Maelstrom calls Yahtzee out... kind of... sort of... in a subdued way.

[Vertigo-X]

LordTheNightKnight said:

Final-Fan said:

LordTheNightKnight said:

Final-Fan said:
So, you can't innovate, but have that innovation fail to result in the game being successful?

What? I'm talking about the innovation being successful, not the game.

OK, either innovations are classified as "disruptive" or "sustaining" after the fact based on effect, which means his talking about the game design is a bit bullshit, or they are classified based on the approach to game design, which means a "disruptive-type" innovation can be unsuccessful. 

[edit:  On second thought, I'm not totally sure I even know what you mean.  I mean, I know what you're saying, but I'm not sure of the connection between what you're apparently talking about and my dispute of Malstrom's SM64 categorization anymore.  You said the SM64 innovation wasn't disruptive because the N64 got disrupted (or so I thought), but now you say that an innovation's success is NOT measured by the game's success.  SM64 certainly disrupted the old 2D Mario IMO.]

What I mean is that it wasn't even an attempt at disruption because it was doing what the rest of the gaming companies were doing. I just put that poorly.

...

 

Malstrom was talking about for the Mario series, not other games. In the vein of disruptive innovation for the Martio series, SM64 fits the bill perfectly because no other Mario games before it were like it.