Great read. One thing that stood out.. > As we’ve made it easier to build games, we have certainly seen more of them. But the number of highly rated games (in

Great read. One thing that stood out.. > As we’ve made it easier to build games, we have certainly seen more of them. But the number of highly rated games (in this case as recorded by metacritic) does not seem to be increasing over time. There are unspoken constraints at play: size of the gamer audience, percent of gamers who rate and review games (ie. journalists & reviewers), number of developers willing to make something "insanely great", and even the total number of game concepts that actually exist. When asking why systems develop the way they do, we can look at all possible constraints. This means ones that do and don't exist. For example - organizations are structured and siloed the way they are because it keeps complexity within the constraints of what humans can deal with. Or on the other hand, organization headcount grows at successful firms because money is growing on trees; and it unlocks speculative parallel product development. The latter was especially true during ZIRP. A good engineer understands the constraints of engineering and how that interplays with achieving a vision. But orgs can do far more, which is why a majority of shipping products come from orgs and not individuals. Orgs can achieve greater range of capabilities - shipping multiple products at once for example.. Yes: orgs should be better geared to feed engineering knowledge into devisions of what's achievable / what to do. There should be more cross-talk, just as among the many compartments of a human mind. But there's a rich discussion to be had of how different constraints mean individuals and orgs excel at different things.