Well, I have mixed opinions on the subject. Stereotypes work because they make sense. The problem in many cases isn't a lack of innovation but a lack of quality in writing. In most cases it isn't a problem with what is being created, but how much effort they put into building and explaining it. To be honest in more cases than not when someone decides to be "hyper innovative" you wind up with a lot of pretentious cr@p that oftentimes winds up being more obnoxious than the stereotypes it was intended to get away from.
When it comes to "Space Marines" there is nothing really wrong with the concept. Simply put people in the military wind up being like these guys because military programs are designed to basically break down everything a person is when they go in and replace it with a soldier. Individuality is not as important as disapline, conditioning, and dare I say predictability. Once you achieve that baseline, a piece to be moved in large military engagements, certain people are picked out through testing and such to be given somewhat more autonomy in the Special Forces or whatever, but still have that core military personality which is a benefit for combat troops irregardless of what many people might think.
If a lot of soldiers in differant games seem very similar, that is because they are doing it right. That's how the military is, and the military is pretty much the theme when it comes to warfare and shooters. The same could be argued with other stereotypes in other generes.
Truthfully, I think that like comic books, video games, despite all the diverse themes, could benefit from a deconstructionist/reconstructionist period. Love it or hate it, this is what kept comics and super heroes alive. Basically deconstructionism is when someone takes a theme and intentionally removes all of the stereotypes to show things from a differant perspective. For example creating a world where superhumans don't fight crime all that much but instead use their powers to become a sort of celebrity elite and basically take over the entire existing infrastructure. A telepath like Professor X might for example go to work for the IRS to globally scan for tax evasion (big brother REALLY is watching) as opposed to trying to save the world. Reconstructionism is when you make all the arguements from the Deconstructionist movement and then show how they ultimatly wind up in the right place. People with powers are going to want to do things, being better than everyone else, and that means needing to deal with society and disguise oneself to avoid legal repercussions and so on.
While simplistic in the context of comics a Deconstructionist would argue that it's stupid for say some superbeing to go out and rob banks (a classic stunt) when he could make a fortune by simply selling his powers in most cases. A reconstructionist would point out that no matter how powerful the guy might be, if he wants to make global changes (promote one culture or idealogy, put another one down, cause some kind of global change, or whatever) the very nature of the job means he's going to need resources, and since he's going to be doing part of it (at least) through force given that his powers are what makes it viable, he can't do things totally "above board" without getting lynched through overwhelming force. Criminal activity like robbing banks while hiding in a costume thus becomes more understandabe behavior. We have the "classic" behavior, but more carefully explained or thought out than "Count Repugsive is robbing a bank because it's evil, and we need some reason for super heroes to confront him".
In the context of this discussion, I think the game industry could benefit from getting to the point where they explain WHY Space Marines (and soldiers) are the way they are, which is oddly something most people who aren't military do not understand even if they think they do. Rather than going back into some stereotypical back story of one of the protaganists, what the genere needs is a sort of "Starship Troopers" take on things (not the movies, the book) along with the character development. Perhaps with a couple of attempts to first deconstruct the genere showing why this is nessicary. Say, someone trying to do "Duke Nukem" without the intended satire, that way a counterpoint exists to sort of show why things ending up with the military and it's way of doing things is actually a good thing.
The generes (science fiction, military sci-fi, sword and sorcery, etc..) have gone through all of this in books and such, but many people without a backround of reading these kinds of
novels in great numbers play video games, and would probably gain the greatest benefit from these kinds of movements hitting video game writing for a while.
Such are my thoughts, albiet probably not articulated very well.
Also for those who read this far, I will also say that all jokes about hyper-macho types being "gay", and perhaps what are some seriously intended undertones, I myself have noticed this and think the game industry needs to knock it off. I think what it comes down to is that homosexuality is considered "edgy", it allegedly shows some "bravery" among those who even slightly insert an innuendo, and can rile people up to generate press and contreversy. In most cases there is no real point. Either address it seriously, or don't bother. Regulars to these forums know my overall thoughts on all aspects subject here, but basically what I'm getting at is that irregardless of what I might think of most of this stuff, mostly what we seem to see is the developmental equivilent of some jerk in a classroom trying to get a rise out of people for attention. If they are going to do it, do it right and let the chips fall where they may. "Dragon Age: Origins" did it pretty well overall for example, even if I don't like (and avoid) guy on guy stuff, while some of the stuff that is implied in various games like "Gears Of War" (or so the Internet seems to say, I'm not a fan of the francbhise) seems mostly to be an attempt at rabble rousing, and denial for the sake of rousing even more rabble by doing so.
