3 ms·

This is a common pattern in a lot of creative industries; some people have early, groundbreaking success, but once they're successful have a tough time replicat

by lambda 3y ago

This is a common pattern in a lot of creative industries; some people have early, groundbreaking success, but once they're successful have a tough time replicating that. Some combination of now that they're rich, no longer really the pressure to succeed as they already have, they were in the right place at the right time and no longer are, they have less pressure from other people telling them "no", they no longer have the passion of youth in their favor, they were better at the "inventing a new genre" than competing in a more mature marketplace with everyone else who has already learned from their previous success, etc. I don't know enough about the specifics of Romero to say which it is, possibly more than one, but it doesn't seem to be unique to him, I see this kind of pattern in pop culture all the time.

atrettel 3y ago
This phenomena is sometimes called the "sophomore slump" [1] in some creative industries and "second-system effect" [2] in software development. To add to your excellent list of reasons why this happens, I'd also add that early success may be the result of spending much more time on the first creative effort than subsequent ones. Some musicians spend years making their first album but then have only a year or two to try to repeat the success for a second album, especially if a label wants them to release another album while they are riding high and before their fame fades (supposedly). Second-system effect refers more specifically to feature creep in second projects in a series, but you can imagine the same thinking applying to creative industries too. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophomore_slump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophomore_slump [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect
- Vecr 3y ago
  Also regression to the mean, pretty much all successful products are unlikely in some way or another (i.e. required "luck").
twotwotwo 3y ago
Not inconsistent with this, what seems warped to me is having these huge expectations for individuals after their first success in the first place. (Writing this thinking about someone like Romero working on something like a game; lot of what follows doesn't carry over to, say, music or writing.) They needed talent to pull it off, but also lots of stars aligned for a bold experiment to work out, and true experiments don't always work out. Conversely, for each success there were many talented folks who tried good ideas and didn't see them work out. The more surprising the first success was, the more foolish you'd be to expect a repeat, it seems like. If that's the basic problem, you can't "fix" it in the sense that you can't make someone keep churning out revolutionary new things. But you might get better outcomes and fewer embarrassing failures the more you think of individual talent as one factor. Folks still have to iterate, get feedback, work with good people, sometimes put a lot of work into an idea then see it they have to rework it, or even release some quick experiments that don't do that well. You don't maximize your odds of great results by sending someone off to work in isolation as long as they want. One thing I see hints of here and there, but don't really have a great picture of, is the inner workings of organizations that produce new/weird but successful things more than just once. It interacts with business, luck, and changes in the world outside of course, but internally--how do they balance single vision vs. input from many folks? Do they build a lot they throw away? Do they go outside the team a lot for feedback (in Romero's world "playtesting")? Of course there's no one Right Way to do things, especially across domains, but it could be fascinating to see a bit more how various places work.

by lambda 3y ago

atrettel 3y ago

This phenomena is sometimes called the "sophomore slump" [1] in some creative industries and "second-system effect" [2] in software development. To add to your excellent list of reasons why this happens, I'd also add that early success may be the result of spending much more time on the first creative effort than subsequent ones. Some musicians spend years making their first album but then have only a year or two to try to repeat the success for a second album, especially if a label wants them to release another album while they are riding high and before their fame fades (supposedly). Second-system effect refers more specifically to feature creep in second projects in a series, but you can imagine the same thinking applying to creative industries too. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophomore_slump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophomore_slump [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect

Vecr 3y ago
Also regression to the mean, pretty much all successful products are unlikely in some way or another (i.e. required "luck").

twotwotwo 3y ago

Not inconsistent with this, what seems warped to me is having these huge expectations for individuals after their first success in the first place. (Writing this thinking about someone like Romero working on something like a game; lot of what follows doesn't carry over to, say, music or writing.) They needed talent to pull it off, but also lots of stars aligned for a bold experiment to work out, and true experiments don't always work out. Conversely, for each success there were many talented folks who tried good ideas and didn't see them work out. The more surprising the first success was, the more foolish you'd be to expect a repeat, it seems like. If that's the basic problem, you can't "fix" it in the sense that you can't make someone keep churning out revolutionary new things. But you might get better outcomes and fewer embarrassing failures the more you think of individual talent as one factor. Folks still have to iterate, get feedback, work with good people, sometimes put a lot of work into an idea then see it they have to rework it, or even release some quick experiments that don't do that well. You don't maximize your odds of great results by sending someone off to work in isolation as long as they want. One thing I see hints of here and there, but don't really have a great picture of, is the inner workings of organizations that produce new/weird but successful things more than just once. It interacts with business, luck, and changes in the world outside of course, but internally--how do they balance single vision vs. input from many folks? Do they build a lot they throw away? Do they go outside the team a lot for feedback (in Romero's world "playtesting")? Of course there's no one Right Way to do things, especially across domains, but it could be fascinating to see a bit more how various places work.