|
"We had no idea it was going to be this big" is
something you often hear from developers behind massive hits. Hits -- excluding
sequels -- often come from nowhere. They're completely unpredictable and
utterly surprising.
Take, for instance, SimCity, The Sims, Pokémon,
Tetris, Grand Theft Auto, and Counter-Strike. The probable causes of
these hits are brilliant developers, hard work, timing and some luck.
Unfortunately, I wouldn't know, really; therefore, this article is not about
those games -- as much as it is about the process of actively trying to
conceive the next big thing.
While I haven't yet been a part of
fully launching a huge new IP, this article builds upon the seven months I
worked at the IP development team at EA DICE where we came reasonably close to
doing just that.
This article is about how to deliver under creative pressure,
finding inspiration and developing it to attractive IPs and communicating them
to executives - over and over again.
While at the IP team I developed 31 IPs
over a period of seven months.
IP in General
This article is going to be a lot about
movies. Why? IPs don't really have a platform -- by their nature, they're an
"immaterial" property. Anything is fair game as inspiration for an IP, and
since being inspired by other games is standard, I won't talk as much about
that.
Channeling Creativity
Quantity
Let me begin by saying that creativity
doesn't necessarily need to be channeled, but I found it necessary to
continuously come up with new stuff. When you are operating under immense
pressure to produce huge quantities of original creative material, you need to
channel your efforts in order to reach both quantity and quality. If you are
like most people, you get inspired, sometimes from big things and sometimes
from the small things. The question becomes, how do you proceed once you get
inspired?
Your brain constantly bombards you with
pieces of inspiration, and capturing one or two of these pieces of inspiration
every day will leave you with a huge quantity of ideas at the end of the week.
By having several core ideas, you and your colleagues can make a more informed
decision at the end of the week on which idea has the most merit. When this is
decided you can start investing a little more time into these core ideas and
see where it will take you.
Quality
Making games is very little about you
and very much about millions of other people. This is crucial to keep in mind
when you start prodding at your core idea. The refinement of a game idea is a
process in which you are required to find its place in popular culture, time,
and trends. This might sound harsh -- but this is the reality of professional
IP development for mainstream gaming. We are in the forefront of culture,
media, and social life. We call for the attention of hundreds of millions of
people; the stakes are high.
A high quality pitch should ideally be a
really interesting core idea, anchored in popular culture and trends, with
clear and convincing references.
One important tool to improve quality
is to verify that a reference you are alluding to actually has the qualities
you are claiming. A problem I faced when I did my first couple of pitches was
making references to other media and IPs which I had too little knowledge
about. I could be arguing a certain trend is hot -- "just look at this
movie" -- and someone in the audience would enlighten me that movie didn't
perform as well as anticipated. If you've built your pitch on a particular reference
and that turns out to be weak, your pitch is pretty dead.
Why am I talking so much about
references anyway? However you came up with your IP, you will at some point
need to convince people it is great and the chances are that, whether you want
to or not, you will have to give them references to comprehend a game that does
not yet exist. Therefore you might as well be prepared, and pick references
with care.
As I got more experienced I started to
prepare by indexing my references in using a system similar to index cards.
Structuring your references and inspirations helps a great deal when it comes
to building a strong case.
The card above displays the most
successful movies of all time, after adjusting for inflation. That is just one
general technique to keep in mind; you can choose to assemble indexes of
references in any way you wish. The point is to choose only the most relevant
references for your IP. If you aren't primarily aiming for a blockbuster
reference, you would need to index your references in a different way.
|
Printer-Friendly Version
Having said that, perhaps people are less receptive right now to the techno-paranoia themes of Terminator but we can still relate to the personal struggle in a decaying metropolis of Spiderman/Batman.
So where do great ideas come from? Some are born with it; others take what they see around them and create something new, and the rest take an existing product, tweak it, do a format change and create something better.
I have good ideas all the time for possible video games; however I do not work inside the industry, so my ideas might not ever see the light of day. I am trying to break into the game development world, with hard work and a lot of luck, I will have success.
I talked about the execution process in the first paragraph; this has many stages to it. For me, the execution starts by doing. When that flash of creativity comes to my mind, I write it down. One of my many projects came to me while at work, so I spent a few minutes writing the concept down (about two pages) then e-mailing it to my home address. Once the plot and premise of the story is secure, then what to with it? The idea was a first person shooter, and the game player needs something to do, so I started to think up some missions for the game. After about one week of work, I had 20 single player mission written down. I reviewed those and decided to use 17 of them, then put them in the order within the game. After the missions are written down, I will outline each one with about 3 to 5 pages of notes. During this outlining phase, I develop weapons and items that the player will use throughout the game. Once the weapons, item and missions are outlined, then I start adding possible dialog and more game detail. When this project is done, each mission will be roughly 12 to 15 pages long, about 2 pages for each weapon and item, about 5 to 8 pages for the plot and background story, and about one page apiece for the main NPC’s within the game.
