Old news to the devs here im sure. But for normies like me, I found this interesting to listen to. Though I'm shocked that item #30 even had to be included. but whatever. I'm also curious about the concept of 'the hook'. From what I gather, unless you're introducing a new mechanic (or tech based feature) the game isn't worth making. Anything else is I guess just considered a 'reskin'. And yet I often see comments in forums that suggest that an updated reskin of a good game would sell quite well. And when I'm making house rules for this game or that, I've noticed that I'm swapping the janky new mechanic for something that worked well in a different game. That my not sell a game idea to an investor, but it made the game BETTER. I know 'better' is very subjective, but I have to wonder if quality of gameplay is sacrificed for 'inovation' in order to get the project funded.
I guess game producers need to give the media, and people generally, a reason to talk about a game. If you aren’t doing a sequel or a franchise then even a really good game can get lost in the sea of new titles. An innovation is something that someone might read about and think ‘Sounds interesting, I’ll give it a try’. I also think that a game which is an updated version of an old format needs to be more than just ‘a bit better’ to be worth buying. I mean, if I could remake chess and give the knight and castle an improved movement, tweek the castling rules, and reskin the pieces to be cooler.... then no one would want it. Why would you give up a well known rule set, a massive pool of players and a large cultural gravitas for a slightly ‘better’ game. edit: bobby fisher actually did try to promote his version of improved chess, unsurprisingly it isn't popular.
Some people prefer checkers though. Or this tactical virtual board game I heard of called poxnora. I also believe things such as better graphics or being on a different platform is also a hook, just usually for a smaller market.
