Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lucien21
The more appropriate question would be.
What does the game buying public have against innovation?
Because if [innovative titles] sold [well, developers] would make [them].
Standard Supply and Demand model.
|
Hive mind mentality is common when it comes to purchasing non necessities. The current popularity of Sony and how through slick advertising and marketing it triumphed over the 'made in japan' label stigma that dogged it in the past (especially in America) is a great example of how demand can be manufactured as well as supply.
Individuals may desire innovation, but the majority of people will buy what the hive mind tells them to buy, because what drives them to buy it in the first place IS the hive. Convincing the hive to buy something different is tricky because it goes against what's normal for the hive, to alienate differences. Sony did it, Apple sorta did it (many would claim the iPod has become a sellout of a different nature).
As for developers wanting to make innovative titles, they may well bemoan having to make "shoot-em-all 5" but the likelyhood of all of their 'innovative' titles being interesting or fun to play is pretty low.
People often point to the ammount of shooter titles on the market, I liken the shooter title to the fancy assed columns of the baroque age. The shooter is just the natural progression of the best you can do with the existing medium. They're finally getting so fancy looking people are just starting to wonder if all the stupid curves and doohickeys make much difference. A shooter is a shooter and a marble column is a marble column.
Ok so I'm waffling, but I have high hopes for the Nintendo brick-remote-sword-tennis-racket-thingy... or something like it... I think it or something else wildly different to the keyboard and monitor method of entertainment delivery is needed if we ever want to see anything more than
curly bits of decoration on a pillar that holds up the roof first person shooters.
