• 0 Posts
  • 8 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 2nd, 2023

help-circle




  • I’m not sure what kind of role you had in the industry, but I’m not sure what you’re saying is entirely accurate… although there are some bits in there I agree with:

    Lots of programmers and artists don’t really care about the final game, they only care about their little part.

    Accurate. And that’s ok. A programmer whose job it is to optimize the physics of bullet ricochet against thirteen different kind of materials can go really deep on that, and they don’t need to (or have time to) zoom out and care about the entire game. That’s fine. They have a job that is often highly specialized, has been given to them by production and they have to deliver on time and at quality. Why is that a problem? You use the corrolary of film, and nobody cares if the gaffer understands the subtext of the Act 3 arc… it’s not their job.

    Game designers and UX designers are often clueless and lacking in gaming experience. Some of the mistakes they make could be avoided by asking literaly anyone who play games.

    Which one? A game designer lacking in gaming experience likely wouldn’t get hired anywhere that has an ounce of standard. A UX designer without gaming experience might get hired, but UX is about communication, intuition and flow. A UX designer who worked on surgical software tooling could still be an effective member of a game dev team if their fundamentals are strong.

    Investors and publishers often know very little to almost nothing about gameplay and technology and will rely purely on aesthetic and story.

    Again, which one? Investors probably don’t know much about the specifics of gameplay or game design because they don’t need to, they need to understand ROI, a studio’s ability to deliver on time, at budget and quality, and the likely total obtainable market based on genre and fit.

    Publishers – depending on whether you are talking about mobile or console/box model – will usually be intimately familiar with how to position a product for market, what KPIs (key performance indicators) to target and how to optimize within the available budget.

    This is why you have some indie devs kicking big studio butts with sometime less than 1% the ressources.

    This has happened. I’m not sure it’s an actual trend. There are lots of misses in the game industry. Making successful products is hard – it’s hard at the indie level, it’s hard at the AAA level. I would estimate there are a thousand failed Indies for every one you call out as ‘kicking a big studio’s butt.’ Lots of failed AAA titles too. It’s just how it goes.

    The same, by the way, is true of film, TV, books and music. A lot of misses go into making a hit. Cultural products are hard to make, and nobody has the formula for success. Most teams try, fail, then try again. Sometimes, they succeed.


  • I love this sentiment, and it can be true, but it also creates this idea that ‘heart’ alone has a high bearing on whether or not a product of any kind (book, film, statue, game) will be successful in its market ambitions.

    It doesn’t always correlate. I would argue if often doesn’t correlate. Any indie film or game fest is chock full of projects with a ton of heart. Few of them graduate to success in the market place.

    I’m not saying heart is a bad thing. It’s a damn great thing. But strong business fundamentals are a good thing too. And sometimes, you also just need that extra bit of luck or uncontrollable virality too. To find success, you stack the deck with as many good plays as you can, and heart is one of them.

    Success is not a recipe, and if it was, everybody would be doing it…