This is my process, it works well for me.
Great human endeavors -- be it novels, paintings, architecture, movies, or games -- come from an intrinsic desire to create. The passion to create something great and original in and of itself. Masterpiece-quality work comes from leaders, not followers, who want to carry out a vision regardless of what others think. To creative visionaries, the power and fame that comes with success is ancillary; the true reward is in seeing your creation come to live and bring joy to others.
To start the creative process by analyzing pop-culture fads is putting the cart before the horse. This thinking simply resolves to: "Wow, that game sold xx million units, we want more of the same, how can we make a formula for selling xx million units every time!" The problem here is one of motivational perversion. Your creative process is guided by greed, not a desire for greatness. This is the exact mentality that leads to endless crappy sequels and cheap movie-tie-ins that plague this industry.
In the final analysis, games and movies are popular and sell lots of units because they're great and thoroughly enjoyable. And greatness is classic and timeless. Sure, media ages, and sometimes fads and pop-culture play a role, but to put them at the core of the creative process is repugnant, precisely BECAUSE it dooms one to mediocrity. In the end, Terminator 2 sold the most because it's a great movie developed by a properly motivated director. Terminator 3 & 4 are pieces of crap developed by studios in an effort to squeeze out a few bucks.
"The primary reason for making a third one [T3] was financial, and that didn't strike me as organic enough a reason to be making a film." -- James Cameron
If you study great work in depth, "organic" motivation is revealed to be a common denominator. Avatar, Titanic, and Star Wars -- 3 of the 4 highest grossing movies ever, were organically motivated, set their own trends, and were developed by visionaries despite many naysayers. Even their directors had serious doubts about their ultimate success, but they did what they thought was creatively correct and it paid off.
I can go on and on about why proper motivation leads to successful movies and games, but anyone who's created anything they're proud of will understand how squeezing a square peg into a round hole just because you're told it needs to be done can't lead to the level of quality possible otherwise.
True, even the organic process can't guarantee a hit, but still, it's far better than the alternative. This industry would be much healthier if the businessmen and producers that run the largest companies pursued quality in their products with the same enthusiasm they pursue power, profit, and fame.
If you look at games as a commodity then churning out popular topics based on trends makes sense, however if you look at games as art then you have to go with what entices the target audience. The bigger the game, the broader the audience. Majority of big successful games don't have just one trendy element to them, they have multiple elements that each individual can then personalize and/or empathize with and either associate to trends or take for face value.
I should clarify that I am a game programmer, not currently employed as a game designer, but every once in a while I like to get involved with building some small game just for a quick fun. The process I prefer is to create a concept, then create the mechanics, and THEN after the gameplay is decidedly "fun" I'll add a few characters in their and start setting up the story and environment. Doing it this way allows me to create new settings, characters, and sub plots without diverging from the fun aspect of the game. The setting and story is then dictated by the capabilities of gameplay rather then the gameplay being stiffled by the story. I've worked on a few games where the gameplay was horrifically bad because they took a gameplay mechanics that had nothing to do with the story, built a world around the loose concepts introduced several "trends" because they knew it would be a selling point to the publisher and then marched on as if the game was the greatest game ever... and they all failed!
I suppose that is why I'm a programmer and not a game designer. I start with the implementation and then create a story from within a world rather then creating a story and creating the world and then thinking of gameplay later.
However, I do understand the need for the business savy people to have some sort of comfort in their investment. Big names in the industry can get away with throwing stuff at a board and seeing what sticks because they have a proven track record, but getting to that point is difficult. If your just starting out(such as Kevin in the previous post) then you have to do what the publisher wants and be able to show that your IP can be successful given stats and numbers that can back up your claim.
I think the intent of the article was merely trying to show to the publisher how your new great IP might be good for the market using tools like google trends and such. I don't think it was trying to say that this is the criteria that you should use to make your new IP. Either way, it does stiffle the "organic creative process" a bit.
Furthermore, the original Batman had motives and his past was tastefully explained. In the movies he was clearly shown as "still human" and was believable enough.
