I really don't know where the OP is coming from.  None of the big 3 are actually doing hardly anything that is innovative on the software side.  If I had to pick one though it would be Nintendo because of Ring Fit Adventure.  Ring Fit Adventure is actually perpetuating a different kind of paradigm.  That makes it innovative.  Every cinematic game (especially if they are third person shooters) is doubling down on a very established paradigm.  There is nothing innovative about these types of games.

The NES was the most innovative console, because it created or changed the most types of paradigms.  Super Mario Bros revived the console market.  That is a new paradigm.  The Legend of Zelda was a new type of game that lead to the demise of arcades.  That is a new paradigm.  Duck Hunt created a whole genre of light gun games.  That is a new paradigm.  Gyromite...was not innovative though.  It looked like it was doing the most radically different thing of all, but people really didn't want to play it and the R.O.B. type of game died off pretty quickly.  You could call Gyromite "attempted innovation", but it wasn't successful innovation because it didn't create a new paradigm or change an existing one.

What innovative games have come out in the past few years?  Not many.  Ring Fit Adventure is the clearest candidate.  After that, I guess I'd say Animal Crossing, because there are so many more people playing Life Sim games than ever before.  We also have a lot of modern day equivalents of Gyromite like LABO and the various VR games.  These are not really innovative so much as attempts at innovation.  (Trying and failing is better than not trying though.)  Cinematic games are not innovative in the slightest though.  The real point of these games is to show off how powerful modern hardware is.  They are the epitome of the status quo.

Spoiler for the TLOU2

Now, that would be a nice social experiment. They should kill off Lara Croft in the next game and replace her with a guy; and to make things even more interesting, they should have us play with the guy that kills her.

People who advocate for "taking risks" in entertainment don't seem to realize that most risky ideas are considered "risky" precisely because they are dumb ideas. Like, sometimes these artists need someone to tell them: "Sweetheart, there is a reason why this has never been done before; it's because it is a crap idea."

Yeah, most of the time I see expressions like "forced diversity", I'm inclined to roll my eyes because the reality of what's been done most of the time is deliberate, un-life-like lack of diversity. It's also just annoying to always be politicized as belonging to a "diversity demographic" as opposed to being part of nature's default demographic or something.

The Last of Us Part II is a game with no clear heroes or villains, that doesn't have a happy ending, that revolves around themes like guilt and trauma and hate and how even an understandable obsession with justice (criminal justice or social justice) can morph into precisely those things, that waters down nothing and forces you, for real reasons, to do lots of things you as the player probably don't want to. It would be controversial even in a world without bigotry. But then you make that same title also the first AAA video game in history to narratively center a lesbian character, add in a character like Abby who many people here at first confused for a man, have her...

...and force you to play as her for about 40% of the game to get a glimpse of the world through her eyes, add in a trans character with a more than incidental role, and keep the tension of the storyline flowing the way it's supposed to by NOT going the open world route like most modern 3D adventures do, and viola, you have the formula for the most controversial video game ever released: one that's absolutely beloved by many of us and utterly despised to a distressing level of fanaticism by most everyone else, with few mixed opinions in-between. Game with the largest volume of negative "user" reviews ever posted to Metacritic by a mile, and also the largest volume of player's choice awards by a mile. If it's not that the game is too diverse for some, it's that it's too depressing, too honest, too violent, too sexual (), too relevant (games are just supposed to be fun!), and on and on the list goes forever. That the game plays it safe ain't usually among those many complaints that I see. Opponents of this game seem to overwhelmingly feel that the problem with TLOU2 is that it's not TLOU1 because they're not used to sequels being made for an actual reason beyond the desire to cash in some more on the first game's success. If only instead this were a modern, generic open-world adventure with Joel reprising the lead and characters like Abby and Lev and other newbs totally omitted. Let's be real: that's the frame of mind.

