Originality, ladies and gentlemen. A concept that doesn't sit too well with most of the world's 'top' videogame companies, be they EA or Activision. The reasons for the lack of innovation and the deficiency of new ideas in most of today's games are clear and simple. It is not because developers have run out of fresh game concepts. Certainly nothing to do with hardware or technicalities. No. The reason we, the videogaming public, have to endure identikit, monotonous, vacant titles (and never-ending sequels) is because we are rarely prepared to buy something else.

This is the story of how the videogaming public, now more mainstream than ever, is damaging the industry through our ignorance of quality.

Prince of Persia, as you may know, was recently released in Europe on PS2 only under one of Sony's temporary exclusivity deals with prolific French publisher Ubisoft. The company also released Beyond Good & Evil, a unique, endearing game which has won wide praise. Both of these titles brim with quality. Both of them are original titles. Neither are sequels (well, PoP is a sequel, but in name only). Both of them tanked at retail. Two of the finest games of the year barely make an impact on the Christmas UK top 40 chart (with BG&E doing particularly poorly) . Massively inferior yet infinetly more popular titles like WWE Smackdown trounced them in sales.

You can argue many reasons for their poor showing. You could draw attention to the lack of hype surrounding the games. You could mention the game's relatively poor marketing. But that'd be missing the point. The problem, the only problem, was that these two titles had just committed the cardinal sin of games development- 'Thou shalt not do anything different'. And for that, they were ignored.

Just a few days ago, there were strong rumours that both of these titles were cancelled for both the GameCube and Xbox in Europe due to poor sales on the PS2. Thankfully Ubi Soft have since stated this is not the case, but that's hardly the point- the real issue here is that we are even discussing possible cancellations.

This brings me to the crux of the issue- the financial one. Why should games developers spend a couple of years working on a unique, original title which doesn't belong to any established franchise if it's not going to sell? They have to keep in business- and making something different isn't going to keep them in business, unless they're a large company. I have spoken at length before about the recent 'mainstream-isation' of gaming, and how it has brought both benefits and disadvantages to the industry. This, my friends, is one of the most damaging effects of that very process.

And we have only ourselves to blame. Only ourselves. In the globalised, homogenized consumer culture we are all a part of, image, rather than quality, as well as shallowness has blinded us all, to varying degrees. It is this culture which allows travesties like Manhunt to top the charts, and perennial Fifa updates (which are admittedly quite good now, but that's not the point) to be greeted uproariously, while the likes of Pikmin and Viewtiful Joe are largely ignored. All three consoles suffer from this problem- where licensed titles are invariably more popular than others by quite a margin. Nintendo are the only one of the three console producers to actively fight back against this culture- with superbly unique and most 'un-mainstream' games like Pikmin, Animal Crossing and Zelda breaking the mould. But even they too have been forced to act conservatively, by the very people who claim to love them. Nintendo didn't want to make Mario Sunshine. They didn't want to make another 'conventional' 3D platformer- but it was us who demanded it. We would accept nothing less, and in doing so we have helped stifle Nintendo's creativity.

Many of us bemoan Nintendo for being the architects of their own failure. But what is failure? If failure is failing to get more 'Cube's into homes than Sony can PS2's, than undoubtedly the company has failed. But if failure is producing under-par, disappointingly bog-standard games, then the company has succeeded admirably. It is worth pointing out that the GC has arguably more triple-A (if not quadruple-A) titles right now than the Nintendo 64 ever had- and that's without Rare on board.

The Playstation 2 has, too, been affected by the public's disdain of anything that doesn't conform. That platform sports the likes of Rez, Ico, and Amplitude among several others, which are held up as being shining examples of what the PS2 offers. But you won't see any of them in any top sales list. This leads to financial problems, yes, which in turn leads to the gradual disappearance of these types of games.

We are seeing less and less originality these days, because less and less companies can risk it. Because that's what it is- a risk. It is a risk that few developers are willing to take. Nintendo are a company with backbone and resolve, and I think that's part of the reason why I love their games- they haven't sold out to popular culture. They could have made massively more profits with a 'realistic' Zelda or a more 'grown-up' Mario Kart. But they didn't. Nintendo's philosophy of development pervades profits, not completely (and it would be folly to suggest otherwise), but to a degree which isn't at all evident in the vast majority of today's developers. Capcom are another developer who have helped to break the mould. Their GC-exlcusive games PN03 and Viewtiful Joe are both refreshingly different, and in the case of VJ, a stunning game in its own right. The company's supremely odd Killer 7 has the potential of being one of the suprises of 2004. Capcom knew in advance that these games aren't going to being doing blockbusting business at retail- which is exactly the reason why they should be applauded.

The 'colourful' Hiroshi Yamauchi (former president of NCL) set up the Q fund in 2002, which is aimed at funding smaller developers who aim to create new and original games. Hopefully the fruits of this will become apparent soon.

However, I believe we can still count on Nintendo to do things differently. And this year is going to show us, clearer than ever, the diverging philosophies of Nintendo and the other console producers. Both the Xbox 2 and PS3 are going to be all-singing, all dancing entertainment systems. They might also play games.

The N5 (oh, whatever) will most likely take the opposite road, and be a games-only machine. Nintendo will be criticized almost universally for this, and be accused of being 'backward' and refusing to embrace this new age. But this is not an age of quality, it is an age of globalised consumerism, which helps Sony and hinders Nintendo. But frankly, I'm not worried about Nintendo. If becoming less popular and less mainstream is the price of keeping any remaining scruples, then so be it.

It is the consumer who dictates what games are to be released- it's all about supply and demand. It is intensely ironic that those who have done the most damage, those who live on a supply of sequels and licensed drudgery, are the ones who once called for the games industry to grow up. With any luck, this current age of gaming are the industry's 'teenage years'- and that values will drift from violence and busty women (embodied by Manhunt and Dead or Alive) towards what makes gaming different from movies or television- imagination, sheer wonder, and most of all, fun. Now wouldn't that be properly grown-up?

I do believe that a time will come, some day, when licenses count for little, and a game's graphics will have nothing to do with it's popularity. A day when quality reigns king over everything else. But that day isn't today. In the meantime, it is our responsibility to cherish and value those who do something different, who don't follow the crowd, who let their vision drive them rather than the balance sheet. And thank God for them.

-Mark Cullinane

If you have any comments or observations to make on this article, I'd love to hear them. My address is [email protected]