It's interesting then to compare the approach of Naughty Dog (who I respect anyway, they gave me the early Crash and Jak games after all...) to that of Ken Levine and 2K Games, with the differing styles. One is focusing on the young female deuteragonist, while the other focuses on the manly gun-toting protagonist, and the reasons given for each art style are completely different. Personally, I don't look at the art of a game to decide whether to buy it, I already know what games I like and I'll take a look and read up on something regardless of what the box cover looks like. What the game itself looks like, and plays like, is more improtant in my eyes.
At any rate, I have great hopes for both games, and will most certainly be getting Bioshock Infinite, and lament sadly at my inability to get The Last Of Us (because as I've so often said before, to no avail, exclusive titles are the curse of the gaming industry, and shouldn't be allowed, but tough luck I guess...). I wonder though, if the sales will reflect the art, or more importantly will the sales reflect the quality of each game?
[small]EDIT: Post edited to reflect that Naughty Dog didn't make the early Ratchet and Clank games, that was Insomniac. Which I should have known, being a big Spyro fan and owning the first Ratchet games when they came out. Silly me...[/small]