Final-Fan said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
Final-Fan said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
Vertigo-X said:
Well, I disagree with his assertion that Super Mario 64 is sustaining innovation. With that game, just about everything was changed except for the same basic plot. Gameplay, controls, the levels, and the graphics were all dramatically different from the previous Mario games. |
He meant it wasn't disruptive. It seemed to change everything, but as Nintendo fell to a distant second that gen, it was clear Nintendo got disrupted.
|
Disruptive innovation is successful by definition?
Also, no, I disagree. It seems to me that he is clearly basing his reason why those games are "sustaining innovation" based on the games themselves, not how well they do compared to other games. So it only makes sense that "disruptive innovation" would also be about the approach to the game design. "Mario 5 goes back almost twenty years towards the gameplay of Super Mario World and Super Mario Brothers 3. The game sheds off the 3d sustaining innovation entirely." He's not talking about sales here, he's talking about game design.
|
Yes. If something isn't dusrupted, then you didn't do a disruption. Nintendo changed the gameplay, but it was simply a way to make the games still bigger and better. Plus it was still going along with the movement of the rest of the gaming companies, which cannot be a disruption either way.
|
So there is no such thing as a failed disruption? Or does a failed disruptive innovation get classified as a sustaining innovation?
As for the rest, I was looking at it as innovating the Mario series, but I can see your point that it didn't disruptively innovate the software scene at the time, except insofar as it pretty much set all kinds of standards for 3D platforming (maybe arguably disrupting what was already out there?).
|
If it doesn't work, it's merely an attempt at disruptive innovation. Without the success, the innovation can't happen. It's merely a try. Same with a failed sustaining innovation.
