Poll: Do you value ambition or execution?

[polymath]

Well as the topic title says, do you value ambition or execution. Now before people start fence-sitting or asking to have a little of both, of course in an ideal world you'd have both, but then you're not making a choice, so don't post just to argue about the lack of a somewhere in between option in the poll.

So what the questions comes down to is, would you rather see a string of ambitious but either deeply flawed or poorly made games or movies, (eg. Deadly Premonition, it has plenty of interesting ideas and is pretty unique but is incredibly poorly made) or, would you rather see the slow perfecting of the most popular trends in games and movies, even if it's only going to ever be a better version of what's come before (eg. Call of Duty, with its annual release is offering nothing truly new or different, but is constantly trying to perfect the games' core strengths)?

Ultimately what this comes down to is do you prefer creative concepts, even if the people behind them can't bring them to fruition, or the annual release of Maddens, CODs and so forth, well made games, but at this stage, just going through the motions?

 

[ChildofGallifrey]

I think it's better to be ambitious and fail than to be banal and succeed. Nothing ever improves or evolves without some radial experimentation, and with any kind of experimentation failure is inevitable.

 

[GigaHz]

They both have their places.

Without ambition, art becomes stagnant and uninteresting.

Without execution, proven formulas for success are cheapened.

I like to think of it as one hand washing the other. For example: Someone with ambition makes a discovery. Someone else sees the potential in it and emulates it for themselves. The discovery after some time is fully realized and will become more "functional" with every new iteration of it.

While execution will always eventually come (unless the concept itself is flawed), ambition is not always a sure thing. So to me, I would consider ambition more important for future prospects.

 

[Rathcoole]

They both have their places.

Without ambition, art becomes stagnant and uninteresting.

Without execution, proven formulas for success are cheapened.

I like to think of it as one hand washing the other. For example: Someone with ambition makes a discovery. Someone else sees the potential in it and emulates it for themselves. The discovery after some time is fully realized and will become more "functional" with every new iteration of it.

While execution will always eventually come (unless the concept itself is flawed), ambition is not always a sure thing. So to me, I would consider ambition more important for future prospects.

I agree with this. You put it alot better than I could.

 

[subfield]

One day as a lion over a million years as a sheep.

 

[BabySinclair]

Ambition assuming it's not a complete failure. This is how you make progress. In time the ambitious project will develop more and become more integrated at which point a new innovation can be made.

 

[Son of a Mitch]

I guess I'm odd, but I prefer a polished game over an ambitious one that fails. The reason for this is that no matter how interesting of a new mechanic a game has, if it's buggy/boring/unfun, then I still don't want to play it. The polished game may not be original, but if it can take that used mechanic and apply it to a game that improves on everything the ambitious one failed at, then it's better. That's not to say that I don't care for the others though, just the more enjoyable experience.