I do think that's somewhat true in software, but I think games are more of a mix of art and software, and in art it's much less common to find consistent winners outside of the mediocre category--- Thomas Kinkade makes consistent nice-looking paintings, but Picasso produced a lot of crap amidst his masterpieces. I'm not sure it's possible to take risks on game design and not end up with a reasonable number of duds, even if you're solid and professional on implementation.

It is true that most game-industry positions aren't really for designers, but these days a large number do involve some amount of design, especially if you want the game to be unique in some way. For example, AI programmers are in an odd position of doing "just implementation", but implementing a system that deeply impacts what kind of gameplay and design is possible (in some cases they quite literally write the tools that the designers will use to do things like write NPC behavior).

Is disproof by counter example allowed? Blizzard is one case of a company that has consistently produced masterpiece games in all of their major ip's at least since Diablo, Starcraft I, and Warcraft 3.

Only because they scrap ones that don't work. There's a difference between consistently producing incredible work and consistently releasing incredible work. Curation is a big part of industry success.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warcraft_Adventures:_Lord_of_th...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarCraft:_Ghost

OK, great point.

"Truly great work is often a result of consistent professionalism combined with ridiculous productivity."

I totally agree. In my experience, the HV people the grandparent post refers to are capable of lots of "professionalism" but only when they care about their projects. The difference is how productive they are when they have to work on something they aren't passionate about.

Something they aren't passionate about, or something that bores them? There's a difference. Less than 5% of projects inspire passion for me, but there's a wide middle of projects that I don't love but will enjoy moderately and do well.

Like I said, I'm "middle-variance". I swing between 4 (minimal acceptable) and 8 (max. sustainable). I can keep a 6+ going when I'm not passionate about a project but don't mind doing it, especially if I can see it leading to something better in the future.

These numbers are relative to a standard where 5.0 is the average for a professional at one's level of experience, 4 is the minimum, and 6 is about the level where people get promoted. If you're consistently 7-9, you're overqualified for what you're doing and should either get a promotion or another job. In this light, I feel comfortable assuming that in normal situations people average no higher than 6.0, although some people vary more than others.

I was high-variance when younger but I learned to become middle-variance over time. It's a necessary aspect of career maturity. So I probably swing between 4 and 8. I can hit 9 but it's not sustainable (although today's 7 was the 9 of two years ago for me) and before I find myself anywhere near 3, I do everything I can to fix the situation (possibly getting another job).