As people age, they tend to gain the ability to analyze the world around them in-depth much more so than as children. When it comes to video games, the easiest example of this would be a child saying that '"a game is fun" whereas an older player would be able to critically break down the technical aspects of their experience with a game and tell you why the game is enjoyable. People also clearly tend to enjoy reading critical analysis, as evidenced by websites such as this one, so it makes sense that more people also enjoy critically dissecting games themselves. While this in no immediate way is a bad thing, I feel that it may have caused some strife between gamers and their expectations of games these days. We tend to analyze everything in games now, as well as compare the quality of games today to the games of the past. It's not uncommon to hear statements such as "games are nowhere near as good as they used to be", citing reasons such as complexity or having a complete package on launch as opposed to having numerous patches and planned DLC. This tends to leave a lot of gamers rather cynical, especially in the wake of whatever heavily hyped AAA title is on the horizon, and this turns to a lot of accusations of games being overrated, journalists being corrupted, and publishers being downright evil. It's hard not to be cynical when everyone around you is absolutely miserable, and this in turn can cause some people to lose interest in video games all together.
There are plenty of questionable elements of the video game industry, but I'm sure they've all been beaten into a fine horsey paste by now. I'm primarily more concerned about such opinions of games not being fun anymore. Too many samey shooters, brown 'n bloom, yet another fucking indie puzzle-platformer, nickle and diming to get the most out of a game, games not being nearly as good as so-and-so said it would be; why deal with all of that bullshit when I can just toss a cartridge into my old console or boot up an emulator and play something that's a little more straight-to-the-point when it comes to me having a good time? Perhaps I could go a little earlier up the road of history and play a complex CRPG with plenty of complex themes, dialogue, and customability of my character's skills and personality through numbers? Gaming sure was a lot better back in the day, right?
Well, not exactly.
You see, whatever you think of modern games will only be up to you. If you don't enjoy newer games, then so be it. Your opinion will always be yours, no matter how terrible it probably is. That being said, isn't it a little unfair to say that the quality of games is in a downright decline? Games are more popular than ever, great review scores are plenty common, and the industry is becoming more and more synonymous with popular culture as a whole. Surely, if games were really that shitty, they wouldn't be so popular, right? "Fucking casuals", it may be. "Tasteless plebs that suckle on the teat of IGN, who in turn guzzles the cash that EA gives them for '9/10 it's OK' scores. They're the ones that are ruining everything! The cancer killing video games!" While I'm not really in much agreeance with IGN when it comes to, well, just about anything that didn't originally come from 1up.com (rest in peace), it could also just be that the game is enjoyable on some degree. While I definitely feel like some games are a bit on the overrated side (Far Cry 3, very much so), clearly someone enjoyed it enough to give it a good score, and maybe that's just how that individual feels about the game. A critic's opinion doesn't have to mirror my own, after all.
That being said, it's actually pretty evident that the overall quality of games has been much, much higher this generation than any before. It's not hard to go to a game store and spot a lot of games that you feel that you can enjoy, or build up a huge wishlist of games on Steam. Protip: If you look for games that you believe that you can have fun with instead of looking for your next obsession or the best game on the market, you may find it easier to enjoy more games from this gen. The Quality to Crap Ratio is heavily lenient on the quality side, and if you think otherwise, then maybe you just haven't played enough true shit.
Thankfully, the past is filled with shit. Let's look at the ratio through the numerous console gens to get an idea of just how good we have it.
Second Generation First of all, I'm not going to dive into the entire generation (exclusively the Atari VCS/2600) simply due to my own lack of exposure. Second of all, this is going to start off really easily. The Atari VCS (or 2600 if you prefer) was the console that launched an entire industry by having a cartridge slot that could allow for multiple games to be played on a single system, instead of having a game pre-built into the console. While Atari was originally the only company producing games for the console, a little publisher known as Activision came about and became the first third-party publisher and developer for a video game console, creating some of the platform's most beloved titles such as Pitfall! and River Raid (two of my personal favourites). Soon after, more and more companies were making video games on the VCS besides Atari, and the results were...rather infamous.
