In the Industry? Now What?
Sean Howard
After a year of trying, I finally landed a job as a programming in the
industry. Now I'm faced with a problem. The game we're working on is
going to suck, big time. The design is influenced by Grand Theft Auto 3
in all the wrong ways (think State of Emergency as an extreme sports
title). The programming team is extremely disorganized, and aren't
making the decisions that need to be made when they need to be made.
At the end of the project, I can easily see how we are going to have
a very lengthy death march, even with several extra months factored
in for tweaking and bug fixing.
As I see it, I have two options. I can keep my mouth shut, do my time,
and emerge a project later with "real world experience" that will help
my resumes not get thrown out immediately. Or I can try to help the
project.
I'm worried about the second option, because as many of you know here,
I tend to come off as somewhat arrogant and stand-offish. Also, the people
who are making the wrong decisions are all nice people, who are trying
their best (or at least trying their hardest), and I don't want to offend
them - I just don't have the tact not to.
I think there is a good game in there somewhere, and I think my team is
capable enough to bring it out - with a little push in the right direction.
Do I take the safe way, or do I put myself in jeapordy trying to make
a better product?
@@
Sean Howard
Nathan Mates
Sean Howard <ro...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote:
Quick comment: do *NOT* diss your current project, in public, with
your name on it. Doing so is extremely disloyal, and will be picked up
by others, even if you think it won't be. Airing dirty laundry in
public, before things are complete, will only hurt your game-- there
is a chance, even if you think it's a snowball's chance in hell, that
things will come together and be a good game. Save any gripes for the
*internal* postmortem, when the quality is known and not going to
change.
You should email those you know and trust to keep quiet (at best),
or post completely anonymously with every shred of identifying info
removed. Your behavior like the parent posting show a complete
immaturity, and reinforce the negative impression you've acculated
here. I had hopes that working for a real company would help mature
you, but that's not happened yet.
Nathan Mates
--
<*> Nathan Mates - personal webpage http://www.visi.com/~nathan/
# Programmer at Pandemic Studios -- http://www.pandemicstudios.com/
# NOT speaking for Pandemic Studios. "Care not what the neighbors
# think. What are the facts, and to how many decimal places?" -R.A. Heinlein
Brandon Van Every
"Nathan Mates" <nat...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:7Rls8.20441$vm6.3...@ruti.visi.com...
>
> Your behavior like the parent posting show a complete
> immaturity, and reinforce the negative impression you've acculated
> here. I had hopes that working for a real company would help mature
> you, but that's not happened yet.
I can't comment on Sean Howard's previous displays of maturity or lack
thereof, not having followed any of it. I do agree that the protocol
advised by Nathan is a good idea, but I wonder if to do otherwise is so
catastrophic. Certainly it is when a high profile member of a well known
company makes such a post, but the junior employee of a company that doesn't
have its act together? Maybe it's actually healthy for the industry. In
fact, maybe our general working conditions would improve if we actually
discussed these slave driving issues publically. An employee market
mechanism, "don't work for X, they're so disorganized." And maybe X would
hear the message and take corrective action.
--
Cheers, www.3DProgrammer.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.
Brandon Van Every
"Sean Howard" <ro...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote in message
news:a8sns8$1hu$1...@news.fsu.edu...
>
> I'm worried about the second option, because as many of you know here,
> I tend to come off as somewhat arrogant and stand-offish. Also, the people
> who are making the wrong decisions are all nice people, who are trying
> their best (or at least trying their hardest), and I don't want to offend
> them - I just don't have the tact not to.
Isn't it nice when money's on the table, how one isn't allowed to just be a
Usenet asshole anymore? Really, money focuses people. It forces them to
learn some diplomatic skills.
The best trick my former boss taught me back at DEC, was that you need to
convince other people that an idea is *their* idea. Bring up an idea, don't
point fingers, and see if you can get *them* to champion the change, as a
group.
The best trick I learned on my own accord is that you can see the problems
too soon. Sure, you know what's going to happen. That doesn't mean
everyone else does. You have to wait until other people are receptive to
hearing about the problem. Like, when their own fingers are starting to get
burned. You might have to wait a month, or even 6 months, before bringing
up the issues. Does that sound totally dysfunctional? Sure it is. But
that's the reality of working with other people. You don't get to lower the
boom unless you're the boss, and even then you have to secure people's
buy-in to some degree, or they'll quit.
Nathan Mates
Nathan Mates <nat...@visi.com> wrote:
And a further comment to my last retort, which may come across as
acerbic: in the original posting, you made no mention of having
broached these feelings you have with coworkers, be they other
programmers, designers, or producers. I feel that you're escalating
this issue in a completely backwards manner.
My main question therefore is: Why would a group of complete
strangers on the internet have a better idea of what's wrong and how
to fix it, than those actually involved in the situation? The internet
should be a resource of last resort for internal company politics,
rather than a first. And, as I mentioned in the previous posting, an
intermediate step of trusted friend in person/email should still come
before the internet.
MqsTout
Read Tom Sloper's web site.
"Sean Howard" <ro...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote in message
news:a8sns8$1hu$1...@news.fsu.edu...
>
Sean Howard
: Quick comment: do *NOT* diss your current project, in public, with
: your name on it.
Man, you are right. That was really stupid. When I post here, I try
to not even mention my company so that I'm not linked with it, so I didn't
even think about the implications of such a post. Heck, at the very least,
it was a question of whether I should say anything, and if they see the
question anyway, it renders the question moot...
: Doing so is extremely disloyal,
I don't know about that. I mean, deep down, it was a question of loyalty.
Is loyalty keeping your mouth shut, or is it telling your supervisor that
he is wrong?
: here. I had hopes that working for a real company would help mature
: you, but that's not happened yet.
Maybe not. I'm still trying to figure out this whole loyalty and maturity
thing, I guess.
@@
Sean Howard
Jason Shankel
This is a tough one. I have, in the distant past, worked on titles that
were either doomed to fail or destined to suck. Now I find myself working
for a company I like on a project that really excites me. As much pain as
those early titles brought me (especially the ones that shipped and got
panned), they also brought me enough recognition to get to this point.
With that in mind, I have the following, which passes for "advice":
1) At one point, I was doing the whole Iron Man 70-80 hr work week (my
employer even put me up in a hotel near the office so I wouldn't have to
waste time commuting). At the time, this felt reasonable to me. That's
what game developers are supposed to do, right? Wrong. Never again. I'll
go through crunch for a month or two, maybe. I can do 60hrs/wk for a short
sprint near the end and/or around critical milestones. But this 80hrs/wk
during primary development crap is counterproductive. On the other hand, I
am glad that I went through that experience. I now know firsthand how
dysfunctional death marches are and that experience informs my managerial
style, such as it is.
2) Yes, some of the products I worked on were less than stellar. But, most
of them shipped and, in the end, that's what employers remember. It's akin
to acting. It's better to take bad roles than to not be offered good ones.
Especially if you can be honest about what's working and what's not working.
Is there anything in this project, particularly in your part, that you can
take pride in? Do you know why it isn't hanging together? Design?
Technology? Execution? What I'm saying is that you need to take something
away from this project. No matter how bad it is, if it runs it's got to
have something of value in it.
3) Consider the team. You will probably end up working with one or more of
these people again. Their impression of you will be formed by how you
respond to this situation. They will be more likely to respect your honesty
if they feel you are sincere about wanting what's best for the product and
the company. They will be less likely to accept your input if they feel you
are attacking them or the product or the company based on a personal agenda.
Which brings me to...
4) Consider yourself. By your own admission, you have a tendency to be
somewhat arrogant and stand-offish. I'm not saying that I agree; I have no
solid opinion on the subject. I'm just going with this as a
self-assessment. Arrogance and stand-offishness come from insecurity, which
suggests a delicate ego. I would be very careful about taking the helm and
pushing the product in the "right direction" if you're not very comfortable
with compromise, criticism and shared credit/blame. This is probably the
most important question for you, psychologically. Leadership isn't just
about knowing what's right; it's also about inspiring confidence in others.
It's the difference between being a don and a consiglieri. Frankly, if you
don't have the tact to criticize without offending, you almost certainly
don't have what it takes to lead a team (at this point).
So, here are some questions:
1) How does the rest of the team feel? Do they agree with you? If so, what
elements of leadership do you possess that the current team leaders do not?
If not, how will you convince the team that your vision is superior to
theirs?
2) Would you have the resources you need if you take the helm? Can the
budget and the schedule accomodate a sea-change, or will you simply be the
guy wearing the crown when the revolution (inevitably) comes?
3) How would you handle failure? Meditate on this. Visualize the team
coming together under your leadership. Visualize everything coming together
precisely to your specifications. Visualize the product still sucking, the
press still bashing it and the customers still not buying it in droves. Are
you truly prepared to have no one to blame but yourself?
That's the best I can do. Ask me again in five years.
--
Jason Shankel
Maxis/EA
s h a n k e l "at" p o b o x . c o m
Play rich, creamery OpenTrek at www.pobox.com/~shankel/opentrek.html
Nolite quaerere, nolite loquere
Sean Howard
: And a further comment to my last retort, which may come across as
: acerbic: in the original posting, you made no mention of having
: broached these feelings you have with coworkers, be they other
: programmers, designers, or producers. I feel that you're escalating
: this issue in a completely backwards manner.
