I'm not always convinced that innovation should be a primary goal. It's certainly an attention-grabber but I'm not sure it always does us any favours. The DS, for example, had loads of innovation - two screens, touch screen, mic. Most of my favourite DS games were great in spite of these features, not because of them. Ouendan is about the only game I can think of that was fantastic and entirely built around one of those features. Many games, especially early on, actually would have benefited from just using traditional control schemes. Of course then we might have missed out on that wonderful blowing in the mic feature of many games.

On the Vita, I don't see Uncharted as being better because it uses the touchscreen, back touch pad, camera, gyroscope. In fact the gyroscopic bits are just frustrating and pointless. It would be a better game without these innovations.

I think innovation and the search for it can often be a distraction. It doesn't always make games better. In many cases, it can make them worse (Metroid Hunters control versus traditional dual-stick control, for example). For the most part, traditional controls have evolved really well. They work great. Often games and systems don't need to be innovative. They just have to do what they do really well and that bit better each time.

For me, the best part of the Vita is actually just that it's finally a handheld with dual sticks - a (now) traditional and proven control method.