| Wow, this is a really weird analogy to make. I don't agree that software can jump the shark by over-telling a story. I think software is either focused and serves a well defined feature set, or it is chaotic and has several 1/2 defined features that are there only to check-off a bullet point in some marketing spec sheet. For example:
People can argue that any one release of Adobe Photoshop has told its story, but yet Adobe continually adds new features to an application that's over 2 decades old. Yes software does carry a lot of weight when it comes to visual design/art, but at the end of the day, it's a tool. Each successive revision should continue to evaluate meeting the needs of its users and adopt changes to meet the demand. Microsoft Office includes tons of new features, but they refined the UI to the point that it upset users who took time learning the new UI. I think it was a step Microsoft needed to take and it worked out for them. Apple's Final Cut Pro on the other hand, removed features to refine their app and upset their core audience. It was too complex for your pro-sumer, but too basic for the professional. That's what I call losing focus. So my point is, software will be successful if it has the resources and focus to make it happen. It may take a long time to reach critical mass, but that's the beauty of a tool set, a nice long growth curve. Entertainment on the other hand is a one-shot deal, either you like the performance and elements all work together, or you don't. |