If you honestly don't know about the Video Game Crash of 1983-1985, it was basically a period when the overall quality of games on the VCS had taken such a drastic plunge that nearly everybody stopped playing video games altogether. Video games had gotten so awful that no one wanted to play them anymore, and there were so many of them. What was once a sensation had fizzled into a fad, and the only people playing Atari were kids who got consoles as hand-me-downs from siblings who just didn't care anymore. Stores didn't want to sell games, no one wanted to buy games, and the games that stuck around found themselves in bargain bins for the price of the average iOS title. Clearly, games were pretty terrible at this point.
While there are certainly fondly remembered titles such as Yars' Revenge, Combat, Super Breakout and, of course, Pong, everyone had already played these titles for what they were worth, and nothing new was worth playing, let alone buying. To reiterate, the market had been flooded by so many shitty games that the entire industry died for about two years. While there were other factors to the crash, this is by far the most notorious.
Third Generation Easily one of the most fondly remembered generations in gaming, this era brought us the Nintendo Entertainment System, as well as some other platforms such as the Sega Master System. The NES is the console that most people care about from this gen, so I'm going to focus on that.
Nintendo was seen almost as some sort of messiah to the industry, as the introduction of the NES also meant the introduction to some of the greatest games of all time. You know, your Marios, your Zeldas, your Metroids, and all that fun stuff. Nintendo also introduced strict guidelines for publishers hoping to release games on their console to make sure another crash like with the VCS would not repeat itself. While many of these were related to censorship, others included a publisher only being allowed to release five games a year to prevent over-saturation and even enforcing a lockout chip called the 10NES that would prevent unauthorized games from working with the console. Officially authorized games were given the Nintendo Seal of Quality, but sadly, this turned out to be a bit of a misnomer.
Would you be surprised if I told you the first Kunio-kun game was awful?
On the contrary, many not quality games hit the NES over the years, and I'm sure everyone can name at least one bad game to compliment one good one. River City Ransom and Double Dragon are classics on the console, but what about other Technos Japan beat 'em ups like Renegade or Double Dragon II or III? Terrible! Why play a good licensed game like Ducktales or Batman when you could play something like Total Recall or Bill & Ted's Excellent Video Game Adventure? Heinous! Of course, how could I mention terrible NES games without mentioning LJN and Acclaim? Absolutely disgusting! More so, while Nintendo tried its hardest to control what games were to be released on the system, unauthorized games were still very much a thing on the NES. While some of these weren't very offensive (mainly in Tengen's case, who had RBI Baseball and their own brand of Tetris with 2-player support), some of the more infamous ones include games made by Wisdom Tree, a company known for producing absolute dreck based on The Bible. Sacrilegious!
Overall, the NES had more than enough quality titles to not only revitalize interest in the video game industry, but to also give it top billing as one of the greatest video game consoles of all time. It's worth noting however, that if one is feeling masochistic or wants to get re-equated with some terrible games as a reminder of how far we've come, the NES is a fantastic place to start.
Fourth Generation This is an interesting generation, since now the technology in the consoles was far more capable of depicting richer storylines and more complex gameplay with a much more polished presentation overall. However, it also seems a lot easier to pick out the crap from the cream of the crop, and while games are definitely getting better, there's still some sifting to do.
So help me God if you pick something here that's not Demon's Crest...
Like I said, good games seemed a lot easier to pick out in this era. Whether it was a beautiful RPG from Squaresoft or a more experimental one from Enix, a top-notch fighting game from Capcom or SNK, Konami pushing hardware limitations and making some damned-fine licensed games, Nintendo's usual greats, or Sega's solid arcade conversions and willingness to try new things even with established formulas, there's a lot to love from this generation of consoles. The Game Boy even proved that portable video games didn't have to mean dealing with those shitty Tiger Electronic handheld "games" and could be just as fun as anything on a console. Yes, good games were getting easier to spot, but that doesn't mean that bad games didn't just go away.
I think a good word to describe the drivel on these consoles would be "exploitative", as a large number of awful games from this time seem to be either licensed or basing itself on the popularity of a genre, but terribly. Licensed games based on products is nothing new, but Shaq Fu? Chester Cheetah's Too Cool to Fool? Come on, someone has to be pulling my leg with these games, but they exist. Dear lord, they exist. Of course, there are the usual licensed games based on popular properties like Batman or whatever, but some of these shitty games are just fucking weird. I don't think I'll ever be able to wrap my head around why someone would want Captain Novolin, which literally says on the front of the box "An action-adventure game about diabetes". Who in the name of everloving fuck wants to play a game about diabetes, especially a terrible platformer about diabetes? Yuck.
