4 ms·

'I do however see a problem with non-engineers (taking your line of arguing) trying to obtain leading roles over creative processes in the field of engineering.

'I do however see a problem with non-engineers (taking your line of arguing) trying to obtain leading roles over creative processes in the field of engineering. It simply doesn't work. Or at least not efficiently." This is the bias I am talking about. You guys are sitting at a near 0% in terms of creating new and interesting IP--and this is throughout the entire industry--I can count the good titles post-orange box era with one hand. Technology evolved: engineers realized they need visual people now, but for everything else were like: nah, we're good. Spoiler: you're not. No new titles, the titles that get through are disposable flavors of the month, at best. The amount of creativity engineers have shown is about equal to creatives skill in OOP. If a gulf engineers don't even know how to cross. If we could quantify the difference, it would be like asking a non tech person to do your netcode. We are talking about a lifetime a shaping here, you can't backload the skills any easier than I can backload the skills to build an engine.

bartimus 7y ago
I don't work at Valve. You're missing my point. I didn't say we don't need artists. I'm saying you shouldn't have artists taking leading roles in the fields that aren't artistic. Perhaps you're doing a bit too much goalposting to make your argument? Ignoring all the groundbreaking titles (in any company). The other groundbreaking title that was released by Valve was of course Steam. The first app store. What makes Valve so great is that they're exactly not doing the same old thing they were doing. They reinvent and innovate. That's what makes it a great company. One of the best imho. Do you hear any complaints coming from Valve? Seems to me they're happy with the direction they chose. They don't have a problem.
- yoshibb 7y ago
  Hahaha. I love it. No complaints from the legacy engineers who are collecting million dollar salaries doing nothing, blowing smoke up gabes ass with vaporware. Out of the 100million American pc gamers--during peak western hours--less than a 1/4 are on steam. Everyone else on the inside and outside who don't want to see the company sold to activision-disney is a bit concerned. The goalpost will move, and it will continue to move as we continue to examine how bad the bed has been shit post orangebox. Millions upon millions of dollars spent over decades, with almost nothing to show. With any recent innovations coming from asset flips and indie teams.
  - bartimus 7y ago
    I still fail to see the problem. I understand your complaint. But Valve is doing fantastic. It's not their mission to bring out new titles. A company is not a democracy where we get "to vote" what direction they should take. If it's not what you like then don't work for them or buy their products.
    - yoshibb 7y ago
      I find it hard to believe that they got into the industry to play stock market for games, haha. I am wondering if Beth is planning on their own platform next, Microsoft is definitely making those moves . . . I think the new meta is a cycling people around content releases, hopefully within your ecosystem, but np if not, because they will cycle back for the next updates. It's the wild wild west again, baby.
      - yoshibb 7y ago
        I suppose what Valve needs is creative directors, and engineers willing to work with creative directors on gameplay and even if it isn't their pitch. This seems to be the most successful pairing with this batch of stunning games coming out next gen.
        bartimus 7y ago
        They have artistic people working at Valve: https://www.valvesoftware.com/en/people https://www.valvesoftware.com/en/people But it's an agile company. It means it's "Boss-free since 1996". It works as follows: The creative director has a cool idea for a game. He makes the designs, storyboards and whatever. Then he needs to find developers who are willing to work on his idea. In an agile company it can very well happen nobody wants to work on your idea. You might get a response like: "Cool idea! You should go ahead and build it!" This in contrast to a top-down management company where bosses exist that tell you what it is you must work on. It's where people become "resources". So what you're proposing can only happen through a top-down management approach where the boss/project-manager assembles the team and tells everybody what to work on. You take away the essence of the company culture at Valve. What you fail to see is that it's actually been the right choice NOT to release new games but - in stead - work on Steam (and facilitating other game shops release their games). If creative directors would be ruling Valve that would most likely have never happened. Meaning Valve wouldn't have achieved $4.3B revenue. You need to put Steam between your goalposts.

bartimus 7y ago

I don't work at Valve. You're missing my point. I didn't say we don't need artists. I'm saying you shouldn't have artists taking leading roles in the fields that aren't artistic. Perhaps you're doing a bit too much goalposting to make your argument? Ignoring all the groundbreaking titles (in any company). The other groundbreaking title that was released by Valve was of course Steam. The first app store. What makes Valve so great is that they're exactly not doing the same old thing they were doing. They reinvent and innovate. That's what makes it a great company. One of the best imho. Do you hear any complaints coming from Valve? Seems to me they're happy with the direction they chose. They don't have a problem.

yoshibb 7y ago
Hahaha. I love it. No complaints from the legacy engineers who are collecting million dollar salaries doing nothing, blowing smoke up gabes ass with vaporware. Out of the 100million American pc gamers--during peak western hours--less than a 1/4 are on steam. Everyone else on the inside and outside who don't want to see the company sold to activision-disney is a bit concerned. The goalpost will move, and it will continue to move as we continue to examine how bad the bed has been shit post orangebox. Millions upon millions of dollars spent over decades, with almost nothing to show. With any recent innovations coming from asset flips and indie teams.
- bartimus 7y ago
  I still fail to see the problem. I understand your complaint. But Valve is doing fantastic. It's not their mission to bring out new titles. A company is not a democracy where we get "to vote" what direction they should take. If it's not what you like then don't work for them or buy their products.
  - yoshibb 7y ago
    I find it hard to believe that they got into the industry to play stock market for games, haha. I am wondering if Beth is planning on their own platform next, Microsoft is definitely making those moves . . . I think the new meta is a cycling people around content releases, hopefully within your ecosystem, but np if not, because they will cycle back for the next updates. It's the wild wild west again, baby.
    - yoshibb 7y ago
      I suppose what Valve needs is creative directors, and engineers willing to work with creative directors on gameplay and even if it isn't their pitch. This seems to be the most successful pairing with this batch of stunning games coming out next gen.
      - bartimus 7y ago
        They have artistic people working at Valve: https://www.valvesoftware.com/en/people https://www.valvesoftware.com/en/people But it's an agile company. It means it's "Boss-free since 1996". It works as follows: The creative director has a cool idea for a game. He makes the designs, storyboards and whatever. Then he needs to find developers who are willing to work on his idea. In an agile company it can very well happen nobody wants to work on your idea. You might get a response like: "Cool idea! You should go ahead and build it!" This in contrast to a top-down management company where bosses exist that tell you what it is you must work on. It's where people become "resources". So what you're proposing can only happen through a top-down management approach where the boss/project-manager assembles the team and tells everybody what to work on. You take away the essence of the company culture at Valve. What you fail to see is that it's actually been the right choice NOT to release new games but - in stead - work on Steam (and facilitating other game shops release their games). If creative directors would be ruling Valve that would most likely have never happened. Meaning Valve wouldn't have achieved $4.3B revenue. You need to put Steam between your goalposts.