Reflections considering “newness” and “novelty” in the context of Infinite and Breath of the Wild

Halo Infinite taking a Breath of the Wild side

Click above to read the previous post that inspired this one.

I originally ****wrote the previous piece with the intention of trying to identify for my own benefit the similarities in approach between Halo Infinite and The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild (BotW). Yet what I had previously written hadn’t quite got to the crux of what I was aiming for. However, it was still a success as a conversation I had when explaining this very blog post dragged out the very element I was looking for. Still to be developed further, but it is the start I needed.

Part of the research I am currently focusing on is the distinction between “new” and “novelty”. This might seem like a semantic difference, but given the context of my wider research focus, this is a helpful and meaningful distinction to make. Below is a brief description I put together to begin to highlight the difference and its relevance to videogames:

Supporting this is the distinction between novelty and new. This helps to explain how videogames continue to be developed and released but at the same time argue that the form is not different enough to distinguish it as wholly different to what came before. That a lingering presence from the past is impacting the form.

What this means is that the videogames medium can still be stated as providing new pieces of media, but those media pieces lack the novelty that was previously more commonly found. Novelty can apply to both the core (mechanics) and shell (aesthetics) which would previously result in a form that would provide revolutionary change on a more continual basis. Change that would distinguish one era (or console generation) apart from another.

Expanding on those two paragraphs I would argue a videogame can be both novel and new, but can’t be novel without being new, or in other words, a videogame can be new without being novel.

BotW satisfies both categories as it’s both new (latest entry in the series and helped to launch a new system) and is also novel in how it emphasises and enables exploration and freedom in a way that no only distinguishes it from other Zelda games but also many open world games too.

Infinite meanwhile is certainly new, but novel? This is where the distinction gets murkier. On the surface, Infinite is unlike any Halo game that came before it. The closest being Halo 3: ODST which had New Mombasa act as a hub for the player (referred to as Rookie) to traverse between each of the different core missions. The order in which the player goes in is up to them. In hindsight, ODST is likely the most novel entry in the series due to how it’s structured, the slower (but more purposeful) combat, as well as the unique approach taken regarding style and atmosphere. Although, still very much a Halo game, not only due to sharing an engine and multiple enemy types, weapons, etc.

This makes Infinite not as unique as 343 Industries would have us believe. It might be for a game developed by 343, as ODST was developed by Bungie, but again, for a Halo game, elements have been done before. Infinite does take the open world concept further, expanding upon the intentional claustrophobic city and instead providing open spaces from the surface of the Zeta Halo ringworld. It’s the execution of the open world though where Infinite’s novelty is questioned. I previously mentioned how this is underutilised, with special targets and bases to capture being used to mask the otherwise emptiness of the open world. Zeta Halo as a play space is similar to many other open world first-person shooters (FPS’) with areas of interest dotted around the map giving players something to do in an otherwise empty space. This approach is certainly new (for the most part), especially for 343 Industries when compared to Halo 4 and 5, but that does not distinguish it as something novel within the videogames medium as a whole.

Does every videogame need to be novel? No, and I don’t think that would be achievable. I have neglected to make abundantly clear what new is? If Halo Infinite can be considered new, then what does not count as new? This is surprisingly difficult, which is ironic considering my research is - to put it (perhaps too) simply - argue that videogames aren’t doing creating anything new anymore. Is a port [rerelease] of a videogame (whether that be a current videogame or an older videogame) new? Technically yes as it is new to whatever platform it is being released on, but the game itself is not, so I would argue that this would not count as new. What about a remaster [or even a remake]? Again, the videogame itself is not new, but work has gone into it to update it which therefore distinguishes it somewhat from the original. In this instance, I feel like we get into a “Ship of Theseus” argument.

This argument is continued in a following post:

The “Ship of Theseus” and Remasters/Remakes

*ultimately what I’m arguing is that there is a shortage of novelness in contemporary videogames.