Lolrus said:
Any game that's by EA, Activision, etc.
Why? Because they make games to make money instead of giving us enjoyment, making us think or making us think as games as an art form, not just a money printing press. Not to mention that their games are so bland and "safe" it makes me want to slam my head in the door but then people might think I'm crazy, anyway I was going somewhere with this oh yea.
Indie games FTW
(tl;dr at bottom)
Unfortunately gaming IS actually a business. Which means you kind of need to make money.
Take a look at some of the games these companies make. While yes, many of them do sell, and yes there are games made on the simple fact that it sells, quite a few of these games are very good, even if they don't take risks. Indie games are a great addition to the industry, and I applaud them for doing what they do, but the simple fact is that they can't do nearly as much as a premier developer can.
Bland is what some games may be but if you truly feel that way then step up and say so. Bioware (owned by EA mind you...) made a real case and point that developers will listen if you tell them what you want. They can't accommodate everyones ideas, no, but they took the feedback their fans gave them and made a better overall game out of Mass Effect 2.
Saying companies like EA and Activison and their games are terrible, simply because of a lack of pure innovation isn't really the way to go. Should we push the envelope every now and again? Of course. There's plenty of room to try different things. But there's nothing wrong with sticking to a proven formula, so long as it isn't watered down, and it can be improved upon in some way.
We all want our games to do cool things, and I'm generally disappointed when I play a game that isn't very inspired. But there's plenty of games out there that don't do a lot of special things, and yet still create a unique experience. Innovation for the sake of innovation is a good way to lose money. And when you lose money, then you can afford to take even fewer chances.
Don't get me wrong though. EA and Activison are far from saints. But they are companies. They have employees, partners, and CEO's. If they don't turn a profit somehow, people lose jobs. Then less games can be made. But there is certainly room to try daring things. Particularly story wise, there are some places games could go that could offer some amazing experiences that other forms of entertainment and media can't. And with the kind of money these companies have, they could probably do an incredible job.
Indie developers aren't necessarily shackled by the bonds of cash, but they too, have to find a way to make some sort of return on their investment, otherwise they wouldn't be able to keep doing what they love to do. In a way, the sort of need to make a unique experience, otherwise no one will even notice their game.
I love Limbo, Facade, Imortall, and Castle Crashers. But I also like Mass Effect, Halo, Fallout and Battlefield. Most games offer unique experiences in someway, and whether you realize it or not, even indie games draw influence from big titles and sources.
I know most people will point out some odd bits in there but here's the tl;dr version:
Big developers have thousands of employees, so they need to think about profit first, or else peoples jobs could be lost. However, they could also stand to be less complacent, and try to push boundaries more often than they do. Indie dev's need to make unique experiences because without the resources and finances of a big company, it is harder to advertise and make a profit on your work.
Srry for the long off-topic post....
OT: I get a little bit upset at Microsoft's archaic way of running Xbox Live. Their practices and rules are the reason games like Team Fortress 2 are shells of what they could be on Xbox.
