They're trying to make art by committee, which can only happen by accident if at all. In the case of some (Concord, reportedly, but probably some of the others too), those committees are probably cripples by toxic positivity, such that negative feedback doesn't exist and the committee is left thinking its farts don't stink. You cannot make art if you can't identify and correct deficiencies. I think anybody who has really developed their own artistic talent probably understands this, if you want to make something good you have to be critical of it and be willing to change your approach to make things better. This process is crippled in committees where criticism is stifled.
I agree, but there's somewhat of a selection bias here. Pretty much all big games, successful or not, are designed by committee. Auteurs have always been rare in gaming and the few that exist are mostly a marketing front and don't have as much influence as they seem.
I think you are right, but this cannot be the whole story, widely successful games have followed this methodology too.
A committee can't maintain a vision, I'd actually argue it's overstated that a visionary at the helm of a project isn't needed when really it's the thing that makes or breaks it.
I think most big games are commercially successful mainly through shear force of marketting. If you strip out that, most of the rest worth playing have one or two visionaries at the top on a position to be critical of their own ideas and dictate to everybody under them.
Or at least have some people smacking them down when they ideas are bad or not good enough. It will work when people doing smacking are not at the same time political officers.
