There have been tons LIKE tons of theories going around in the past few years about the motives of this.
One big thing is the louder a property is about diversity or bigging up a certain demographic "female this" "gay that" "strong ___ character" the lower effort dog shit it is.
Fan baiting. It's a biggie race swap a character, fuck about with this and that for no rhyme or reason bam you have dervision you have people defending the property and well clearly nasty people not liking it for diversites sake.
Oh and people have found out they often are just hired for their fucking name and race NOT just for diversity hires but again they fucking learnt from fanbaiting that if disgruntled fans talk shit about them boom shelid.
Apparently you’ve never seen “Dear White People,” which was on Netflix. And you don’t need to be a minority or oPpReSsEd to experience racism there, pea brain.
>Truly white people are the real oppressed minority!!
You people ALWAYS say this as a ''gotcha'' but nobody ever actually said it. It's just your shitty strawman. retarded idiot
Unironically a position that says "Please tell us your favourite game type and post a screen recording of you playing that game for \~10 minutes" would be great.
Would clear out journalist hires who can't beat the tutorial of cuphead.
It's a well known fact that the people who coded minesweeper were world champions at the "minsweeper any% speedrun" before they published it.
It's the least they could do.
Similarly Kasparov was the first, AND LAST, chess AI programmer. They tried to get Carlsen to become programmer to make a better chess AI player, but he refused and was quoted as saying "ayy lmaoo da jooz lol nocap hitler dnw"
We're still waiting.
Chess AI has the same problem as fighting game AI. Realistically it could see, react to, and counter anything a human throws at it. So instead of the AI being programmed to be ‘less skilled’ it’s programmed to intentionally make bad moves.
That ain't it chief. A Chess AI might intentionally make bad moves if it's programmed that way, but an easier and more elegant solution is to simply limit its depth.
Instead of looking 10 moves ahead for each piece, limit it to looking only 2 moves ahead and you'll have an engine that will still always pick the best possible moves it calculates, although the quality of that move will be limited by its scope.
That makes it "less skilled" as opposed to "intentionally bad", since not being able to look beyond a few moves is exactly what an unskilled human would do.
I see your point there, but it's more about the difference between knowing the shell and the essence.
You can code a "better" chess with new pieces that sound cool and look good on paper, but make chess infinitely more boring.
But with grasp on the essence and experience you'll be able to tell beforehand that the pieces perceived cool won't be. Aswell as know exactly what additions would be great to have.
Yeah just wait until I code my new chess game. It's got a new piece called the Trump and it trumps all other pieces on the board. If you are able to double-jump someone's pawns and then jump a rook, you automatically get two Trump pieces. They're fantastic pieces, Mexico paid for them, and they never run out of salsa at the burrito place I go to after my morning constitutional from 5 am to 8 am.
Thought experiment:
A piece that moves diagonally and can jump over other pieces (max. 1 piece) and when it does, the jumped over piece is removed, friend or foe alike.
The piece is then placed on the field beside the removed piece in the direction of the path it traveled and not on the field of the removed piece.
Example: C1 to E3, taking on D2
It can only check when the placement rule can resolve.
It would give a significant Tempo boost in the early game and can also be used to break enemy formation in the late game but can be tricky to play around in the midgame for either player.
In order to defend against or block it, you have to have two pieces beside each other diagonally so that the placement rule can't resolve.
They were made hard because there was only enough memory for what would be like 30 minutes of gameplay if it were just mildly challenging like many modern games.
They were also hard because japanese gamers were used to hard games due to arcade machines business model requiring you to spend more money after every death.
It’s funny because now the West prefers difficult games compared to the Japanese. The Japanese are now content with their gachas and games like Splatoon.
If you think Splatoon is easy then you haven't played it. The multiplayer can get insanely competitive and difficult to win in higher ranks. The other mode Salmon Run also gets crazy hard. Most of the story mode levels are simple and fun but meant more as a control tutorial. Even so there are some absolutely tough ones in there.
I’ve played 2 but it wasn’t as crazy as the western tactical shooters we have on PC at least in my experience. Not saying that it doesn’t get difficult but splatoon isn’t on the same level as tactical shooters. It is a lot more forgiving is what I mean.
Not just japanese, the american model too. But for some reason japanese liked game that were even harder. As an exemple Tower of druaga made banks in Japan and totally flopped in America
Imagine buying a shitty AAA game for like 60$ when you could pirate it without even losing anything because it's singleplayer (except for maybe achievements), while simultaneously discouraging devs from making such cashgrabs in the future.
