The Development Abstraction Layer - Joel on Software: "Management's primary responsibility to create the illusion that a software company can be run by writing code, because that's what programmers do. And while it would be great to have programmers who are also great at sales, graphic design, system administration, and cooking, it's unrealistic. Like teaching a pig to sing, it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."
This is great. As a person who has created two reasonably large (not huge) software development organizations, I can tell you that what Joel says is true: the vast majority of people believe that organizations are they way they are because that's just the way they are. In fact, every organization is designed, either by default, in which case it is horrible, or by conscious design, where a productive supportive, almost invisible environment of productivity reigns.
Both of my organizations fell into disrepair after I left. That's because those that followed thought things were the way they were just because that's how things should naturally be. In fact, the development organization was something alive that needed to be fed and tuned and supported and gently reorganized as times changed. Without that care and feeding it spirals into a Dilbert comic strip.
I wish I knew how to make a software organization that would survive on its own but I don't. And I know some other successful "software organization architects" whose creations have fallen into disrepair.
As soon as the top-level management support beam that believes in nurturing and tuning and massaging the development organization is gone, the whole thing sinks.
What a bummer.
One thing I forgot to mention is that once you've built an organization for a certain purpose, it is a bad idea to suddenly turn 90 or 180 degrees and start doing something else.
ReplyDeleteNo amount of tweaking or tuning will fix that.
It's like asking a football team to suddenly play basketball.
If you hire a bunch of people with the promise of making original content and then switch them to doing licenses, then things to bad. It's even worse when they have to work on licenses that nobody cares about.
I realized when we switched from the original content business to the 'team for hire' business that I wasn't in charge anymore. The business became "do whatever the publisher wants" which was not the kind of orginization I had created. It was just a body shop.
But some people like that, and good for them, I say.
I received this editorial email from GameSpy today:
ReplyDelete--------
Back in 2005 I covered a speech made by game designer Tim Schafer, creator of Psychonauts and several classic LucasArts adventures. Schafer talked about how difficult it is to get funding for games with original IP, but warned that it was necessary. I have his exact quote right here: "If the games industry doesn't create its own original IP... then we're just a tee-shirt sweat shop for the movie industry."
Are games really just another merchandising product for Hollywood? Are they just the equivalent of Spider-Man pajamas? I'd like to think no. I'd like to think that the industry is its own creative force.
But then I see the title of the latest X-Men game, which is literally "X-Men: The Official Movie Game," and I start to boil. Is Hollywood's opinion of gaming -- and its audience -- really that low? Schafer's words are ringing in my head.
--------
Comments anyone?
You and your team were a bunch of prima donnas who never earned that right. The rest of them are all back with Chris Taylor, who was the true talent behind the only good game any of you ever worked on. If your first original game was any good, then the studio wouldn't have had to turn 90 or 180 degrees. It's your fault dude, own up.
ReplyDeleteBest game you ever made was based on a cartoon license about a billion years ago. Did you forget how to make licensed games, or was it just beneath you after creating such a monster hit as Azuirck?
You're right. I suck. My career at at a "large developer" proves it.
ReplyDeleteAzurik is still in the top 1/3, sales wise, of all Xbox games. But it is true that was not good enough. I probably shouldn't have let the joystick guy design it. Even with a ton of editing the game was still too big. But that was part of the deal, wasn't it? (For a first-time designer, he did a pretty good job.)
It's also true that I am nothing but ego. This is apparent to everyone that knows me.
I actually didn't work on TA. I worked on the Boneyards for TA. That was the TA matchmaking service.
The correct answer to Fargo's question about licensed games is that making a licensed game is an interpretive art. Just as adapting a screenplay from another medium is an art that the Academy Awards recognize. If you appreciated this you wouldn't be so sensitive on the subject. You act like each of my blog posts is directed at you personally.*
The question is in the quality of the adaption.
One or two adaptions a year are good. The rest are bad.
