Yes, like the action of innovating when you don't have to. I gave example of companies that innovated when they didn't have to. To assume they didn't want to is a pretty big assumption. The actions of these companies don't say "we don't want to innovate" that's why I was asking for more proof. From my understanding, just about anything involving public interactions with computers want to innovate. Some do it just because they can. Innovation, especially for people working with computer software, is a goal many companies strive for, and not just because they have to.
Yes, some companies are going to innovate because they can and because they understand that innovation = win. Companies like Nintendo and Valve (can't really speak for Naughty Dog personally) get top marks for their willingness to innovate.
But in the grand scheme of the entire video game industry, the vast majority of big corporate developers and publishers are avoiding innovation like the plague. Reiterating the same old time tested tripe and dumping it out asap is lucrative to them because innovation means taking risks and with risks comes the potential of failure. This is why Curm says large companies are less likely to innovate... and he is correct, large companies do not innovate. They are afraid to. Small companies like indie developers who do not possess the financial backing of a major publisher
have to innovate and do something different with their products. This is why MMOs such as Guild Wars have been able to compete with World of Warcraft. Lack of innovation is why EA and Bioware's The Old Republic failed to.
What innovation means for Zelda is questionable, however. To me, innovation is healthy, but in some respects too much innovation turns something into something it's not. I feel that Nintendo's recent experiments with innovating certain aspects of the Zelda series hasn't been entirely healthy for it.