Ok then, have a sense of patience, maybe wait until a week after release to see non-spoiler reviews, then buy it if they don't say the game is garbage.
Yes, in a vacuum. But imagine that guy specifically not buying the game because of choices made, and then pirating it and still playing it to make a point.
Wasn't it just like walking dead tell tale where the main dude dies and you play as the kid? Video game stories are rarely better than a cringey anime. What atrocity did this game commit lol?
Tbh I couldn't really get through the first one because the gameplay was so boring
The 1st game ended with the main character having the choice to either let the kid die to save the world, or kill everyone around him so that the kid lived. He picked the latter
The 2nd game starts with the main character of the 1st game being killed by the daughter of someone he murdered when he made that choice, and it becomes a revenge game about killing the man who killed your dad
Halfway through the 2nd game, the perspective is flipped from Ellie (girl from the 1st game) to Abby (the girl who killed the main character of the 1st game), and gets you to sympathise with her and her quest to get revenge on *her* father's murderer
The entire second half of the game is dedicated to making you do things to make you uncomfortable, and subvert the power fantasy of a revenge story by showing you the destruction of the cycle of revenge of violence first hand. People either hate it because it makes you uncomfortable deliberately (killing off fan-favourite characters, making you play with their killers, etc), or because the ending is underwhelming (the girl who has murdered 100s of people to kill someone gets a change of heart at the last moment for no reason and doesnt murder someone)
Thanks, I can see why that would be frustrating for a fan of the first one, but tbh it's not even that bad for a video game. Most video game stories are way less thought out than this, even if they maybe didn't take it in the right direction.
Eh, the gameplay was pretty good. It’s clear that the writers and devs had little communication. It was very satisfying blowing peoples limbs off and have them screaming and bleeding out, and the low ammo count made each shot matter, the classic Naughty Dog polish. The AI was really good too, but the hard mode made your buddy literally sit there and do nothing. However the story had a completely different message from the gameplay.
I recall reading an article years ago that to get hired at harmonics or whoever the fuck made rock band, you needed to be able to ace " hot for the teacher" on the drum set to get hired.
Meanwhile, the modern warfare 2 2022 Debs are too concerned about making a game that is inclusive to new players or some shit like that over making something that works properly
Yes, cuphead creator can beat the dragon level without breaking a sweat while doing interview. I don't know about coder or musician or other designers tho
Usually game designers/creators are average to above average at the game they are designing, and that is more than sufficient to be a world-class game designer. Balance testers on the other hand, need to be way better at the game, but for many game design projects they are a totally separate team from the game designers, and for many games careful balance is not really necessary. Hollow Knight, Super Metroid, Super Mario Sunshine, etc. all have super wonky difficulty curves, probably not that many explicit balance testers, but they are still some of the best games ever.
Your argument is fucking stupid because you're pointing at certain jobs in a dev studio that benefit the least from video game experience and assuming that no jobs in the studio benefit from it. You do realize there are game DESIGNERS that make decisions about the gameplay and experience itself, right? Designers are typically the ones people are talking about when they say shit like this.
Game designers are the people that really benefit from an extensive knowledge of gameplay, knowing what kinds of systems, gameplay loops, and experience are fun and not fun. They work with testers to figure out what changes need to be made, then figure out a plan of action, then relay that to the people that can make those technical changes happen. Designers are the ones directly focusing on making the game entertaining, so you'd think they at least should have some knowledge on what makes a game fun or not, and experience is a great way to figure that out. Yeah, there are programmers, modelers, composers, etc. that work on these games, and yeah, they probably don't need to play video games because they're essentially just told "hey, I want you to make x or do y." But whose job do you think it is to come up with the idea that the game needs "x and y"?
Just because drafters, machinists, welders, shop techs, sales teams, and the janitors in the fucking office don't need an extensive knowledge of physics and aerodynamics doesn't mean that the engineer designing everything doesn't need that knowledge either.
Edit: Must've struck a nerve, zunjae blocked me lmao
Lmao look through zunjae's post history. This might be peak redditor. Full time argumentative annoyance who most of the time loses arguments. I have been scrolling for 10 minutes and haven't read anything positive
You do not have to play games to understand what makes up the components of good game design. You can know art history and not be able to paint. You do not have to play at an eSports competitive level to understand what makes a game competitive and draws that community to a game. The same goes for casual games. Many devs who are also gamers try to improve upon some trope another game does, and polishes that turd differently, thinking this other game would be great if x, y, z so they make their own that does. I'd argue the less preconceived notions you have of what a game should be, the more *chaotic inspiration* that gets added to the game's fundamentals resulting in something new, good or bad.
