http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/38999/Opinion_N:eyes:ne_Cares_About_Your_Cool_Game_Idea.php
“Ideas are worthless. The only currency that holds any weight is the ability and drive to execute.”
I would pretty much agree except to point out that it’s ideas that motivate us to execute. So the idea comes first, creates the motivation which drives the execution and the quality of execution determines how well the end result is received.
Luckily we have Unity to help us execute. 
It’s money that drives developers to make a client’s “cool game idea”.
If you lack the drive to execute then throw some money at it until someone else does it.
I used to like this site’s people articles… until they all turned into self-entitled mentors.
I mean the article is right of course, and I’m not particularly pointing at this writer.
But when you read most articles, 90% of their writers are taking an imperative “Listen I know how shit works, so this is how you do stuff” stance. And when you look at their CV, they’re nowhere necessarly more indeniably superior to any other writer who wrote the same thing in a more humble way.
Sometimes they’re even guys like us who just discover facts, but feel the need to put a director’s hat.
The fun thing is that when there’s a real heavyweight who writes an article, it’s always far more humble and simple toned.
Gamasutra is turning into a bit of an agony aunt column. Plenty of good stuff on there though.
i would say the idear is the most valuable part, however only to you.
its like water, its verry common however we need it so if there was verry little it would be verry valuable, as idears are eazy to make but if you were a zombie and couldent think of one then it would be verry valuable.
Yeah some stuff still has value, that’s why it’s even more deceiving to see how imperatively it’s written 
Regarding the article: No it’s not the truth but it’s certainly hip to argue this way these days.
Execution is important because without it you just don’t get something done but it matters a lot what you get done and contrary to what the article states it’s not true that everyone can do a great game design. In fact most people can’t and there is a great difference in coming up with cool ideas and such ideas which actually work in a final game. There are a number of things which can go wrong from having a great idea and how it turns into a lame duck in a game. If you take a look at the games being made today then you can see proper execution with ideas which are boring/too weak to power a complete game/not exposed to their full potential/…
You can then enjoy all the glory of execution in form of a professional presentation and 30 levels when you’re already fed up after playing three of them.
So having a great idea which really works and making it working in the game to be fun is very rare. Most people aren’t good in doing so. It also doesn’t matter how you reach this goal, this might be done by a team tossing around with ideas and influencing each other as well as one grumpy person who just knows what he’s doing. This can also change on a per project basis so that the grumpy one ends up in a team or the other way around. Many ways are leading to Rome but the way this article has been written it’s main purpose was to provoke and let people discuss about it. So mission accomplished…
well I agree with the article- I’ve been annoyed when people are like “oh you make games?! well I have this great idea”
Maybe the idea and execution aren’t such different things!
What if the execution is part of the idea? How does a game idea reachs people? random gameplay videos? trailers? game banners?
Does it ever happen to you that you’re told certain movie is awesome, but when you see it’s good but not great. And you think maybe they spoiled you the experience by making you expect more from it than you should?
Well, that’s an example of how the movie experience doesn’t starts and ends with the movie, what happens before, what people say, trailers, reviews, everything is part of it.
When we have a good idea in our heads, we think it’s great, and we want to make it happen! And to do that we start building the game itself, but the whole time the only person who knows about the idea is the person or team making the game. So we might want to think about the process of people getting to understand and feel the idea.
If we think the game idea and execution are two different things, we could also say people starts experiencing the game only when they start playing the game! But is that the case?
When we have an idea, should we think on the isolated product? Can the product be isolated?
I think when we think about our game’s idea, maybe we should think about the people who the game is for, and put ourselves in their shoes, and think about how they’re going to welcome our game into their lives! That means thinking about both the game idea and execution, as a whole!
Tetris: I think you can differ idea and execution pretty good but i agree that sometimes there can be points where both can meet each other.
Actually I would disagree, if you told someone your good idea and someone else beat you to market it would be terrible (if the game was any good). If your game was a sucess and unique, they would try to clone it would take them a few months to make there game as good as better than yours, while you would be selling it in the appstore (or where ever else) and could make upates to stay ahead of them anyway. Are you really going to put out a POS game and expect it to sell anyway, no.
Take mika mobile with there zombieville2 game. While everyone was cloning there first game they improved the sequel by allowing you to move into the z-axis. I am sure people will try to clone that but they will thinking two steps ahead of everyone else.
