IKNFL began in 1995. It was the first mod ever included on the CD with the game in 1998, as far as I am aware anyway. I could certainly be wrong about that. The word "mod" didn't exist yet, Sierra called it "an alternate configuration for the game". The player ratings of all sports games are simply a continuation of IKNFL through the influence of Madden. You are right, I never got any credit for that. I was taught "poker chip prototyping" by one of the original founders of Avalon Hill, I've known about that since before your industry existed and learned of it from the original source.
I honestly didn't mean for this thread to blow up into all of this. Since it did, I thought I'd explain what I meant by “One Vision” since it is open to such a broad interpretation. I thought it spoke for itself when I posted it, but I can see that I was very wrong about that. It genuinely is open to interpretation from many different points of view, so here is mine.
“One Vision” isn't the only way to make a game. Design by committee works in a lot, if not most, cases. I already gave the example of typical FPS and RTS games, everyone involved knows what the game is already. But the committee is always re-making the most recent popular game in most ways. Anything that deviates too far from the consensus vision of the moment will be voted back into line with the group's generic vision of the last few successful similar games. Most games don't necessarily need a single vision guiding them, but would probably benefit from it if they did.
This doesn't mean one person does it all by themselves, and that nobody else is involved with the design of the game. Steve Cole has always owned his own company, so he gets to be “God”. His games are guided by his singular vision, and a lot of gamers like that vision so he has an audience that has allowed him to successfully continue making his games for his entire life. This type of endurance is a valuable thing from a business perspective, it should be a desired thing by the people who are funding these games. But a rare thing, because not everyone was born to be a game designer (or story teller, or artist, or programmer, etc). It's usually only the ones who were born to do a thing that develop an audience.
SVC may be the “God” of his universe, but he is also known as “the most accessible game designer in the industry”. He has created a very organized system for anyone and everyone to suggest their own ideas for the design of his games, and for those ideas to also be vetted by other top players in addition too himself. He listens to those ideas and uses them more than anyone else, but when he does he molds them to fit his vision that his audience loves. In some cases, such as alien species, design by committee is better than a single vision. Many of the alien species of SVCs games began as submissions from players, so that they would be more “alien” among SVC's own core “empires”. Of course, it's still his vision in the end... he was the one who decided it would be a better idea to use other people's ideas in that case. That's just all a part of his vision. This is the true meaning of “game design is a benevolent dictatorship ruled by an iron fist”.
And this is exactly the “rock star as game designer” situation that you have always striven too avoid. I can understand why the programmers would desire that, but not the businessmen who are funding all this. “Rock stars” who have their own audience are reliable, their audience buys their games and you know how large their audience is. The modern game industry not only does not have a system for finding these people, but actively seeks to keep them out. I would think the people funding these efforts would be looking for these types of people, not seeking to keep them out of the system entirely.
You've had these types of people in your business before, Sid Meier and Will Wright are the best examples because they were the primary inspiration in the whole “rock star as game designer” is a bad thing mentality that emerged. You didn't want it to work like Hollywood, where only the dozen or so projects with the big name stars get to make big budget movies. These two also make for a great example of another aspect of the concept that I am referring too as “One Vision”.
If Sid Meier and Will Wright collaborated on a Sid Meier-like game, in any disagreement they might have Sid would always be right. It's his audience. His audience loves his games, and his vision, not Will's. If they were collaborating on a Will Wright game the opposite would, of course, be true. Sid would just mess Will's game up in the minds of Will's audience. Sid can add a lot too Will's games, but only the things that Will thinks fit in with his vision. It's his audience. And again, this works both ways.
There is no right way of doing it. Each way has its place. Except in very rare situations, the modern game industry only does it one way and ignores the other. You certainly don't attempt to foster the more reliable “game designer that develops an audience”, in fact you do everything you can to keep that from happening. That only ever happens in spite of your system, not because of it. The people who are funding these efforts should WANT to find those types of people, not support a system that prevents them from ever identifying them.
And, of course, when it comes to space ship games, there is no better indicator that you might be looking at someone like that than the words “Star Fleet Battles Staff”. Especially considering that almost every space ship game that you have ever played was, either directly or indirectly, inspired by SFB. Made by casual players... who just barely understood how to play it wrong. Just imagine what one of the actual assistant designers from the design phase of the final edition might do. Master of Orion was actually a complete disaster... “Gamers don't miss what they have never had.”