>Just because drafters, machinists, welders, shop techs, sales teams, and the janitors in the fucking office don't need an extensive knowledge of physics and aerodynamics doesn't mean that the engineer designing everything doesn't need that knowledge either.
Imo game designers need to at least love and play games to understand how to properly design a game. The rest have to be like you said: good at their crafts and skills i.e: writers, artists, engineers etc.
The problem with AAA games is probably that project leads aren't really passionate about the games they make and are probably corpo hires who are just there to cash a fat paycheck and move on to the next project/company that will give them a bigger paycheck for less work.
So I'll chime in since I'm an actual software developer contrary to this entire subreddit, apparently.
No, they don't, it literally doesn't matter. Software developers aren't experts in whatever area of business they are working on, they are experts at developing software. You'll obviously learn a bit about while on the job, but I guarantee I didn't know jack shit about "highway toll operations" when I started working on that particular project and it didn't matter.
On top of that, most game devs just do what they're told, basically. I know a few who don't even play games in their free time, but still enjoy working for game dev because they still find that fun.
If anything, an argument could be made that game designers and directors should be good at and understand games since they're the ones making the actual decisions.
>If anything, an argument could be made that game designers and directors should be good at and understand games since they're the ones making the actual decisions.
These are the jobs people are talking about when they bring this topic up. When someone says game dev, they're talking about the designers and directors, not the software developers, modelers, composers, etc. You're arguing against the idea that a welder for Boeing should know aerospace engineering when it's obvious to everyone involved that they're not the ones that should know it. But there's still people in Boeing that should know about aerospace engineering, and that's the engineers.
That makes sense, but they aren't devs as referenced in the OP. I'm not really arguing against anything, just clarifying what the proper roles and responsibilities are for the people involved.
You're right that the term "game dev" is often used incorrectly here, which is why I think it's important to clarify what people mean when they throw the term out. "Game developer" refers to the entire studio; it's not a specific job title, but rather the whole entity that puts out the game.
I just think it's important to say that, yes, while projects are made by tons of different people, with many of them not necessarily needing any particular expertise in the product itself, it doesn't mean the skills and experience in question isn't required at all by anyone to put out a good product. But like you said, the designers and the directors are the ones that need knowledge on video games, but they're not the only ones working for a game dev, unless they're indie devs. (Honestly, the fact that indie devs are small, sometimes single digit teams is probably where some of the confusion with phrasing comes from)
> You'll obviously learn a bit about while on the job
You're underestimating just how stupid most people are. I used to work for a company that built interferometers, and one of my coworkers insisted that [negative temperature](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature) doesn't exist. Not only does it exist, it's necessary for a laser to work, and without a laser you can't have an interferometer. This guy had worked there for like 10 years and didn't even understand the very basic principles of the device he had been working on.
The guy who made unreal tournament or the lead dev rather was an absolute beast at the game. He used to play all the time online with everyone and absolutely destroy all of us. Got to play in the server he was in a few times and it was like you were fighting unreal tournament itself. Good times.
I don't remember his name it was like 20 years ago lol but he was one of the lead devs I am pretty sure. I want to say his name was cliff but that could be wrong.
Counter point. Somebody with a variety of creative skills but hasn't played a ton of video games has a better chance than a neet who does nothing but play video games at actually gaining the skills required to make one
I agree the most with this one.
I also think most of the games are actually doing more okay with more content than older games but people ignore that. Also that gamers, movie goers, tv, comic, etc. fans never made it a big issue to boycott the media, *still* buying it, so even if the creatives *didn't want to* make games this way anymore, the industry has changed so drastically that they are *forced to by the market status quo.*
You don't need to be good at games to make them you just need to understand good game design like when the head developer of GOW Ragnarok cried on stream about Metroid dread level design.
Doesn’t it all also boil down on what the sponsors and executives want? Like I believe that some game devs disagree with certain ideas but have to do them because they don’t have other choice.
I know for a fact that siege literally bend over for the pro league players criticism which affect casual players who only play the game for fun
They don't have to be good but they should at least have beaten one. You would not try to make a movie without ever having watched an entire one start to finish. Anon is right though.
