3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThat’s why marketing teams work hard to create that perception in the audience.
- urthor 4y agoThe 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 agoSo 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 agoGames 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 agoMore 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.