Hmm I think you are the only critic nowadays that I often agree with but end up writing against because of the extent and zealous attitude of your rants/trolls/comments... I get it you are super outspoken and satyric... But in your criticism, you end up supporting ideas that are just as wrong, or ridiculizing in such way that it's hard to support your point.
I have always pointed out that Innovation is not in itself a good thing. I often say that "New is not always better, but better is always new" so we developers should focus on striving for improvement rather than innovation since improvement will generate better newer ideas. And up to here we agree perfectly.
But thing is you are saying that there is nothing wrong with derivativeness. Which is a lot more questionable... Darksiders is a game that I liked, but i doubt anyone can deny that it is completely forgettable... and to be honest it didn't really do anything very well, it was stretched, nonsensical and by the end actually rather boring, and that is a pretty big problem (also, Darksiders 2 had A LOT of issues).
If you have nothing new to say, no special way to express it and no real drive to say it, that IS a problem. We all understand that a lot of games re-use systems, mechanics, themes and structures, thats a reality, we dont need to reinvent the wheel. But that doesn't mean that they should FEEL the same. The issue happens when you are playing a game and not enjoying it because it is rehashing and padding without any real inspiration. And this is damaging for any ecosystem.
In fact, Ni no kuni, and The last Odyssey both have some quite interesting innovations, particularly in terms of style and story, -because those are also areas in which you can innovate-. And they are backed by perfectly functional, rather well executed, if somewhat unoriginal mechanics that never GET IN THE WAY of the enjoyment.
In any case you sort of undermine your own old assesments... from what I recall, a lot of the games you noted have been considered "ok", sure there are critics of particular aspects of games, but reviews normally state what their strengths and weaknesses are.
I myself am willing to play a lot more games that are bold and try something inspired and new, than games that just do what has been done in a proefficient way. Simply because I see videogames more as a creative medium than just an entertainment medium, and it is often the NEWER ideas that inspire my own production creatively, even if their execution is not perfect.
And quite simply I rarely have enough time to play a game that won't do anything to capture my attention in any way.
Thing is, you obviously talk less about things that are unoriginal... IE, I'm not gonna talk about how great MGS3's aiming system was, it might have been serviceable, but it provoked no thought. If there is no thought provoked at all by a game, that is an issue. Which explains why sometimes paricular "innovative" ideas are highly regarded in spite of other shortcomings.. If we haven't seen it before, it's interesting, and -interesting- is more than I can say for a lot of generic / functional titles. THAT is the issue, there is nothing to say about them, and indifference is arguably worse than hate.
Jimothy Sterling said:
Yeah and you can outline the plot to the Shawshank Redemption in five minutes.
Oh god, that would have made the movie so much better.