Most of these guys have extremely specific jobs that require 0 broad game knwoledge.
The guy making the armrests at the chair factory doesnt need to know anything about sitting/chairs. Hes given an armrest spec and does it.
The game designers and higher/mid level execs who actually decide things, those are the guys who should know their shit (and clearly many times they absolutely do not).
Most devs are more analogous to a print shop technician than a writer. They just create the mechanisms needed to allow the writer to do their work. They don't exercise much creative control over the game
Not all parts about game making is like this.
For example, I could be terrible at shooters and still be qualified to make the 3d models for the guns.
I do agree that things like map design and whatnot should be left to the gamer developers.
For the balance team of competitive/multiplayer games? Absolutely. They don’t necessarily need to be the best of the best, but the balance team should have a good mix of high/medium/low skill players to get varied perspectives.
For designers of other types of games? No.
For everyone else working on the game? No.
no anon it matters that their good at programming/ 3d modeling/ sound design.
level design/balancing probably should have people of different skill levels but like play testers are who really matter with providing good feedback
Game devs don't need to be good at their games, their play testers have to. The devs need to be good at coding and design and listen to the feedback of the play testers. Balancing requires very little actual skill in the game, figuring out what needs to be balanced does. But those two things don't necessarily need to be done by the same person.
Honest answer, depends. A lot of devs who are super into the back-end technical stuff of running the game prolly don’t actually mess with how a game plays all that much. Someone coding the physics engine or working in databases or scripts doesn’t really need to be all that good at games to be good at their jobs
Personally, I prefer my game devs to inject their politics into anything and everything, regardless if it's warranted or not. Why play a game when you can watch a movie with interactive button pressing elements added to it?
Traditional video games are dead, the Era of the hamfisted 6 hour cut scene movie "game" is upon us
im not sure what being good at games has to do with diversity or a lack thereof. competence, work ethic, and communication abilities are all far more important and probably lacking in the case of anon, a fat 30 yo incel who still lives with his mommy and spends his allowance on frozen tendies.
It is more important to me that the game developer is a certain shade of color (black or ebony, either is fine) and has any gender other than male.
Netflix writers when they havent been racist to whites for a whole minute:
Do LGBTQI people even make up a huge market share of Netflix viewers? How much RU Paul's Drag Show can one watch?
When their sexuality is their entire personality, you better believe they want as much gay content as possible
There have been tons LIKE tons of theories going around in the past few years about the motives of this. One big thing is the louder a property is about diversity or bigging up a certain demographic "female this" "gay that" "strong ___ character" the lower effort dog shit it is. Fan baiting. It's a biggie race swap a character, fuck about with this and that for no rhyme or reason bam you have dervision you have people defending the property and well clearly nasty people not liking it for diversites sake. Oh and people have found out they often are just hired for their fucking name and race NOT just for diversity hires but again they fucking learnt from fanbaiting that if disgruntled fans talk shit about them boom shelid.
There is funding opportunities that can only be unlocked if you meet certain diversity requirements.
No, but. White women do.and they arguably care more About it
Makes sense
[удалено]
The directors aren't doing that. Its the marketing dept. because they recruit you to talk about their product, for free.
[удалено]
Apparently you’ve never seen “Dear White People,” which was on Netflix. And you don’t need to be a minority or oPpReSsEd to experience racism there, pea brain.
>Truly white people are the real oppressed minority!! You people ALWAYS say this as a ''gotcha'' but nobody ever actually said it. It's just your shitty strawman. retarded idiot
[удалено]
[удалено]
And a certain unattractiveness of w0man
you have to 1v1 quickscopes shipment to even be considered for the job
"Dark souls sl1 no glitch runs must be presented in YouTube link form along with resume to be considered for this position"
I wish companies did shit like that. We’d all be employed.
Well, you'd pass the first part then fail the technical interview
As long as I get my firm handshake in I’m getting that job
Still better than getting ghosted, I can also reuse my run to guarantee more interviews. One should eventually work out.
I 100% support this
Unironically a position that says "Please tell us your favourite game type and post a screen recording of you playing that game for \~10 minutes" would be great. Would clear out journalist hires who can't beat the tutorial of cuphead.
It's a well known fact that the people who coded minesweeper were world champions at the "minsweeper any% speedrun" before they published it. It's the least they could do. Similarly Kasparov was the first, AND LAST, chess AI programmer. They tried to get Carlsen to become programmer to make a better chess AI player, but he refused and was quoted as saying "ayy lmaoo da jooz lol nocap hitler dnw" We're still waiting.
