Mammal vs Reptile strategy

[Atreides]

Reptiles produce tons of offspring, hoping some of them survive. Mammals produce fewer but nurture them, increasing their survival rates. The similarity is that both wish to increase the expected number of survivers.

 

Similarly, game producers could try lots of new intellectual properties, some hit and some miss and then continue down the ones that were successful. Or, they could keep making sequels or games that follow closely a formula that's worked before. Perhaps try new IPs within a popular setting (say as NWN or BG were set in D&D)?

 

Which strategy is expected to create more success (and get project funding?)? Maybe it's natural to feel out what works initially and then keep working on things that have been successful in the past.

[Dark Moth]

Maybe not make sequals, but sticking to a formula that works without being repetitive would be a good strategy.

 

Also, first post I've ever made part of the forum. Ever. :">

Edited January 1, 2006 by Mothman

[Child of Flame]

The mammals are conquering again!

[saintfrancisnudecenterfold]

Reptiles produce tons of offspring, hoping some of them survive.  Mammals produce fewer but nurture them, increasing their survival rates.  The similarity is that both wish to increase the expected number of survivers.

 

And single-cell organisms produce likenesses of themselves at a speedy rate, splitting, devouring, and growing. They move with the medium they happen to be in.

 

Similarly, game producers could try lots of new intellectual properties, some hit and some miss and then continue down the ones that were successful.  Or, they could keep making sequels or games that follow closely a formula that's worked before.  Perhaps try new IPs within a popular setting (say as NWN or BG were set in D&D)?

 

I understand that you might want Obsidian Entertainment to change tactics based on a dissatisfaction with their methods, but comparing them to dinosaurs isn't the way to do it.

 

Actually, reptilian creation would be like designing a game but not releasing patches nor expansions. In essence, just releasing title after title, regardless of whether or not these titles resembled eachother.

 

Mammalian creation would involve working with a game after publication, updating a game with new expansions, creating new situations for that game, and in essence offering optional changes to it until it pretty much feels complete.

 

The initial comparison is flawed, where experimenting is compared to reptilian birthing and formula-following to mammalian nurturing. Experimentation occurs, in smaller or greater levels with any game design, but with the greater complexity of genetic structure, so do differences between originating organism and spawn increase. Whether or not any experimentation with a game is percieved as new is another issue entirely.

 

Which strategy is expected to create more success (and get project funding?)?  Maybe it's natural to feel out what works initially and then keep working on things that have been successful in the past.

 

The process that creates a more enjoyable game, like the original Baldur's Gate, like the original Baldur's Gate II, would provide a better future for all involved in the design process, improves consumer confidence, and barring management problems offers a bright future. Interplay falling through was not the fault of Black Isle nor its creative decisions (although I did not think Black Isle was terribly creative oftentimes, but that's my personal opinion -- I mean, respectful influence is one thing, but stealing ideas from old Call of Cthulhu adventues is silly).

 

What creates a good game is love and nurturing, experience with crafting games and experience with playing games of the sort that's being created. Also, imagination, creativity, and professional ethic help immeasurably.

 

As a sidenote, MMORPG should pretty much be super-mammals in this comparison: the amount of nurturing that goes into their creation almost resembles the nurturing that goes into the development of philosophical schools of thought: such things are never final.