You may be right. However, it was a question on how to proceed. I think
at this point in my career, not approaching anyone would be best, but
I can't help but think that my career won't move forward if I don't.
So, no I haven't approached anyone because I wanted to know if I should,
or if I should just drop it.
: My main question therefore is: Why would a group of complete
: strangers on the internet have a better idea of what's wrong and how
: to fix it, than those actually involved in the situation? The internet
I trust the people in this group in so far as I trust them to tell me
when I am being an idiot. This is one of those times.
@@
Sean Howard
Nathan Mates
Sean Howard <ro...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote:
>I trust the people in this group in so far as I trust them to tell me
>when I am being an idiot. This is one of those times.
Drop me an email if you want an opinion. While I can be blunt in
expressing it, I do have some years of practical experience.
To address your current dilemma, my advice is as follows: if you're
unsure how to talk to others on your team, then you need to take a
step back and learn your coworkers. This is a useful skill to have,
whether you're on a 2-person team or a 50-person team, whether you're
in charge or the bottom of the totem pole.
For all of your coworkers, get to the point where you know their
personality and style. Learn who can take blunt criticism, who's
thin-skinned, who likes to take other's ideas, who only cares about
his own ideas. In short, what motivates them, what makes them tick,
and how you can avoid stepping on their toes. All people are
different, and the sooner you can learn to use that information to
work more optimally with them, the better.
Brandon Van Every
>
> Maybe not. I'm still trying to figure out this whole loyalty and maturity
> thing, I guess.
Don't be so hard on yourself. This isn't an industry of autocratic follower
types. Good managers are fairly mellow in the face of the mistakes of
newbie hires. Bad managers get all ballistic. But the same can be said for
employees: it's not your job to get all ballistic and in-your-face with
people who's opinions you're trying to sway. Save that for an extreme
situation.
Tom Sloper
>With that in mind, I have the following, which passes for "advice":
>[snip]
Wow. As much as I agree with what Nathan said, Jason really nailed it.
So to add my couple of cents' worth:
1. Professionalism is an important trait (as discussed in Lesson 9 on my
site). Sean, you've fingered the two sides of professionalism (and as with
much in life, we have two sides to a coin and it isn't possible for them
both to face up). As much as you have a responsibility to get along with the
team by cooperating with them in what they're doing, and as much as you have
a responsibility to help guide the game to be the best it can be, your
experience level is at an early stage. At this stage in your career, it's
probably best to cooperate, to simply work your best at getting the project
done. But not at the expense of your health. If the situation becomes
untenable for you personally, you might want to bow out, but I'd be careful
of doing that without having a fallback position.
2. If the game turns into a stinker, that doesn't reflect badly on you,
since you are not a project lead. Yes, you can plant seeds here and there,
see if any of them take root, but largely the project is going to go the way
it's going to go no matter what you say or do. "God grant me the serenity"
and all that (see Lesson 3 on my site).
3. In future, if you want to broach topics like this in public, why not set
up your newsreader to display a made-up name and email address. It still
might be possible for someone to figure out that it's really you, but at
least you've made them work to figure it out.
Tom
Tom Sloper
http://www.sloperama.com/advice.html
Tom Sloper
"MqsTout" <n...@no.no> wrote ...
Thanks, MqsTout. Specifically, lesson 9 about professionalism addresses this
question -- or did you have another part specifically in mind?
Tom
Tom Sloper
"Brandon Van Every" <vane...@3DProgrammer.com> wrote ...
> Don't be so hard on yourself. This isn't an industry of autocratic
follower
> types. Good managers are fairly mellow in the face of the mistakes of
> newbie hires. Bad managers get all ballistic. But the same can be said
for
> employees: it's not your job to get all ballistic and in-your-face with
> people who's opinions you're trying to sway. Save that for an extreme
> situation.
Exactly. As Dr. Laura says, "choose wisely which hill you want to die on."
Tom
Brandon Van Every
"Jason Shankel" <see...@bottom.com> wrote in message
news:3Fns8.4016$Yb1....@sea-read.news.verio.net...
> I now know firsthand how
> dysfunctional death marches are and that experience informs my managerial
> style, such as it is.
And then there are those of us who simply listened to other people's horror
stories and paid heed. ;-)
> 4) Consider yourself. By your own admission, you have a tendency to be
> somewhat arrogant and stand-offish.
Most male 20-somethings are.
> Arrogance and stand-offishness come from insecurity, which
> suggests a delicate ego.
I'd point the finger at testosterone first. You can take the view that
these problems are personal problems, or that they are social problems born
of our strategic biology. Of course only you can evaluate the individual
case, but I wouldn't be so quick to assume that something's wrong with you
just because you feel such-and-such. Rather, there's quite a bit wrong with
people and organizations in general. Most corporations have the gestalt of
a 6 year old. Of course, as we engineers say Life Is Hard. Deal with it.
It's called "work" for a reason.
> Frankly, if you
> don't have the tact to criticize without offending, you almost certainly
> don't have what it takes to lead a team (at this point).
I dunno, I think a few bullets in the head can work wonders for morale. :-)
Remember (at this point). Life is change, and everyone is entitled to their
own learning. There isn't some ladder of inevitable decisions and
thresholds you're going to climb up. You'll have to handle your current
problem in standard ways, but strategically, it imports nothing for your
future. Your future is going to be what you make of it, not a pile of other
people's rules and obligations. You will inevitably deal with what other
people want, but as time goes on, you will deal with it more and more on
your own terms.
Sean Howard
: This is a tough one. I have, in the distant past, worked on titles that
: were either doomed to fail or destined to suck. Now I find myself working
: for a company I like on a project that really excites me. As much pain as
: those early titles brought me (especially the ones that shipped and got
: panned), they also brought me enough recognition to get to this point.
So, are you suggesting I just drop it and learn from the experience? I
think ultimately, that's what I will probably do. I'll get my day in the
sun someday, but not today.
: 4) Consider yourself. By your own admission, you have a tendency to be
: somewhat arrogant and stand-offish. I'm not saying that I agree; I have no
: solid opinion on the subject. I'm just going with this as a
: self-assessment. Arrogance and stand-offishness come from insecurity, which
: suggests a delicate ego.
You misread. I said that I COME ACROSS as arrogant and stand-offish. I don't
think I am, but confidence mixed with a little against the grain thinking
can give that impression. I just realized that particular state is a bit
arrogant sounding...
Still, I wasn't insecure two months ago, but I certainly am now.
: 1) How does the rest of the team feel? Do they agree with you? If so, what
: elements of leadership do you possess that the current team leaders do not?
: If not, how will you convince the team that your vision is superior to
: theirs?
I don't think they would agree. In fact, I know they wouldn't. At least
not yet. And the only leadership I could offer would be vision and
structure...just like everyone else :)
: 2) Would you have the resources you need if you take the helm? Can the
: budget and the schedule accomodate a sea-change, or will you simply be the
: guy wearing the crown when the revolution (inevitably) comes?
I can't answer this. The product is pretty early in development, but there
are milestones almost every week. Changes would require some change to
that schedule.
: 3) How would you handle failure? Meditate on this. Visualize the team
: coming together under your leadership. Visualize everything coming together
: precisely to your specifications. Visualize the product still sucking, the
: press still bashing it and the customers still not buying it in droves. Are
: you truly prepared to have no one to blame but yourself?
Of all the issues surrounding this decision, this is the one I think I can
handle. When it is just me, I know I can handle it. Sure, it would suck
really bad, but ultimately I know I would come out with some useful design
experience. Then, it is sucking because of me rather than sucking because
of my inaction.
: That's the best I can do. Ask me again in five years.
Hopefully, in five years, I won't have to ask :)
@@
Sean Howard
Sean Howard
: Drop me an email if you want an opinion. While I can be blunt in
: expressing it, I do have some years of practical experience.
For all the crap I give you and Pandemic, I know that you are just trying to
help...in your own way.
: To address your current dilemma, my advice is as follows: if you're
: unsure how to talk to others on your team, then you need to take a
: step back and learn your coworkers. This is a useful skill to have,
: whether you're on a 2-person team or a 50-person team, whether you're
: in charge or the bottom of the totem pole.
Actually, I have a pretty good idea as to the characters of my
team mates. Being an excessive introvert, I don't start coming out
of my shell until then.
: For all of your coworkers, get to the point where you know their
: personality and style. Learn who can take blunt criticism, who's
: thin-skinned, who likes to take other's ideas, who only cares about
: his own ideas. In short, what motivates them, what makes them tick,
: and how you can avoid stepping on their toes. All people are
: different, and the sooner you can learn to use that information to
: work more optimally with them, the better.
See, that's the problem. While I think that my producer and designer
are great guys, I don't think the suggestions I have would go over
well. For instance, I doubt I could get them to adopt UML (not that
I would suggest that, but it is pretty much the same deal).
That being said, it would be an uphill battle to be heard, so I'm leaning
towards the sit down and shut up approach.
@@
Sean Howard
Jason Shankel
> Jason Shankel (see...@bottom.com) wrote:
>
> : This is a tough one. I have, in the distant past, worked on titles that
> : were either doomed to fail or destined to suck. Now I find myself
working
> : for a company I like on a project that really excites me. As much pain
as
> : those early titles brought me (especially the ones that shipped and got
> : panned), they also brought me enough recognition to get to this point.
>
> So, are you suggesting I just drop it and learn from the experience? I
> think ultimately, that's what I will probably do. I'll get my day in the
> sun someday, but not today.