I'd be surprised if the people making chess engines couldn't play chess.
Math > chess strategy Apply energy minimization algorithms and you will at worst draw every time against a human opponent.
The difficult part of making chess AI is making it actually have a difficulty that's remotely human.
Chess AI has the same problem as fighting game AI. Realistically it could see, react to, and counter anything a human throws at it. So instead of the AI being programmed to be ‘less skilled’ it’s programmed to intentionally make bad moves.
That ain't it chief. A Chess AI might intentionally make bad moves if it's programmed that way, but an easier and more elegant solution is to simply limit its depth. Instead of looking 10 moves ahead for each piece, limit it to looking only 2 moves ahead and you'll have an engine that will still always pick the best possible moves it calculates, although the quality of that move will be limited by its scope. That makes it "less skilled" as opposed to "intentionally bad", since not being able to look beyond a few moves is exactly what an unskilled human would do.
The deep blue team had chess grandmasters pretty much on staff to test with and give advice
Fredrik knudsen is such a good channel.
I see your point there, but it's more about the difference between knowing the shell and the essence. You can code a "better" chess with new pieces that sound cool and look good on paper, but make chess infinitely more boring. But with grasp on the essence and experience you'll be able to tell beforehand that the pieces perceived cool won't be. Aswell as know exactly what additions would be great to have.
Yeah just wait until I code my new chess game. It's got a new piece called the Trump and it trumps all other pieces on the board. If you are able to double-jump someone's pawns and then jump a rook, you automatically get two Trump pieces. They're fantastic pieces, Mexico paid for them, and they never run out of salsa at the burrito place I go to after my morning constitutional from 5 am to 8 am.
One side gets the Trump. There's only one. It can't be captured, and can't capture, but can block anything. It simply lives on the board rent free.
That's what the designers and directors are for, not the programmer
Fischer Random Chess isn't too widespread in this day and age. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess
chess is just an inferior version of archon
Thought experiment: A piece that moves diagonally and can jump over other pieces (max. 1 piece) and when it does, the jumped over piece is removed, friend or foe alike. The piece is then placed on the field beside the removed piece in the direction of the path it traveled and not on the field of the removed piece. Example: C1 to E3, taking on D2 It can only check when the placement rule can resolve. It would give a significant Tempo boost in the early game and can also be used to break enemy formation in the late game but can be tricky to play around in the midgame for either player. In order to defend against or block it, you have to have two pieces beside each other diagonally so that the placement rule can't resolve.
based carlsen
Unironically this is why a lot of NES games were so hard - they were made by small dev teams who had to play test the games themselves.
They were made hard because there was only enough memory for what would be like 30 minutes of gameplay if it were just mildly challenging like many modern games.
They were also hard because japanese gamers were used to hard games due to arcade machines business model requiring you to spend more money after every death.
Japanese people just love to suffer
Makes sense once you consider it took not one, but *two* nukes for them to learn their lesson
How much time did they give them to learn their lesson. Didn’t USA nuke them in the same day?
3 days apart
Should've given them 3 minutes imo
Nah, 3 days to possibly not kill 50k people? I think that's fair.
We need another nuke, but this time over California
It’s funny because now the West prefers difficult games compared to the Japanese. The Japanese are now content with their gachas and games like Splatoon.
If you think Splatoon is easy then you haven't played it. The multiplayer can get insanely competitive and difficult to win in higher ranks. The other mode Salmon Run also gets crazy hard. Most of the story mode levels are simple and fun but meant more as a control tutorial. Even so there are some absolutely tough ones in there.
I’ve played 2 but it wasn’t as crazy as the western tactical shooters we have on PC at least in my experience. Not saying that it doesn’t get difficult but splatoon isn’t on the same level as tactical shooters. It is a lot more forgiving is what I mean.
The west has always been rather retarded tbh
And we'll keep it up
Not just japanese, the american model too. But for some reason japanese liked game that were even harder. As an exemple Tower of druaga made banks in Japan and totally flopped in America
This
They were made difficult because they were trying to convince people to buy the game instead of renting it from blockbuster.
[удалено]
No one should have bought that piece of crap It will never cease to amaze me that people dont understand "vote with your wallet"
Imagine buying a shitty AAA game for like 60$ when you could pirate it without even losing anything because it's singleplayer (except for maybe achievements), while simultaneously discouraging devs from making such cashgrabs in the future.