Well, I found it an awesome idea and I am greatful someone have the guts to make it work :p

The experience of playing with a supposed villain to see their point of view was a nice exercise, I personally even liked Abby story more than Ellie's (but I like Ellie's gameplay a little more because it's easier to stealth)

People take things that have no real issue attached to it too seriously. When evaluating something is right or wrong thing I just ask two things:

- Is it hurting anybody?

- Does this go against my morals? 

If answer is no for both question, I really don't see the problem, at least in conceptual level. Just do it, I'm curious to see the outcome 

1) I disagree. And unlike you I found Han's death an unexpected twist, as I was quite convinced he was going make Ben switch sides. It worked pretty well for me  because I left the theater really shocked. I'm on the side if I felt the emotions creators wanted me to feel, then they did a great job. That's why I like series and games that touch my feelings, in positive or negative ways

2) Disagree too, Luke last fight scene was fucking cool and badass, and his death was peaceful and warm, I liked his last dialogue with Leia too

3) I guess every new single addition in gaming is forced unless they are optional so you have a bad argument here. Your question about why changing the main character is also weird, why change anything? Sometimes creators wants to experiment a new story or concept, sometimes they want to please another audience, sometimes they are just sick tired of making the exact same shit over and over, there are many reasons to change. If anything I find more logical to change the main character in story driven games then keep the same characters over and over, rebooting their story and creating actual parallel dimensions. 

"Bookworm" and "cinephile" sound like appropriated insults, whereas in contrast "hardcore gamer" sounds like one thinks more highly of themselves than of others. Maybe that's what gamers need: an insult to appropriate.

For a non native speaker bookworm sounds like a disease and cinephile sounds like a psychological or social pathology 

I've responded to most of what you wrote in other posts around this thread, but just wanted to respond to the stuff quoted above briefly.

I have no formed opinion of Jim Ryan as yet. He mouths some phrases that I like, but also sometimes sounds more like a typical corporate exec to me. We'll see. All I've got to say about that subject at this time.

Anyway, as to the idea that a game like Death Stranding wouldn't have been greenlit if not for the Kojima name...mmm, possible, but I don't know. I would just say that what I see is the way Hideo Kojima was treated by Konami versus the way he's treated by Sony and the contrast is night and day.

What I see from Sony right now is them publishing games (like Death Stranding) that introduce whole new genres, games (like Returnal) that bring previously obscure genres like roguelikes and innovative story structures into the AAA gaming scene, the first AAA video game ever to center a lesbian character, sequels that radically challenge assumptions about the original title in a franchise, etc. I'm just wanting that to continue whether it makes a lot of money or not. That's all I'm really getting at here.

Maybe it's just how it sounds to my ears. Is "game buff" an option? I dunno, sounds a little weird and almost male-specific, doesn't it?

I mean really just calling ourselves gamers should be fine, I think. I think you'll find that in surveys on the subject, so-called casual gamers just don't identify with the term gamer at all. They just don't think of themselves that way, just like casual moviegoers probably don't go around calling themselves moviegoers or "casual athletes" who aren't professionals or league-joining dedicated hobbyists but maybe just play the occasional game of ball to be social or for the exercise don't really call ourselves athletes. "Casual gamer" is just a term we impose on other people who don't view themselves as gamers just because they play a game or two on occasion.

K, finally down to the last message I wanted to respond to.

I'm looking to wrap up my part in this conversation since it doesn't really seem to be going anywhere. I'm not going to waste my time with another itemized response that's just going to be dismissed anyway. I just wanted to say that heart is what I value in a game the most. Like I want people to make games that they want to play, not games that are made primarily to sell. Production for use, not production for exchange. If a game conveys that feeling to me, I can appreciate it whether or not it achieves everything it sets out to and regardless of whether I agree or not with any thematic message it may contain. It's the method that made this medium decades ago before there were all these focus groups and development costs shot through the roof. I don't know how to gauge that objectively, it's just a feeling that I get and look for signs for. Asking me to quantify that in a strictly objective way is impossible. Just doing what I can.