>
I've long ago given up suggesting courses of action on the usenet. I'm only
sharing my perspective and experience. There's no way any of us here can
know enough about what's really going on to give you a good course of
action. We only have your side of the story and none of us has seen the
product.
That being said, based on your response to my post, I would suggest that you
consider the following:
1) At this point, the rest of the team does not agree with your assessment
of the product.
2) The product is in early development, which means that its suckiness is
theoretical.
3) You are insecure and "come across" as arrogant. Leaving aside for the
moment the question of how you differentiate between coming across as
arrogant and actually being arrogant, the fact remains that this will tend
to work against you as a team leader.
4) You are in the early stages of your career. Presumably, many of the
other members of the team have more experience?
So, this means you are going to ask a team of experienced developers to
substitute their own judgement on the viability of a product in early
development for that of a less experienced programmer who comes off as
arrogant. Which judgement, by the way, would have them restructure,
reschedule and rebudget a (presumably) major project.
I'd say, from the looks of it, you've got a bit of an uphill struggle there.
There's an apt line from Nick Hornby's "High Fidelity". Rob repeatedly
tries to feel up his high school girlfriend under her blouse. She
repeatedly rejects him. So he reaches between her legs. He says its like
asking to borrow five quid, being turned down and asking for fifty.
How has the team responded to your criticisms/suggestions so far? If they
haven't been very receptive to minor suggestions and they generally disagree
with your judgement, they're not likely to follow you in a palace coup.
Sean Howard
: Remember (at this point). Life is change, and everyone is entitled to their
: own learning. There isn't some ladder of inevitable decisions and
: thresholds you're going to climb up. You'll have to handle your current
: problem in standard ways, but strategically, it imports nothing for your
: future. Your future is going to be what you make of it, not a pile of other
: people's rules and obligations. You will inevitably deal with what other
: people want, but as time goes on, you will deal with it more and more on
: your own terms.
Ultimately, I'm looking for guidance. The final decision on what to do is
mine, and mine alone. By looking at what other people think, it will help
me try to understand and predict what...other people think.
Today, after posting this question, we had a programmer meeting. The
lead programmer asked me what I was doing (I'm doing the UI) this
last week.
"The virtual keyboard, but..."
"That's not on the schedule..."
"Yeah, I know, but I finished last weeks stuff early, and thought I'd move
ahead, but..."
"But what?"
"I think we can streamline the interface so that we don't need a virtual
keyboard."
"You need the virtual keyboard! How are you going to name your save files?!"
At this point, the other programmers started making jokes about naming
the files using just the buttons on the controller, like BADASS and stuff
like that. Eventually, the lead programmer just said:
"You leave the design up to me, <the designer>, and <producer>."
And with that, the subject was closed. I never got to explain my position,
and in the room of my co-workers, I was reprimanded and demeaned. Aftwards,
the producer pulled me aside and said that they appreciated my suggestions,
but I shouldn't get upset if they don't take them. Actually, that's when I
got upset. The little meeting when on, and at least twice, they mentioned
"experience" - as in they had it and I didn't. I know the producer meant
well, but it just served to make things worse.
In all fairness, that isn't exactly how it played out, though those
events did happen, and those words were said, there were just a few more
sentences between them and the little meeting was a little lengthier.
I don't want to sound like I'm disgruntled or anything, because I'm not...
well, I wasn't until that experience (my worst fears realized). I just
want what is best for the game I'm working on.
Now I'm torn. My position in the social order was made abundantly clear, and
one part of me wants to fight back...but the other wants me to just give
in. The problem is that it is now personal, and I don't want the game to
be a casualty of a power struggle that part of me demands I bring on.
@@
Sean Howard
Brandon Van Every
>
> That being said, it would be an uphill battle to be heard, so I'm leaning
> towards the sit down and shut up approach.
You have to pick your battles. You also have to decide when is the best
time to be heard. Just because you want to broach subjects right now,
doesn't mean it's the best time. You should concentrate on a battle that's
really important to your strategic interests. Don't fight about everything,
you'll lose and people won't like you. It's like in a wargame, you can't
overextend yourself.
Nathan Mates
Sean Howard <ro...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote:
>See, that's the problem. While I think that my producer and designer
>are great guys, I don't think the suggestions I have would go over
>well. For instance, I doubt I could get them to adopt UML (not that
>I would suggest that, but it is pretty much the same deal).
This comes down to the core decision of picking your battles
wisely. While UML may be neat, I think more time/energy would be
expended trying to get it used than time saved using it.
Over time, you'll get a better sense of what can and can't be done,
and whether a suggestion can be completed in a reasonable (to the
schedule) timeframe. There've been times I've wanted to rip out an
annoying, buggy subsystem, but haven't been able to. Other times, I've
had the schedule wiggle room to put my foot down and say "this code is
broken at places X, Y and Z, and I can fix it by Friday." I've earned
the ability to do that by delivering things on schedule.
I have some coworkers I wouldn't trust at all to rip things out, as
they'd get endless distracted in fixing things and never finish the
job. On the flip side, there are other coworkers with a much better
sense of knowing what's holding up the critical path and knowing how
to fix it. Until you've proven which category you're in, you will be
on a slightly shorter leash.
Consider this a gameplay issue, like a RPG. You have 17 gold. Do
you spend it on some trinket, or do you save up for the new shield?
Nathan
Brandon Van Every
>
> "I think we can streamline the interface so that we don't need a virtual
> keyboard."
Is it important to streamline the interface so that you don't need a virtual
keyboard? Is a virtual keyboard particularly difficult to implement? Are
you arguing over a few days' worth of work or a few weeks' worth of work?
If it's a few days, save your battles for bigger fish.
> "You need the virtual keyboard! How are you going to name your save
files?!"
Most of the time, an automatically generated "Gamename Timestamp" will do.
But once in awhile, you want to differentiate something in an otherwise
linear stream of save game events. Usually people solve that problem by
naming the file something else, something custom. I can't think of a system
that would be terribly better than this, although maybe someone can. But
here's the political problem: you'd be wasting your design time on a
molehill, and making it into a political mountain with the guys in charge.
Why spend the energy on that? Spend it on something much more important and
fundamental to the game. Virtual keyboards sounds really small potatoes.
> Now I'm torn. My position in the social order was made abundantly clear,
and
> one part of me wants to fight back...but the other wants me to just give
> in. The problem is that it is now personal, and I don't want the game to
> be a casualty of a power struggle that part of me demands I bring on.
Aren't you congratulating yourself prematurely? Why would there be a power
struggle, as opposed to them simply firing you for being hard to work with?
Are other people similarly disgruntled as to how things are going?
I remember my 1st day meeting the technical director, he insulted all the
work I'd been doing on fast matrix transforms as being a bunch of "CS
Theory." So, I retalliated by going over his own square rooting code line
by line and finding "mistakes." I'm now unclear whether he actually made
any mistakes, but I certainly advanced the argument that he had, and forced
him to defend himself. The message I sent was clear: if you're going to
bully and insult me about who knows their Alpha ASM code, you'd better be
prepared for full combat, because I actually know my stuff and will call you
on everything. This tactic did result in a conversation between myself, the
tech director, and my boss. We all mellowed out after that. I don't regret
having forced the tech director's hand, he was being an arrogant cuss.
On the other hand, nothing I did was a big project shakeup. It was a minor
point of ego jostling.
It should be noted that my boss was probably 10 years older and more
seasoned than your managers probably are. I think older managers are better
for handling young bucks because they don't rile easily.
I think the best thing you could do would be to quickly implement the
virtual keyboard, then move on to something of greater strategic importance
that you can excel at. It would be more insulting to obey, do well, and
break free of admonishments than to be perceived to be working poorly and
throwing temper tantrums.
I think it is important that you decide what you're strategically trying to
get out of this project. "Experience" is too general an answer. It may be
needed in the long run, but it tends to conflict with "sanity" and
"happiness" in the short run. Also, you're going to get experience no
matter what you do anyways. At first, I remember I was into CPU instruction
scheduling theory. Eventually I figured out everything there was to figure
out about that, and my job started to get boring. You need those
self-challenges to justify your time, especially when the project as a whole
is not going your way and/or the politics are blowing in a bad direction at
you.
MNT
> Nathan Mates (nat...@visi.com) wrote:
>
> : Quick comment: do *NOT* diss your current project, in public, with
> : your name on it.
>
> Man, you are right. That was really stupid. When I post here, I try
> to not even mention my company so that I'm not linked with it, so I didn't
> even think about the implications of such a post. Heck, at the very least,
> it was a question of whether I should say anything, and if they see the
> question anyway, it renders the question moot...
Yeah, but the circumstance where the issue comes up is REALLY bad.
> : Doing so is extremely disloyal,
>
> I don't know about that. I mean, deep down, it was a question of loyalty.
> Is loyalty keeping your mouth shut, or is it telling your supervisor that
> he is wrong?
Loyalty may be not to air your dirty laundry ... especially now there's a
searchable interface to the laundry database.
What if your employer come across this? Worse yet, what if your publisher
comes across this?
> : here. I had hopes that working for a real company would help mature
> : you, but that's not happened yet.
>
> Maybe not. I'm still trying to figure out this whole loyalty and maturity
> thing, I guess.
Well, we're all are working these things out ourselves, I guess.
Nathan Mates
Sean Howard <ro...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote:
>: Quick comment: do *NOT* diss your current project, in public, with
>: your name on it.
