The problem with the article is the basic premise is wrong. The article is assuming there's a fundamental problem (no high concept videogames) and lashes out on how to fix that problem. However, that problem is simply non-existent. Look through the comments, and even some of the statements in the article. This shortage of "innovative" and "risky" games simply doesn't exist. Sure the Halos and the CoDs of the world get all the press, but that's because they have advertising budgets. Pick a platform and you can quickly find a fair number of these innovative titles.
PS3: Flower, Flow, Littlebigplanet, Pixeljunk series, Fat Princess, etc
Wii: Pretty much any game that doesn't use gimmick versions of the motion controls
360: Dance Central, XBLA titles, (I don't have a 360 so someone help me out here)
PC: Humble Indie Bundle titles, Minecraft
The entire article is based around the faulty assumption that there is a problem. We might be a little dry on the innovative titles for the past few months, but that's because we just went through a recession, and video games have a tremendous lead time. Carmel can try raising his concerns again when they're actually valid. Someone should remind him, though, that if he can come up with a half dozen examples of current games that fit his definition, then there probably isn't a shortage.
