But ideas are a dime a dozen, EVERY fucking gamer has them and thinks theirs are better. What people always forget is that ideas are a very small part of a project, 99.9999 percent of it is hard work and execution.
The thing I've noticed about the "gamer that has an idea" is their utter inability to explain that idea. Furthermore, they quite often only see that idea in a vacuum and don't place it in a larger construct. You see it time and time again in threads, that "this is done wrong, and this game did it right" but they can't tell you
why, or how another system functions. Or in one breath they'll say "yeah, death penalties are awesome" and the next breath say "I just don't have the time to commit....". I've spent a great deal of time asking that why, and acknowledging that some games are just not designed for me anymore now that priorities have changed, and what I considered to be awesome 5 years ago, just isn't that awesome anymore.
When you (Grim1) talk about tablets and so forth, I wonder, this "next big thing" that will happen on those devices... have you considered they already have? tap games and town builders have exploded, not because they are awesome games, but because of the method of delivery -- Facebook, Tablets, Smart Phones.
Draegan is right in that the next big innovation shift will likely happen with a technology change. Diablo was a beat-em-up co-op RPG, EQ was a MUD with a Quake interface. Halo was a massive game -- because it was the forerunner of FPS games on a console, coming well after games like Doom and Counterstrike (which was big in it's own right). A tech shift doesn't need to be hardware, it can be the creation of the online communities we saw in Usenet groups, Diablo chat rooms, and finally Facebook and things like TwitchTV.