Nice job Gamespot suits, real gutsy effort.

I really hope Jeff finds employment soon, and they have the class to treat him a little better. I feel really bad for all the other guys at Gamespot, I hope you can all find a way to jump ship and work for a better company.

I really enjoy the Hotspot, but i'm never coming to this site again and would encourage everyone else to do the same.

So long Gamespot, you suck.

I've played a few; Pokemon, Yu-Gi-Oh!, Mythos, Magic: The Gathering, Wheel of Time, the World of Warcraft CCG and most recently Eye of Judgement.

However my main game is the Call of Cthulhu CCG, which is in my opinion, better than Magic.

Well, what to say that hasn't already been said. The story is a bit hit or miss, but there are a lot of really impressive fan-made expansions out there. Its probably worth reading up on those and maye giving a few a go.

One thing I can add though, the game has a great set of content creation tools (hence the excellent consumer material) so if you're interested in level-design, making games etc. then its really worth looking in to as something that could help you pick up the basics.

I think what you're trying to ask is, "Why do people make games that aren't good and therfore are unlikely to be bought?"

I think you've made the age old assumption here that everybody agrees on, and is well informed as to what is a good game, you probably also anticipate that this agrees with your own tastes.

If a store stocks a game, it probably expects to sell it. If its a well marketed game, they may have 100 copies and expect to turn them over quickly. Other more obscure games, may only be present in quantities of 5 or less. But if the stores sells them, then they make their money and either restock the title or replace it with another. They rarely leave out games that won't sell, because the shelf space is more valuable than the excess stock.

As to why 'bad games' are made, well consider the following.

If a game sells a million copies at an average of $50, then the revenue is $50 M. If that game cost $40 M to make over a period of 4 years, then the profit is $2.5M / year.

If another game only sells 250,000 copies at $50, then it generates $12.5 M. If this game was developed in 1 year at a cost of $10M, then both games made the same amount of profit/unit time.

Some games are made slowly and at high cost, and require a lot of peple to think they are good. Some games are made quickly and cheaply and only require a few people to think they're good.

The seemingly obscure, "Why are they there" titles in your local game store, may be more succesful than you think.

I agree that one shouldn't buy the latest systems and titles just to keep up with the Joneses. But for those who do have enough disposable income to afford perhaps one or two of the newer systems and a douzen or so games a year, then why wouldn't they be interested in playing the newer games.

Certainly people shouldn't be concerned with playing something simply because its new, but if you really liked Mario 64, and really enjoyed Mario Sunshine and have all 240 stars the games have to offer, should you not feel excited to go ahead and buy Mario Galaxy?

Good games are good games, though some people believe that only the newest thing is good enough, and others will try and convince you that video games were much better, when they were the ones who owned Atari.

Lot's of really good games have come out this year. But obviously you can be innovative, without necessarily being a 'good game' and you can be good without being innovative.

Innovation in 2007

Puzzle Quest: Innovative in simply putting a puzzle fighting system in to an 'RPG' (though bookworm adventures did something similar)

Super Paper Mario & Crush: Using a mix of 2D and 3D to provide interesting puzzles. Ultimately I think Crush did it better, and it will be interesting to see what Echochrome has to offer in a similar vein.

Shadowrun: A disappointing game to be sure, but innovative technology in connecting PCs and Consoles to play an online shooter together.

skate: Innovation for controls within the admittedly small skateboarding genre

Stranglehold: (PS3 Collector's Edition): Putting the original movie on to the same disc as the game

Portal: Probably the most innovative gameplay of the year, a completely new experience in 3D platforming

Team Fortress 2: An innovative approach to the art design of a multi-player shooter.

Mass Effect: A small amount of innovation in the use of paraphrased dialogue selections and fully vioce acted conversation trees.

Some of the games I listed are better than others, some pieces of innovation are more signficant than others, but there you go.

I think the question you mean to ask is, "Have you ever pretended to like a game you don't", either trying to convince yourself or someone else.

Its easy to try and overlook flaws in a game you wanted to be good, I really wanted to play and enjoy Hellgate: London for example, as I'm a big Diablo I & II fan. But in the end I had to admit that as the game exists now, its just not something I would like, and as such I have avoided buying it.

On a related note, I do sometimes continue to play games that I'm not enjoying as much as I do others. I always try and finish every game I buy, sometimes things improve toward the end, so if you spent the money its worth thoroughly investigating what the game has to offer.