Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Innovation does = massive financial success (opinions within.)

ValuaValua Member Posts: 520

As the title says, Innovation = success. Clones seem to be incapable of achieveing the same massive success as innovative products.

 

Let's look at Apple, they were the first to have touch screen MP3 players and phones, they sold exceptionally well, and then opened up huge markets for touch screens, but compare Apple's products to the touch screen products that followed Apples success and they don't even come near Apple's critically or commercially.

 

James Cameron gave us Avatar, the first movie with the amazing 3D technology we have today, it made 2.7 billion dollars, making it the highest grossing movie of all time and was nominated for loads of oscars, those that followed using the same technology again didn't come close.

 

World of Warcraft brought the MMO genre to the masses, selling 50+ million copies of it's games and retaining 10+ million subscribers for years now, those that tried to clone WoW didn't come close. The MMO genre was unknown to me before WoW, as it was a very small genre of gaming, WoW brought so many people into the MMO genre it can be classed as innovation.

 

Harry Potter dragged the fantasy genre back on top, becoming one of the biggest selling book series of all time, over 400 million copies sold. Suddenly childrens/young adults fantasy about wizards become popular, none of them were met with the same praide. Same can be said for The Hunger Games and Twilight, which brought us a post apocalyptic world and romantic vampires, those that attempted to do the same didn't do as well.

 

I could keep going on with things like this, my point is, things that do the most critically and commercially well are things that aren't around right now, not clones of already popular things.

 

Coming back to the MMO genre though, doesn't this prove that developers have to start taking risks, and creating something new rather than attempting to jump on the bandwagon of something already popular? Clones might do well, some very well, but none ever seem to come close to the product they are cloning. Please prove me wrong if I am.

 

Sorry about the rant, it's something that's been on my mind today.

 

Edit; My definition of the word innovation does not solely mean creating something never before seen, that is only one meaning of the word, it can also mean taking something that already exists and doing something drastically new with it, thus innovation.

«1

Comments

  • CuathonCuathon Member Posts: 2,211

    You are ignorant. Harry Potter was not innovative as a fantasy novel. There were critically acclaimed, in fact even more critically acclaimed than Harry Potter ever was, books about young wizards, even young wizards going to wizard schools. There were also traditional British boarding school novels. There were even combinations of those genres.

    Harry Potter is a fun book and I liked reading them and I read them all and even bought them right when they came out in hard cover. Nevertheless the Wizard of Earthsea Troligy and associated novels are superior in writing quality and theme. However they came out in an era when fantasy as movies was just not as big a thing and when the genre was far more niche than it is now. It did get a decent quality miniseries thingy with some pretty notable actors. I mean, think how long it took for LOTR to get movies and Earthsea never had a chance.

    You may even note that later Harry Potter movies and books were given far less positive reviews because when Rowling finally did try to write on a level still below but much more similar in its darkness and grittiness and emotional content when compared to Ursula K. Leguin it was a pretty serious failure.

    Twilight was similarly poor and shallow from a literary perspective and was primarily driven by the same market forces as the Backstreat boys and the Spice Girls.

    In fact the evidence actually supports the arguments leveled against world of warcraft from a quality standpoint. Shallow and accessible media offerings receive far more financial success than quality movies. Even the most famous films and actors winning the most Oscars and Emmys and other recognition for quality are nowhere near as successful financially as Harry Potter and Twilight. Star Wars faces a similar situation.

    It is totally impossible to argue that those massively successful financial ventures were on the same level as quality movies like The Godfather, Shawshank Redemption,or Schindler's list.

    If you look at the Oscar nominations of financial blockbusters like Avatar, Titanic, and Lord of the Rings the vast majority of their awards are in technical areas. They almost never win for best actor, actress, picture or screenplay.

     

    The real takeaway is that quality doesn't matter. Simple themes with clearly defined protagonists to root for with very specific qualities and minimal depth combined with excessive visual presentation are what matter. Just as shiny graphics and massive marketing and simple mechanics drive video games, CGI visuals, massive marketing, and simple story themes drives movies.

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 5,697

    Innovation for innovation's sake does not equal success. If I built a MMO designed for left-handed players, that alone would not be enough for success.

    Were Apple's MP3 players and phones a success solely because they were touch-screen based?

    Did Avatar get all their nominations and bring in the cash solely based on it being 3-D?

    Why was WoW successful? What was innovative about it? In this case, I think timing was the secret to success.

    What was innovative about Harry Potter books? What did they introduce to the market that has never been done before? Again, I think timing was more of a factor here.

    Too simple on the cause vs effect here. I cannot think of one product or service that had a success based on one exclusive aspect. Doesn't mean there aren't any, I just cannot think of any.

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


    (And now Burger King has MEATLESS burgers!)

  • ValuaValua Member Posts: 520
    Originally posted by Cuathon

    You are ignorant. Harry Potter was not innovative as a fantasy novel. There were critically acclaimed, in fact even more critically acclaimed than Harry Potter ever was, books about young wizards, even young wizards going to wizard schools. There were also traditional British boarding school novels. There were even combinations of those genres.