I'd argue that because everything in the new movies was so normal, the fact that he wears a bat shaped cowl, makes it seem even more unbelievable and out of place.
As far as I know, that although the comic character Batman has evolved over the years, it seems the franchise has settled on the Dark Knight / Detective style of things. Still being dark and quite gothic. There was none of this in the movie. Batman had no style, no flair, no dramatic shots of him on a building, nothing.
I say "settled" because, yes, there was a live action Batman TV series that was goofy and comical, as well as many other definitive points in Batmans history where we can see the signs of character evolution. BUT it has been MANY, many years since there was another significant re-imaging that stuck. Those early stages that spanned several years were a teething period. Batman's identity and visual style is pretty cemented. Yes, once again, you will have your odd experiments here and there, but those are minor digressions.
The original Tim Burton films and Batman: The Animated Series did amazing things to help establish Batman and his universe. To ignore all of this, I say was counter-productive.
Stories don't have to be time or culture sensitive at all, which is why we still have such fantastic literature, movies and games that are still wonderful today, years on into the future.
I will take this moment to say that Rocksteady Studios did a PHENOMENAL job with Batman: Arkham Asylum. They fricken' nailed it, and I'm extremely fussy when it comes to Batman.
I'm actually quite shocked at this article, this should be a guideline of how NOT to do things. I find it immensely amusing, that this article is named "the ART of IP development", when all it's advising is looking at financial indicators and current trends.
I'd rather be striving for timeless concepts, instead of simply recycling. Most recycled fad inspired concepts die and stay dead, because they're empty.
Also, IP in relationship to the game industry is a tricky business. As a serious gamer, there have been so many BAD tie-in games that I'm intrinsically skeptical of any game using IP from another source (whether movies, comics, or anything else). In some sense, original IP is riskier--but also garners less skepticism from gamers like myself. Once original IP is established as a quality product, then the IP can market itself.
Ultimately, for me, I could care less about IP. Solid series are out there, but unless the games are made by the same developer, I've become really skeptical. Examples Knights of the Old Republic II (Obsidian takes over from Bioware), Neverwinter Nights II (same), Call of Duty series (in general the Infinity Ward products are more polished than Treyarch's). So, IP's can be strong--but they can also be ruined rather easily.
"Making games is very little about you and very much about millions of other people."
If you do not believe this, then you are making art. And nobody is going to hand you Gears or God of War money to turn your artistic goals into a game. Of course, I hope I'm wrong, but there it is.
As for the parting shots on "new and original" being left out, well, if you re-read the first part of the article, he sets them aside as phenomenons that can't be planned for.
Thanks, Marcus. This was a good read.
This discussion always goes on at the publishing level and migrates in parts to the developer. This includes the posted comments where there is some hostility to the notion of assigning monetary metrics and correlating it with risk. However each side needs the other, the creatives need the budget to develop their title while publishers need some metric by which to determine path, progression, and scope. Each side has the option of changing the project landscape and schedule.
The reality is that there is no side, creatives and publishers eat from the same bowl so to speak. But this dichotomy exists because at least two distinct groups, while having the same goal, have different priorities and specific concerns.
Now as to the point of 'IP' or 'art': it's moot since one can become the other, or be both at the same time. Since either definition allows a familiar set of terms, concepts, and processes to be discussed and framed, you can at least have the the possibility of having a discussion.
So in summary, there needs to be good or productive relations between all parties or at least a willingness to attempt it since the goal is to have an IP that sets an artistic standard. This is not impossible nor improbable as it happens a lot, usually amongst the more seasoned and experienced industry members. This doesn't mean that either side is a push over, far from it! What it does mean that regardless of the reservations, both parties understand the necessity of resolution and clarity of process and purpose.
Your analysis of the Nolan Batman films is completely wrong. As a point of fact, it was Burton who deviated from the source material and what he created had very little to do with the established mythos of the comics. Worse, those deviations damaged the integrity of the character and what makes him so compelling. Nolan actually respected the source material and there are several very important things that he established in his films that actually make them a far better representation of Batman, including:
- An understanding and clear outline of Bruce’s father and why his death had the affect it did on a young Bruce Wayne. Burton’s films all but ignored Thomas Wayne and the role he played in making Bruce the man he eventually becomes. Nolan’s film gave Wayne Senior a face and a philosophy that Bruce channels to become a better person.
