The influence of movies and the movie industry has destroyed the gaming field in recent years. Is it possible to play a game that doesn't have tiresome cinematic introductions and cut scenes interspersed? Even more disingenuous are the screen shots from those clips passed off as actual scenes of game play.
There's something to this and there's no reason every game has to converge with movies, but obviously they don't. Now some of those games are available on consoles with limitations -- I'm thinking of Wario Ware and friends on the Game Boy, which will by definition pretty much always have an extremely small screen which, strangely, forces innovation -- but they do exist.
How do you judge a successful system if you're Forbes' Ed Lin? Apparently by its ability to have games that are difficult to classify.
The best gaming platform of all time is undoubtedly the Atari
2600. What other system had or will have as wide a variety of games that were genre-less (Human Cannonball and Lost Luggage, for example)? What other system will have the permanence of Atari 2600 games, which are available on every modern platform in the form of anthologies and as mobile games?
Sounds a little like a thirty-something with a bit of a bias. The point is well taken, and games could use some innovation as Matt often rants, but I'm not sure Human Canonball, as much fun as it was to play a few times before sliding it back into the storage rack for pretty much forever, is the poster boy of what should be done in the industry.
[this post written while feeding breakfast to a small, parentless child, so please go easy on what doesn't make too horribly much sense...]
Conversely: What other system so vastly overproduced a movie tie-in title that it nearly destroyed the entire video game industry?