I am thinking or organizing and priorizing ideas for board games and video games (or even both).
In the past, I listed game ideas on my website where people could star rate the ideas they liked. It gave me some feedback about which idea could interest people. Still few people landed on my website.
So if I create a new priorization system, I am wondering if I should consider the feedback of players to change the priority.
The main consequences, is the tools I will use to priorize the ideas. If I don't need user feedback, I can just use an excel sheet on my computer. Else, I'll need a more elaborate system.
I was thinking of using "Multi-Critera Decision Analysis" to sort ideas from the best to the worst. I would work only on the top most ideas.
I have enough ideas, I don't need input. On my website, there was a description text and people could rate the idea. It gave me some feedback on what people found interesting. Not sure it's worth really the effort unless I reach a point where lot of people want to give feedback.
I am thinking of different methods to organize ideas, from categories to levels of complexity, maturity, feasability, etc. I was thinking of using MCDA (Multi-criteria decision analysys) to sort the ideas from best to worst. Player's preferences would have a low to average impact.
One thing that I have not found a solution yet is for overlapping ideas. Sometimes you have different game ideas or portion of games that you could probably crossover or fusion them together to create a more consistent game.
I was trying to see if there was a way to classify ideas in a way that would allow me to identify those overlaps. Mixing game ideas together is interesting because it makes less game to create, and add more depth to the game.
The problem is that cross over can occur at the theme or the mechanics level, so grouping using one or the other does not help.