Let's be real for a second. Video game companies are businesses. And as businesses, they operate in a fashion that would best optimize their profit margins. Strange, but I've never really thought of these companies like that until recently. Maybe it's because I'm not a 10-year old little boy anymore, but reality has been smacking me in the face as of late.

The streamlining of video games is becoming a trend and I, for one, am not happy about it. Crysis 2, Dragon Age 2, Killzone 3, Socom 4 are all just recent examples of a company compromising the identity of their video games for a game that they feel will appeal to a wider range of the current populous of gamers. I can't blame them for wanting to maximize their profits, but it just seems like a move that lacks integrity.

I'm not saying these are bad games. I enjoyed Dragon Age 2 and Killzone 3's MP is great. But it's a bad sign when there are a large group of fans claiming that the predecessors of these games are the superior games. Crysis 2 seems to have the largest of these groups and after playing it, I agree.

I have a very low opinion of shooters in general. To me, there isn't a lot of variation between games and nothing new or exciting is being introduced. It seems like everyone is just trying to perfect the archetype that was already given by games like Halo and Call of Duty. But the original Crysis was a game that felt like it's own game. I felt like Crysis wasn't just a great shooter, it was a great standalone game. There was a certain atmosphere and a unique approach to the game. And rightfully so, it developed a rather dedicated following. But why, after the critical praise, and superb community support did the developers feel the need to streamline the game to feel more like every other shooter on the market?

Well, when Crysis was first released, there was a lot of noise going around that the game wasn't selling too well. Much lower than anticipated. Why? Hard to say. It generated enough buzz to be successful. But gamers may have been put off by it's hefty system requirements. In any case, the game didn't sell as well as EA or Crytek hoped. So, what's the solution to this? Target a different audience. So they took the concept of Crysis, a name that most gamers know from the high critical praise, and targeted console gamers. Not only was the game no longer a real PC game in name alone, it was now more like your typical console shooter like Modern Warfare 2. Gone are basically all the elements that made Crysis what it was and in are all the elements that history has shown to sell well.

And guess what. It worked. Crysis 2's figures exceeded those of Dragon Age 2 and Dead Space 2, two other EA games and it's easily their most popular release. Here's a fact that might surprise you though. Almost 60% of Crysis 2's sales came from the Xbox 360. 30% came from the PS3. That means, no exaggeration, that 10% of Crysis 2's sales came from the medium it originated from, the PC. 10%. That number speaks volumes. Yes, they more than likely lost a ton of PC fans through their wanton disregard for that fanbase's needs. But the point is they took a title that was beloved and sold it's soul for money.

Crysis 2 isn't a bad game. It's a good shooter. But it doesn't stick out from the mass of other good shooters on the market and it isn't what I'd call a good standalone game. My biggest shpeal on the subject is, if you as a company, wanted to head in another direction than the direction set forth by the original game, why not just create a new game altogether? There is no reason to keep the basic conceptual components of the original game. Unless you, as a company, are lazy as hell and don't want to come up with something new. Or maybe it's so you can capitalize on the buzz that was generated by the original game so you can move more units of the game. 10% of the sales coming from PC is better than 0%, am I right?

It's not just Crysis. All of these games are guilty of the same thing. The only games I can think of that really tried to do something different are LittleBigPlanet and Heavy Rain. And I mean, hell, even Heavy Rain was just a fancier version of Indigo Prophecy.

I would like to see a game company with integrity. Again, this might just be a result of me being a little boy at the time, but years ago I felt like companies like Squaresoft and Capcom were making games based on what they wanted to do, not what was popular at the time. Would there ever be a Final Fantasy VII if they were too scared to think outside the box? I doubt it. I know that there are still creative, intelligent game developers out there that are capable of innovating the future, but where are they?

This will sound cheesy, but what I really want is some heart being put back into these games. Some of these games were an extension of the developers creative psyche, and it showed through the games. So instead of figuring out how to perfect prototypes that are already laid out for you, how about some creativity and some reinvention? This is really lacking in the gaming industry these days and I'm sick of playing games that are just a different version of another game.

Maybe the future will bring some better results, but as of right now, this generation will be known as the one that's too afraid to trying anything new. At least to me. Maybe games like The Last Guardian or even Deus Ex will emerge and restore my faith. As of right now though, I am shaking my head at the lack of integrity and heart being shown by these gaming companies.