    Harry Potter is a fun book and I liked reading them and I read them all and even bought them right when they came out in hard cover. Nevertheless the Wizard of Earthsea Troligy and associated novels are superior in writing quality and theme. However they came out in an era when fantasy as movies was just not as big a thing and when the genre was far more niche than it is now. It did get a decent quality miniseries thingy with some pretty notable actors. I mean, think how long it took for LOTR to get movies and Earthsea never had a chance.

    You may even note that later Harry Potter movies and books were given far less positive reviews because when Rowling finally did try to write on a level still below but much more similar in its darkness and grittiness and emotional content when compared to Ursula K. Leguin it was a pretty serious failure.

    Twilight was similarly poor and shallow from a literary perspective and was primarily driven by the same market forces as the Backstreat boys and the Spice Girls.

    In fact the evidence actually supports the arguments leveled against world of warcraft from a quality standpoint. Shallow and accessible media offerings receive far more financial success than quality movies. Even the most famous films and actors winning the most Oscars and Emmys and other recognition for quality are nowhere near as successful financially as Harry Potter and Twilight. Star Wars faces a similar situation.

    It is totally impossible to argue that those massively successful financial ventures were on the same level as quality movies like The Godfather, Shawshank Redemption,or Schindler's list.

    If you look at the Oscar nominations of financial blockbusters like Avatar, Titanic, and Lord of the Rings the vast majority of their awards are in technical areas. They almost never win for best actor, actress, picture or screenplay.

     

    The real takeaway is that quality doesn't matter. Simple themes with clearly defined protagonists to root for with very specific qualities and minimal depth combined with excessive visual presentation are what matter. Just as shiny graphics and massive marketing and simple mechanics drive video games, CGI visuals, massive marketing, and simple story themes drives movies.

     

    Innovation doesn't just mean creating something never seen before, it might mean changing something enough so that it is different. 

    There were novels about wizards and wizarding schools before Harry Potter, maybe some in your opinion even better, but J.K.Rowling did something new with the wizard/wizarding school story, which makes it innovative. And then with the insane popularity of Harry Potter came loads of new books about wizards/wizarding schools, none met the same success.

    Earthsea are terrible books in my opinion, so you stating that they are better isn't true, it's your opinion.

    Also you said that Lotr/Earthsea weren't released when fantasy movies were popular, well neither was Harry Potter. The first Harry Potter was released the same year as the first Lord of the Rings movie, these two movies combined made fantasy movies popular, maybe another reason why Harry Potter is innovative.

    I didn't say Twilight was good, but like Harry Potter is innovated the romantic vampire scenario and was met with success, others since that have tried have not met the same success.

    What you say about Schinders List, Shawshank and The Godfather is again down to your opinion, not fact.

    And as for Avatar, Titanic and Lord of the Rings, all were nominated for best picture, Titanic and Return of the King won for best picture, Return of the King for screenplay, and both Titanic and Lord of the Rings also had best actor noms. So I don't see your point here.

     

    The point of my post was, most of the massively successful products (WoW, Avatar, iPhone etc) were either the first of their kind, or did something new with something that already existed. 

    Clones of these products never do well, or at least nowhere near as well as the originals. 

    Please, prove me wrong.

  • ValuaValua Member Posts: 520
    Originally posted by AlBQuirky

    Innovation for innovation's sake does not equal success. If I built a MMO designed for left-handed players, that alone would not be enough for success.

    Were Apple's MP3 players and phones a success solely because they were touch-screen based?

    Did Avatar get all their nominations and bring in the cash solely based on it being 3-D?

    Why was WoW successful? What was innovative about it? In this case, I think timing was the secret to success.

    What was innovative about Harry Potter books? What did they introduce to the market that has never been done before? Again, I think timing was more of a factor here.

    Too simple on the cause vs effect here. I cannot think of one product or service that had a success based on one exclusive aspect. Doesn't mean there aren't any, I just cannot think of any.

     

    Again, I'll point out that innovation doesn't mean creating something new, it could mean doing something new with something that already exists. Harry Potter did this with the wizard thing, Avatar did this with 3D and the iPhone etc did it with the touch screen.

     

    You could argue that those things I mentioned weren't the sole cause for the popularity, or not a massive factor in them, but I truely believe they are. 

     

    But I do agree that innovation for the sake of innovation doesn't equal success, but I think if they have a better chance at success with innovation rather than trying to clone something already popular.

     

    Avatar, then John Carter. iPhone, then other touch screen smart phones. World of Warcraft, then other MMO's that play very much the same and look the same. Harry Potter, and other wizarding school books/tv shows/movies etc.

     

    I can't think of one clone that has ever exceeded, met or even came close to the same success as the original product. 

     

    You could argue that WoW and Harry Potter were just timed correctly, but then you could say that about anything that is successful couldn't you? I don't think it has anything to do with the timing, I think it has more to do with either creating something completely new (neither of these two did) or changing something that already exists (which these two did.)