The (if the game was any good) is more important than the idea; eg: the execution. Take Crush the Castle and Angry Birds for example. CtC basically came up with the idea, and they also got it to market first, but it wasn’t nearly as polished or rewarding to play as Angry Birds when it was released. Enter Angry Birds, best-selling casual game in history.
The history of video games is full of examples where it worked the other way around as well.
Btw. what makes you thinking that Angry Birds is the best selling casual game in history?
Well that’s ascii art, hehe! Back then people had no choice! XD But nowadays… execution is almost part of the idea, ascii art is no longer acceptable!
I think idea and execution do more than just meet at some points! I’m not saying they’re the same thing, but an idea is not simply a basic concept… it’s everything! Today execution plays a very important role on what the game is going to be like!
A good idea badly executed can result in a game people wont remember. No one will fully understand why it’s not appealing, that’s our job to understand why, and master that skill… the “gamedev” skill!
Ideas by themselves are only worth something if they lead to an actual creation.
Now, having said that, even the most hare-brained idea someone offhandedly spouts in a forum or blog could potentially have value, as it could lead someone who reads it to think about something that they end up creating.
So, I guess I would have to say that ideas are only POTENTIALLY of value, although only time will tell the wheat from the chaff…
Those of us with cool ideas are too busy making the idea real, to talk about it except the later stages when you need to ramp up some marketing 
I don’t generally talk about our projects til its pretty much complete. Why? well no real extra special reason. It’s certainly not fear of theft. Because no matter how good your idea is, its still only worth the paper its written on.
@dogzerx
Actually this is a topic you need to talk about in something like a bar with something to drink and eat as it could take hours doing so. An idea can stretch from a basic concept up into every detail and define how a game feels like but that’s all tedious to write up with text in a forum. There are games which rely a lot on a specific idea and then there are games which are filled up with small ideas here and there and which are realised in a way that it just feels right. I think that’s part of the game design as well rather than being part of the execution.
If ideas are so easy to find then i wonder why many games are looking the same and why many games which are professionally done, still are extremely boring. Nah, there is something about certain games like in every art form which makes them special and often a large part of this magic also is due to the game design.
If you’re looking at paintings, let us take Klee for instance, then if you like his style you might be fascinated by a certain painting and you might not instantly realise what it is which makes you stare at the painting and enjoy it for some reason. If you watch the painting long enough you might realise the idea which makes this painting so impressive (or you read the intention and idea behind the painting and get an ahahhh effect this way). And i think the same applies to music, games and every art form. The idea/game design and a certain depth seperates great art from stuff you can buy in a store for a few bucks.
Any many many many thoughts more…
I consider ideas worthless because I have, at last count, ELEVENTY HUNDRED BILLION OF THEM. Who gets into the creative industries WITHOUT a brain full of constantly evolving, constantly gestating, constantly reproducing ideas? Besides executive producers, I mean…
I don’t tend to share my ideas because I’d rather PROVE the value of the idea through execution first. It has nothing to do with fear of theft.
I find it incredibly paranoid, and probably a little arrogant, to assume that there are people out there with the technical skills and artistic talent to create a quality game, sitting around just waiting for some nobody* on a forum somewhere to share their idea so they can steal it.
Those people are all flat out making their own ideas.
There is of course a circumstantial exception: When your idea is so unique, so groundbreaking and industry changing that your entire plan for success is based on the concept alone. When has this happened, though? I can’t think of an example off the top of my head.
Because the games industry is driven by non-creative executives making decisions based on sales data analysis in order to attempt to capitalise on whatever it is that’s currently happening with the consumer conscience.
Also, not everyone in a position of creative decision making is brilliant. That doesn’t stop them from being exactly the same as everyone else and believing in their OWN ideas, though.
And when you get a bunch of people making a product and sticking their fingers into it, without perfect production management, you end up with something which is almost but not entirely unlike the original concept and is instead a grotesque chimera of everyone’s bits and pieces.
But mostly, someone either wasn’t allowed, or lost a hold on, their singular creative vision.
Because there is almost no risk taking in AAA studios. This is good and bad. As an Indie, you can do whatever you want with your game…but get too creative as a professional, and well, different things could happen.
There is no room for risk taking due to team sizes in AAA as well as other considerations like market audience.
When you’ve got a large team, you can’t just say ooh lets try this wicked new idea I had when smoking funny plants. You can’t do that since there’s a whole organised chain of work with managers and deadlines.
But if you’re indie? You live risk every day.