- Batman’s ethos in Nolan’s films remains intact. He does not kill. This is an edict Burton violates several times in his films. When Batman kills the Joker at the end of the Burton Batman, that scene is a complete dismissal of everything Batman is supposed to stand for and what his character represents. Contrast that to his decision to save the Joker’s life in The Dark Knight: Batman clearly wants to kill him but he does the right thing and keeps him from falling. This is the very essence of their relationship and both men are fully aware of it.
- Alfred’s role in Burton’s films is shallow and meaningless. Nolan understood Alfred’s true role in the mythology is to act as a surrogate parent, even challenging Bruce when his morality and dedication begins to waver. That scene where he explains to Bruce what the Joker really is or when he withholds the note from Rachel after her death are both prime examples of a man who is far more than a servant to a crime fighter; he’s a father and a mentor.
- Burton demolished the character of Jim Gordon, who in the comics is as crucial to the survival of Gotham as Batman. It is Gordon who facilitates and supports Batman and in turn Batman is incredibly reliant upon Gordon. To this day I have no idea why Burton even chose to include the character in his films.
I could go on but my point remains that Nolan's success with this franchise directly correlates to his respect for the material. I will concede that Nolan’s films are entrenched in reality but so too were the works that inspired it, like Frank Miller’s Year One and The Killing Joke. The whole crux of Batman is that his enemies escalate their own modalities and methods to combat Batman, meaning over the course of time Gotham becomes more distorted and warped by the villains.
As to the lack of artistic flourishes you cite, both Nolan films capture the true essence of what Batman is and has always been: a boogeyman for criminals. There are several scenes within both films that are incredibly iconic, even talking their visual cues directly from the comic book source material. To claim that Nolan’s films aren’t accurate Batman movies is to misunderstand the mythos of the character, as many clearly do based on their assertions that Burton’s films were actually anything but deviations from the canonical Batman.
The reason why Nolan’s films are successful is because they are damn good movies and they preserve the integrity of the core source material’s thematic structure while making the necessary alterations to be successfully transplanted into a different medium.
All of that said, I agree with you that Rocksteady’s Arkham Asylum was perfect in terms of delivering the mythos into a playable construct.
Also, Batman was preventing the Joker from escaping by attaching him to the gargoyle, but Joker wouldn't let go, killing himself. Batman had opportunities to kill the Joker but didn't. Remember the Batwing, where he was shooting at the Joker conveniently missing? Warning shots.
The movies had different priorities and dedicated screen time to different things, while yes, there might have been less focus on the supporting characters, however, I think meaningless is taking it too far, I remember really liking Alfred in the movies.
What about the "Batmobile" in the new Batman: Begins. Or should I say, tank? Excuse me, what? How none of his equipment is branded, like it clearly is in everything else.
What about the Joker? I'm sorry, Tim Burton's joker was far more accurate (apart from the fact of killing Wayne's parents). But as an actual character, personality and aesthetically. Nolan's Joker looked like a trashed out hobo. He more just pure lunatic and very little clown.
I think I remember like one or two artistic flourishes in both of Nolan's films. I consider that starving. The fact of the matter is, Nolan's movies almost had no visual style, no character. Not to mention the absolutely ridiculous voice put on by Christian Bale in the second film. I was actually laughing at this when I first heard it, I was in complete disbelief.
A bunker instead of a Bat Cave? Really? Yes, the Bat Bunker did feature ever so slightly in the comics, but now why use it for the movies. Nolan likes taking away everything that visually makes Batman iconic. And Batman, is a very iconic character.
He has always been a boogeyman for criminals, something very well illustrated in the first movies, ala first scene, I don't see depicted very well in the new movies.
Even subtleties, like when Batman uses his grappling hook, in Burton's he does it in style, in Nolan's, he bounces off rafters clumsily. There's just so much not to like, and the details are void.
Perhaps Nolan was more loyal with characters and built their characters more. Which I think had diminishing returns. Most those scenes were not memorable at all. Everything else, he screwed up. I'd rather take the small hit and get the rest of the full, more crafted experience.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.cinematical.com/media/2009/02/ozymandias.jpg
This is a business of turning a profit: "Good" games vs. games that sell. Shadow of the Colossus was, in my opinion, one of the greatest games ever made. But it's numbers won't touch COD:MW1,2 or Farmville. Portal is another good example of this. Art is not free; it takes either money or sacrifice. And since most developers have families, mortgages, etc. to pay, the cannot afford to sacrifice (read: work for free).
This is not a "new thing" either; the old masters of various media had to go through a similar "hazing process". Mark Twain wrote for crappy magazines. So did Kurt Vonnegut. The games industry is no different. Good art is expensive. For beginning developers especially, games must SELL before they are GOOD. Once you have deep pockets, then you can (literally) afford to blow people's minds.
