Previously, on How you define a "successful game" sales?... I don't think finding glaring problems with most games I've played(1) is a "bold statement". I wouldn't write a book "Whit erorrs schu as this, in, it." As far as my knowing more than quite a lot of professionals, you must be quite naive to believe that they have already figured everything out. I might as well walk out the door right now, because "Everything that can be invented has been invented." -Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899. Here's why I "know better": There are a lot of copy-cats. There are a lot of boring games. There are a lot of poorly executed games. There are a lot of unimaginitive developers. There are a lot of pompus idiots who think they can make a game because they want to. There are a lot of bad games. Can I fix this? No. Can I try to do my absolute best to avoid contributing to the problem? I sure as hell can. The problem exists because the industry is so young. There were a lot of issues with the early film industry that needed to be worked out; there was a long transition period from theatre to film. By no means is every film that comes out now a blockbuster. The SNR (which is so often discussed in these forums! ) is much lower now, however. The reason? The quantity of highly qualified professionals that exists is much greater now. The game industry is just now reaching a point that someone could have spent their whole life making games. This means there are a lot of beginners and people crossing professions to work in gaming. Because of this, there is a lower quantity of consistently successful professionals in this industry. Lower number of highly qualified professionals + high output volume = low signal to noise ratio. And before anyone bothers flaming: I am fully aware that I need to "prove" myself first, otherwise I'm just another voice in the crowd. (1) For the record, I've got an estimated 1,200 CDROMs and over 200 diskettes; all purchased PC games.