What is Innovation? And does it matter?

While some think the Wii U gamepad and Kinect 2.0 are excellent features to the consoles, some think that they should be optional, and follow in the footsteps of the PS4, which supports Off-TV play and motion control separately. I agree and disagree. It was the right move for Sony to let people get more Innovation out of there console at a different price, and simply let us pay a cheaper price to play the games on the console, which is what we wanted to do in the first place. Yet at the same time, if the Wii U came without the gamepad, and packaged the Pro controller instead, would it not be a Xbox 360 with better graphics and Mario games?

The gamepad is truly an innovative experience that can change gaming. ZombiU and Nintendo Land are examples of this, and new ways to use the controller are being looked into. Furthermore, I can pick it up from the stand and within a couple of minute be playing 3D World while watching Arrow at the same time. Or even browse the internet. While the Kinect seems like a huge gimmick, it too, needs to be packaged in. If there was not a kinect, would anybody be compelled to buy something that plays multiplatform games at 720p, unlike Sony, and has few exclusives, unlike Nintendo?

I certainly wouldn't be. Each of these things that are called "Gimmicks" can also be called innovation that stops us from having 3 PS4s with none of the innovation you claim to care about so much. And it's not just with consoles, it's with games as well. If Call of Duty or Mario did the same exact thing every game, would you buy it? In some cases there is a gimmick, such as that ridiculous Gold suit in New Super Mario Bros 2, but other times there is am excellent new feature that makes the game completely enjoyable, like 3D Worlds Cat transformation or other features. And even Call of Duty Extinction was, in my opinion, and interesting experience. I think it was a fallback from Zombies, but it still attracted me to the game.

I find it hard to believe that innovation still matters when any attempt at innovation is dismissed as a gimmick. A gimmick is something people do to keep something from getting old. The Sega CD and 32x was a gimmick, for example. It was an attempt to keep the Sega Genesis alive for couple more years. They were the very definition of gimmicks. The original Wii, believe it or not, was NOT a gimmick. It was an attempt to try and change gaming, and see how motion control paired in with the gaming world. And when turned sideways, it would even play as an NES controller. The reason why it won last generation is because is was INNOVATIVE, not a gimmick. But try telling that to the internet. Actually, even the Virtual Boy was an attempt at innovation (If those idiots had thought to add a headstrap and color, I wouldn't have the entirety of N4G scowling at this article right now.)

In conclusion, all I ask is that we take greater look into things that are potential for innovation rather than dismiss them as gimmicks at first glance. Gamers have been complaining that nothing is innovative since I-don't-know-when, and whenever someone tries to please these gamers, all they do is scowl. Which is why I ask, as the PS4 currently dominates the early sales charts with none of the extra add-ons that were dismissed as gimmicks such as the Playstation Eye NOT selling, does anybody even care about innovation any more? Let me know what you think, this is just my short opinion of the matter.

[GamingTruth]

I think call of duty has tons more innovation than people ever come close to crediting it with

[caseh]

It did, but that kinda ground to a halt after MW2. Since then, its been a rehash with minimal changes.

Perhaps it would have evolved into Titanfall had the original team at Infinity Ward not left and 'Respawned' under EA hurhur.

[GamingTruth]

minimal changes? maybe to the graphics engine aside from that no the games have had tons more changes than any other shooter series franchise