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

[Alterego-X]

Vertigo-X said:

astrosmash said:
Some people here don't quite understand what is meant by disruption.

Disruption does NOT mean that there was some massive change in how things are done. Disruption means that an innovation is geared to under served downstream markets.

SM64 was not disruptive despite the radical change in game play because it moved the series upstream. SMB and NSMBW are both disruptors because they used old technology and simple game play to appeal to downstream markets that were not being served.

Yes, SM64 moved the series upstream, making it more complicated, etc. I'm questioning the whole concept of disruption only being applied to  fulfilling the needs of the downstream folks, though. Why does it only need to go 'backwards'? Why can't disruption be applied in the forward direction, as well?

 

I'm arguing that SM64 was disruptive because it 'disrupted' the way previous Mario games were being played. It may not have catered to the underserved of the 2D platformers, but I'm trying to convey that it catered to a non-served demographic in addition to changing the gameplay formula.

You are just using disruption as a buzzword. 

Disruptive innovation doesn't just mean "Big Damn Innovation", and sustaining inovation doesn't just mean "meh! innovation".

 It is a complex business theory, defined by Prof. Clayton Christensen, and as he said, its very simplest definition is "crummy products for crummy customers". 

This is what it means. Period.