     

    Once you've played WoW, you've played all the WoW clones. My point is, why would I want to play a different skin of WoW when I can just play WoW? Same goes for practically every other product I mentioned.

  • waynejr2waynejr2 Member EpicPosts: 7,768

    http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6450_7-5622055-1.html

     

    The IBM simon was the first touch screen phone.

     

    Harry Potter, I don't see the innovation.

     

    What I see is that marketing and hype are making success.  You are basically demonstrating and supporting the WOW and wow-clone market approach.

     

    http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html  

    Epic Music:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1

    https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1

    Kyleran:  "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."

    John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."

    FreddyNoNose:  "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."

    LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"




  • SaintPhilipSaintPhilip Member Posts: 713
    Originally posted by Cuathon

    You are ignorant. Harry Potter was not innovative as a fantasy novel. There were critically acclaimed, in fact even more critically acclaimed than Harry Potter ever was, books about young wizards, even young wizards going to wizard schools. There were also traditional British boarding school novels. There were even combinations of those genres.

    Harry Potter is a fun book and I liked reading them and I read them all and even bought them right when they came out in hard cover. Nevertheless the Wizard of Earthsea Troligy and associated novels are superior in writing quality and theme. However they came out in an era when fantasy as movies was just not as big a thing and when the genre was far more niche than it is now. It did get a decent quality miniseries thingy with some pretty notable actors. I mean, think how long it took for LOTR to get movies and Earthsea never had a chance.

    You may even note that later Harry Potter movies and books were given far less positive reviews because when Rowling finally did try to write on a level still below but much more similar in its darkness and grittiness and emotional content when compared to Ursula K. Leguin it was a pretty serious failure.

    Twilight was similarly poor and shallow from a literary perspective and was primarily driven by the same market forces as the Backstreat boys and the Spice Girls.

    In fact the evidence actually supports the arguments leveled against world of warcraft from a quality standpoint. Shallow and accessible media offerings receive far more financial success than quality movies. Even the most famous films and actors winning the most Oscars and Emmys and other recognition for quality are nowhere near as successful financially as Harry Potter and Twilight. Star Wars faces a similar situation.

    It is totally impossible to argue that those massively successful financial ventures were on the same level as quality movies like The Godfather, Shawshank Redemption,or Schindler's list.

    If you look at the Oscar nominations of financial blockbusters like Avatar, Titanic, and Lord of the Rings the vast majority of their awards are in technical areas. They almost never win for best actor, actress, picture or screenplay.

     

    The real takeaway is that quality doesn't matter. Simple themes with clearly defined protagonists to root for with very specific qualities and minimal depth combined with excessive visual presentation are what matter. Just as shiny graphics and massive marketing and simple mechanics drive video games, CGI visuals, massive marketing, and simple story themes drives movies.

    LOL- Everything you are sayinbg is 100% true- The OP was correct though in spirit, just used some very bad examples. I was thinking the same thing while reading his post. =P

  • SaintPhilipSaintPhilip Member Posts: 713
    Originally posted by SaintPhilip
    Originally posted by Cuathon

    You are ignorant. Harry Potter was not innovative as a fantasy novel. There were critically acclaimed, in fact even more critically acclaimed than Harry Potter ever was, books about young wizards, even young wizards going to wizard schools. There were also traditional British boarding school novels. There were even combinations of those genres.

    Harry Potter is a fun book and I liked reading them and I read them all and even bought them right when they came out in hard cover. Nevertheless the Wizard of Earthsea Troligy and associated novels are superior in writing quality and theme. However they came out in an era when fantasy as movies was just not as big a thing and when the genre was far more niche than it is now. It did get a decent quality miniseries thingy with some pretty notable actors. I mean, think how long it took for LOTR to get movies and Earthsea never had a chance.

    You may even note that later Harry Potter movies and books were given far less positive reviews because when Rowling finally did try to write on a level still below but much more similar in its darkness and grittiness and emotional content when compared to Ursula K. Leguin it was a pretty serious failure.

    Twilight was similarly poor and shallow from a literary perspective and was primarily driven by the same market forces as the Backstreat boys and the Spice Girls.

    In fact the evidence actually supports the arguments leveled against world of warcraft from a quality standpoint. Shallow and accessible media offerings receive far more financial success than quality movies. Even the most famous films and actors winning the most Oscars and Emmys and other recognition for quality are nowhere near as successful financially as Harry Potter and Twilight. Star Wars faces a similar situation.

    It is totally impossible to argue that those massively successful financial ventures were on the same level as quality movies like The Godfather, Shawshank Redemption,or Schindler's list.

    If you look at the Oscar nominations of financial blockbusters like Avatar, Titanic, and Lord of the Rings the vast majority of their awards are in technical areas. They almost never win for best actor, actress, picture or screenplay.

     

    The real takeaway is that quality doesn't matter. Simple themes with clearly defined protagonists to root for with very specific qualities and minimal depth combined with excessive visual presentation are what matter. Just as shiny graphics and massive marketing and simple mechanics drive video games, CGI visuals, massive marketing, and simple story themes drives movies.

