Also, did you know that Nintendo Gamecube had full 3D support but if Nintendo had added on the technology to do that it would've been too expensive and would've been 'Dreamcast' then. And especially since Treyarch decided to innovate on BO2, it was the perfect time to innovate- meaning that time is everything. I'm not showing any bias in this- I'm just going on with the facts and using them to my advantage. Either way though, nevertheless creativity shouldn't go unnoticed like you stated but it shouldn't be the only tool at your disposal either. The key to Nintendo's IPs is that everytime they add something new to their franchises so that even though they remain to their core, they get a gist of novelty to be distinct in today's gaming environment. And btw, I was only elaborating on your viewpoint- if I had taken it out of context that wasn't the intention. As long as a game meets gamers' needs it will be on demand. All I really meant to state was that innovation was what started this industry going and many developers and gamers forgot all about that since because they've become greedy and blind. If we don't continue making games even 1% off of what kept us on our toes, then what use are we to society if we're not doing anything to make our voices heard? If we're not doing something that can be commended and built on? That is the question I want you to answer. Without a basis for which we can continue to keep moving forward, is there even any point or purpose in continuing what we're doing if people don't like us for doing it or don't even value it for what its worth? The games I had mentioned I pointed out not because they didn't break new ground or games that don't break new ground shouldn't exist at all- it's about people knowing true gold,value, and gaming nirvana/brilliance when they see it. I only hope that in time, people will learn to look at titles such as Mirror's Edge or even Bayonetta and see that if the developer behind the game doesn't have the heart to pour all their energy into it, then the game is dead. If they don't show they care, then why should anyone else care that the game is still here? Why should anyone care about Call of Duty if no one is energizing it? Why forget about Halo, Mario, and Zelda just because they all 'look the same' as their predecessors. My main idea is that people only look at the substance and style the game takes on without investing the time to see what it has to offer and knowing for sure whether they themselves are just looking at a clone or something that makes you think and lose yourself somewhere you can express yourself. It's about the soul of it that makes the game resonate and show an ideal that expression that can only be experienced- not only seen. That is what people are missing these days, in order to know how something is or at least know how it feels you have to experience it. Games aren't about just looking interesting- they have to feel interesting and pulsate in a way that the gamer will find unforgettable and look back upon. Games aren't meant to be forgotten, they are meant to take you places and show you things from a perspective that you never thought possible. Games aren't about only doing the impossible- they are about making the impossible possible. That is the main focus I wanted to show you and in which developers have forgotten because of the fans. It's about time that developers went their own route because it's killing them and if we never made choices for ourselves, then there would be nothing left. If we don't follow the conviction that drives us to make games the way they are, then why do we expect change if we don't have the strength, integrity, valor, and honor to even be the change? That is what I wish the video game industry does before its too late, before we lose all sight of what's important and eventually have to let go. I hope I clarified my point. One last thought: this is a quote from Shigeru Miyamoto,"A delayed is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad." My eventual viewpoint is that if we don't think about what our actions will cause in the long run, then we will be doomed to fail every time. We never quit on our ambitions because if we were to leave what brought us so far, we would regret it and want to wish it all back. We run for the goal, but never look back at how we reached the goal. We run for the goal with patience, but we are to never look back at the fact that we failed, but what our failures taught us. That is a big idea that I think developers have forgotten for a long time and need to get back to. that is my absolute point. The games I listed above that need recognition are still here because the developers learned from their failures and moved on to conquer the impossible. The other games are the complete opposite. Think about it and let me know what you think, Paul Izod.