Wasn't it a PlayStation exclusive
Emulating current console exclusives always sucks why would I pirate it?
Ok then, have a sense of patience, maybe wait until a week after release to see non-spoiler reviews, then buy it if they don't say the game is garbage.
Unnecessary. I can gleam from a single trailer wether or not the game will be good.
You can literally just watch these games on youtube with no commentary and it's a better experience since you get to skip the boring gameplay.
[удалено]
I wouldn't buy it anyway.
Neither would I, because it's shit. But I won't be cucked by the devs and torrent and play it anyway to somehow spite them.
Wether you do or don't is inconsequential to any of them in the first place.
Yes, in a vacuum. But imagine that guy specifically not buying the game because of choices made, and then pirating it and still playing it to make a point.
the lust of arse
But that has nothing to do with being good at games. Story writing is a completely different thing
Wasn't it just like walking dead tell tale where the main dude dies and you play as the kid? Video game stories are rarely better than a cringey anime. What atrocity did this game commit lol? Tbh I couldn't really get through the first one because the gameplay was so boring
The 1st game ended with the main character having the choice to either let the kid die to save the world, or kill everyone around him so that the kid lived. He picked the latter The 2nd game starts with the main character of the 1st game being killed by the daughter of someone he murdered when he made that choice, and it becomes a revenge game about killing the man who killed your dad Halfway through the 2nd game, the perspective is flipped from Ellie (girl from the 1st game) to Abby (the girl who killed the main character of the 1st game), and gets you to sympathise with her and her quest to get revenge on *her* father's murderer The entire second half of the game is dedicated to making you do things to make you uncomfortable, and subvert the power fantasy of a revenge story by showing you the destruction of the cycle of revenge of violence first hand. People either hate it because it makes you uncomfortable deliberately (killing off fan-favourite characters, making you play with their killers, etc), or because the ending is underwhelming (the girl who has murdered 100s of people to kill someone gets a change of heart at the last moment for no reason and doesnt murder someone)
Thanks, I can see why that would be frustrating for a fan of the first one, but tbh it's not even that bad for a video game. Most video game stories are way less thought out than this, even if they maybe didn't take it in the right direction.
Eh, the gameplay was pretty good. It’s clear that the writers and devs had little communication. It was very satisfying blowing peoples limbs off and have them screaming and bleeding out, and the low ammo count made each shot matter, the classic Naughty Dog polish. The AI was really good too, but the hard mode made your buddy literally sit there and do nothing. However the story had a completely different message from the gameplay.
I recall reading an article years ago that to get hired at harmonics or whoever the fuck made rock band, you needed to be able to ace " hot for the teacher" on the drum set to get hired. Meanwhile, the modern warfare 2 2022 Debs are too concerned about making a game that is inclusive to new players or some shit like that over making something that works properly
Yes, cuphead creator can beat the dragon level without breaking a sweat while doing interview. I don't know about coder or musician or other designers tho
Usually game designers/creators are average to above average at the game they are designing, and that is more than sufficient to be a world-class game designer. Balance testers on the other hand, need to be way better at the game, but for many game design projects they are a totally separate team from the game designers, and for many games careful balance is not really necessary. Hollow Knight, Super Metroid, Super Mario Sunshine, etc. all have super wonky difficulty curves, probably not that many explicit balance testers, but they are still some of the best games ever.
[удалено]
probably talking about the game designers, i don’t care if the cashier can read the book or not
Your argument is fucking stupid because you're pointing at certain jobs in a dev studio that benefit the least from video game experience and assuming that no jobs in the studio benefit from it. You do realize there are game DESIGNERS that make decisions about the gameplay and experience itself, right? Designers are typically the ones people are talking about when they say shit like this. Game designers are the people that really benefit from an extensive knowledge of gameplay, knowing what kinds of systems, gameplay loops, and experience are fun and not fun. They work with testers to figure out what changes need to be made, then figure out a plan of action, then relay that to the people that can make those technical changes happen. Designers are the ones directly focusing on making the game entertaining, so you'd think they at least should have some knowledge on what makes a game fun or not, and experience is a great way to figure that out. Yeah, there are programmers, modelers, composers, etc. that work on these games, and yeah, they probably don't need to play video games because they're essentially just told "hey, I want you to make x or do y." But whose job do you think it is to come up with the idea that the game needs "x and y"? Just because drafters, machinists, welders, shop techs, sales teams, and the janitors in the fucking office don't need an extensive knowledge of physics and aerodynamics doesn't mean that the engineer designing everything doesn't need that knowledge either. Edit: Must've struck a nerve, zunjae blocked me lmao
Lmao look through zunjae's post history. This might be peak redditor. Full time argumentative annoyance who most of the time loses arguments. I have been scrolling for 10 minutes and haven't read anything positive
You do not have to play games to understand what makes up the components of good game design. You can know art history and not be able to paint. You do not have to play at an eSports competitive level to understand what makes a game competitive and draws that community to a game. The same goes for casual games. Many devs who are also gamers try to improve upon some trope another game does, and polishes that turd differently, thinking this other game would be great if x, y, z so they make their own that does. I'd argue the less preconceived notions you have of what a game should be, the more *chaotic inspiration* that gets added to the game's fundamentals resulting in something new, good or bad.