    LOL- Everything you are saying is 100% true- The OP was correct though in spirit, just used some very bad examples. I was thinking the same thing while reading his post. =P

     

  • AIMonsterAIMonster Member UncommonPosts: 2,059

    Honestly OP, there are much better examples than the ones you gave.

    Touch screens were in use long before Apple decided to add them to mobile devices.  Even so, Japan and Korea mobile providers both beat Apple to the punch here.

    3D Movies weren't successful the first few eras they were introduced to movie theatres (it's been done multiple times before) and it certainly isn't the sole reason for Avatar's success.  It's not like Avatar was the first movie to even use that type of 3D camera either, it just did it really well.

    The Hunger Games basically copied loads of concepts from Battle Royale (wikipedia it) from Japan 8 years earlier.  Hardly innovative.  Same with Twilight, it's not like Vampires were first romanticized and marketed to a teen audience before as this was done in the late 80s and early 90s too.

    Same with Harry Potter.  I'm not arguing here whether the books were any good or not, but innovative?  Not really.  Just the sheer number of lawsuits and allegations of copyright and trademark infringement the series brought should be enough to tell you just how innovative it was.

  • StoneRosesStoneRoses Member RarePosts: 1,636
    Originally posted by Cuathon

    You are ignorant. Harry Potter was not innovative as a fantasy novel. There were critically acclaimed, in fact even more critically acclaimed than Harry Potter ever was, books about young wizards, even young wizards going to wizard schools. There were also traditional British boarding school novels. There were even combinations of those genres.

     

    Maybe you should take your own advise before calling someone out.

     

    Creating a better and effective product is innovative, it's not always about making something new.

     

     

    Real Fans of Chess don't get bored!
    Real Fans of Soccer don’t get bored!
    Real Fans of Baseball don’t get bored!
    Real Fans of MMORPGs don’t get bored!
    What's your excuse?
  • AIMonsterAIMonster Member UncommonPosts: 2,059
    Originally posted by StoneRoses
    Originally posted by Cuathon

    You are ignorant. Harry Potter was not innovative as a fantasy novel. There were critically acclaimed, in fact even more critically acclaimed than Harry Potter ever was, books about young wizards, even young wizards going to wizard schools. There were also traditional British boarding school novels. There were even combinations of those genres.

     

    Maybe you should take your own advise before calling someone out.

     

    Creating a better and effective product is innovative, it's not always about making something new.

     

     

    It's not innovative unless it's a truely unique way of doing the product.  If it's simply a more effective product than it's evolutionary, not revolutionary.

  • ValuaValua Member Posts: 520
    Originally posted by StoneRoses
    Originally posted by Cuathon

    You are ignorant. Harry Potter was not innovative as a fantasy novel. There were critically acclaimed, in fact even more critically acclaimed than Harry Potter ever was, books about young wizards, even young wizards going to wizard schools. There were also traditional British boarding school novels. There were even combinations of those genres.

     

    Maybe you should take your own advise before calling someone out.

     

    Creating a better and effective product is innovative, it's not always about making something new.

     

     

    Why can't everyone understand the word Innovation as well as you? 

     

    The examples I used weren't used as the first of their kind or completely new creations, I meant they did something new with something that already existed and did it well, and I think this is why they were met with success.

  • ValuaValua Member Posts: 520
    Originally posted by Magnum2103
    Originally posted by StoneRoses
    Originally posted by Cuathon

    You are ignorant. Harry Potter was not innovative as a fantasy novel. There were critically acclaimed, in fact even more critically acclaimed than Harry Potter ever was, books about young wizards, even young wizards going to wizard schools. There were also traditional British boarding school novels. There were even combinations of those genres.

     

    Maybe you should take your own advise before calling someone out.

     

    Creating a better and effective product is innovative, it's not always about making something new.

     

     

    It's not innovative unless it's a truely unique way of doing the product.  If it's simply a more effective product than it's evolutionary, not revolutionary.

     

    Well then you will have to correct a lot of people calling Guild Wars 2 innovative then won't you, if you believe that is truly the meaning of the word.

  • waynejr2waynejr2 Member EpicPosts: 7,768
    Originally posted by Magnum2103

    Honestly OP, there are much better examples than the ones you gave.

    Touch screens were in use long before Apple decided to add them to mobile devices.  Even so, Japan and Korea mobile providers both beat Apple to the punch here.

    3D Movies weren't successful the first few eras they were introduced to movie theatres (it's been done multiple times before) and it certainly isn't the sole reason for Avatar's success.  It's not like Avatar was the first movie to even use that type of 3D camera either, it just did it really well.

    The Hunger Games basically copied loads of concepts from Battle Royale (wikipedia it) from Japan 8 years earlier.  Hardly innovative.  Same with Twilight, it's not like Vampires were first romanticized and marketed to a teen audience before as this was done in the late 80s and early 90s too.

    Same with Harry Potter.  I'm not arguing here whether the books were any good or not, but innovative?  Not really.  Just the sheer number of lawsuits and allegations of copyright and trademark infringement the series brought should be enough to tell you just how innovative it was.