[...]
>: Doing so is extremely disloyal,
>I don't know about that. I mean, deep down, it was a question of loyalty.
>Is loyalty keeping your mouth shut, or is it telling your supervisor that
>he is wrong?
Airing dirty laundry is what I was calling disloyal. It is a small
industry. You've already provided a few clues as to where you are, and
what you're working on. Someone will put two and two together sooner
or later. Those reading and commenting so far seem to be looking to
give you advice. There may be other readers (who may or may not post)
with other intentions-- do you want a coworker or your boss (the ones
who shot you down in a meeting today) to read this? Do you want the
gaming press to pick up on this?
It is not necessarily disloyal to be torn as to what to do next.
It approaches it when you leave a lot of clues as the identies of
everyone involved. That's why I suggested starting small and going
public *only* if all other recourses fail. You'll also note that
most people have not quoted your original message, so it could be
canceled (hint, hint).
MNT
>
> Today, after posting this question, we had a programmer meeting. The
> lead programmer asked me what I was doing (I'm doing the UI) this
> last week.
Oh dear, there you go again. Look, this kind of information is just not
meant for public consumption while you're there. You're better off fostering
relationships with people who are immediately around you. As for the
put-downs, who hasn't been there? The sun still rises tomorrow. I'm remided
of a quote which seems appropriate: "Things are rarely as bad as they seem,
or as good as they seem."
Peter Cowderoy
> "You need the virtual keyboard! How are you going to name your save files?!"
>
The UI's for their use, is your alternative really going to save so much
time it's worth the waste of everyone's time arguing over it?
Not worth fighting over IMO. YMMV ;-)
'In Ankh-Morpork even the shit have a street to itself...
Truly this is a land of opportunity.' - Detritus, Men at Arms
Peter Cowderoy
> See, that's the problem. While I think that my producer and designer
> are great guys, I don't think the suggestions I have would go over
> well. For instance, I doubt I could get them to adopt UML (not that
> I would suggest that, but it is pretty much the same deal).
>
Well, if you asked me to adopt UML then depending on how much I could be
bothered to say you'd get anything from "sod off" to a lengthy rant on the
value of formal mechanisms without the support of appropriate tools and
training while pointing to a sum on a piece of paper. This is, of course,
partly because you're not my manager :-)
Is something similar likely to happen?
Brandon Van Every
"MNT" <mi...@one.net> wrote in message
news:ub4j69k...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Loyalty may be not to air your dirty laundry ... especially now there's a
> searchable interface to the laundry database.
> What if your employer come across this? Worse yet, what if your publisher
> comes across this?
Must be interesting working for a small developer. Back at DEC, there were
further issues to consider:
(1) you're ruining the work of DEC's paid PR people. It's very difficult to
get the message right as it is, don't screw up their work.
(2) don't say things that leave DEC open to lawsuits
I never crossed any of those lines, I believed in the virtues of working for
the betterment of the corporation. Also my experience working for said
corporation was not particularly dysfunctional. On the other hand, it
certainly didn't stop me from arguing about OpenGL vs. Direct3D issues to no
end. Some people, particularly lawyers, are afraid of any kind of
discussion of anything because it reduces their control. Thankfully, my
group was far, far removed from the purview of such people.
Once upon a time I think I gave an internal pathname for some file system in
our build tree or something. Or maybe it was an OpenGL SI build path or
something. That actually caused some DEC hornets to buzz. They didn't want
any information released about their code whatsoever, even information I
thought was completely harmless and unusable to anyone. I suppose a
malicious hacker *could*, in theory, have made use of that pathname somehow.
But I can't imagine how, there were a lot of other things they would need,
not the least of which would be motivation. Anyways, that's the closest I
ever came to upsetting anyone by discussing company stuff. Kinda bizzare
really. I thought it demonstrated that they lived in a world of percieved
and extraordinary threats, with no actual Usenet experience.
> > Maybe not. I'm still trying to figure out this whole loyalty and
maturity
> > thing, I guess.
>
> Well, we're all are working these things out ourselves, I guess.
Loyalty: working downstream of other people *sucks*. Your career goal is to
get to the top of the pile and force other people to work downstream of you.
You can do that by becoming a project lead in a major company (i.e.
Microsoft), starting your own company, or becoming a consultant.
Maturity: eventually you figure out what matters and what doesn't matter.
Don't get caught up in emotional Religious Issues.
MNT
"Brandon Van Every" <vane...@3DProgrammer.com> wrote in message
news:Enss8.1393$CA6.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...>...
> Must be interesting working for a small developer. Back at DEC, there
were
> further issues to consider:
Yeah, it's got its goods & bads.
> (1) you're ruining the work of DEC's paid PR people. It's very difficult
to
> get the message right as it is, don't screw up their work.
> (2) don't say things that leave DEC open to lawsuits
Microsoft people, I notice, has a little disclaimers at the end of their
messages, that I find amusing, because, you can read it to say "I don't mean
anything I say".
>...
>
> Loyalty: working downstream of other people *sucks*. Your career goal is
to
> get to the top of the pile and force other people to work downstream of
you.
> You can do that by becoming a project lead in a major company (i.e.
> Microsoft), starting your own company, or becoming a consultant.
Working downstream of other people doesn't suck. It's a chance to learn how
things are at that end of the totem pole. Most people are good at their
jobs, even managers. Most of us are just trying to do something bigger than
what we can do alone. And if your goal is at the management level, then
words like "sucks", and "force" are going to stand in your way of that goal,
I think.
> Maturity: eventually you figure out what matters and what doesn't matter.
> Don't get caught up in emotional Religious Issues.
Yeah, time makes us all Confucius.
Brandon Van Every
>
> As for the
> put-downs, who hasn't been there? The sun still rises tomorrow. I'm
remided
> of a quote which seems appropriate: "Things are rarely as bad as they
seem,
> or as good as they seem."
Indeed, maybe the lesson you should take away is somewhat like aikido.
Don't offer people things for which they will easily throw you upon the mat.
Be more patient and conservative with what you give out to people. Your
fellow coders can't really rip you a new asshole for religious reasons if
you're cautious, well prepared, and strategic in your openings. I think you
thought about how something would be a good idea, and in an autocratic
universe of one (i.e. your own project) it *would* be a good idea, but you
didn't know to consider the political dimension of what you offered. Learn
the lesson and move on.
Get revenge by subtly convincing others that your ideas are *their* ideas.
Brandon Van Every
"Peter Cowderoy" <psy...@cowderoy.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.020409...@eagle.cowderoy.co.uk...
>
> Well, if you asked me to adopt UML then depending on how much I could be
> bothered to say you'd get anything from "sod off" to a lengthy rant on the
> value of formal mechanisms without the support of appropriate tools and
> training while pointing to a sum on a piece of paper. This is, of course,
> partly because you're not my manager :-)
Yeah, everyone's got a technological religion. Nobody cares about a junior
employee's technological religion, the people on the top of the pile are
there to make you use *their* religion. If you're going to try to convert
people, it's going to have to be about things that really value-add to the
bottom line. Nobody cares if it's UML or something else. Nobody cared
about using source control in the ways I figured it could be used either.
What's *really* going to matter to the project? Why is it *really* in
trouble? UML isn't the make it or break it issue for the project. You need
to analyze what's really broken about what's going on, how people fit within
it, and what can be improved while upsetting the least number of people.
> Is something similar likely to happen?
That's rhetorical. It's going to happen.
Brandon Van Every
>
> Microsoft people, I notice, has a little disclaimers at the end of their
> messages, that I find amusing, because, you can read it to say "I don't
mean
> anything I say".
(At DEC) I never did that, as I think it's a chickenshit abdication of
responsibility for what you say. A culture of corporate fear causes people
to do that.
> Working downstream of other people doesn't suck. It's a chance to learn
how
> things are at that end of the totem pole.
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Your career isn't about
continuously subjecting yourself to the low end of the totem pole. One
example early on, well-remembered, will suffice. Management crash course
101: remember everything you liked as an employee. Do that as a boss.
Remember everything you hated as an employee. Don't do that.
> And if your goal is at the management level, then
> words like "sucks", and "force" are going to stand in your way of that
goal,
> I think.
Bill Gates has proven you wrong. All he does is say what sucks. One of the
problems our our modern, liberalist, PC world views is it makes us
uncomfortable with discussing the realistic terms of raw, naked power.
There is definitely the corporate skill of breaking up a bureaucratic
logjam. Grabbing the bullhorn, telling people to fuck off and this is how
it's gonna be. Making heads roll. This is part of the toolkit of people
who are very successful in corporations. Networking and cross-company
alliance building are other parts of the toolkit. But one shouldn't
underestimate or de-emphasize the fact that in a ponderous corporation, one
gets ahead by being a warlord.
> > Maturity: eventually you figure out what matters and what doesn't
matter.
> > Don't get caught up in emotional Religious Issues.
>
> Yeah, time makes us all Confucius.
Or consultants? It sidesteps many problems.
Ian Firth
> After a year of trying, I finally landed a job as a programming in the
> industry. Now I'm faced with a problem.
Don't worry, when your boss reads this, you'll be out of work :)
Welcome to the world of corporate game development. Sucks doesn't it ?
--
Regards,
Ian Firth
Space
you may meet people ( in other teams or in other companies ) who have the
same criteria as you , for "what sucks bigtime and what doesn't".
