Who has and hasn't done the most to retard/homogenize the games industry?

[lemonadeader]

Looking at games today there is a case to be made that big games are all the same, to the casual observer unwilling, perhaps, to delve a little deeper new release games are all startlingly similar. To quote Yahtzee 'generic brown chest high wall shooters' to seem to be the trend. But conversely there are many people you could quite easily name that have defied this trend, producing games that do make one think and do stretch our perceptions. So I'm curious to think what you escapist gremlins (i love y'all really ) think, who are the best and worst people for games and the games industry, and why?
Ground rules: You have to give a good explanation, not just 'Tim because he sucks.' Also bonus points if it's someone really obscure/tangential, i really want to see what you guys think and can explain

 

[NerfedFalcon]

Well, I can say for starters that Team Shanghai Alice, and his magnum opus known as "Eastern Project" (or a Japanese equivalent thereof) isn't really helping. Supposedly it's 'indie' just because one guy is making it, but it does some very un-indie things, like yearly sequels that don't actually change very much in between. The reason people keep buying yearly sequels, though, is that they find the base game being iterated is fun, or else because they're hoping it'll be good again - either way, Call of Duty is still making back its advertising budget, and Assassin's Creed hasn't been thrown out yet (but at least Ezio has so we can finally see a different time period to stab people in.)

The reason yearly sequels are a bad thing, though, is because people really should expect more out of a game's sequel, and in order to get a game out every year, some things will have to get rushed and not be as good as they could be - so the industry badly needs to refocus on quality over quantity. (And arguably, that goes for other things about games too.)

 

[Kopikatsu]

Nippon Ichi Software for best.

They specialize in bright, vibrantly colored games filled with humor and turn based strategy. Strangely, they usually manage to avoid dipping into dark humor despite the fact that most of their protagonists are pretty unabashedly villain protagonists who are out to destroy the world(s).

But it's about as far from 'super srs modern grayscale shooter' as you can get.

 

[ohnoitsabear]

As far as publishers and developers that actually have a chance of influencing anybody else, I would have to go with CD Project, Valve, and Bethesda for best.

CD Project makes deep, mature games (and not just in the OMG there's realistic gore way), has a strong focus to giving the customer value for their purchase (even in digital games) and an unwavering commitment to no DRM.

Valve makes games that aren't very influenced by the current gaming trends (look at Portal) and gives a lot of free DLC. Also, they have a strong focus on making their digital distribution service as consumer-friendly as possible, although it isn't as good as CD Project's gog.

Bethesda (the publisher) is very willing to take a risk on games that may not be successful. Just look at Dishonored, a new ip that has a strong focus on player freedom and choice and on originality. Also it is amazing. Plus, they released Skyrim, a game that probably would have sold well no matter what, and loaded it with as much single player content as they could, in a day and age of 5 hour campaigns. Although Bethesda does lose several points because they pioneered the current bullshit DLC model, although they have gotten better since Oblivion's horse armor.

As for worst, EA and Activision. Both of these companies flood the market with as many games in a successful franchise as they possibly can, ignoring the long term health of the series. They also do many things that take away what paying customers are able to do with a game, and because these companies are able to get away with it, others are more likely to follow suit.

 

[Saulkar]

It is always the biggest companies. They get lucky with a formula and business oriented publishers which control most of the money look at that and without any real knowledge of how a videogame works forces those on the developer side to emulate the same gameplay and hopefully profits. Completely ignoring the dynamics of videogame loyalty (playing the game that all of your friends are already playing for example) and market saturation. The moment someone invents a new formula that reinvigorates people's interests everyone follow suit and tries to do the exact same thing all over again.

 

[Judgement101]

GoG is the best thing in the gaming industry to me, seriously, DRM-free amazing games, I just recently got the La-Mulana remake, SOOOOOO GOOOOOOOOOOD. Sorry, I know I'm gushing but I really do think that GoG genuinely cares about their customer base and the games they sell are amazing.

 

[Baldr]

For the the most part, the fault lies in with the consumer. Sales number speak louder than ideas developers pitch out.

 

[lemonadeader]

For the the most part, the fault lies in with the consumer. Sales number speak louder than ideas developers pitch out.

Oooooh didn't expect to see that one

Realised i never answered my own question so here it is:
Best = Bioware because i love the Dragon Age campaigns (although they cocked up a bit on 2) and the focus on story, not fighting, for me, is refreshing, and i'm getting the ME trilogy soon aswell, just to test my theory further.

Worst, possibly Ea and Activision for the whole spam sequels thing -.-. that said i currently own BF3 and am rank 45, 83rd star on it so perhaps i should shut up.