As for that "basing itself on the popularity of a genre" bit, one needs to look no further than platformers and fighting games. Terrible platformers were common on the NES, but terrible platformers starring animal mascots with 'tude? THAT'S SO 90'S! With the release of Sonic the Hedgehog, Mario had some real competition. With that, many lesser companies decided to give Sonic some competition with some real stinkers, such as Awesome Possum and Bubsy (both games with lengthy subtitles, I might add). Games like this ended up missing the point as to why Sonic, Mario and similar platformers were so popular; tight controls, great music, healthy challenge, memorable visuals and well thought out variety. These games didn't have those. At all.
Great, Saturday morning ethics...
Fighting games were in a similar situation, with a slew of arcade fighters attempting to be the next Street Fighter II or Mortal Kombat. Some of these games shamelessly attempted to copy the digitized sprites and gore of MK thinking that it would lead to success, but failed miserably, to say the very least (though it certainly didn't help that MK was never the greatest fighter around). Capcom and SNK got a lot of competition themselves from lesser fighters (a lot of them on SNK's Neo Geo platform) that desperately wanted to be the next SF II, but in the same scenario as the MK ripoffs, whether it was the poor controls, graphics, characters or gimmicks, many of these games were ignored or ridiculed. That being said, there actually were some truly intriguing fighting games around this time that never got the popularity they might have deserved (Breakers Revenge, anyone?), but they ended up being lumped in with the rest of the crap.
Karnov's Revenge is FAR from a good game, but at least you can fight an Ox!
A special slot also has to be given to Sega's console add-ons, mainly the Sega CD and the 32X. The Sega CD has some appeal to it, mainly with games like Snatcher, Sonic CD, and some games from Working Designs. On the other hand, we have Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch: Make My Video. Yep, that speaks volumes. Aside from that, the console is mainly known for a slew of FMV based games with very little actual gameplay. They were meant to be like playing a movie, but the movies were terrible and so were the games. The 32X is just...junk. Seriously, I can't defend this piece of shit whatsoever. Aside from one of the best home ports of Virtua Racing, this atrocity ruined everything it touched, including a shoddy port of Virtua Fighter and one of, if not the worst version of Doom ever made. Mercifully, the 32X didn't last very long.
I hate myself, and I want to die.
To be fair, jumping into an entirely new dimension is bound to be rough. Going from sprite-based games to polygons would have been an unfamiliar experience for just about everybody, and the chances of failure would have been very high. That being said, I find it remarkable that the Quality to Crap Ratio is really going to start equaling off at this point, though there's still tons 'o shit to deal with. Thankfully, most of this is at the end of the gen.
The three main consoles this gen were the Sega Saturn, the Nintendo 64 and the Sony PlayStation, though there were a couple of other, far lesser consoles. The 3DO was mostly known for Road Rash, an excellent port of Super Street Fighter II Turbo, and a load of crap. The Atari Jaguar, Atari's last home console and the so called "first 64-bit console", was known for the debut of Rayman and also a load of crap. Coincidentally, both consoles themselves are a load of crap.
Trip Hawkins founded EA and 3DO, and he's also really good at looking like an asshole.
The Saturn had a rough go in North America, with no major Sonic titles outside of Sonic 3D Blast and Sonic R to really sell the system while the PlayStation proved much more promising at the time. Both consoles had some cross-platform games of varying quality, but the general consensus was that the Saturn was better at 2D while the PS1 was better at 3D. Both consoles had quality games, but the PlayStation simply got more in the end, and the Saturn faded to obscurity in the West. Meanwhile, the N64 was super late (just as the SNES was in relation to the Genesis), but Nintendo made up for it with their own excellent games...kind of. Not to say that Nintendo's games this generation were anything less than fantastic, but by choosing to stick with the expensive and limiting cartridge format, many third-party publishers chose to go to the PlayStation, with it's much larger capacity and cheaper CD format. As a result, the library for the N64 was rather minuscule in comparison to the large wave of titles on the NES and SNES. The difference in games between the N64 and the PS1 (going off by Wikipedia) is 387 to 7,918, an absolutely staggering difference, though these are worldwide numbers and not specific to one country.
Cross-platform games between N64 and PS1 weren't very common due to the N64's puny 64MB cartridges. How Resident Evil 2 managed to work on that console is nothing short of a miracle.
