to keep the industry feeling fresh and new.