So you may find a team that will suit you for the next game ; or you may
hear about a game project that you'll like.
If the game is shipped, and if you did something in it that you're proud of,
( like Jason Shankel said , point 2 ) ,
you'll find even more opportunities.
I've been working on a game which certainly won't be a best-seller, but I
made the AI and many people said the AI was great, so I'll have something to
show to my future employers.
What I just want to say is that in a few months ( or years ) , you'll be
able to decide what game you work on , or who you work with.
It takes a lot of patience.
Space
( English is not my mother tongue, I hope you'll understand what I wrote
! )
Gerry Quinn
> Consider this a gameplay issue, like a RPG. You have 17 gold. Do
>you spend it on some trinket, or do you save up for the new shield?
I remember when I cared. Happy days...
Gerry Quinn
Paul Shirley
<nat...@visi.com> writes
> Airing dirty laundry is what I was calling disloyal. It is a small
>industry. You've already provided a few clues as to where you are, and
>what you're working on. Someone will put two and two together sooner
>or later.
While I was involved in interviewing/selecting job applicants we
habitually did a quick web/news search for the candidate.
--
Paul Shirley
Bjoern
though? Don't you sometimes have meetings where you can discuss these
things. Would be better to find solutions together.
I know it can be impossible, if the managers really don't care to hear
what others think, though.
If it's not that extreme in your company, perhaps you could check how
much support your ideas have with your fellow programmers. If there is
enough agreement, perhaps somebody could call for such a meeting?
Bjoern
MNT
"Brandon Van Every" <vane...@3DProgrammer.com> wrote in message
>
>...
> Bill Gates has proven you wrong. All he does is say what sucks. One of
the
> problems our our modern, liberalist, PC world views is it makes us
> uncomfortable with discussing the realistic terms of raw, naked power.
I don't know if that's how I would characterize Bill Gates & the rise of
microsoft. If I have to, I would point to MS's concept of "coopetition". MS
has many different groups working on many different technologies, even
competing ones. Their strategy is basically throw everything out there & see
what stick.
> There is definitely the corporate skill of breaking up a bureaucratic
> logjam. Grabbing the bullhorn, telling people to fuck off and this is how
> it's gonna be. Making heads roll. This is part of the toolkit of people
> who are very successful in corporations.
Do you really think this is THE skill to have in a successful corporation?
On the Ferangee homeworld, maybe.
> Networking and cross-company
> alliance building are other parts of the toolkit. But one shouldn't
> underestimate or de-emphasize the fact that in a ponderous corporation,
one
> gets ahead by being a warlord.
Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion, I guess.
Sean Howard
: The UI's for their use, is your alternative really going to save so much
: time it's worth the waste of everyone's time arguing over it?
The virtual keyboard is not worth arguing about...but then, my ability
to have opinions and suggestions about the work I do is...to me.
: Not worth fighting over IMO. YMMV ;-)
I agree, but I didn't fight for it. I wasn't prepared either way when it
came up, so I only brought it up as sheepishly as possible.
@@
Sean Howard
Sean Howard
: > Consider this a gameplay issue, like a RPG. You have 17 gold. Do
: >you spend it on some trinket, or do you save up for the new shield?
: I remember when I cared. Happy days...
I remember when I didn't...
@@
Sean Howard
Sean Howard
: give you advice. There may be other readers (who may or may not post)
: with other intentions-- do you want a coworker or your boss (the ones
: who shot you down in a meeting today) to read this? Do you want the
: gaming press to pick up on this?
Everybody has problems at their workplace, but it is how they deal with
these problems that give them character. I'm not ashamed that I have
problems, especially in this somewhat rare instance when I didn't
bring it on myself. However, you are right that it isn't appropriate
to air dirty laundry in public, and I won't do it again.
I do appreciate your input, and the input of everyone else in this
thread. Believe it or not, it helped put things in perspective, and
while before I was tempted to become disgruntled, I think I understand
the situation much better now, both in what is happening, what could
happen, and how to survive the enevitable.
There is still going to be a power struggle with the lead programmer.
I've unknowingly challenged his alpha male status several times now.
The only thing I can do is play defensively as possible and hope
for the best. That is one battle I can't win.
: public *only* if all other recourses fail. You'll also note that
: most people have not quoted your original message, so it could be
: cancelled (hint, hint).
Done and done.
@@
Sean Howard
Peter Cowderoy
> There is still going to be a power struggle with the lead programmer.
> I've unknowingly challenged his alpha male status several times now.
Challenged or just prodded? :-)
Brandon Van Every
"Paul Shirley" <paul.s...@ntlworld.invalid> wrote in message
news:SdQb8zMW$ss8...@ntlworld.com...
>
> While I was involved in interviewing/selecting job applicants we
> habitually did a quick web/news search for the candidate.
People with voluminous posting habits are probably immune from scrutiny.
:-) I pity the fool who can handle 8 years of Brandon Van Every!
Brandon Van Every
> "Brandon Van Every" <vane...@3DProgrammer.com> wrote in message
>
> > logjam. Grabbing the bullhorn, telling people to fuck off and this is
how
> > it's gonna be. Making heads roll. This is part of the toolkit of
people
> > who are very successful in corporations.
>
> Do you really think this is THE skill to have in a successful corporation?
> On the Ferangee homeworld, maybe.
Look I was really clear about it being a tool in the toolbox and I'm not
going to argue about it. If you're uncomfortable with that tool, if you
can't see/understand its validity or importance, then let's face it, you're
not destined to lead in a big corporation.
MNT
"Brandon Van Every" <vane...@3DProgrammer.com> wrote in message
>
> "MNT" <mi...@one.net> wrote in message
> news:ub67knn...@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Brandon Van Every" <vane...@3DProgrammer.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > There is definitely the corporate skill of breaking up a bureaucratic
> > > logjam. Grabbing the bullhorn, telling people to fuck off and this is
> how
> > > it's gonna be. Making heads roll. This is part of the toolkit of
> people
> > > who are very successful in corporations.
> >
> > Do you really think this is THE skill to have in a successful
corporation?
> > On the Ferangee homeworld, maybe.
>
> Look I was really clear about it being a tool in the toolbox and I'm not
> going to argue about it. If you're uncomfortable with that tool, if you
> can't see/understand its validity or importance, then let's face it,
you're
> not destined to lead in a big corporation.
Drop us a line when you make it there.
Ernest Szoka
This is how I overcame what you feel now.
I was on a large software development project, didn't seem promising at all
(turned out they canned it some months after I left). I made opinion's about
things I didn't like and how I would have changed things, but I did my work
despite how much I didn't want to. The key was to do the work and wait until
the time came when I had an opportunity to really change the project. It
took roughly 6 months of following orders to earn the trust of my boss.
After which I suggested a major feature in our product and what I envisioned
it to be, and I got the go ahead.
Never, ever criticize something unless you have a solution, otherwise your
just wasting everyones time and stating the obvious, which some people may
not want to hear.
When I finally got to work on what I wanted, I started to be much happier
and it showed in my work. When people finally saw and where impressed with
what I was doing I started getting respect, and by the time I ended up
leaving I pretty much had Carte Blanche to the point where I made my own
schedule and worked on my own features (as long as my boss new what I was
working on and what my intentions were, everything was fine). The product
may have been canned, but the work I did lives on in my resume. And at least
I have something to show for how I was able to earn the respect of a boss at
a large and highly publicized corporation beyond the extend my position was
supposed to allow.
So in short I followed these steps
Do what your told, question a given task once, but try not to bring it up
again.
Earn the respect by doing what your told and try to do a good job and add
some extra value to what your doing no matter how bad the task is.
Wait for a chance to offer an idea or a possible solution to an existing
problem and get a chance to work on it on your own. Try to work ideas out in
secret if your having a hard time proving it in words.
Keep offering ideas to things you want to do and eventually (if your ideas
are good and don't effect anyone else in a bad way) you won't have to ask
for permission anymore.
Be patient don't push your luck in the beginning or you won't go far
Once you've earned the respect of one authority figure you have to start all
over again when you start working for someone else, and that can be a real
bitch, that's why being over qualified (even if only a bit) can be a real
problem when starting at a new company. I made that mistake once, I don't
want to ever do that again, it's so much easier to follow orders when you
don't know jack.
Ernest
"Sean Howard" <ro...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote in message
news:a8sns8$1hu$1...@news.fsu.edu...
>
> After a year of trying, I finally landed a job as a programming in the
> industry. Now I'm faced with a problem. The game we're working on is
> going to suck, big time. The design is influenced by Grand Theft Auto 3
> in all the wrong ways (think State of Emergency as an extreme sports
> title). The programming team is extremely disorganized, and aren't
> making the decisions that need to be made when they need to be made.
>
> At the end of the project, I can easily see how we are going to have
> a very lengthy death march, even with several extra months factored
> in for tweaking and bug fixing.
>
> As I see it, I have two options. I can keep my mouth shut, do my time,
> and emerge a project later with "real world experience" that will help
> my resumes not get thrown out immediately. Or I can try to help the
> project.
>
> I'm worried about the second option, because as many of you know here,
> I tend to come off as somewhat arrogant and stand-offish. Also, the people
> who are making the wrong decisions are all nice people, who are trying
> their best (or at least trying their hardest), and I don't want to offend
> them - I just don't have the tact not to.
>
> I think there is a good game in there somewhere, and I think my team is
> capable enough to bring it out - with a little push in the right
direction.