By the way, it's, "I'M BATMAN". With MORE FEELING Chris, come on!
:P
This is an entertainment industry. It's about dreams and people and visions. As William Goldman famously said (about film), "Nobody knows anything." Emphasis on "know". Imagination is more important than knowledge. (As Einstein said.)
What you should be doing is rolling up your sleeves, getting out there and directly encountering the creative with an open mind. You have to get out of the corporate, bureaucratic, analytic mindset and instead look with your eyes.
I’m curious how something is made clear when the character never appears on screen. Everybody knows that Bruce Wayne becomes Batman because his parents are murdered in front of him but what Burton failed to grasp (because he had no vested interest in the mythos beyond the superficial) is who Thomas Wayne was and how the integrity of that man was passed to his son. For Tim Burton, Thomas Wayne was nothing more than a corpse on the street. Nolan understood the importance of that relationship and actually demonstrated it on screen.
As to murder, Batman kills at least one other henchman before going for the Joker in Burton’s flick and in case you forgot, he actually strikes the Joker and sends him tumbling over the edge of the cathedral. His intent was to kill the Joker and the very notion of Batman killing (and especially killing his true arch nemesis) is an utter violation of the established mythos. As a point of fact, the entire crux of their relationship is that the Joker is the ultimate test of his ethos and morality and at every turn Batman resists the urge to kill him. That continuous conflict between them is crucial to the mythology.
As to the notion that Nicholson’s Joker is more accurate than Ledger’s, only people weaned on Burton’s Batman would make that assertion. I can point to any number of literal volumes of Batman comics that prove definitively that Ledger’s Joker was spot on and actually was so poignant and well-executed that his performance will serve as the basis for the way the character is portrayed from this point forward, at least for some writers and artists. Nicholson’s Joker, besides possessing none of the physical characteristics of the character in the comic, was essentially a buffoon whose insanity was tempered by attraction to women and the acquisition of avarice. By contrast, the Ledger/Nolan Joker is a true psychopath whose only motivation is chaos and murder. For him, death and mayhem are the punch line, as they are in the comics. His decision not to kill Batman but to keep him around because he is “Fun” demonstrates why he is the truest incarnation of the villain put to celluloid.
Nolan also resisted the urge to give the Joker a back-story, which was (up until recently) a very crucial component of the character. The Joker’s own recollection of his past, which changes each time he relates it, is vintage Joker mythos and actually alludes to Allen Moore’s Killing Joke, where we as the reader are given a compelling Joker back-story only to discover at the end that the entire thing might be fabricated. So no, Nicholson’s Joker isn’t in any way accurate to the comics, even if were you to go back to the golden age volumes and read them for inspiration. First and foremost the character is a homicidal maniac and that is precisely how Ledger portrayed him. I would also note that Ledger’s Joker wardrobe was much more accurate to how the Joker appears in the comics than anything Nicholson ever wore. The biggest divergence Nolan makes is the make-up and the disheveled appearance, which frankly makes sense in a real-world construct.
In regards to artistic flourishes, Nolan has an obvious style and merely because that style doesn’t appeal to you personally doesn’t negate it or mean it isn’t present in this and his other films. I would actually argue that in terms of style, voice and artistic vision, Nolan is one of the most talented and important filmmakers working today but obviously these are subjective arguments so I won’t waste time debating the merits of him as a filmmaker. I do strongly disagree that he doesn’t portray Batman as a boogeyman however; that is clearly shown in Batman Begins during the cargo bay scene where he picks off Falcone’s crew one by one, using their fear coupled with his stealth to dismantle them. Nolan’s Batman hides in the shadows and is strategic; Burton’s Batman relies on gadgets and stays out in the open for most of his crime fighting. I would also assert that Nolan’s vision of Gotham isn’t as divergent as you seem to think; plenty of artists have made the city to look very contemporary and the worst thing I would say about Nolan’s Gotham is that it is architecturally bland compared to some of the Gotham cityscapes shown in the comics. That said, Burton’s Gotham is just a silly exercise in excess: perpetually gloomy with architecture that no real city would ever employ.
And while I will concede that Bale’s voice is a tad much, Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne/Batman was a joke from day one. Bale possesses the requisite athleticism to play Batman and he also does something Keaton was unable to do: demonstrate the mental anguish of Bruce Wayne by revealing to the audience that Batman is not the mask but rather Bruce Wayne. Bale plays Bruce as the clueless, spoiled playboy persona and nails it perfectly. Nolan explores in detail the scarred personality of Wayne in a way Burton’s popcorn film doesn’t even begin to approach.