    When the first iphone came out, we had a worker who was from China and he laughed at the iPhone because phones in Asia had those features for years.  Yet somehow apple fans are blind to that fact..

    http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html  

    Epic Music:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1

    https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1

    Kyleran:  "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."

    John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."

    FreddyNoNose:  "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."

    LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"




  • AIMonsterAIMonster Member UncommonPosts: 2,059
    Originally posted by Valua
    Originally posted by Magnum2103
    Originally posted by StoneRoses
    Originally posted by Cuathon

    You are ignorant. Harry Potter was not innovative as a fantasy novel. There were critically acclaimed, in fact even more critically acclaimed than Harry Potter ever was, books about young wizards, even young wizards going to wizard schools. There were also traditional British boarding school novels. There were even combinations of those genres.

     

    Maybe you should take your own advise before calling someone out.

     

    Creating a better and effective product is innovative, it's not always about making something new.

     

     

    It's not innovative unless it's a truely unique way of doing the product.  If it's simply a more effective product than it's evolutionary, not revolutionary.

     

    Well then you will have to correct a lot of people calling Guild Wars 2 innovative then won't you, if you believe that is truly the meaning of the word.

    Guild Wars 2 isn't really innovative.  It's simply an evolution of the MMO genre in just about every way.  It has very few innovative features, but the features it does have are a huge improvement over the current MMO genre.

    EDIT:  Let me just clarify that I simply don't agree with you OP.  I do not think innovation is equal to success at all.  I can create something truely innovative and it could be an INFERIOR way to do something.  I can also create something that improves on established methods and means and it won't be innovative, but it would certainly be superior.  There are just so many factors on whether something succeeds or not that innovation really isn't as important as people make it out to be.

  • CuathonCuathon Member Posts: 2,211
    Originally posted by Valua
    Originally posted by Cuathon

    You are ignorant. Harry Potter was not innovative as a fantasy novel. There were critically acclaimed, in fact even more critically acclaimed than Harry Potter ever was, books about young wizards, even young wizards going to wizard schools. There were also traditional British boarding school novels. There were even combinations of those genres.

    Harry Potter is a fun book and I liked reading them and I read them all and even bought them right when they came out in hard cover. Nevertheless the Wizard of Earthsea Troligy and associated novels are superior in writing quality and theme. However they came out in an era when fantasy as movies was just not as big a thing and when the genre was far more niche than it is now. It did get a decent quality miniseries thingy with some pretty notable actors. I mean, think how long it took for LOTR to get movies and Earthsea never had a chance.

    You may even note that later Harry Potter movies and books were given far less positive reviews because when Rowling finally did try to write on a level still below but much more similar in its darkness and grittiness and emotional content when compared to Ursula K. Leguin it was a pretty serious failure.

    Twilight was similarly poor and shallow from a literary perspective and was primarily driven by the same market forces as the Backstreat boys and the Spice Girls.

    In fact the evidence actually supports the arguments leveled against world of warcraft from a quality standpoint. Shallow and accessible media offerings receive far more financial success than quality movies. Even the most famous films and actors winning the most Oscars and Emmys and other recognition for quality are nowhere near as successful financially as Harry Potter and Twilight. Star Wars faces a similar situation.

    It is totally impossible to argue that those massively successful financial ventures were on the same level as quality movies like The Godfather, Shawshank Redemption,or Schindler's list.

    If you look at the Oscar nominations of financial blockbusters like Avatar, Titanic, and Lord of the Rings the vast majority of their awards are in technical areas. They almost never win for best actor, actress, picture or screenplay.

     

    The real takeaway is that quality doesn't matter. Simple themes with clearly defined protagonists to root for with very specific qualities and minimal depth combined with excessive visual presentation are what matter. Just as shiny graphics and massive marketing and simple mechanics drive video games, CGI visuals, massive marketing, and simple story themes drives movies.

     

    Innovation doesn't just mean creating something never seen before, it might mean changing something enough so that it is different. 

    There were novels about wizards and wizarding schools before Harry Potter, maybe some in your opinion even better, but J.K.Rowling did something new with the wizard/wizarding school story, which makes it innovative. And then with the insane popularity of Harry Potter came loads of new books about wizards/wizarding schools, none met the same success.

    Earthsea are terrible books in my opinion, so you stating that they are better isn't true, it's your opinion.

    Also you said that Lotr/Earthsea weren't released when fantasy movies were popular, well neither was Harry Potter. The first Harry Potter was released the same year as the first Lord of the Rings movie, these two movies combined made fantasy movies popular, maybe another reason why Harry Potter is innovative.

    I didn't say Twilight was good, but like Harry Potter is innovated the romantic vampire scenario and was met with success, others since that have tried have not met the same success.

    What you say about Schinders List, Shawshank and The Godfather is again down to your opinion, not fact.

    And as for Avatar, Titanic and Lord of the Rings, all were nominated for best picture, Titanic and Return of the King won for best picture, Return of the King for screenplay, and both Titanic and Lord of the Rings also had best actor noms. So I don't see your point here.