> Do I take the safe way, or do I put myself in jeapordy trying to make
> a better product?
>
> @@
> Sean Howard
Bjoern
[...]
> "You need the virtual keyboard! How are you going to name your save files?!"
Just out of curiosity (OT), I don't understand what a virtual keyboard
is and what the problem is with naming save files?
>
> At this point, the other programmers started making jokes about naming
> the files using just the buttons on the controller, like BADASS and stuff
> like that. Eventually, the lead programmer just said:
Nothing against some fun here and there.
> "You leave the design up to me, <the designer>, and <producer>."
>
> And with that, the subject was closed. I never got to explain my position,
> and in the room of my co-workers, I was reprimanded and demeaned. Aftwards,
Perhaps in a meeting with everyone else involved isn't the best time
to discuss your individual tasks at length. Typically meetings are
hell for everyone else if they have nothing to do with their own
current concerns. Besides, what did you expect, the designer and
producer saying 'heck you are right, our `design was shit to begin
with'? Why didn't you go talk to them when you were finished early
with your other assignments, to see what should be the next steps?
> the producer pulled me aside and said that they appreciated my suggestions,
> but I shouldn't get upset if they don't take them. Actually, that's when I
> got upset. The little meeting when on, and at least twice, they mentioned
> "experience" - as in they had it and I didn't. I know the producer meant
> well, but it just served to make things worse.
This sounds exceptional to me, the producers actually seems to care
that you feel happy about your work. Of course it's hard to tell
without having been there, but from my experience so far I think you
are in a lucky position.
It seems natural to me that the producer and designer have the last
say. Also, you were hired as a programmer on that project, to fullfill
their vision. What if they hired you to do a strategy game, but you
like FPS better. Would you then always say 'I really think we could
turn this into a FPS, it would be a much better game'?
[...]
> in. The problem is that it is now personal, and I don't want the game to
> be a casualty of a power struggle that part of me demands I bring on.
How can there be a power struggle, it seems clear who has the power.
Bjoern
Gerry Quinn
>
>"Paul Shirley" <paul.s...@ntlworld.invalid> wrote in message
>news:SdQb8zMW$ss8...@ntlworld.com...
>>
>> While I was involved in interviewing/selecting job applicants we
>> habitually did a quick web/news search for the candidate.
>
>People with voluminous posting habits are probably immune from scrutiny.
>:-) I pity the fool who can handle 8 years of Brandon Van Every!
The classic 'needle in a haystack' strategy. As applied in business,
when the Revenue come to investigate your accounts and you point them
towards a large warehouse of ledgers...
- Gerry Quinn
Brad Wardell
I'd take a slightly middle road. Talk politely to the producer or team
leader about your concerns. But don't go over his head.
There are often times when games that seem like disasters do end up working
out. Moreover, marketing and distribution have a lot to do with a game's
success than the quality (unfortunatley).
When we were working on Entrepreneur, everyone on the team hated it and
considered the game DOA. They thought it was crap basically. They suggested
we dump it and start a new game right there. We chose to continue on and
the game went on to be a critical and successful game generating a lot of
revenue, good reviews, and a product that we could do sequels to (such as
The Corporate Machine).
Sometimes game projects look like they're doomed during development but come
together at the very end. The key is for team members to be discrete and
respectful and not assume that everyone (but themselves) is some sort of
clueless bean counter. ;)
Brad
>
> @@
> Sean Howard
>
Brad Wardell
"Brandon Van Every" <vane...@3DProgrammer.com> wrote in message
>
> "MNT" <mi...@one.net> wrote in message
> news:ub67knn...@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Brandon Van Every" <vane...@3DProgrammer.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > There is definitely the corporate skill of breaking up a bureaucratic
> > > logjam. Grabbing the bullhorn, telling people to fuck off and this is
> how
> > > it's gonna be. Making heads roll. This is part of the toolkit of
> people
> > > who are very successful in corporations.
> >
> > Do you really think this is THE skill to have in a successful
corporation?
> > On the Ferangee homeworld, maybe.
>
> Look I was really clear about it being a tool in the toolbox and I'm not
> going to argue about it. If you're uncomfortable with that tool, if you
> can't see/understand its validity or importance, then let's face it,
you're
> not destined to lead in a big corporation.
I have to disagree. In my experience, the people who succeed are the ones
who are consensus builders. Being rude and disrespectful to your co-workers
is definitely not a path to success. The last thing you want to do is have
people who actively want to see you fail.
Brad
Sean Howard
: After which I suggested a major feature in our product and what I envisioned
: it to be, and I got the go ahead.
Maybe one day, but today was definitely not that day...it probably set
me back a few months too :/
: Never, ever criticize something unless you have a solution, otherwise your
: just wasting everyones time and stating the obvious, which some people may
: not want to hear.
I always have the solution :) Seriously, I see some minor issues with team
communication, where one hand doesn't know what they other is doing type of
thing. The reason it is obvious to me, and apparently not obvious to others,
is because I've seen the solution..as given by people with more experience
with management than any small company could ever have. For instance,
as suggested by Extreme Programming, pair programming can not only improve
communication, but also improve quality and development speed. Also, I
hear that commenting your code can help there too :)
But it isn't a big deal, and the project will likely finish anyway, possibly
even as a good game. But it could be better, and through that, could create
a better game.
The problem is, as a code monkey, no suggestion or observation I make will
be valid. If I suggest that the programmers read something like Code
Complete or The Mythical Man-Month, despite those being industry recognized
classics with many established and workable solutions, no one would read
them because I suggested it. The sad thing is, if that same suggestion came
from an anonymous post on a public C++ mailing list, it becomes a
credible idea.
I guess that's what I'm most upset about. I am less than a no one. I
don't even get to make suggestions about the small corner of the codebase
that I get to play with.
: Do what your told, question a given task once, but try not to bring it up
: again.
My suggestions were just suggestions. I wasn't questioning authority
(except once). I figured if I gave them 1,000 good ideas, and they listened
to 3 of them, then I'd have a positive effect on the project.
: Earn the respect by doing what your told and try to do a good job and add
: some extra value to what your doing no matter how bad the task is.
I'm a cubicle flower. I do what I'm told. But I'm working on the User
Interface for a game that has very few things finalized. When I ask anyone
about the interface, their eyes glass over and they are obviously not
listening. So I started making some of the decisions. That, apparently, is
a strict code monkey no-no, and I've learned my lesson.
Still, it is hard to do what you are told, when they rarely tell you what
to do, and when they do, it is extremely vague.
: Keep offering ideas to things you want to do and eventually (if your ideas
: are good and don't effect anyone else in a bad way) you won't have to ask
: for permission anymore.
Maybe, someday.
: Be patient don't push your luck in the beginning or you won't go far
I hear you loud and clear.
: .... it's so much easier to follow orders when you
: don't know jack.
The story of my life :)
@@
Sean Howard
Bart P. Jaszcz
the interview you smell a skunk, chances are, there is a skunk in the
office somewhere. I'm all for making money and eating food, but I'm
also for weeding out the crappy people out of our society. Now, it
sounds to me like you're entrenched behind enemy lines wondering if
you should blow the place up or try to convert the enemy. I say blow
the place up! If the product is gonna suck, that's great! Make sure
it does. That way that company and more importantly the people in it
won't survive very long and stink the place up. Only do what's
required, or just enough so it passes as having been completed (like a
D average..) Then collect your money and put it in a saving account..
Under no circumstances quit your job, that's not what "we" want you to
do. Just drain the son of a bitch until it throws you off its back,
then go back to slacking and writing real games.
l8r on..
bpj
Brandon Van Every
>
> The problem is, as a code monkey, no suggestion or observation I make will
> be valid. If I suggest that the programmers read something like Code
> Complete or The Mythical Man-Month, despite those being industry
recognized
> classics with many established and workable solutions, no one would read
> them because I suggested it. The sad thing is, if that same suggestion
came
> from an anonymous post on a public C++ mailing list, it becomes a
> credible idea.
It's not sad. You haven't learned the art of making your idea into *their*
idea. Does your company have a technical library? You could propose
starting a technical library, on the grounds that people would find it neat
and someone might sharpen their skills. Don't propose *your* books, let
*them* propose *their* books. Make it *their* idea. You insert your books
later. If they press you with ego-driven questions like "Well what books
would *you* put in there?" then lie. "I just love tech books. You've got
some faves of your own, right?" You can only pick a fight this way if
someone's adamantly opposed to tech books in general. Which is possible...
maybe someone doesn't like reading them, or doesn't want employees "wasting
time" reading them. If that's what you run into, then your library idea
will be DOA. Of course such-and-such might be isolated in their opinions,
or just cranky, so politically you might group-think around them. Get
people on the bandwagon.
If you've already got a tech library, but nobody uses it, find out why it's
so boring to people.
> My suggestions were just suggestions. I wasn't questioning authority
> (except once). I figured if I gave them 1,000 good ideas, and they
listened
> to 3 of them, then I'd have a positive effect on the project.
Or they'd be bored with the 997 ideas that wasted their time.
> I'm a cubicle flower. I do what I'm told. But I'm working on the User
> Interface for a game that has very few things finalized. When I ask anyone
> about the interface, their eyes glass over and they are obviously not
> listening. So I started making some of the decisions. That, apparently, is
> a strict code monkey no-no, and I've learned my lesson.
I don't think you've faced up to the fact that you picked the wrong battle.
