Too often games cannot get funded unless they have that sort of generic mass appeal. This sort-of-uninspired product often comes from the pressure to get every territory and marketing person in a company to "sign off" that the game will be a hit. What is ironic is that most of the people that "sign off" don't even play games. Much of this new attitude comes from the increased budgets needed these days to create games. 20 years ago you could create a video game for $30,000, ten years ago about $400,000, and today it has risen to cost well in excess of five million dollars for something that can compete graphically and programming wise. This mentality has turned out both generic video games and the same big-budgeted, lifeless movies that continue to pour out.
Yet some of the greatest film, game, and writing achievements came from a strong personal vision towards a subject matter without having to make numerous creative tradeoffs. And the ability to do this often comes from a select group of people who have achieved the power to keep the "group think" away. They did not need "guidance" or need to appease too many people; instead they were given the latitude and trust to create. And I believe the quality of their creations goes beyond the sole reason of their talent, but also in their clout that does not allow others to derail what is being created. Films by Tom Cruise are consistently good, but it isn't just because he's a great actor. Tom has the clout to keep things done in a way that he will not ever be compromised. The same holds true for Steven Spielberg, Robert Zemeckis, and Martin Scorsese. And it's always admirable when a studio backs a relative unknown like Peter Jackson to create a movie like The Lord of the Rings the way he wanted it done.
