Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this column are those of the participants and the moderator, and do not necessarily reflect those of the GIA. There is coarse language and potentially offensive material afoot. You have the reflexes of a retarded cat. Don't say we didn't warn you.

To begin on a side note, I'll admit I stole that title. I can't help it, it's just such a cool title. Okay, in actuality, it's the title of the Stone Temple Pilots' new CD. Very cool stuff -- I suggest anyone who enjoys their type of music give it a spin. I also picked up the soundtrack for Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, which I highly suggest, even if it doesn't sound anything like FF music that we know. I also saw Scary Movie 2 tonight, which I highly suggest avoiding. I may have enjoyed the first movie, but as with all horror flicks (even this parody), I feel that much less intelligent after having seen the sequel.

A lot of people wrote in to express their opinions on the whole subject on innovation in videogames. I have a thing or two to get off my chest as well, but it'd beat the entire point of hosting a letters column if I did that now. So, without further hesitation, let's get right to the letters so I can run my mouth. Well, I guess my fingers would be more appropriate. Whatever, you know what I mean.

Davon makes an excellent point which I can whole-heartedly agree with. Games simply wouldn't be as fun as they can at times if everything was the same. Sometimes, when we comment on our favorite aspects of games, we gamers tend to make it sound like we will not play anything besides what fits our favorite niches perfectly. However, this simply isn't the case. I, for one, enjoy a variety in the games I play. I may like traditional RPGs slightly better than fighting games, but I guarantee that if you tried to steal my copies of Soul Calibur of Guilty Gear, it'd be an instant throw-down. Of course, that's quite a broad reference. One of my favorite debates is the whole "Sci-Fi versus Medieval RPG settings" debate. It surprises me how many people want to see only one or the other -- personally, I'd get bored fast.

Once again, another good point that I agree pretty much entirely with. I hate to sound overly deep, but we don't exactly live in a mold-breaking world, in my personal opinion. Many of the things that can and will be done, have been done. The world population is way up there, and each individual stands out that much less as it grows. These aren't exactly prime conditions for innovation.

To continue Stryker's music example, I can recall an event that happened a couple weeks ago that fits in with his basic idea. A few friends and myself were all sitting around in our apartment playing some music. I had my trusty Gibson Flying V guitar, and my roommate had his Fender Bass (which we're just now teaching him how to play). His girlfriend, who is a drummer, had her guitar which she's learning how to play, and a few girls we work with were over to watch. My roommate's girlfriend starting trying to do a little improv, when someone immediately interjected and noted that they thought what she played sounded familiar, that she must've taken it from a different song.

What ensued was a discussion on the near impossibility of innovating music. Think of how many millions of songs have been written throughout the years. Do you really think you can come up with an entirely original tune that will not sound even vaguely familiar to a single person? Chances are, it's just not going to happen. Just like videogames, the guitar is a limited medium of expression. The user controls what he or she creates, but only within certain boundries. And even if someone does find a way to make a different type of sound, that certainly doesn't mean it will be good.

Game designers face the same basic dilemma. No matter how imaginative a developer is, they cannot escape the physical and technical limitations that are thrust between the product as they envision it in their minds, and the product that is coded.

Of course, this all just questions the ability to achieve innovation. Another thing to consider is the basic need for it....

Preach on, my gaming brother. Not to knock the gaming journalism industry which I so love, but I find the fact that "Innovation" is one of the ratings on many sites scales to be a very, very sad thing. We've covered the grounds on how difficult it can be to achieve any real innovation, and that applies here. I agree with OZ's comments that too many developers attempt to innovate solely for the sake of innovation. And innovation often becomes so difficult that the result is something pointless and mundane. In that respect, I believe that innovation is quite akin to humor -- if it's forced, it's very unlikely to put a smile on my face.

Time to play the sympathizer -- I'll fully admit it must be frustrating to be a woman playing RPGs. Finding a strong female lead to look up to wouldn't exactly be an easy task. I guess those are the woes of being in the minority.

I like your idea for seeing multiple viewpoints in a game, although I have a feeling it'd be a pain for developers to pull off well. Still, it would be rather interesting.

As a younger lad who hated it everytime a favorite SNES RPG came to an end, I always wanted a random event generator to lead out the rest of my hero's life. Imagine you're finishing up your run through Final Fantasy VI, and you've successfully guided your heros home. So what happens from there? Sure, they all live happily ever after, right? But even if there's no major adventures after the story ends (read: nothing that has to be heavily scripted), they surely had some adventures none the less. I'd like to see a game which randomly generates certain basic scenarios, and also keeps tabs of your actions and previously generated scenarios to help dictate future events. If one were so inclined, you could live out the rest of your main hero's life. Sure, it's not the best idea in the world, but I was always hoping someone would give it a try. (Granted, Lunar: Eternal Blue was a step in that direction)

I think online gaming has a ways to go, and a lot of maturing to do. The types of games that most of us think of when we say "Online RPG" is going to be an Ultima Online / Everquest style games. While these games have been out for a few years, it is still a relatively new genre.

I played some UO when it first came out, and tried to do some adventuring with a friend from work a few months back, but I could never get into the game. I couldn't stand how bland the world of Ultima Online was. I didn't feel any excitement exploring the world -- a tile-based structure will do that to you. No matter how far I traveled, no matter how hard I searched, there was never an exciting exploration feeling, because everything looked the exact same.

My ideal Online RPG would have a graphical interface like Zelda 64, with a world like that of Chrono Cross. If you take the size of Chrono Cross' world and give it Z64's exploration style, the world would seem quite big. And the different, somewhat mystical areas, would be fun to travel to, since you'd really feel like your traveling.

I've said it a few times before in this column, and I'll say it again: When it comes to my personal enjoyment of a game (and not a more technical review), I could dumb games down to two categories if I felt so inclined: Ones that make my brain go "Mmm, good!" and ones that make it go "Ugghh, bad!" If I find a game to be fun, I couldn't care less how the game got there, all that matters if that it did.

A good example of this is something our old friend Allan Milligan brought up quite a long time ago -- every now and then, you'll find a game that you know isn't very good, yet you enjoy it anyways. A personal example would be GranStream Saga. Technically speaking, GSS sucks in about every way possible -- the storyline is extremely generic, the gameplay is far too simple, the graphics are absolutely horrid, and the game is a good bit too short. However, despite these major drawbacks, I got a huge kick out of playing GSS, and I couldn't put it down. Would I recommend it to anyone? Never. But I also will not be selling my copy anytime soon.

Closing Comments:

-Jeremy Steimel, over and out.