this is bad advice no matter what you are doing, failing faster and many times is the same as failing big once. flooding the market with bad products only effects your brand, and really the brand is you, it doesn’t give people confidence in what you are able to create, and if you only ever aim for mediocracy, then how will you ever find succuss. I just cant see any good in doing this, there are tons and tons and tons of **** out there being part of that is not going to make you succeed, how are you going to build a profile with ****,
again strange view…
There’s a truth to what he’s saying, though, if you look at it from a different perspective. My professors say that unless you are a natural genius, the first hundred or so game ideas that you come up with aren’t going to be that great. You churn out those games to get them out of your system. Maybe this is an exaggeration, but you get the point. Every time you fail is an opportunity to learn something so that your next game is better. However, the most important part about releasing a game is getting feedback from your audience (especially if you don’t have the means to conduct game testing). It helps you figure out what makes people click and what doesn’t. Your audience will show you things about the game that you might have overlooked. The feedback from your target audience is key in improving the design of your games. If you go with a large project, the window of feedback is much smaller unless you have the means to host game testing sessions.
Many stable companies build their success on formulas that they have been perfecting for ages. For example, Call of Duty is very successful, but it didn’t really become mainstream until Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Additionally, FromSoftware’s Souls series is also a success, but FromSoftware wasn’t even a big name until the popularity of the Souls games brought them into the spotlight. However, prior to Demon’s Souls, they’ve been developing their formula for over 10 years starting with King’s Field.
You never go in with the intent to fail, but until you have your formula down to a science, you should be prepared for that possibility. The truth is that the first couple of games any developer makes aren’t going to be that good unless they create the next Angry Birds in a stroke of serendipity. Mediocrity’s not the goal; it’s just the reality. You do what you can, get it out there, and then see what you can do better next time. People are willing to give a developer a chance if they show improvement over time. There’s an understanding that not all new developers are going to make instant hits with their first few games. There’s usually an iterative process. If the games are getting better, it shows that the developer is listening to players, and that builds player trust. On the other hand, if the developer doesn’t seem to improve at all and keeps making the same mistakes, then it would make sense to lose trust in them.
true, it doesn’t matter what you are doing this advice is good advice. It takes a long time to formulate a ideas and execute a plans, takes lots of hard work and countless “failed” plans,
what I will say is the internet is filled with Bad people with no life, they will toll you out of business because, reasons that why. one would fear that most people wouldn’t get that 3rd or 4 chance with out getting run out of town so to speak. also getting advice would require people finding and or getting a copy of the game and giving enough Poo to actual give constructive criticism not just “this game is ****” or don’t down load this garbage" type of advice, or the overly helpful friends that say it’s good but don’t want to tell you its Bad. that must be hard, I guess it sounds corny and a throughway line, but “networking” with other people that are willing to do this should be on the top of everyone priority.