Originally posted by Watchdog
Mainstream, it\'s all about mainstream.
Watchdog makes a point.
Often times, when touting a successful 32/64 bit game as revolutionary, one is suddenly cornered by the owner of a ridiculous number of gaming machines, many of them being horrendously obscure. They then point out a game on this obscure console that is more revolutionary than the 32/64 bit game in point. It is then that someone must point out to them that, while that game indeed did come up with the idea first, it wasn\'t the game that successfully revolutionized gaming, because it was not mainstream. If someone coincidentally came up with the exact same concept for a game as Metal Gear Solid and produced it prior to MGS\'s release, would that game be the revolutionary one? Of course not; Metal Gear Solid was the game that a substantial number of people bought into. Even if someone else came up with the idea first.
If two people make an idea, and one is successful and the other isn\'t, the successful idea is the one that revolutionized, regardless of whether or not it was first. There were three dimensional games prior to the Playstation, but there was never before a system entirely devoted to that genre of game making. It was revolutionary in the sense that it was a successful machine, that truly forced a 3D revolution; nothing before that hit the mainstream in the proper way.
Don\'t confuse the terms "Innovative" and "Revolutionary."
