While reading Malcolm Gladwell's What the Dog Saw, I was struck by an idea he presented in an article about mammography, pictures, and tactile experience. In essence, people subconsciously adhere to the philosophy of "a picture says thousand words"; or, to put it another way, we tend to believe pictures without any further analysis or stimulation. In regards to mammography, we can see pieces of evidence that may indicate the presence of breast cancer but this can be misleading--calcifications occur in many areas and in many shapes and sizes, but what one radiologist may see can differ wildly from another. However, tactile breast examination (or, as I would call it, "the good kind") can give us a much better idea of cancer growth, location, and lethality, all while utilizing an examination that lasts as little as five minutes per breast. I would assume that this would be less painful than getting your breast squeezed by an X-ray shooting robot.
In World War II, the Allies were convinced that eliminating the German ability to produce ball bearings--essential components in tanks, planes, and guns--would cripple any chances of the Nazis advancing any further. Thus began the mass bombing of Schweinfurt, Germany by planes outfitted with scopes allowing bombardiers to "put bombs in pickle buckets from 20,000 feet." This offensive proved to be a bust; with more accurate bombs, payloads could be decreased, resulting in explosives that damaged buildings and did little to the machinery inside. Gladwell's assertion is that with advances in photo imaging, we can see so much more detail, requiring an exponential increase in analysis to decipher said details.
To boil it all down, we can see things more clearly, but we need much more hands-on with things to fully understand them. Put this in perspective with a media and entertainment company; for the purposes of this discussion (and because they are my favorite), let's examine Nintendo.
As a subjective observer, Nintendo falls on both sides of this idea. Even with the advancements in imaging (focus groups, beta tests, et al), Nintendo continues to produce products that, upon tactile consideration, continue to perform. On the other hand, Nintendo has examined and refined all the information out there about market composition and, in my estimation, missed the mark by skewing simpler. Again, this is subjective, but I can't help but feel as though many recent releases condescend to competent, experienced gamers. I know full well that this perspective is counter to smart business practice ("Yes!" They'll scream. "Let's cater to an aging and decreasing consumer base! Straight to the top of the charts!"), but let's go back to Schweinfurt.
We could accurately place the bombs wherever they needed to go; in this case, ball bearing factories. This decreased the need for large, highly-explosive bombs that spread over a large area. Now all that was needed were smaller, more compact bombs--so small that you could fit many, many more on the plane. But these new explosives were anything but, doing only superficial damage to the structure and having no impact. The same strategy is implemented today by Nintendo: unleash a phalanx of titles defined to a certain audience and watch as they bounce off of the collective consciousness, making impacts on only a few. This makes me reminisce about the good old days, where titles like The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker transcended all demographics and was simply a great experience. They've still got that magic--take a look at New Super Mario Bros. or Super Mario Galaxy--but I can't help but wish this blitz would end.