     

    The point of my post was, most of the massively successful products (WoW, Avatar, iPhone etc) were either the first of their kind, or did something new with something that already existed. 

    Clones of these products never do well, or at least nowhere near as well as the originals. 

    Please, prove me wrong.

    Harry Potter did not innovate. You didn't do your research. Unless you have read 100 separate ips relating to young wizards and especially ones that went to a "magic school" you are not qualified to make that assessment.

    The mistake that so many people make is that they think their favorite IPs did new things, but they were only new to those people who are ignorant of the history.

    If you think Earthsea is worse than Harry Potter that doesn't make me wrong, it makes you wrong. The literary quality of Earthsea was vastly superior to that of Harry Potter. The same goes for Anne Rice vs Twilight, or any erotic romance ever vs 50 Shades of Grey. Your ignorance does not equate to my incorrectness. No one but fanbois thinks that Twilight or Harry Potter were popular because of their literary quality.

    The story of Avatar was shit. It was noble savage, cultural appropriation, bullshit that was insulting to the historical basis for its Navi and furthermore it was almost a perfect clone of Dances with Wolves and Pochahontas in its entire plot. Its success was purely graphical. You can argue that you said innovation and thus graphics counts, but increasing graphical quality is not exactly news. Graphics = Money has been the rule for several decades. And anyways there was 3D for years before Avatar. Its not new.

    N'Sync was wildly popular and a financial success. Guess what, New Kids on the Block was innovative. N'Sync and the Backstreet Boys were just clones.

    Unless you define innovation so broadly as to be meaningless in which case 99.999% of innovative products are failures.

    Defining innovation so broadly that your selections count as real innovation makes nearly every movie, game, book, or song innovative. And that means that 10000000 to 1, innovation is not successful.

  • StoneRosesStoneRoses Member RarePosts: 1,636
    Originally posted by Valua
    Originally posted by StoneRoses
    Originally posted by Cuathon

    You are ignorant. Harry Potter was not innovative as a fantasy novel. There were critically acclaimed, in fact even more critically acclaimed than Harry Potter ever was, books about young wizards, even young wizards going to wizard schools. There were also traditional British boarding school novels. There were even combinations of those genres.

     

    Maybe you should take your own advise before calling someone out.

     

    Creating a better and effective product is innovative, it's not always about making something new.

     

     

    Why can't everyone understand the word Innovation as well as you? 

     

    The examples I used weren't used as the first of their kind or completely new creations, I meant they did something new with something that already existed and did it well, and I think this is why they were met with success.

    Because some folks on these boards CREATE their own version or definition of what they FEEL the word really means to them.. Just look at what Magnuum2103 did up above right there.

     

    There's the actually meaning of the word and then....there is that guy over there attaching all these rule of thumbs.

    Real Fans of Chess don't get bored!
    Real Fans of Soccer don’t get bored!
    Real Fans of Baseball don’t get bored!
    Real Fans of MMORPGs don’t get bored!
    What's your excuse?
  • StoneRosesStoneRoses Member RarePosts: 1,636
    Originally posted by Magnum2103
    Originally posted by Valua
    Originally posted by Magnum2103
    Originally posted by StoneRoses
    Originally posted by Cuathon

    You are ignorant. Harry Potter was not innovative as a fantasy novel. There were critically acclaimed, in fact even more critically acclaimed than Harry Potter ever was, books about young wizards, even young wizards going to wizard schools. There were also traditional British boarding school novels. There were even combinations of those genres.

     

    Maybe you should take your own advise before calling someone out.

     

    Creating a better and effective product is innovative, it's not always about making something new.

     

     

    It's not innovative unless it's a truely unique way of doing the product.  If it's simply a more effective product than it's evolutionary, not revolutionary.

     

    Well then you will have to correct a lot of people calling Guild Wars 2 innovative then won't you, if you believe that is truly the meaning of the word.

    Guild Wars 2 isn't really innovative.  It's simply an evolution of the MMO genre in just about every way.  It has very few innovative features, but the features it does have are a huge improvement over the current MMO genre.

     

    See another great example of your interpretation of innovation.

    Real Fans of Chess don't get bored!
    Real Fans of Soccer don’t get bored!
    Real Fans of Baseball don’t get bored!
    Real Fans of MMORPGs don’t get bored!
    What's your excuse?
  • CuathonCuathon Member Posts: 2,211

    In order to remove this point from the more personal nature of my previous post:

    When you define innovation so broadly that apple touch products, avatar, wow, harry potter, and twilight are innovations, it invalidates your point that innovation is successful because of the millions of products which then count as innovation, only 1 in a million can be considered successful.

    You can say that those products are innovative but then you let in all the innovations that are not successful and then innovation =/= success.

  • ValuaValua Member Posts: 520
    Originally posted by Cuathon
    Originally posted by Valua
    Originally posted by Cuathon

    You are ignorant. Harry Potter was not innovative as a fantasy novel. There were critically acclaimed, in fact even more critically acclaimed than Harry Potter ever was, books about young wizards, even young wizards going to wizard schools. There were also traditional British boarding school novels. There were even combinations of those genres.

