No offense to BoB but I think this idea lost its traction a few years ago, it was a fad like episodic gaming, the "superiority" of non-linear design, or digital-only distribution. Since then we've certainly seen a lot of titles add multiplayer, with varying success, but we've still gotten a lot of single player masterpieces like LA Noire and Skyrim. I'd question how much the sandboxyness really counts because tracking has shown how very little the majority of players explore those world, pursue sidequests, or even just make it halfway through the game.

Final Fantasy's problem is Final Fantasy. Square was making sequels and spinoffs for then-current consoles while everyone else was making their first next-gen games. And Japan hasn't fallen off - look at how many modern classics have been released on handheld in the last few years. The problem is AAA gaming has become too bloated to produce innovative titles anymore. In order to make a AAA game you need a massive team and the only way to get so many different people to work together successfully on that one project is to make something everyone is already familiar with. That's why FPS and WRPGs have dominated this gen, because Western developers have been making these games for decades. A unique and innovative vision is easier to work on with smaller teams, where it's easier to get each member on board to know what they're making. That's why you get games like Radiant Historia and Valkyria Chronicles II on handheld and Call of Duty 8 on console (and people say Japan's fallen off...) That being said...

Quote Originally Posted by I Don't Need A Name View Post
My problem is that they're games built soley for the multiplayer. They pump out a crap 4 hour campaign mode which is the same as all the rest, with a few more flashy explosions, then release more multiplayer maps of the same experience with the same weapons using the same guns. That's not a new game, that's just an overpriced expansion
MW3 sucked but both its predecessors had campaigns that, while short, did incredible things that no one saw in shooters before. Black Ops actually had an average-sized campaign that had a deep back story and did justice to the intrigue and paranoia of the Cold War. And each multiplayer mode brings not only new maps, but a new map design philosophy, a new progression system that changes the way you think about building classes and pursuing challenges in order to rank up quickly. I play each of the games very differently, and again, MW3 was a rush-job but if you look at what Black Ops added to MW2 or what MW2 added to MW1, it's pretty impressive. It's multiple teams and franchises and they take just as long as your average studio does crafting a game.