this is a big fish to fry.
what makes a game revolutionary?
is revolutionary a buzz word thrown around in the industry for games that don't suck? is that enough to be revolutionary on its own?

2 games that are a current hot-button for controversy when the word revolutionary is thrown around are Bioshock, and Super Mario Galaxy. Both awsome games, but what is it that makes them revolutionary?

Fuck if i know. Bioshock was an excellent shooter, Mario Galaxy is an excellent platformer, but where's the innovation. I think the two words are synonomous. Innovation is what makes something revolutionary, right? maybe? i don't know thats why i'm asking you.

Since i have no clue what the word means, or how to properly use it in a sentence, here's a few games that i consider to be revolutionary, and why.

Street Fighter 2: Introduced complex commands to execute special moves. Someone threw a fireball, you can look high and low for the fireball button, but it ain't there. you gotta move down, down fwd, fwd then press punch and boom! fireball. if you were placed in front of this game with no instruction, you could stand there forever and not figure it out.

Wii Sports: introduced the waggle. it came first. it wins.

Zelda: Saved games on a battery, no complex strings needed to be written down or remembered.

Tecmo Super Bowl: First console sports game with real players and rosters that allow you to reposition players (at least the ones on offense).

Gradius: Shmup with selective powerups. Now par for the corse.

Galaga: the first game to nail risk vs. reward by allowing the player to attempt to double up thier ships at the risk of losing one of them.

Super Mario 64: First console 3d platformer to really nail how to control an avatar in 3d.

Goldeneye: First console game to nail FPS controls.

so am i doing it wrong? can you defend bioshock or galaxy as revolutionary? i ony accept arguments in MLA format. site your sources.