You are also missing the point when you cite Nolan’s Batman using the grappling clumsily. Again, that is a direct reference to Frank Miller’s Year One, widely considered to be one of the best Batman books written, and it clearly shows Batman making all sorts of mistakes as he gains his bearings as a crime fighter. In one scene for example, he almost gets killed by three lowly street thugs robbing an apartment because despite all of his training, he’s basically an amateur. You’ll note that by the time Dark Knight rolls around, his seems much more sure-footed in just about everything he does, which is simply a matter of evolution and character development. It’s interesting to note that Burton places almost no real emphasis on Batman’s past or his development as a crime fighter. He also places no actual emphasis on Batman’s detective skills, which are among the world’s best.
See, this isn’t even subjective because your assessment of Nolan’s films is based on the presumption that Burton’s Batman movies were accurate, which they were not. If you prefer those films that is certainly your prerogative but to assert they offer a more authentic Batman experience is flatly incorrect. It’s not even up for debate because the established mythos of the comics nullifies just about every assertion you have made. You clearly haven’t spent much time with the comics, including some of the must read basics, so I really have no idea why you and others who have no concern regarding the integrity of the character keep insisting that your take on Batman is accurate. Also, your final conceit that Nolan perhaps spent more time with the character development but got diminishing returns is nonsensical. Batman is compelling precisely because as a character he is filled with conflict, doubt, and pain. Your own inability to appreciate that doesn’t translate in diminishing returns considering that The Dark Knight is the highest grossing comic book film of all time, the third highest grossing film domestically, and received almost universal critical praise.
All of that comes back to one central reality: Nolan kept the emphasis on accurate portrayals of the characters and their motivations. He remained true to the source material which is why Burton’s films, while certainly important, are a mere footnote to what Nolan has done with the character cinematically.
Thank-you sir......I second that post!
The primary _potential_ for value in an IP is from uniqueness. For example: Action heroes of the 1980s were mostly "invincible tough guys" like Rambo, the Terminator, etc. and these movies stuck to straightforward depictions of the hero defeating all opposition. When Die Hard came out it felt unique and gripping: A more vulnerable and resourceful hero, in a setting that forces him to "barely scrape through" time and time again.
The elements comprising Die Hard were sitting out in the open: "siege movies" like Assault on Precinct 13 - resourceful heroes like MacGuyver - the limited skyscraper setting in the Towering Inferno - "buddy cop" movies like 48 Hours. Even so, a simplistic trend-following metric would not tell you how to make Die Hard.
Where metrics and data can come in and make IP more commercially viable is _after_ the unique aspects of the concept have been hammered out. These things drive viewer interest by supporting unique elements against familiar ones, making both stronger. Again, Die Hard as an example: there's a romantic interest - which Hollywood has found is a great aid to box office success - but it is worked into the concept in a relatively subtle way. The movie had enough going on to work without any romance, but it added a little bit of audience appeal. Had it dominated the movie, though, and became "John McClane battles relationship issues and also some bad guys," the whole thing would have been ruined from the beginning.
Avatar. There's another great example. At the core of Avatar, there is an artistically interesting work of science fiction. It's a short one, though - the main plot could be adequately described as a 10-page short story. The bulk of the movie is spent on filling out the commercial aspects - on demonstrating the lush beauty of Pandora, on setting up clear good guys and bad guys and depicting their conflict with as much fanfare as possible, on seeing us through a very basic romance plot. But none of those things would work without the core elements to tie it together and provide interesting gimmicks - things like Pandora's atmosphere, the abilities of the avatars, or the symbiotic relationships of the various life forms.
In games, this suggests the following strategy: Prototype out some unusual, interesting core gameplay. Then broaden its appeal: This means a combination of cutting or drastically simplifying elements that make people uncomfortable and detract from the core, while also dumping on piles and piles of features that add incremental polish. Get lots and lots of feedback to measure your progress. Plan to iterate over multiple product cycles to get the best result possible.
Good points. Most really successful commercial properties seem to be those that innovate within an established genre/IP area. Innovation while retaining the core elements that make the genre good or popular (at the time) is what creates financial success. See World of Warcraft and the MMORPG genre. But using facts and figures to make your IP look good in a corporate presentation is not the right approach, since it encourages copying without the innovation.