Virtual keyboards is small potatoes. Crank it out and get it done. That's
what the people around you want to hear. It's a few days' work, they don't
want to hear about how a molehill can be turned into a mountain. Get
farther and farther ahead in your code monkey tasks so that you have the
free time to worry about something that other people actually care about.
They don't want you to optimize the small potatoes and they don't want to be
told how they're doing their jobs wrong. Pick something positive that
contributes to the Big Picture of the game. And get other people's buy-in,
don't just expect that because you thought of it, others will think it's
great stuff.
> Still, it is hard to do what you are told, when they rarely tell you what
> to do, and when they do, it is extremely vague.
The value of the library project is that it sidesteps anyone's domain of
concern. Assuming, of course, you don't pitch it as an ego contest. "My
coding book is better than your coding book!" Learn the art of making your
ideas into other people's ideas.
Sean Howard
: > "You need the virtual keyboard! How are you going to name your save files?!"
: Just out of curiosity (OT), I don't understand what a virtual keyboard
: is and what the problem is with naming save files?
The virtual keyboard allows you to input text on a console. There is
typically an onscreen keyboard displayed, and you use the controller to
move between the keys and "type". The problem is, these things are a huge
pain in the but to use, and more often than not, they are extaneous.
For instance, sure, you could name your multiplayer character, but you
would only want to do that if you were saving stats or something
regarding them. If you are just playing a simple two-player game, then
colors, alternate outfits, and even position on the screen are more than
enough to distinguish them...adding text above their heads actually
complicates things.
For naming files, having pictures, progress information, colors, and
other stuff like that are actually more condusive to quickly locating
and loading/saving your file. The text does play a part, and it
would be ok if you didn't have to use the virtual keyboard too often.
Not having a virtual keyboard was sort of a weird suggestion, and what I
really intended was a minimzed usage of the keyboard. When all you have is
a hammer, the whole world is a nail. I sort of wanted to make the other
solutions more obvious, like using color and images.
But like the one button challenege in the design newsgroup, people get
so obsessed over the suggestion of not having a feature, they often
fail to see beyond it.
: > At this point, the other programmers started making jokes about naming
: > the files using just the buttons on the controller, like BADASS and stuff
: > like that. Eventually, the lead programmer just said:
: Nothing against some fun here and there.
True, and I don't hold hold anything against them. Still, when you put
yourself out to bare, almost against your will, being laughed at is rather
upsetting. Still, you can't hold it against someone just because they think
they are funny. At least they saw beyond not having a virtual keyboard, even
if just a joke.
: Perhaps in a meeting with everyone else involved isn't the best time
: to discuss your individual tasks at length. Typically meetings are
I can't stress enough that I didn't want to bring it up during that meeting.
I wasn't prepared. I had been talking to the designer about that possibility
before the meeting, but I hadn't had more than a few words and a promise
to talk about it later.
: current concerns. Besides, what did you expect, the designer and
: producer saying 'heck you are right, our `design was shit to begin
: with'?
That suggestion was made in the void left by no design in the first
place. Some of the suggestions I had made were sort of along those lines
(for example, I complained that the theme of the game was too immature
and artificially "cool", like State of Emergency, and that they could
reach a broader audience by using a less rebellious attitude).
: Why didn't you go talk to them when you were finished early
: with your other assignments, to see what should be the next steps?
I've tried that, and it produced zero results. I am the lest important
monkey on the tree, swinging from the least interesting branch. When I
first started, my producer actually said that the new guy gets the ass
job (joking, but honest). I don't consider the UI an ass job, and I
would take extreme pride in working on it...if I could proceed with some
official direction.
: This sounds exceptional to me, the producers actually seems to care
: that you feel happy about your work. Of course it's hard to tell
: without having been there, but from my experience so far I think you
: are in a lucky position.
Like I said, th eproducer meant well. I think he is a great guy, and
there are times when I'm proud to be an employee under him. However,
in this case, and it was clouded by the others in the room, the
text between the lines was a little too clear.
I am extremely thankful that after a long time trying to get in, I finally
got in the industry, I'm finally out of Florida, and I'm finally in
a city where I can go to things like the E3, GDC, or even LA IDGA meetings.
However, all of that means nothing to me if I can't apply all these
ideas that I've been having for the past 15 years. It means nothing if
I can't contribute to making a better product.
: It seems natural to me that the producer and designer have the last
: say. Also, you were hired as a programmer on that project, to fullfill
: their vision. What if they hired you to do a strategy game, but you
: like FPS better. Would you then always say 'I really think we could
: turn this into a FPS, it would be a much better game'?
I see your point, and to a large extent, I agree. However, the suggestions
I have, and the direction I think we should be going, are, I believe, in
concert with their goals. For instance, the somewhat out-of-the-box suggestion
that we streamline the interface goes well with my producer's opinions on
the matter (He said if he saw a menu screen at the E3, he would walk away).
The designer wants to create a mission tree, which is an admirable goal, but
for reasons I can't go into here, won't work the way he wants it to work. The
suggestions I have are to help him achieve his goals better. Unfortunately,
he won't realize until it is too late to make significant changes.
My whole stance is that I think we can make a better game, not that we
aren't making a good game. The only thing I am completely against, and
something which I believe we can't improve and should just throw away, is
the "attitude" of the game which is going to limit its potential,
automatically ruling out people whose self-image is not dominated by fitting
in with the "cool guys". Even though I don't think the mission tree will
work, I honestly believe it can work...with some effort.
: How can there be a power struggle, it seems clear who has the power.
The struggle isn't about me gaining power, it is about me losing what
little power I have. I don't think our lead programmer is accustomed
to being questioned, much less contradicted - which is something I made
the mistake of doing early on. Most of the people here won't wipe their
butt without approval from him, and I think he was a little upset that
I went over his head and talked to the designer about the suggestions.
There is another possibility, and that is that we both become good friends
on an equal footing...and that is certainly the outcome that I'm aiming
for. If it gets to the point where I can make a suggestion without him getting
upset, I'll consider the problem solved. But it certainly can end with
a struggle. I don't expect him to share his god-like status with a newbie
code monkey.
@@
Sean Howard
Sean Howard
metaphor works, the "solution" is certainly not going to get me where
I want to go. I'm not very interested in burning bridges while I'm
still on them.
Bart P. Jaszcz (fres...@my-deja.com) wrote:
: Sounds to me like you didn't follow my advice, which was, if during
: l8r on..
: bpj
--
@@
Sean Howard
Paul Shirley
<ger...@indigo.ie> writes
Doesn't work if you got a good look at the needle before losing it ;)
I remember Brandon's early posts and the impression they made...
--
Paul Shirley
Brandon Van Every
"Paul Shirley" <paul.s...@ntlworld.invalid> wrote in message
>
> Doesn't work if you got a good look at the needle before losing it ;)
>
> I remember Brandon's early posts and the impression they made...
How early is early? I have posts going back to 1993 as
vane...@launchpad.unc.edu . I was 23 at the time, how old were you? If
you're older than me, then you can hardly hold my youthful indiscretions
against me. If you're my age, then you're remembering your own immaturity
as much as anything I did. Anyways if by "early posts" you mean c.g.d.*
posts you can thank me for getting a c.g.d.* hierarchy going so you could
read whatever you didn't like about my posts. Whatever my reputation as a
blowhard, at least I made an impression on Usenet by moving things beyond
rec.games.programmer. Although in fairness the nomenclature for the c.g.d.*
hierarchy was not my doing, I just got the ball moving that r.g.p needed to
be improved somehow. And kept it moving through an arduous RFD process, I
might add.
Jesus Christ rec.games.programmer *still* shows up on my news server and
*still* has some posts in it. It's supposed to be gone, renamed to
comp.games.development.programming.misc 4 years ago.
Sean Howard
: How early is early? I have posts going back to 1993 as
: vane...@launchpad.unc.edu . I was 23 at the time, how old were you? If
: you're older than me, then you can hardly hold my youthful indiscretions
: against me.
Hey! I'm only 24. Does that mean that everything I say is a youthful
indiscretion? Excellent. Crack, poop, fart, pee. Ha ha! I feel young
again, like I'm still 23 and a half!
@@
Sean Howard
Peter Cowderoy
God knows where it puts my usenet career!
Alex Sramek
> I'm a cubicle flower. I do what I'm told. But I'm working on the User
> Interface for a game that has very few things finalized. When I ask anyone
> about the interface, their eyes glass over and they are obviously not
> listening. So I started making some of the decisions. That, apparently, is
> a strict code monkey no-no, and I've learned my lesson.
Thus enters Sean into the world of UI programming.
Something you should realize about UI (that took me a while) is that it
always has the potential to be in flux. This is because you don't know
until the game is almost finished what works and what doesn't, what's
fun and what's not, regarding the feel, fun-ness, and effectiveness of
the UI.
If the project is in its early stages, the powers that be probably want
to have *something* there, for a number of reasons. To get the general
feel of the game. To see how the game graphics look on a finely
polished screen. To let the gamecode programmers interact with the game
in a more friendly way. To show the producers who are footing the bill.
To get the underlying backbone of data access in place. To test out
how well the current UI design works. After all, the UI is what the
players interact with directly, and the first thing anyone notices.
UI changes are inevitable in a project. However, if you've written an
effective, well-organized UI for the preliminary design, chances are
you'll have just a few hours of work to do when the design changes,
instead of a couple weeks to do a new screen (data access and all) from
scratch.