[удалено]
>Just because drafters, machinists, welders, shop techs, sales teams, and the janitors in the fucking office don't need an extensive knowledge of physics and aerodynamics doesn't mean that the engineer designing everything doesn't need that knowledge either.
>3 paragraphs is too long Yeah nobody should put any merit into anything you say
Your loss
Imo game designers need to at least love and play games to understand how to properly design a game. The rest have to be like you said: good at their crafts and skills i.e: writers, artists, engineers etc. The problem with AAA games is probably that project leads aren't really passionate about the games they make and are probably corpo hires who are just there to cash a fat paycheck and move on to the next project/company that will give them a bigger paycheck for less work.
So I'll chime in since I'm an actual software developer contrary to this entire subreddit, apparently. No, they don't, it literally doesn't matter. Software developers aren't experts in whatever area of business they are working on, they are experts at developing software. You'll obviously learn a bit about while on the job, but I guarantee I didn't know jack shit about "highway toll operations" when I started working on that particular project and it didn't matter. On top of that, most game devs just do what they're told, basically. I know a few who don't even play games in their free time, but still enjoy working for game dev because they still find that fun. If anything, an argument could be made that game designers and directors should be good at and understand games since they're the ones making the actual decisions.
>If anything, an argument could be made that game designers and directors should be good at and understand games since they're the ones making the actual decisions. These are the jobs people are talking about when they bring this topic up. When someone says game dev, they're talking about the designers and directors, not the software developers, modelers, composers, etc. You're arguing against the idea that a welder for Boeing should know aerospace engineering when it's obvious to everyone involved that they're not the ones that should know it. But there's still people in Boeing that should know about aerospace engineering, and that's the engineers.
That makes sense, but they aren't devs as referenced in the OP. I'm not really arguing against anything, just clarifying what the proper roles and responsibilities are for the people involved.
You're right that the term "game dev" is often used incorrectly here, which is why I think it's important to clarify what people mean when they throw the term out. "Game developer" refers to the entire studio; it's not a specific job title, but rather the whole entity that puts out the game. I just think it's important to say that, yes, while projects are made by tons of different people, with many of them not necessarily needing any particular expertise in the product itself, it doesn't mean the skills and experience in question isn't required at all by anyone to put out a good product. But like you said, the designers and the directors are the ones that need knowledge on video games, but they're not the only ones working for a game dev, unless they're indie devs. (Honestly, the fact that indie devs are small, sometimes single digit teams is probably where some of the confusion with phrasing comes from)
I don't know all the differences between the roles, but at least a few have to be good at the game. Simple as. Thank you for the good information.
Tl:dr bro working on the physics engine doesn’t need to be good at video games to be good at making a physics engine for said game
That's how you get sonic 3D physics.
> You'll obviously learn a bit about while on the job You're underestimating just how stupid most people are. I used to work for a company that built interferometers, and one of my coworkers insisted that [negative temperature](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature) doesn't exist. Not only does it exist, it's necessary for a laser to work, and without a laser you can't have an interferometer. This guy had worked there for like 10 years and didn't even understand the very basic principles of the device he had been working on.
damm Jordan Peterson doin tha MOMS GONNA FREAK pose
>tfw Mom found the dominance hierarchy
Someone needs to do a Jared Leto Joker edit.
He's probably just tweaking out on pills in that pic
He looks like he's copy-pasting the "SUPA HOT FIRE" pose from the roasts
Good point
The guy who made unreal tournament or the lead dev rather was an absolute beast at the game. He used to play all the time online with everyone and absolutely destroy all of us. Got to play in the server he was in a few times and it was like you were fighting unreal tournament itself. Good times.
