I agree. Even the best of ideas are nothing without execution. It frustrates me when you hear about people complaining that so-and-so stole their idea. Unless so-and-so stole their implementation plan, ideas are open game. For instance, in writing, two people can write from the same exact plot outline, with the exact same notes for characters and plot twists and resolution, yet one can be astounding and the other a trite piece of work.

The implementation depends on the ability to plan & execute a plan, as well as the creativity and resources to fill in all the gaps. The game isn't just an idea, it's the end result of many series of ideas and numerous little decisions made along the way.

While I agree that implementation is the lion's share, the ideas matter. Start with a good idea and you have a metric by which to judge your progress, you have goals that can be clearly described, and your work progresses towards a viable endpoint.

Miyamoto's inspiration has led to some really unique games - his specific interests and his ability to work with people to turn them into compelling experiences has made Nintendo billions of dollars. Some of that's "his ability to work with people to turn them into compelling ideas," but a lot of it is recognizing what's interesting in that other interaction - finding the right inspiration, and pursuing it.

There's thousands of designers working in the industry today whose ideas *aren't* good. Billions of dollars are wasted pursuing shitty, derivative knockoffs of better games - some of that failing is in the implementation, but a huge part of it comes from the fact that they're starting with bad ideas.

See, I agree & disagree. When I say "ideas are nothing without execution," I am referring to the seed idea, not to the process of developing that idea. For the Miyamoto-Wii Fit example, I would call the "seed idea" something like, "Hey, how about we make a game based on fitness!" or maybe, "Hey, I bet we can make a peripheral that lets you weigh yourself."

Are those seed ideas interesting? Not really, not by themselves. Several people already had and executed on that first see idea. However, what Miyamoto did was that he had the same seed idea, then applied his own brilliant form of inspiration to reform that into a much more interesting starting point in a way that only a few people can, then executed on it by refining that idea and implementing it, making great choices and changes along the way.

If, on the other hand, you consider the "idea" to be something further long than my concept of a "seed idea", and more like, "Hey, I bet we could create a peripheral that has several weight sensors, which would let us deal with both weight and balance, and let us create a bunch of fun games involving balancing and other forms of exercise!" then I would agree with you. However, I should have been clearer that when I referred to the "idea".

Yeah, I'm definitely referring to the more extensive "idea" and not the "seed idea." I agree that the "seed idea" is essentially meaningless - so much so that I wouldn't even think of that as an "idea" at all.

It's true that I don't think it's worth thinking of as a fully-formed idea at all, but I think when random people complain about having their idea "stolen", they are almost always thinking about the "seed idea".

I think Nintendo's not on the wrong track to try to keep Miyamoto's yap shut. At this point, billions of dollars hang in the balance - Miyamoto IS Nintendo's competitive advantage. If it turns out someone sees Miyamoto at an auto-repair class, and spends heavily making a good auto-repair game (and not just random shit shovelware), then they may have beat Nintendo to the punch - but Nintendo wouldn't know about it until they'd already invested millions in developing the idea.

So, it does make sense - at this point, there's a history of behavior, and it's up to Nintendo to protect that advantage as much as possible.

Well, then, screw those guys.

It's true Helava, Nintendo is not wrong to try to keep Miyamoto's mouth shut. I guess am a little selfish. I just like reading about the guy and what he does; he's interesting. ebeast I agree totally "idea are nothing with out proper execution", you said it all. I was going to follow up on Wii Fit being a pretty lame idea to start with. Good thread guys and gals.

My problem is that Wii Fit is a great idea that's implemented HORRIBLY. The hardware's great, and when you play something that uses it really well it's almost like magic. But Wii Fit, the software, is garbage. The structure of the "game" is bad, where you interact with the thing with thirty seconds of intro, three minutes or less of interaction, then two minutes of menus. You end up "playing" less than half the time, which is just crap.

The fact that you can't string a large number of activities together so that the game just goes from activity to activity is insane. It's almost unusable.

You think this might be the reason why 60% percent of users play it an avg of five times before storing it under the bed? I haven't played the game myself, but what's kind of funny is that the people that I've spoke to said it's fun and great (none of them are developers, just consumers). Perhaps the appeal is the scale itself and to see something new associated with the reputation of the Wii's innovation is what brings in the draw of the crowd.

I think that's exactly right, both for why people think it's great, and why people stop using it.

The people that get it, think, "AWESOME!" and then put it away never to use it again aren't realizing *why* they're not compelled to use it more.

It's not that the individual activities suck - it's that the structure of the game doesn't *compel* you to play. The rewards aren't good enough, the interaction isn't fluid enough - it's very herky-jerky - start, stop, wait - you never get into a "flow." That's the result of bad design more than anything else, but it's subtle enough that most casual players would never think to point it out.

I would definitely do these things to improve the game:

- Let players chain activities to form variable length workouts.
- Prepackage various lengths of workouts, e.g. 5-min, 20-min, 1-hour, etc.
- Keep a bank tally of the total minutes/fit cents (not just on a session basis) and let the players "spend" that on virtual gym gear or anything, frankly.

If I was Miyamoto, I'd LET the public see me doing something totally unrelated to what I'm going to make. For example, I could let the paparazzi for the competitors catch me taking martial arts. Then after learning that the competitors spied on me, I'd tell the press that I was outraged at how low they'd stooped.

Then when they release their sasquatch-cock sucky martial arts shovelware sim to compete with what was thought to be in the works at Nintendo even utilizing the Wii Motion Plus, and when the public says that it's more shovelware to prop up their wobbly tables... then I'd release Super Dodgeball Wii. And say something like, "We were just listening to our fans."

Hm.
If him talking saves us from Wii Fit, I fully support him yammering on non-stop.