With so many games on the PS1, there's bound to be some absolute garbage. While some of the games from this era are indeed poor because of the shift to 3D games development, some games specific to the PlayStation were almost intended to be shitty. Closer to the release of the PlayStation 2, a new series of $10 budget titles were released to the unsuspecting public, and they ate that shit up. One of the most popular titles would be a game called Spec Ops: Stealth Patrol, an absolutely atrocious game that was actually the fourth game in a series of military shooters that wouldn't be redeeming in the slightest until Spec Ops: The Line from 2012, and was popular enough to receive three more games on the PS1.
This shit caused some psychological trauma, all right.
While the PS1 had its budget games towards the later half of its life-cycle, both the N64 and the PS1 had their fair share of crap throughout the generation. Me-too platformers and fighting games were still around, and while they weren't as numerous, there were still games like Bubsy 3D, Punky Skunk, Mace: The Dark Age and Bio-Freaks hanging around. Licensed games based on movies and superheroes were as lousy as ever, with the most obvious of them all being Superman 64, but others featuring Iron Man and Batman were also atrocious.
While not necessarily bad games, this was also an era were gamers were easier to impress than usual, what with the advent of polygons and all. It also helps if you were at an impressionable age at this time of gaming, so there tended to be quite a few overrated games from this era (though I'll refrain from giving any names, as much as I really want to). More so than that are games that just haven't aged terribly well. It may have been once-impressive graphics or niggling issues that were once easy to overlook, but games once considered good or great for their time are pretty hard to play in this day and age. Less than considerate camera systems, warping textures on PS1, grid-based movement systems, crate-pushing puzzles. You know, bullshit that we don't have to deal with anymore. Again, it was a time of experimentation, and not everything was guaranteed to work that well. Still, it makes some of the highest-regarded games of the era hard to play in a new-age sense, or even look at in some cases.
This impressed people at one time. How horrible.
Even with the follies, this generation was a considerable leap over the past. Not only were games now in full 3D, but with this new dimension came huge undertakings for the entire industry to live up to. Games like Super Mario 64 and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time boasted revolutions in terms of control and scope, Metal Gear Solid gave games the presentation of a movie while still being its own self-contained experience (unlike those FMV games from earlier), multiplayer console gaming became much more popular with the N64's four controller ports and party-friendly games like Super Smash Bros. and Goldeneye 007 while online PC gaming was becoming more and more popular with the advent of games like Quake and Unreal Tournament, and consoles could now much more accurately handle arcade ports. Storylines in games were also becoming longer, more complex, and less juvenile. Speaking of complexity, games were also becoming more in-depth than ever before, especially on the PC with excellent exclusives such as Baldur's Gate, Fallout, System Shock, Planescape Torment and Deus Ex focusing on impacting user decisions, challenging narrative and in-depth stat building. Video games were finally tapping into their true potential.
Bioshock Infinite may have its 1999 Mode, but it still can't even approach the complexity, depth and terror of System Shock 2.
The last generation of video games featured a diverse host of experiences and new ideas. What better way to showcase this than to point out the launch of the PlayStation 2, which saw a staggering 28 games on day one in North America and featured a wide variety of genres including racing, extreme sports, strategy, RPG, FPS, fighting and even mech sim. The PS2 literally had something for everyone from the start, and this appeal led to its success and domination for the entire generation, lasting well over a decade in total.
SSX was arguably the star of the PS2 launch and was one of the most refreshing extreme sports games in ages. It's still lots of fun, too!
Developers were perhaps even more experimental than ever before, with such games as Katamari Damacy, Mister Mosquito, Phantom Dust, Cubivore, Under the Skin and more providing unique concepts which didn't always work but were welcome changes of pace anyway. Even Nintendo broke out of tradition this generation and tried some new ideas with Mario, Zelda and Metroid, and some of the new IPs from them were wacky and wonderful, like Pikmin and Warioware. Games that would have otherwise stayed in Japan were given a chance elsewhere, and they sometimes led to great success, meaning that gamers were certainly willing to try something new and weird as long as it was a great time.
This is a Nintendo game. It's fucking fantastic.