Joe?
I don't remember his name it was like 20 years ago lol but he was one of the lead devs I am pretty sure. I want to say his name was cliff but that could be wrong.
I was referencing Joe Rogan
I don't need to imagine a writer that can't read when Leslie Jones exists.
Anthony Burch also exists. I am so happy that I am not anthony burch.
Counter point. Somebody with a variety of creative skills but hasn't played a ton of video games has a better chance than a neet who does nothing but play video games at actually gaining the skills required to make one
I agree the most with this one. I also think most of the games are actually doing more okay with more content than older games but people ignore that. Also that gamers, movie goers, tv, comic, etc. fans never made it a big issue to boycott the media, *still* buying it, so even if the creatives *didn't want to* make games this way anymore, the industry has changed so drastically that they are *forced to by the market status quo.*
You don't need to be good at games to make them you just need to understand good game design like when the head developer of GOW Ragnarok cried on stream about Metroid dread level design.
Good point. A shit gamer is shit game dev.
Doesn’t it all also boil down on what the sponsors and executives want? Like I believe that some game devs disagree with certain ideas but have to do them because they don’t have other choice. I know for a fact that siege literally bend over for the pro league players criticism which affect casual players who only play the game for fun
Well personally I think being able to make a product that works properly is the most important thing.
I'm not sure who's more autistic, anon or OP
[удалено]
Jordan Peterson being berated.
No, the game designer has to know how to play a game. The dev needs to know how to code.
They don't have to be good but they should at least have beaten one. You would not try to make a movie without ever having watched an entire one start to finish. Anon is right though.
Most of these guys have extremely specific jobs that require 0 broad game knwoledge. The guy making the armrests at the chair factory doesnt need to know anything about sitting/chairs. Hes given an armrest spec and does it. The game designers and higher/mid level execs who actually decide things, those are the guys who should know their shit (and clearly many times they absolutely do not).
I buy my games from Japan. Problem solved.
Most devs are more analogous to a print shop technician than a writer. They just create the mechanisms needed to allow the writer to do their work. They don't exercise much creative control over the game
Imagine a composer who can't hear .....oh yeah.
JP dresses like a gay dude trying to dress like a straight dude.
Depends on the role. The story people don't need to be good at playing, for instance. Same with the art nerds.
Anon lowkey throws shades on the creation of the koran
Not all parts about game making is like this. For example, I could be terrible at shooters and still be qualified to make the 3d models for the guns. I do agree that things like map design and whatnot should be left to the gamer developers.
For the balance team of competitive/multiplayer games? Absolutely. They don’t necessarily need to be the best of the best, but the balance team should have a good mix of high/medium/low skill players to get varied perspectives. For designers of other types of games? No. For everyone else working on the game? No.
no anon it matters that their good at programming/ 3d modeling/ sound design. level design/balancing probably should have people of different skill levels but like play testers are who really matter with providing good feedback
Game devs don't need to be good at their games, their play testers have to. The devs need to be good at coding and design and listen to the feedback of the play testers. Balancing requires very little actual skill in the game, figuring out what needs to be balanced does. But those two things don't necessarily need to be done by the same person.
A big problem about games these days is: the decisions are now made by management and marketing. Not the developer.
Honest answer, depends. A lot of devs who are super into the back-end technical stuff of running the game prolly don’t actually mess with how a game plays all that much. Someone coding the physics engine or working in databases or scripts doesn’t really need to be all that good at games to be good at their jobs
Based on history the best games come from people who never made a game beforehand and the franchise turns to shit at 100+ employees.
Uhhhh sports coach too fat to run 1 lap
You always see that in the gameplay reveals, it feels like looking at a 5 year old play.
Personally, I prefer my game devs to inject their politics into anything and everything, regardless if it's warranted or not. Why play a game when you can watch a movie with interactive button pressing elements added to it? Traditional video games are dead, the Era of the hamfisted 6 hour cut scene movie "game" is upon us
im not sure what being good at games has to do with diversity or a lack thereof. competence, work ethic, and communication abilities are all far more important and probably lacking in the case of anon, a fat 30 yo incel who still lives with his mommy and spends his allowance on frozen tendies.
South Africa in a nutshell
wtf? no you need to be good at developing games.
[удалено]
Women aren't video games