I'm not saying that only games that lack creativity or have a surplus of creativity exist. What I meant was that some people, like you had stated get so used to a certain aspect or idea that they may not see something new or novel as important because they see that particular approach a certain game may take as flawless or seemingly unbreakable because of its longevity. My point was that people don't see the forest through the trees these days. They're so used to a certain experience that when they see a new idea pop up they won't see it as groundbreaking or something with significance because it doesn't add on to what they prefer; they're not seeing the big picture, they're only centering  it on themselves. They're not taking to heart how much influence it may have or how much it can really change the landscape. I do acknowledge that in fact there are only very few games out there these days that try something new or at least attempt to go into new territory in the sense-but my perspective was that developers such as Activision are putting money above the fans that pretty much steer their success and the IP itself that gives it the recognition it has earned because of that IP. My main idea that I wanted to address was that people such as Activision lose sight of how they got to were they were and they get careless. Despite the fact that money has become too big of a focus for developers to break their shall, it shouldn't be about whether they succeed or not in the first place- it's about the fact that they took a risk and that they were the brave ones to take the step and open new opportunities and eventually open their competitors'. I don't criticize your desire for creativity- I wish myself that developers these days were go-getters like they were in gaming's infancy- what I had been outlining was that it's about the journey. It's all in favor of your chances- you have the tools, you know the right people, now make a game that will catch people's attention and give them a new perspective. I did understand the big idea you had been conveying in your article though-regardless though that I've actually never played Mirror's Edge and have only seem some footage, I know exactly what you're talking about. I'm only saying that developers should learn to utilize their tools to their advantage. I mean, look at 343 industries- Frank O'Connor said that there was a lot of untapped power in the Xbox 360 and that there is still life left in it. In fact, Michel Ancel, the mastermind behind Rayman and Beyond Good & Evil, even said that the Nintendo Wii U gave them a lot to work with due to its 1 GB or RAM and the GPU. That is the kind of discovery I'm talking about- people choosing not to conform with the industry standards and go beyond their expectations- like NIntendo did with the Wii and Naughty Dog is doing with The Last of Us. My intention wasn't at all to alter your meaning and try to satisfy my ambitions- I was just making a point and supporting your argument. Sure, taking risks costs money but in the long run it pays off because developers learn new ways to leverage their resources and form new experiences that wouldn't have been possible if they hadn't taken that chance. That is what I had been addressing when I listed those games. People don't necessarily want a game without creativity in place or developers just want to trash away their games, I think it's a matter of longevity being their worst enemy. If developers don't have any ideas to progress their creation, then they just milk it out so that they don't have to put up with the disappointment later- not that I know that for a fact but it is a likely motive for someone in Activision's position supposedly. It's not that I was stating the games I had mentioned don't have creativity- it's just that fans didn't like the direction it had taken and wish it had conformed to their  old ways. Developers are basically afraid of innovation because if they stray too far from what made a game exceptional, then they lose fans, they lose money, they eventually lose business- which is why developers these days may tend to be Call of Duty clones instead of going their own route because like you said- if one developer's decision brings them success, then others will follow suit because it's all about  the competition and they want to remain relevant. Look at the Wii, in response to it Microsoft made the Kinect and Sony made the Sixaxis controller. Believe it or not, fact for thought, if Sony or Microsoft had taken the patent held by Tom Quinn in which he had the technology that was eventually used for the Wii, Nintendo would've been 'Dreamcast'. This is the particular action I'm talking about that I wish developers would open up to and see what they're missing- take the 'Tom Quinn's patent' case for instance(if u wanna kno more bout it go to CVG or jus google bout it). Who knows if motion controls had been shown sooner, people would  be more accustomed to change and would've never shown hate towards titles such as Mirror's Edge. And if I were the publisher at stake here, I would go with new ideas all the way because staying the same isn't my character and isn't the business model that's successful anymore. 

Some games i want you to spread the word are Mario, Zelda, Halo, Metal Gear Solid( or jus Metal Gear), Assassin's Creed, Splinter Cell, Bioshock, Metroid Prime, Medal of Honor: Warfighter, Yoshi's Island, Remember Me, ZombiU, and lastly, Animal Crossing. One more thing, make sure to note this in your analysis on these games and any others I forgot to mention: In the midst of the innovation needed to keep a game/franchise alive and the expectation of the fans that want that game to remain alive, what counts most towards its existence is the  genius/mastermind/developer of the game/franchise  has the conviction to steer his/her/their creation in the direction desired and follow the vision that will keep it true to what made it the prominent the force that keeps it significant in the first place and never lose sight of the imagination and perseverance that went into forming it into a masterpiece that stood on its own rock with the integrity that will be left unshaken so it can stand the test of time.

Really good read!  I think it got reviewed better than what you give credit for, but the general point that companies play it safe and churn out sequel after sequel is worrying really, in terms of originality in games - eventually we're going to get sick of it.  Maybe it has something to do with this generation of online multiplayer, the need to play the same game as your friends, it's pretty tough to put your finger on it isn't it!?