[left]It's arguable that the original Xbox wouldn't have gotten anywhere without Halo, but its release changed the way first person shooters felt on consoles in terms of control, health management and local multiplayer. It may be a bit underwhelming now, but it's hard to go back to older console shooters without having the dual-analog setup and the overall "tightness" of the controls that Bungie nailed with Halo. Its success led to more third-party support and cross-platform games as well as (timed) exclusives such as Splinter Cell, which would all contribute to the popularity of the platform. While the Sega Dreamcast kickstarted online console gaming this generation, Xbox Live would greatly expand upon it and create an online experience to rival that of PC gaming...at a price. Still, online gaming as we know it really got its start here, with games like Halo 2 and Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow justifying the cost of Xbox Live, and even some cross-platform games having more online benefits or even online play at all being exclusive to the system, such as Guilty Gear XX# Reload, Dead or Alive Ultimate and Capcom vs. SNK 2.
I'd much rather play Doom or Quake personally, but it would be ignorant to say that the debut of Captain King wasn't a big deal.
In terms of lesser games, they seemed to stem more from disappointment than of being turds from the start. While there was still licensed garbage, most of the memorably lame games were indeed memorable due to them not living up to their full potential. Interesting concepts that didn't go far enough can be attributed to disappointments such as The Getaway, Wreckless: The Yakuza Missions, Driv3r, Stuntman, Auto Modellista, The Bouncer, and more. There were also some predictable turds, especially after the release of Grand Theft Auto III, which included a huge, fully explorable 3D city and plenty of mature themes and gameplay to make it particularily notorious to the concerned parent and politician groups. Many other games tried to capture its gritty violence or sandbox gameplay and failed miserably, very much how games attempted to ape the success of Mario, Sonic, or Street Fighter II years earlier. This led to a surge of "urban" games like 50 Cent: Bulletproof, 187 Ride or Die, Beat Down: Fists of Vengeance and the defiling of the Final Fight franchise known as Final Fight: Streetwise. While not all of these games were trainwrecks (like True Crime: Streets of LA or Urban Reign), they sure were an embarrassing short stint for video games.[/left]
Goddammit Kyle, this isn't Seven Sons at all! Shit Kyle, get it together! Fuck it, Kyle! God fucking dammit!
Overall, last gen was an amazingly diverse time for games. Excellent games ranging from every genre and country of origin blessed every console, though admittedly not evenly (the PS2 got the vast majority of the software, the GameCube didn't have the strongest third-party support, and the Dreamcast died a very premature death), and games were now more popular than they ever were before. What could possibly go wrong?
To many people out there, a lot.
With the popularity of video games now at an all-time high, there were much broader expectations to cover. Now developers had to make games that appealed to the widest diversity of people possible, not just "gamers". Now a days, a lot of people play video games, and unfortunately, Katamari just doesn't appeal to everybody. Developers had to make the games more immediately fetching, more appealing from the get-go, and more... accessible to people who maybe aren't the best at games but still want to buy that sick-looking game that they saw on TV and like it enough to buy the next game in the series. The problem here is that appealing to everybody doesn't actually appeal to everybody.
See, by making a game that appeals to the masses, the fans who have stood loyal by a franchise or expect a game to be the continued evolution of conventions introduced in the late 90's/early naughts tend to be disappointed by a game that doesn't directly adhere to their expectations. Whether games lack complexity or "gently guide the player through an experience", it's enough to make these games absolute shit before they're even released. If a game turns out to be boring is one thing, but for a game to be completely terrible because it doesn't feature a number-based stats system or a maze-like level layout? I'm thinking that's a bit of a stretch.
A common and predictable example would be a Call of Duty game. The modern CoD (but not necessarily a CoD in modern times) features a linear path for the player to go down with exploring not being an option, a simple objective that usually consists of "go here" or "shoot those dudes" that is not only indicated by a dot on the screen with a distance meter, but also being told what to do by NPCs (Ramirez, etc.), and tons of setpieces. It's a simple, literally straightforward game that is more equivalent to a roller-coaster ride then slogging your way knee deep in the dead on a glorified and gorified key-hunt, but is this necessarily a bad thing?
Not entirely inaccurate.
The thing is, this is the Call of Duty experience. It has been specific to Call of Duty since 2003, as well as other shooters even beforehand, and it has proven itself to be a damned successful formula. It's meant to be a relatively simple shooter that constantly impresses the player with setpeices as they continue along a path, and while it's certainly not without its flaws (dying and repeating segments, or replaying in general, is nowhere near as fun as the first time around), it has proven to be entertaining enough to the point that many other shooters also copy this formula. This is where I think the real problem lies.
