Can't disagree with this. But that's not in Microsoft or Sony's direct control, they make the platform. Imagine a high quality version of Worms on these platforms now. I reckon it would sell like hot cakes.
I stopped at PS 2.
Aside of Sony's Eye toy thingy they released for the PS 2, I'd say their actions prove that they are to blame. Take Nintendo for example, when they come out with a platform and, it's going to be unique because they have been developing a game that can be realized without said hardware. For instance, the Gameboy Advanced lacked a second screen, so they added one. Or the N64 had to sell with limited RAM, so they left room for an expansion so later down the road, gamers could cough out a little extra cash to experience games that took advantage of that memory. Sega did the same thing with the Saturn. They had foresight, something in mind that they had planned long before the hardware existed.
Microsoft and Sony on the other hand are just trying to lure in your run of the mill PC developers who focus on more realistic graphics, and those other things I mentioned above. Essentually they are trying to cate to a demographic, a set audience. A core group of gamers who are expecting a particular kind of paint job, and a certain kind of style. Yes they want things to be newer, bigger, better, beyond the graphics, but what ever that "newer, bigger, better" is, it has to play it safe and build upon the genre of gaming that they all flock to.
It's sort of like sports. There are SOOOOO many variations of sports out there, but if you were to hang out with people who love sports, you'd be convinced that there are really only about two or three. Football, Basketball, and Baseball.... well and maybe fighting. All other forms of sports generally get pushed to the way side, except during the Olympics.
For the video game world, this is unnatural, the modern fan base for video games is unnatural, that is to say the home console market more so than the newere markets with cell phones and the like. Back in the day when video games were still highly experimental, there was nothing but inovation. Mind you, there was a ton of copy cat coding of course, but what I'm saying is that there was no safe formula.
Video games, though large, were still primarily underground, that is to say, in the hands of the developers, and passionate small company heads who hired them. There were no college grad, or old and clueless CEO's who were detached in heart, mind, and spirit from the product they were trying to sell, not to mention the audience. They were not around dictating to those with the real passion as to what they should develop. Granted, it didn't take long for such types to emerge, but in the early days, they were not EVERYWHERE!
Just like how movies, musick, books, religion, and generally all things great and pure have gone. Joy!!!
So anyhow, no jerk off CEO, no clueless old men or women, no cluless and ambition young college grads, just the love of what was being done, and an exploration, because as I said, no standard formula for "platformer" "sports title" "rpg" "action" "shooter", and so on, had been established yet. Games came out generally how ever the programmer(s) imagined it. They could not just refer to DOOM, Dragon's Layer, Super Mario, Half-Life, Knight of the Old Republic, and so on, and say,"aghh, here's what we'll do, we'll make something kind of like Half-Life, but instead you are doing this this and this.
So we had a few copy cats, but a TON of un-orthodoxed video games pretty much all the way up to the Dreamcast era, but then it seemed like the market begin to really come under the grips of "commercial and business sense". Somehow a generation of gamers were born that only liked the same thing over and over again, and it is to this crowd that CEO's pander to. Or the pander to the concept that chidlren, who's minds are like a sponge and can absorb almost anything at a very fast rate, are infact slow, dumb, and clumsy, and therefore need shallow "kids" games, that are not too challenging, not to complex, don't inspire imagination, but they certainly do manage to market what ever they are marketting well... Sponge Bob? The Disney Princess archtype? Other forms of "animation" that are but a slap in the face to animation and story telling greats suhc as Ralph Bakshi, Don Bluth (Dragon's Layer), Chuck Jones, and the like.
I'm generalizing now, tried of typing, but you get the picture.
I dont' think Microsoft needed such and such specs to develop Halo 15, or to make the characters in their games more and more shallow and cliche. It is clear that they had not vision or plan when the Kinect came out, as it released with absolutely nothing that was enjoyable to play with it. In fact I NEVER see any of my XBOX buddies using theirs. Same goes for the Sony Wiimote, I know some good 3rd party games support them, but really, how blatantly can you rip off Nintendo, then turn around and dog on them for this business sense...
...oh wait they recently turned around again and thanked them for being there to rip off. True story.
Anyhow, the game market is crap, long live Nintendo, but shame on them for only putting safety nets at their factories. Ruthless!!!
