- Former creative director for Gears of War Judgment and Bulletstorm, Adrien Chmielarz (director and designer of The Vanishing of Ethan Carter) suggested the mindset behind the approach to Judgement, claiming gamers "don't want innovation":

“[Speaking of how he wanted boss battles to work in Gears of War Judgment] But I don’t know if my version was better. It was just different. People say they want innovation, but what they often really want is the same, just with a fresh wrapper. So maybe Epic was right to change Judgment to be more likes Gears 3.5. Who Knows?”

http://www.gamespresso.com/2015/08/30/gears-of-wars-creative-director-claims-that-people-dont-want-innovation/

Does this approach benefited Judgement?

Is the Gears of War formula asking for a shake up?

Do you think people often dismiss creative games and go for games with familiar formulas?

Do you agree with Mr. Chmielarz?

Every time somebody makes something people don't like, they claim it's the death of innovation and originality. There is no end to how full of themselves people can be.

People dont want innovation because people is always afraid to change.

I think he is half right.
People do want innovation, but they don't want it in their favorite franchises. You can sneak in some small changes, but pulling a 180 on the fans rarely ends up well.

Judgment underperformed because of a mixture of factors, but the gameplay formula is not one of them. It released too soon after GeoW3 (and in spring instead of fall/holiday), it had different characters, it had much less marketing exposure....
...and I think there was a bit of gamer fatigue.

I expect GeoW4 not to deviate much from the formula, but it will sell great because of a 5 year wait between games (discounting Judgment of course).

People do want innovation. That's why the Wii dominated the market when it innovated. However there is a difference between good innovation, and trying to force a an idea that really isn't good as innovation. IE kinect and wiiu game pad. People want good innovation. That's why Bethesda gets GOTY every time they release a new fallout or elder scrolls and why they have a massive and ever increasing mod community on PC. Sure you could look at a game like COD and say hey these games always sell like crazy and they never really innovate. This is true, but not because people don't want innovation. They do that's why every year older and experienced gamers always groan and complain due to another copy and pasted COD. The reason it sells well is because it's core audience is kids and young teenagers. Every year there is a new batch of inexperienced kids with no real knowledge of past games. They don't need innovation because it's all so new to them. Meanwhile older gamers get sick of the same old same old and not only want but need innovation.

I updated the title to not sound like Rod Fergusson just said people don't want innovation.

OT: I think Burek was just about spot on. I think 'cautious evolution' rather than 'revolution' is what the gaming majority want in new AAA games - certainly in new AAA games of major franchises.

Just look at the backlash over Fable Legends. By the vast majority of hands-on accounts the game will be excellent. But its so substantially different to past Fable entries that most people aren't giving it the time of day.

It's really not that people don't want innovation.. I mean, Overrun was an innovation in Judgment and it was well received and brilliant! I don't know how they could think it's innovative to turn Gears versus into run 'n gun shooter with modes we see in any other shooter. They even changed King of the Hill to lame Domination -__- Also, playing multiplayer in Gears where blue cogs kill red cogs, come on.. Only 4 maps at launch too ffs..

Campaign was ok but it was too short and it did feel rushed and empty. Declassified missions was "innovation" but arcade-mode from Gears offered much more gameplay value. Their version of Horde was Survival, which I enjoyed, but it was pretty much like Overrun against AI. Lazy.

So in the end, Judgment wasn't creative or innovative, it just effectively took away features that are essential to Gears and make it unique (dbno, active reloads, blind fire with no reticule etc.) and replaced them with features from other shooters. It really can't be even called Gears 3.5.

As for Gears 4, I hope TC will balance between staying true to Gears and also come up with actual innovations. Pleasing Gears community is perhaps the most challenging thing a dev can face :) I'm confident they're going to pull it off tho,

I'm OK with some changes here and there, but changing the formula too much is a recipe for disaster most of the time! Looking at you, Paper Mario Sticker Star.

Judgement was worth it for Overrun alone. There were other big changes to the Gears formula in the game as well. Things Gears fans would notice. Also, reading the interview, he says people sometimes want the same things with a new wrapper.. meaning they must then sometimes want innovation. So I think the title of the article and OP are not really accurate. But when dealing with a big IP there is a fine line you gotta toe when it comes to changing things. Big IP's rarely innovate with sequels. They simply do what he describes, give you the same stuff with a new wrapper.

The thrusters in CoD aren't innovative or new, nor is the wall running, it's just a new wrapper on movement. There's nothing innovative about the open world in MGSV, but it's new for the franchise, so that would be giving you the same thing with a new wrapper. etc etc

I agree with everything else you wrote except this. Gameplay formula was without a doubt a factor why Judgment underperformed. People who bought it stopped playing it after a short while and I listed some of the reasons in my previous post. Gears 3 had more unique users playing than Judgment not long after Judgments launch, game didin't have any legs without popular multiplayer.

I agree with LudicrousSpeed tho, for me Judgment was worth it for Overrun alone. I played the hell out of that mode and I'll gladly play it again with BC granted there's enough people online. But of course since Epic made the online portion of the game, I don't know if Chmielarz deserves any credit from this innovation :P If I'm not mistaken he works with People Can Fly who made the campaign.