My point in a different blog entry wasn't whether licensed games are good or bad, but whether they are a match for the organization. If you build an organization to make original IP, and people join for that purpose, then they get sulky and prima-dona like when you ask them to do something different. Then you have a lot of turnover.
Likewise, an organization that adapts licenses is probably not going to be good at original IP.
Bioware does both, but they built their organization to do both! That's very clever.
Fargo's point, which is true, is that the majority of licensed games are just tee-shirt fodder.
There's nothing wrong with being in the tee-shirt fodder business. I think it's just good to own up to what business you are actually in, or else you have a lot of grumpy people wondering why you aren't pushing the next-gen technology or making that big IP breakthrough. And then you have a lot of turnover.
*Really, just the posts about writing books about Christian values are about you. Everything else is pretty abstract and general.
Of the 790 Xbox games listed on Metacritic, 705 scored higher than your Azurik. So why do you think the studio you built specifically to make original games score significantly higher on all the licensed games they made?
ReplyDeleteI'm not who you think I am btw (but good guess), not even currently affiliated. I'm just calling BS when I see it.
Our game sucked - it was too big and too slow to get into.
ReplyDeleteExcept it didn't suck is the weird thing.
I think a huge problem was that it was marketed as an action game when it was an adventure game. People who like adventure games were quite excited about it.
In the early days (really for a month or two), Azurik was second only Halo on the Microsoft message boards. More chat about it than Munches or PGR or anything else except Halo.
It's a good adventure game. It's not a good action game.
One time I accidentally wore my Azurik T-shirt into a Gamestop. The clerk-dude said, "That game blows, did you make it?" I said, "No, a friend gave me this shirt." (I'm not crazy.) But then I said, "Some people really like the game." And then he said, "Yeah, I've heard that too."
I can't publish our official 'fun' scores as per Microsoft's amazing internal mega testing system, but they were surprisingly high, especially given how slow the game starts. Microsoft set a target for us and we hit it.
So there.
It's ironic to call Stephen and his old team "prima donnas", when a certain company is only alive right now because those prima donnas built an engine with such foresight that it could be ported to PSP so easily.
ReplyDeletepri·ma donna n. A temperamental, conceited person.
ReplyDeleteWow, thanks for proving the point. Your conceit is evident by claiming to continue to heroically save the company through your genius long after you've left. You must be using the new math to conjure that ego-boost, my friend, because the real facts don't jibe. How would you even begin to know, anyway? Wow.
Point proven on temperament as well. Calling someone a prima donna doesn't mean they aren't good at what they do (in fact just the opposite), only that they're so self-obsessed as to be very difficult to work with, (and so touchy that they think the "prima donna" lable means their work sucks).
As I understood it, Stephen and that core team were assembled to build great, successful games, not just a good engine. Blame whoever you want, take credit for whatever you want, but in the end the promised goods were not delivered. Just own up, man, it's ok that you failed. The company moved on, and like the man said, you and Stephen should too. It's all good now.
Hey guys, Dan here.
ReplyDeleteTo all you current AE folks and supporters, please relax. I don't think Doc was calling anyone out with his original post, and he's been fair with most of his responses.
To all you former AE folks, thanks for all your help -- your many contributions to the company continue to be valued and appreciated.
My only bother with all this is when it's wrongly alleged that the company is doing poorly or on the verge of one bad thing or another. Those still actively in touch with AE know things are going quite well. Room for improvement, always, but lots of good going on and more on the way.
It IS all good now -- moving on...
Thanks.
Sorry Dan, but your comment about all the good stuff coming reminds me of my favorite Microsoft joke:
ReplyDeleteThree women are talking.
One woman says, "My husband is an architect. When my husband makes love to me, it has style and purpose and a timeless quality to it."
The next woman says, "My husband is an artist. When he makes love to me, it is full of passion and and the world lights up with color."
The third woman looks glum. "What's the matter?" the other two women ask.
"My husband works at Microsoft. He doesn't make love to me. He just sits on the edge of the bed and tells me how great it's going to be when it gets here."
Thanks for reminding me again why we parted ways.
ReplyDelete