Doug: I've heard a lot of good things about test driven a lot recently. Sounds like a type of "prototype iteration" to me. The key is to define the right test then, right? Good test will lead to good code; bad test will lead to bad code, yes/no?

Damocles: I'd say there are many more games that went under because they did NOT revamp the original concept. Consider that the concept that you thought would be fun just isn't... do you forge ahead and build an ENTIRE game around a flawed concept or do you change the concept? The answer really depends on whether you are indie or mainstream: indie is more likely to do the latter; mainstream the former. This is because each shop has a different Inertia and can change easier. Hence you will see more "Waterfall" like development in Big Game Houses where you can't change midstream since it would mean 10's or 100's of peoplehours wasted but in a Small House you can since it's only 10 or 20 people intimitely working (and they would be the ones that find the change anyways!)