Poll: Which do you prefer: an ambitious failure, or a safe success?

[BreakfastMan]

So, I just got back from watching some Venture Bros. So, naturally, my mind was on failure. I started thinking about video game failures, and my fondness for a number of the more interesting ones. I then started examining why exactly I liked them so much. Was it because they had good gameplay? Most often, no. A good story? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I found out that I liked them because they were interesting. They were different from the norm, and they tried their damnedest to do something new. And I really appreciate that, much more than a game that plays it safe and succeeds.

But, I decided I wanted to get everyone else's take on this. So, which do you like more: an ambitious failure, like Alpha Protocol, or a safe success, like Modern Warfare 2/3?

EDIT: For claririties sake, here are the definitions I was working off:
Failure: A game that did not succeed in everything it set out to do.
Success: A game that did succeed in everything it set out to do.

 

[Folji]

It's a shame when developers wind up tanking over their failures, so can't blame one for wanting to play safe with something they know will work. But at the same time, ambitious projects that just do things differently is probably the only way to actually break the mold of game development trends and add something new and interesting to the gaming world. After all, ambitious experiments is the source of a lot of current genres and prized games.

 

[Indecipherable]

Well it's case by case because what the industry terms a success or failure doesn't mean that I feel the same way.

I like what I like, not what the overall success as a business venture is.

 

[Zhukov]

I realize the "correct" answer is ambitious failure, but I'd actually prefer a safe success.

A failure is still a failure, no matter how ambitious. If a developer knows their stuff then they should be able to make ambitious successes.

I'd definitely prefer an ambitious failure to a safe failure though.

 

[9thRequiem]

In general, the ambitious failure, but it really depends on extent.
If, for example, it's such a failure as to induce instant vomiting, then it doesn't matter how ambitious it was.
Or if the safe success is just a re-release of the previous installment where the protagonist just wears a different color hat, it's worthless.

But if we're comparing, for example, Mirror's Edge or Dark Void vs MW3 or "Sports Title" n+1, then the former definitely wins in my book.

 

[skywolfblue]

As much as I applaud trying something new, I'll take a stable and well made game over a buggy mess any day of the week.

I think that gameplay is kinda paramount in making a good game, bugs/bad controls/etc wreck gameplay. So it's extremely hard for me to like games that are failures.

I don't care if the game was a financial failure as long as the gameplay is smooth and flawless. (i.e Vanquish, Enslaved)

 

[Kahunaburger]

I differ from the OP in that I don't really consider MW2/3 to be successes. Did they succeed at making a lot of money? Sure. Did they succeed at making a good multiplayer or singleplayer experience? Haha no.

I do tend to cut games some slack for ambition, though.

 

[Rainmaker77]

Depends on what you measure success OP. In terms of sales MW is a clear success, but generally considered a bad game by most, whereas the Mecha of PC gaming, Psychonauts almost financially crippled Double Fine.

The former being an safe bet while the latter is an amazing gem, if a financial failure. In that case I'll take Psychonauts any day of the week.

I assume you mean overall quality of the game however, a game like Mirrors Edge was considered a failure in that regard, but was still a engaging game, and just thinking about it is making me want to play it again, whereas with the MW's I've never had that urge.

 

[zombieshark6666]

I dislike failure. If you have 12 M$ and 15 months to make a game, don't try to make a "rollercoaster of en epic" and then whine when people don't buy your broken low-res spread too thin POS derivative action-rpg. Innovation is good, just do it in moderation. Make it work with what you have and can do. Most dev mistakes are usually design and not simply technology, although there's some of that too.

So neither.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I guess it depends on how you define ambitious failure. Are games that were relatively well received but maybe fell short of their goals financially and/or creatively failures? UO wasn't even 1/10th of what it could've been, but I think it's still generally considered a success. Same with Dungeon Keeper. Rainmaker mentions Psychonauts...what about games like that, or BG&E? Are those "failures"?

Or for "ambitious failure" are we talking about a game that wasn't particularly well received OR fun to play, like Spore? A game that just got buried under the weight of its ambition and never really delivered on any level?

Because if it's the former, I'm going to say ambitious failure. If it's the latter, I'm saying safe success.

 

[Skoldpadda]

Safe successes are more fun to play, but we also need ambitious failures; we need those that dare to push the envelope. So I'm not choosing either and you can't make me!

 

[Kahunaburger]

I differ from the OP in that I don't really consider MW2/3 to be successes. Did they succeed at making a lot of money? Sure. Did they succeed at making a good multiplayer or singleplayer experience? Haha no.

I do tend to cut games some slack for ambition, though.

You have a very strange definition of success. I would think making a game that millions of people think is really good would be considered a success. It doesnt matter what your personal opinion on the game is saying that they are not successes is just being idiotic.

Notice how in my post I draw a distinction between different types of success. An analogy: Twilight. Was it financially successful? Sure. Was it successful at gaining a fanbase? Sure. Did it succeed at being a high-quality book? Nope. The last dimension of success is the only one I care much about.

 

[Esotera]

It sort of depends how you define ambitious failures...if it's just a poorly planned project that took on way too much for one game, then the safe success is obviously better. If we're talking about something that hasn't really been done before, like LA Noire, then I'd take that any day over something like Modern Warfare.

 

[Robert Ewing]

I prefer safe success.

As a great man once said, "Live slow, die eventually, and leave a fairly attractive corpse."

 

[Henkie36]

In the words of Yathzee ''At least ambition implies there's someone with a soul behind it.'' And that's basically how I feel about the whole thing. Let's take the first X-Men movie as an example. No, technically speaken there isn't anything bad about it, the acting is fine, the action is fine and the story is even comprehensive and logical. But I didn't like it. I thought everything was too safe and ''wowless''. But I did like X-Men 3, which at least had something going for it in the sense that it was at least trying to get something done. Yeah it cocked it up here and there, but there was much more ambition present then with the first one.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

I guess it depends on the degree of failure, or degree of safeness.

 

[Scrustle]

Like everyone else I want to say ambitious failure, but that's not true. I like both equally. No matter how ambitious and interesting a game is, if it's a failure it just isn't fun. It may be worth experiencing for how unique it is, but you can't deny that a failure is a failure. And although it sounds boring and doesn't exactly encourage innovation, you can't deny that a safe success is still a success and a fun game. Some of the best games in the world are ones that take ideas that are already well established and do little more than execute those ideas really well.