Poll: Which do you prefer: an ambitious failure, or a safe success?
- Thread starter BreakfastMan
- Start date
Ambitious failures. We need them. If everyone played it safe, than everything would end up being the same, and that's no fun.
Games like Mirror's Edge and movies like Speed Racer said "fuck it, LET'S DO THIS!!!" and tried some really interesting stuff. And even if they didn't always work, I'm glad they did it.
Games like Mirror's Edge and movies like Speed Racer said "fuck it, LET'S DO THIS!!!" and tried some really interesting stuff. And even if they didn't always work, I'm glad they did it.
What does the bolded text even mean? I'm sorry I don't think That One Thing That You Like is very good according to commonly accepted standards for evaluating things like it, but you getting mad about it isn't going to change my opinion.Das Boot said:
If you do want to change my opinion, the best way to do this is to present evidence or analysis that you believe will cause me to form a different opinion.
I can respect trying to push the envelope of what can be achived in games. I like to see innovation even if it flops. There's always more time to go refine and fix the problems. A little progress at a time. For example, Reach toyed with the formula that made H3 a huge success. It gives more variety to Bungie's product. I can respect that even if it didn't capture my fancy as much as H3 did at first. I still like it as a game.
Safe success? Sure it makes money (which is more or less what the big publishing companies are doing) but it's just churning out the same product over and over again. It doesn't move the industry forward whatsoever.
The captcha sums it up pretty well for ambitious failures: Baby steps.
Safe success? Sure it makes money (which is more or less what the big publishing companies are doing) but it's just churning out the same product over and over again. It doesn't move the industry forward whatsoever.
The captcha sums it up pretty well for ambitious failures: Baby steps.
"Why do we fall master Wayne? So we can learn to pick ourselves back up"
I would rather they try then to not try at all and stagnate. Sure they may fail but. The idea is out there now and if it's not them someone will pick the idea up, learn from the mistakes, and do it better.
I would rather they try then to not try at all and stagnate. Sure they may fail but. The idea is out there now and if it's not them someone will pick the idea up, learn from the mistakes, and do it better.
Both
Safe successes give companies money to make ambitious failures, and ambitious failures give companies knowledge on what they can and cant add to their next safe success so they can get money to make their next ambitious failure.
It is a cycle
Safe successes give companies money to make ambitious failures, and ambitious failures give companies knowledge on what they can and cant add to their next safe success so they can get money to make their next ambitious failure.
It is a cycle
So did I. It was one of the main games I thought of when I made this thread. But I bet you won't be able to guess which one I thought was which. ;Dmajora13 said:
http://imadnews.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/brink-cover.jpg
...yeah I'm going with a safe success, at least it's playable. Yeah there's that whole "well you can't blame them for trying" angle, but at the end of the day the game is still crap and I spent money on it.
...yeah I'm going with a safe success, at least it's playable. Yeah there's that whole "well you can't blame them for trying" angle, but at the end of the day the game is still crap and I spent money on it.
Most of the time ambitious failure. Alpha Protocol, KoTOR 2 and Morrowind for example.
Morrowind did so much new stuff, so there were shitloads of bugs, glitches, mistakes, gameplay problems, etc. Skyrim on the other hand, tries pretty much nothing new. It pretty much cuts down content, it simplifies everything and has no soul as a result.
Morrowind did so much new stuff, so there were shitloads of bugs, glitches, mistakes, gameplay problems, etc. Skyrim on the other hand, tries pretty much nothing new. It pretty much cuts down content, it simplifies everything and has no soul as a result.
Ambitious failure. While MW2 has provided many hours of fun, i still like L.A Noire much better.
when i look at all the safe successes, i just sigh at how lame they are to me.
so i prefer the ambitious failure. yeah, it didn't work, but least they strayed from the beaten path to try and make something stand out
so i prefer the ambitious failure. yeah, it didn't work, but least they strayed from the beaten path to try and make something stand out
Up to a point, ambtious failures are the way to go. They try some new things, some work, some don't, the working ones get expanded upon. A game built ONLY only ambition, with no standard parts, is likely to be an unplayable mess and no matter how safe and unfiorm a game is, it's still more fun than one that bugs out and crashes as soon as you press 'Start'.
I am of the firm belief that fun comes first. As such, an ambitious failure that is unfun is, IMO, worse than a safe success that is still fun.
What I like to see are ambitious and creative games because that can be the foundation for a successful game.
My one problem with a Safe game is when the company begins to milk the games name with annul release as seen with COD and Assassins Creed.
My one problem with a Safe game is when the company begins to milk the games name with annul release as seen with COD and Assassins Creed.