Innovation in the games industry, like making an elaborate cake or disarming a nuclear weapon, is a dangerous thing. If the ‘innovator’ gets it right, then the entire industry benefits, it catches on and gamers across the world make use of their ground-breaking ideas, it becomes a staple in the videogames industry. They get it right, and the world of videogames becomes easier, more interesting and more fun for developers and gamers alike. Just look at the analogue stick, four-player gaming, the rumble pack, the D-pad, online games.

If they get it wrong, however, it’s a potential disaster. If it doesn’t catch on in the industry like the afore-mentioned modernizations and advances in gaming, then they lose out. What they believe to be innovative may be labelled ‘gimmicky’ or ‘impractical’ or ‘ridiculous’ by others. It only innovates; it only advances the industry if it works, and if the consumers are convinced that buying the product will change their videogames for the better. If not, you failed to innovate at all, no matter how revolutionary your machine might be. Your cake is burnt, and your bomb goes off.

Examples? Nintendo’s Virtual Boy is one of the most notable ‘innovative’ games consoles of gaming history, and only because it failed. Nintendo are one of the most innovative companies out there when it comes to gaming, but even they can mess up on occasion. The Virtual Boy, designed by the same man who made the legendary Game Boy, was a superb, original idea in theory, but in practise it failed to deliver and was a colossal flop. To date, its Nintendo’s only failed console – because although Nintendo tried to innovate, they couldn’t make it work. Considering it came from the same mind that made the most successful games console of all time, it certainly is a little odd that Nintendo couldn’t quite pull off the Virtual Boy.  It’s the downside of creativity – it can be hampered by technology, and by the views of the market being aimed for.

The DS also has the potential to follow this trend. It’s innovative, its original, it’s a canvas for developer creativity – as long as the developers don’t use that canvas as a tablecloth, use a games machine that could house a work of art as a place to store their back catalogue of N64 games, we’ll be fine.  If they do, Nintendo failed to innovate, and another opportunity is wasted. The key to innovation is balance – make it different without alienating the market. With the DS, I fear Nintendo have almost got it spot on, but are leaning slightly to one side, allowing the developers to easily port old last-gen titles. If they aren’t careful, the DS runs the risk of being a novelty, a pocket sized gimmicky Nintendo 64.

As far as home consoles are concerned, Nintendo have had to stick to tradition, follow the straight and narrow road of games production, even while the bigger companies tried to ram them into the gutter. Somehow, they’ve managed to stay on the tracks without being derailed, so far. They’ve tried to be different without straying too far off the path. It has become very difficult for Nintendo, however. If you look at the Sony PSP or Microsoft’s Xbox, you realise that creativity is still hampered by technology – not because the technology isn’t good enough, but because it’s too good.

It is for this reasons that I see E3 2005 as a pivotal moment in Nintendo’s history. Revolution is going to be unveiled at E3. Are they going to make a machine that will be completely different from the competition? I hope so, but if they do, there is a chance that it won’t catch on. Gamers won’t like it, it will not sell, developers will be lazy, and in the end, Nintendo take a beating. And after the Virtual Boy, and with all this extra competition, I doubt Nintendo can take another – they’re run out of Power Stars, they aren’t invincible anymore. The machine, no matter how new or ‘revolutionary’ it may seem at first, will only innovate if it does just that – advance the games industry. It’s one thing being original, but to truly ‘innovate’ Nintendo must not only be different, but make their competitors think, ‘Erk, we should have done that!’ They need to advance the entire industry with Revolution, make other companies follow their example. Nintendo are on their last life as far as home systems are concerned. If the Revolution does not revolutionise the industry, it could well be game over.

It is the software that makes a console revolutionary – that is the way it will be with the DS, and that will determine whether the DS succeeds or fails. The same is true of Revolution. If Nintendo make an astounding console but developers fail to produce the right games for it, then Nintendo haven’t really innovated at all. And without Nintendo innovating, what will become of our industry? I guess we’d better look to EA for the answer to that question…

James Hamilton