    Harry Potter is a fun book and I liked reading them and I read them all and even bought them right when they came out in hard cover. Nevertheless the Wizard of Earthsea Troligy and associated novels are superior in writing quality and theme. However they came out in an era when fantasy as movies was just not as big a thing and when the genre was far more niche than it is now. It did get a decent quality miniseries thingy with some pretty notable actors. I mean, think how long it took for LOTR to get movies and Earthsea never had a chance.

    You may even note that later Harry Potter movies and books were given far less positive reviews because when Rowling finally did try to write on a level still below but much more similar in its darkness and grittiness and emotional content when compared to Ursula K. Leguin it was a pretty serious failure.

    Twilight was similarly poor and shallow from a literary perspective and was primarily driven by the same market forces as the Backstreat boys and the Spice Girls.

    In fact the evidence actually supports the arguments leveled against world of warcraft from a quality standpoint. Shallow and accessible media offerings receive far more financial success than quality movies. Even the most famous films and actors winning the most Oscars and Emmys and other recognition for quality are nowhere near as successful financially as Harry Potter and Twilight. Star Wars faces a similar situation.

    It is totally impossible to argue that those massively successful financial ventures were on the same level as quality movies like The Godfather, Shawshank Redemption,or Schindler's list.

    If you look at the Oscar nominations of financial blockbusters like Avatar, Titanic, and Lord of the Rings the vast majority of their awards are in technical areas. They almost never win for best actor, actress, picture or screenplay.

     

    The real takeaway is that quality doesn't matter. Simple themes with clearly defined protagonists to root for with very specific qualities and minimal depth combined with excessive visual presentation are what matter. Just as shiny graphics and massive marketing and simple mechanics drive video games, CGI visuals, massive marketing, and simple story themes drives movies.

     

    Innovation doesn't just mean creating something never seen before, it might mean changing something enough so that it is different. 

    There were novels about wizards and wizarding schools before Harry Potter, maybe some in your opinion even better, but J.K.Rowling did something new with the wizard/wizarding school story, which makes it innovative. And then with the insane popularity of Harry Potter came loads of new books about wizards/wizarding schools, none met the same success.

    Earthsea are terrible books in my opinion, so you stating that they are better isn't true, it's your opinion.

    Also you said that Lotr/Earthsea weren't released when fantasy movies were popular, well neither was Harry Potter. The first Harry Potter was released the same year as the first Lord of the Rings movie, these two movies combined made fantasy movies popular, maybe another reason why Harry Potter is innovative.

    I didn't say Twilight was good, but like Harry Potter is innovated the romantic vampire scenario and was met with success, others since that have tried have not met the same success.

    What you say about Schinders List, Shawshank and The Godfather is again down to your opinion, not fact.

    And as for Avatar, Titanic and Lord of the Rings, all were nominated for best picture, Titanic and Return of the King won for best picture, Return of the King for screenplay, and both Titanic and Lord of the Rings also had best actor noms. So I don't see your point here.

     

    The point of my post was, most of the massively successful products (WoW, Avatar, iPhone etc) were either the first of their kind, or did something new with something that already existed. 

    Clones of these products never do well, or at least nowhere near as well as the originals. 

    Please, prove me wrong.

    Harry Potter did not innovate. You didn't do your research. Unless you have read 100 separate ips relating to young wizards and especially ones that went to a "magic school" you are not qualified to make that assessment.

    The mistake that so many people make is that they think their favorite IPs did new things, but they were only new to those people who are ignorant of the history.

    If you think Earthsea is worse than Harry Potter that doesn't make me wrong, it makes you wrong. The literary quality of Earthsea was vastly superior to that of Harry Potter. The same goes for Anne Rice vs Twilight, or any erotic romance ever vs 50 Shades of Grey. Your ignorance does not equate to my incorrectness. No one but fanbois thinks that Twilight or Harry Potter were popular because of their literary quality.

    The story of Avatar was shit. It was noble savage, cultural appropriation, bullshit that was insulting to the historical basis for its Navi and furthermore it was almost a perfect clone of Dances with Wolves and Pochahontas in its entire plot. Its success was purely graphical. You can argue that you said innovation and thus graphics counts, but increasing graphical quality is not exactly news. Graphics = Money has been the rule for several decades. And anyways there was 3D for years before Avatar. Its not new.

    N'Sync was wildly popular and a financial success. Guess what, New Kids on the Block was innovative. N'Sync and the Backstreet Boys were just clones.

    Unless you define innovation so broadly as to be meaningless in which case 99.999% of innovative products are failures.

    Defining innovation so broadly that your selections count as real innovation makes nearly every movie, game, book, or song innovative. And that means that 10000000 to 1, innovation is not successful.

     

    You really need to re-read what you just posted, that whole post was full of biased opinion that you believe is fact.

     

    Who can tell me that Harry Potter is worse than Earthsea? No one. Because it's down to opinion. You think Earthsea is better, I disagree. Doesn't mean I'm wrong.

     

    Same goes with Twilight etc (even though I hate those books.)