CoD's formula made it special years ago, but now its just about everywhere. What was once an extraordinary FPS experience has now become just the average shooter, much like a Corvette and how it's just the average American sports car. It's been done to death and it doesn't stand out from the crowd anymore. Many other shooters with all sorts of different themes use this formula, but they all tend to leave this impression that they've been done somewhere before. It's especially crippling when said game has legitimate issues, such as broken AI or enemy pathfinding, and the smoke-and-mirrors effect used to distinguish it from CoD erodes away, revealing yet another average FPS.
Not many games have summed up the blandness of this gen as much as Homefront. Could you even tell this was a Homefront screenshot, or maybe some other shooter?
I pick on first person shooters because clearly they are the most popular genre of game these days. The problem with this generation of games is not that they're necessarily bad, but mainly uncreative. Ideas and concepts that have been done to death keep being brought up in newer games with little innovation. Every game feels like another game to some degree. It could be cookie-cutter indie games, cover based shooters (with platforming elements), generic anime-style JRPGs and strategy RPGs, post-apocalyptic settings, or what have you. Of course, trends and tropes are always going to happen (see those animal mascot platformers again, if you dare), but that doesn't necessarily mean that the games themselves are bad. While it's hard to do well with something like Soldier of Fortune: Payback (which is a shame, considering the original games' quality), even games that look generic on the surface can still be quite fun and well made. A game like Binary Domain may look like Gears of War with robots, but it's honestly been one of the most entertaining cover-based shooters I've played in quite some time, and I personally wish more people would give it a chance (it's $5 on Amazon all the time!).
It may look like a generic shooter, but Binary Domain was nothing if not a pleasant surprise.
Furthermore, games that tend to stray from past conventions in a series, maybe in the form of a reboot or re-imagining, may be different from their peers, but they can still prove to be entertaining games on their own right. Games like Hitman: Absolution, Bionic Commando 2009 and DmC: Devil May Cry were different from past expectations and were detested by the gaming community, and while none of these games are perfect or what I expected from a new game in their respective series, they still proved to be good games that I thoroughly enjoyed. Perhaps I just had an open mind for these games, but I actually enjoyed them more than some others that the gaming community welcomed with open arms (Far Cry 3, again). I personally don't think that a game should be punished just for being a bit different.
Not all of the changes were for the better, but I still found Absolution to be a fun stealth game.
So what does make a shitty game nowadays? Typically, the same things that have made games shitty in the past, including terrible AI, abhorrent glitches and bugs, unappealing graphics, wretched music, and the like. A bad game would be something like Tao Feng on the Xbox, a broken and abysmal fighting game hyped up on the premise of being designed by Mortal Kombat co-creator John Tobias more then being designed as a good game, in comparison to a "bad" game like Street Fighter x Tekken which, while not nearly as polished as it should have been, is still fun enough to warrant at least giving it a try. A bad game would also be something like Yaris, an adver-game on the Xbox 360 that promoted the Toyota Yaris by being possibly the worst game I have played in decades, in comparison to...well, just about anything that isn't Yaris.
The bright side to all of this is that games like Yaris are in the very small minority now. While consoles like the Wii, with its cheap development costs and huge user base, attract a lot of shovelware that people should just know better to avoid, most games released these days tend to be pretty damn good. Perhaps its due to an overly-competitive market, what with the rising costs of games making publishers feel that they constantly need a megahit, a lot of truly fun, if not always amazing games are always being released. I would have honestly expected more shit like Rouge Warrior, but mercifully I have been spared. As long as you're not constantly looking for a Game of the Year or even Game of the Month and simply open your mind a little more, there's still a lot of fun to be had with video games.
Think of it this way: You could have missed out on Deadly Premonition. How terrible would that have been?
This brings me back to the issue of creativity. Clearly, there is a lack of it, but that doesn't translate to the entire industry drowning in a pool of its own shit. That being said, it would certainly be nice to have publishers willing to take risks with radically different ideas, something I feel is rarely done. Dishonored was praised for being a bold new IP, but why does it have to be the exception? Is the risk of failure really that great as to prevent new IPs and ideas from getting a shot at the marketplace?
I'll end this entry on a question: Would you rather see more creative games that may or may not work out, or would you rather see more overall entertaining games that don't push the envelope of creativity?[/left]