I think you are over-emphasizing the significance of "the lone genius" and missing the fact that regardless of who does what well, this is a simple necessity. Lets say I'm interested in writing a game, do I sit down and:Originally Posted by wildcard_seven
- design and implement an operating system
- design and implement a 3D graphics library for the OS
- design and implement a game engine for the graphics library
That is a hierarchy, and at first glance, you would probably want more skilled and experienced people to do the OS than the graphics library, because if the OS doesn't work right, the graphics lib doesn't stand a chance. However, it may be true that the graphics lib is the most complex item in the pile, so demands the most skill. But that is still more abstract than looking at what particular knowledge and experience are applicable to a particular task. So programmer A may have a higher IQ than programmer B, and more years of experience, but if programmer B possesses significantly more knowledge in a particular context (say, regarding hardware interfacing for the graphics lib) programmer B is probably better suited to the task.
In any case, I don't think anyone is going to go for a modular stack where every component was done by the same person, even if that person was Tesla. Point being: you can't do it all yourself. Choosing a niche you want to focus on should not be about a totem pole model, where some tasks are more prestigious than others. Someone could create a great game with a crap engine, if they were so inclined. Do you then look at the game and say, "Nice job, I guess the guy who did the engine must have been even more awesome." Bah.
I'd take that to mean that most people who want to create an engine don't really understand what they are getting into, don't appreciate what is involved, and are perhaps not that interested in becoming so. They want to create a game -- a very concrete (as opposed to "abstract") application.
OTOH, maybe brewbuck has gone over my head again
