3 ms·
“ Include an expert from every functional area (programming, art, and so on). Arguing over an issue that no one at the meeting actually understands is a sure wa
by jimbob45 6y ago
“ Include an expert from every functional area (programming, art, and so on). Arguing over an issue that no one at the meeting actually understands is a sure way to waste everyone’s time.”
This always sounds good in theory but ends up with unnecessary individuals falling asleep during meetings. I prefer either a staggered approach to meetings where the likely unnecessary people are only invited to the end of the meeting OR are simply “on-hand” for the meeting in case they need to be pulled in.
I don’t care how critical the input is, if you pull someone into a three hour meeting and they only contribute five sentences, they’re not going to be happy with you.
- kaba0 6y agoIt depends on the program domain, but I think it must have been quite fun designing a game as opposed to the client still doesn’t know what it wants and this API should instead do this.
- danielscrubs 6y agoThey where the ones that where going to be responsible for it so how can they be unnecessary? He even said they started to say no more and more as the deadline started to loom over them.
- Jare 6y agoIn most significant decisions in gamedev you want art, design and engineering (at least - QA, audio, animation and a number of others as well) to be involved. Some people from one discipline may be versed enough in another to cover the role, but the role must still be present, or there will be pain and work thrown away later on. (incidentally, the ability to understand an issue from these multiple but interrelated angles is what makes experienced people so valuable in gamedev, and their constant loss to other less crazy industries so painful)