Here's some of my most recent thoughts on TV and computer games. Seems like I just can't stop analysing stuff (and trying to tie it with my research). That's probably a bad sign :D
It's just that I've been thinking about the nature of a series. It shouldn't be news to anyone that various serial productions dominate entertainment media. Games, being a relatively new field, are only beginning to use the 'serial' feature at its most.
Take
Mass Effect. It's an ultimate example. Everything is exportable from the previous part, every decision you've made, your cahracter's looks, even resources and money to some extent.
Take
Game of Thrones. More and more people talk about high-quality TV-series as a future of cinema. Like, recent Marvel movies - it is almost a series (with every episode taking several years in production).
Speaking about books, fantasy has long been mostly about series, but it's not only about fantasy - detective and adventure stories are also ultimately of a serial kind. See the connection? It's all entertainment.
One of the most notable features of a series is an emphasised role of character development. Most serials are ultimately about characters and good characters can save almost any series. (By the way, it has been noted already that relying on interesting characters rather than an intricate plot has always been the "manga" way exactly because of it being periodic).
Investing in character-creation is also the best way to ensure profits as people WILL buy the new episode even is only to find out what happened to their favourite guy (unless the series has deteriorated beyond any hope).
Mass Effect, for instance, is mostly an interactive story. The gameplay itself is hardly changing at all and nobody gives a damn! Magic!
No harm in that, actually. A series provides goods entertainment but is rarely more than that. Making a stand-alone movie, game or book provides it's creator with a unique possibility to create one of a kind thing, to experiment and, ultimately, come up with something new that will lead all the field out of stagnation (and will later be used in mainstream).
By the way, this is exactly why I'm always so irritated by notions like "Tolkien is so much warse than Martin because he can't create realistic characters!". Tolkien was never about realistic characters. Both writers are good at what they're doing but they are doing different things. Creating a story as a whole from the beginning to the end makes it possible to create the most intricate architectonics, to intertwine different levels and to control the overall pattern at all times.
That's also why I refuse to answer questions like "What's The Lord of the Rings about?". It's about what is written in the book. No more, no less.