3 ms·

I don't think it comes down to a singular person, but I'm pretty sure it is about passion. Modern large game studios have removed all the passion and turned gam

I don't think it comes down to a singular person, but I'm pretty sure it is about passion. Modern large game studios have removed all the passion and turned game development into an assembly line of 100s or more people working on it. Creating a very large game and also having it be good seems more like an exception at this point. Games with small teams probably have a much easier time creating a game they are passionate about even if the scope of the game has to be smaller.

urthor 4y ago
I find the presence of the "auteur" is valuable because it's a signal to people. When there's a single leader who's highly motivated to do critically acclaimed work, it signals to talent that this is a project aimed at critically acclaimed work. Now, said auteur also makes great margin calls and leadership decisions. But keep in mind it's not just "great man syndrome."
- synu 4y ago
  That’s why marketing teams work hard to create that perception in the audience.
  - urthor 4y ago
    The difference is that, having worked in the industry, I can say that film directors are given exactly the power they are advertised as having. The film industry has learnt through many trials and errors it has to happen this way. Software hasn't.
    - synu 4y ago
      So less that in the video games industry great results are driven by singular, great people today, but games would be better if they were?
      - urthor 4y ago
        Games and films are both an exercise in project management. Films are an exercise in getting everything you need in your 70 or so days of filming. The days you've rented the exorbitantly expensive cameras, trailers, lights, etc. Games are similar, except over a few years. Only the auteur leadership model is able to make those project management tradeoffs quickly, under a lot of stress, and well, to deliver high quality output.
- stonemetal12 4y ago
  More like it is a good signal because someone was willing to risk or build his reputation by putting his name on it. The Civ games have been around for a while, then it became "Sid Meier's Civilization". Not because he went back in time and did more work on Civ, but because he built his rep and wanted to use it to sell a couple of more copies.
GVIrish 4y ago
It's not about passion at all. Plenty of passionate work themselves to the breaking point and end up with crappy games or failing to release at all. It's that making ambitious games is hard, and if your organization doesn't have good engineering practices, good project management, a clear achievable vision, a realistic timeline, and capable team members, you will have difficulty succeeding. And even with less ambitious games, studios fail all the time for the same reasons. It's not just the AAA games. Clearly a smaller team with a smaller scope has an easier time because as you increase headcount, communication overhead increases exponentially, and bigger teams are usually trying more technically difficult things than a smaller team would try to tackle.

urthor 4y ago

I find the presence of the "auteur" is valuable because it's a signal to people. When there's a single leader who's highly motivated to do critically acclaimed work, it signals to talent that this is a project aimed at critically acclaimed work. Now, said auteur also makes great margin calls and leadership decisions. But keep in mind it's not just "great man syndrome."

synu 4y ago
That’s why marketing teams work hard to create that perception in the audience.
- urthor 4y ago
  The difference is that, having worked in the industry, I can say that film directors are given exactly the power they are advertised as having. The film industry has learnt through many trials and errors it has to happen this way. Software hasn't.
  - synu 4y ago
    So less that in the video games industry great results are driven by singular, great people today, but games would be better if they were?
    - urthor 4y ago
      Games and films are both an exercise in project management. Films are an exercise in getting everything you need in your 70 or so days of filming. The days you've rented the exorbitantly expensive cameras, trailers, lights, etc. Games are similar, except over a few years. Only the auteur leadership model is able to make those project management tradeoffs quickly, under a lot of stress, and well, to deliver high quality output.
stonemetal12 4y ago
More like it is a good signal because someone was willing to risk or build his reputation by putting his name on it. The Civ games have been around for a while, then it became "Sid Meier's Civilization". Not because he went back in time and did more work on Civ, but because he built his rep and wanted to use it to sell a couple of more copies.

GVIrish 4y ago

It's not about passion at all. Plenty of passionate work themselves to the breaking point and end up with crappy games or failing to release at all. It's that making ambitious games is hard, and if your organization doesn't have good engineering practices, good project management, a clear achievable vision, a realistic timeline, and capable team members, you will have difficulty succeeding. And even with less ambitious games, studios fail all the time for the same reasons. It's not just the AAA games. Clearly a smaller team with a smaller scope has an easier time because as you increase headcount, communication overhead increases exponentially, and bigger teams are usually trying more technically difficult things than a smaller team would try to tackle.