     

    Clearly we define innovation differently, how do you define it? I define it as either creating something completely new, or doing some different with something that is already out there (which I think Harry Potter, WoW, Avatar etc did.)

     

    My point was - something becomes popular and meets success, then while this product is still popular/successful other products try to do the same thing in a different skin and don't mee the same popularity/success, and usually fail.

     

    So my point still stands, if you create something innovative (using my definition of the word) you have a better chance at success than cloning something already popular/sucessful.

     

    Can you prove me wrong?

  • ValuaValua Member Posts: 520
    Originally posted by Cuathon

    In order to remove this point from the more personal nature of my previous post:

    When you define innovation so broadly that apple touch products, avatar, wow, harry potter, and twilight are innovations, it invalidates your point that innovation is successful because of the millions of products which then count as innovation, only 1 in a million can be considered successful.

    You can say that those products are innovative but then you let in all the innovations that are not successful and then innovation =/= success.

     

    Maybe I should change the name of the thread to "Innovation = more success than clones."

     

    But I don't think that would matter, we disagree on the definition of the word innovation.

  • AIMonsterAIMonster Member UncommonPosts: 2,059
    Originally posted by StoneRoses

    See another great example of your interpretation of innovation.

    What's your point?  One can say the same with all adjectives of the English language that the degree it accounts for proper use of the word is based on the perception of the speaker.  Think of any other non-absolute adjectives in the English language:  Evil, good, courageous, cowardly, friendly, obnoxious, hostile, etc.  These are all words we use at our discretion based on how we perceive meanings by degree.  To me, none of the OP's examples represent innovation and yes, that's based on my preception of the meaning and the OP obviously has a different one.

    If we are going to call these products innovative then we pretty much have to call just about everything innovative that isn't a direct rip of the original.  It poisons the meaning of the word in my opinion.

  • CuathonCuathon Member Posts: 2,211

    Innovation can be defined as creating a better product or service. If you define better as successful financially, then its a tautology. More financially successful products are more financially successful. That's a meaningless statement.

    2 is equal to 2. Well duh?

     

  • ValuaValua Member Posts: 520
    Originally posted by Magnum2103
    Originally posted by StoneRoses

    See another great example of your interpretation of innovation.

    What's your point?  One can say the same with all adjectives of the English language that the degree it accounts for proper use of the word is based on the perception of the speaker.  Think of any other non-absolute adjectives in the English language:  Evil, good, courageous, cowardly, friendly, obnoxious, hostile, etc.  These are all words we use at our discretion based on how we perceive meanings by degree.  To me, none of the OP's examples represent innovation and yes, that's based on my preception of the meaning and the OP obviously has a different one.

    If we are going to call these products innovative then we pretty much have to call just about everything innovative that isn't a direct rip of the original.  It poisons the meaning of the word in my opinion.

     

    I think it's fair to call everything that isn't a direct rip off of the original innovative, as long as differnent enough to stand on it's own legs and not on the legs of the orignal.

     

    Whereas clones don't really stand on their own legs, and always carry the "very similar to *original product*" etc. Like Rift with WoW, John Carter with Avatar, Sony Tablet with the iPad etc. 

     

    Clearly we disagree on the definition of "Innovation."

  • StoneRosesStoneRoses Member RarePosts: 1,636
    Originally posted by Magnum2103
    Originally posted by StoneRoses

    See another great example of your interpretation of innovation.

    What's your point?  One can say the same with all adjectives of the English language that the degree it accounts for proper use of the word is based on the perception of the speaker.  Think of any other non-absolute adjectives in the English language:  Evil, good, courageous, cowardly, friendly, obnoxious, hostile, etc.  These are all words we use at our discretion based on how we perceive meanings by degree.  To me, none of the OP's examples represent innovation and yes, that's based on my preception of the meaning and the OP obviously has a different one.

    If we are going to call these products innovative then we pretty much have to call just about everything innovative that isn't a direct rip of the original.  It poisons the meaning of the word in my opinion.

     

    Ding, ding , ding, ding, ding...we got a winner!

     

    Innovation

     

     

     

    Real Fans of Chess don't get bored!
    Real Fans of Soccer don’t get bored!
    Real Fans of Baseball don’t get bored!
    Real Fans of MMORPGs don’t get bored!
    What's your excuse?
  • CuathonCuathon Member Posts: 2,211
    Originally posted by Valua
    Originally posted by Cuathon

    In order to remove this point from the more personal nature of my previous post:

    When you define innovation so broadly that apple touch products, avatar, wow, harry potter, and twilight are innovations, it invalidates your point that innovation is successful because of the millions of products which then count as innovation, only 1 in a million can be considered successful.

    You can say that those products are innovative but then you let in all the innovations that are not successful and then innovation =/= success.

     

    Maybe I should change the name of the thread to "Innovation = more success than clones."

     

    But I don't think that would matter, we disagree on the definition of the word innovation.

    You start out defining innovation as more successful and then make a thread called innovation = success.

    That doesn't make sense. There is no argument there, its tautological.

     

Sign In or Register to comment.