Making decisions on a UI when you first start on it is, in fact, a
no-no. Go with the design, as specified, and see how it works. Write
down the things you found odd for future reference, lest you forget, but
don't make a fuss about them. Use your newly-programmed UI for a while
to get the feel of it. At that time you will be more qualified to point
out perks and quirks of the UI, and others will be more bound to listen.
Hope my 2 cents on the world of UI programming is helpful.
-Alex
Bart P. Jaszcz
guts, at least in their world and the world of the people who
responded to your message, except me of course and some other
"coporate world sux, don't it?" guy. So you posted the message, but
now you're gonna chicken out? That's kinda a waste of energy don't
you think?
See, what's happening is that you're being assimilated already.
You're starting to think like them. You're forgetting who you are and
what collaboration should be like, which is, equal standing among all.
Now you're gonna "climb the ladder", making small suggestions here and
there to please the boss, while holding it all in, slowly disolving
your innards until you're nothing but a "ghost in the shell".
Sounds silly to you? am I being too metaphoric? perhaps even corny?
That's because your ears have grown filters to muffle the truth and
amplify the bullshit.
Why have you come here into the "usenet plane", ask yourself that.
Why is it you can't talk to your coworkers?
And now that I've written what you wanted to hear why do you disagree
with it, as if your fighting with your own ideas.
And the answer isn't "compromise" like so many of the "ghosts" here
suggest, that's the biggest lie they ever told you. Why compromise
with something you disagree with? Either you agree or disagree, and
if you disagree then that thing must be false. And if it's false, how
can you compromise with it?
That's politics, and that's why you feel so ill about it, as you
should feel, because it's exactly the thing you're being attacked
with. Falsehood and compromise is what gives the enemy their power.
It is how they rise to their corporate ranks. It is the act of being
wrong yet still getting your way, with the use of money or rank or
whatever else you can use in that ugly existance (and you know who you
are).
So Sean, it's your choice.. I still say damage the enemy as much as
possible then get out of there and continue to do your work.
peace out..
bpj
ro...@mailer.fsu.edu (Sean Howard) wrote in message news:<a922m5$nru$2...@news.fsu.edu>...
Jason Shankel
news:a0907de9.02041...@posting.google.com...
> And now that I've written what you wanted to hear why do you disagree
> with it, as if your fighting with your own ideas.
>
> And the answer isn't "compromise" like so many of the "ghosts" here
> suggest, that's the biggest lie they ever told you. Why compromise
> with something you disagree with? Either you agree or disagree, and
> if you disagree then that thing must be false. And if it's false, how
> can you compromise with it?
>
> That's politics, and that's why you feel so ill about it, as you
> should feel, because it's exactly the thing you're being attacked
> with. Falsehood and compromise is what gives the enemy their power.
> It is how they rise to their corporate ranks. It is the act of being
> wrong yet still getting your way, with the use of money or rank or
> whatever else you can use in that ugly existance (and you know who you
> are).
>
> So Sean, it's your choice.. I still say damage the enemy as much as
> possible then get out of there and continue to do your work.
>
Thank you Ayn Rand, but for those of us who have to live in the real world
the issues aren't so black and white.
What, exactly, makes the corporate game developers the "enemy"? They
haven't attacked anyone nor have they stolen anything (at least, not in the
context of this conversation). What they have done is offered an
opportunity to work on a game. If you don't like the design or you don't
like the company, great: don't take the job.
But there is no point taking the job to subvert the process and lash out
against an imagined "enemy". The people who work on these titles shouldn't
be expected to put up with some self-righteous dingbat undermining their
efforts out of some misguided sense of personal frustration. That's just
narcissism masquerading as honor.
--
Jason Shankel
Maxis/EA
s h a n k e l "at" p o b o x . c o m
Play rich, creamery OpenTrek at www.pobox.com/~shankel/opentrek.html
Nolite quaerere, nolite loquere
Rod Runnheim
> You're starting to think like them. You're forgetting who you are and
> what collaboration should be like, which is, equal standing among all.
That's not true and never will be. Face it, we're not created equally, we
haven't developed equally and we don't stand as equals in a given skill
set. Collaboration should be about sharing ideas and using the strengths of
individuals to benefit the team as a whole. The ideal is the experienced
sharing with the inexperienced and having the patience to do so even at cost
to themselves -- but not the team in the long term. A good team also needs
a strong leader that can communicate the goals, keep the team creatively
focussed (which sometimes means taking a pass on "good" ideas), and keep
individuals in line without threatening their position or future.
> Now you're gonna "climb the ladder", making small suggestions here and
> there to please the boss, while holding it all in, slowly disolving
> your innards until you're nothing but a "ghost in the shell".
>
> Sounds silly to you? am I being too metaphoric? perhaps even corny?
> That's because your ears have grown filters to muffle the truth and
> amplify the bullshit.
>
> Why have you come here into the "usenet plane", ask yourself that.
> Why is it you can't talk to your coworkers?
>
> And now that I've written what you wanted to hear why do you disagree
> with it, as if your fighting with your own ideas.
>
> And the answer isn't "compromise" like so many of the "ghosts" here
> suggest, that's the biggest lie they ever told you. Why compromise
> with something you disagree with? Either you agree or disagree, and
> if you disagree then that thing must be false. And if it's false, how
> can you compromise with it?
If may be false to your ideals or to yourself, that does not mean the
organization should suffer for it. If someone feels that strongly they
should quit. If the team is that inept they will fall under their own
weight. They don't need "help" from anyone.
Disagreeing with people is part of every day life. I've been in design
sessions that start with three points of view (or more). So are all of them
wrong? Is one of them right? Are all of them right? I've usually found
that the truth is in the middle, and more so, the combination of the three
ideas is often stronger than the whole. During a session that combines
these three ideas there has to be give and take. If at any point someone
says "No, I'm right, you're wrong" the collaboration stops and the idea will
never reach it's full potential.
>
> That's politics, and that's why you feel so ill about it, as you
> should feel, because it's exactly the thing you're being attacked
> with. Falsehood and compromise is what gives the enemy their power.
> It is how they rise to their corporate ranks. It is the act of being
> wrong yet still getting your way, with the use of money or rank or
> whatever else you can use in that ugly existance (and you know who you
> are).
I don't believe that. It's easy to blame "The Man" when things are bad,
but the fact is if you know the system you can work it to your advantage.
We're social creatures, and by our nature it follows that there will always
be a hierarchy of some type. If I were to choose to make the world I better
place I would learn how the system works, navigate to a position that allows
me to make a difference and then do so. Destroying the system helps no one,
especially not yourself, unless the system is destructive in nature or bent
on destroying you.
>
> So Sean, it's your choice.. I still say damage the enemy as much as
> possible then get out of there and continue to do your work.
>
> peace out..
>
> bpj
That is a choice he can make, but in the end just adds to the shit in the
world and I doubt would lend any feelings of well being to himself.
Of course all of this is just my opinion, and it may be overly ideal as
well.....
Rod
Sean Howard
: Thank you Ayn Rand
Actually, I'm eerily similar to Howard Roark from the Fountainhead.
Ignoring the 'Howard' and the red hair, we both had a somewhat similar
experience in college, have extremely similar motives and goals, and
are both architects (though I build programs, not buildings). I have
trouble reading the book because it is so eerie.
I like to think there are deep and important difference between us, but
there probably wouldn't have been if it weren't for my healthy relationship
with my wife - compared to the S&M bondage fantasy that Ayn Rand seems to have.
: What, exactly, makes the corporate game developers the "enemy"?
While I am in no way agreeing with the original poster, he has a point.
They are the "enemy" because their goals don't coincide with mine, and
their method prevent me from obtaining my goals. All the suggestions in
this thread were essentially ways to overcome the "enemy", but most of
them were from a diplomatic direction - ie do what they say until you see
the golden opportunity.
I agree that seeing them as an "enemy" is very counterproductive, but they
are the enemy and this is a war. How you interpret or deal with that fact
is where maturity and diplomacy come in.
: But there is no point taking the job to subvert the process and lash out
: against an imagined "enemy". The people who work on these titles shouldn't
: be expected to put up with some self-righteous dingbat undermining their
: efforts out of some misguided sense of personal frustration. That's just
Agree completely.
: narcissism masquerading as honor.
Well, that really depends on how self-righteous you are, how much of a
dingbat you are, and how misguided your frustration. Sometimes people see
arrogance when there is just confidence, or narcissism where there is
frustration.
I don't think the poster has the best approach AT ALL. I just wanted to
make that clear, even though it may appear that I am siding with him.
@@
Sean Howard
Jason Shankel
> Jason Shankel (see...@bottom.com) wrote:
>
> : Thank you Ayn Rand
>
> Actually, I'm eerily similar to Howard Roark from the Fountainhead.
> Ignoring the 'Howard' and the red hair, we both had a somewhat similar
> experience in college, have extremely similar motives and goals, and
> are both architects (though I build programs, not buildings). I have
> trouble reading the book because it is so eerie.
>
You may want to reconsider any Howard Roark fantasies you have. Ayn Rand
wouldn't have lasted five minutes in a real corporate environment. Working
and playing well with others is de rigueur.
> I like to think there are deep and important difference between us, but
> there probably wouldn't have been if it weren't for my healthy
relationship
> with my wife - compared to the S&M bondage fantasy that Ayn Rand seems to
have.
Hey, don't knock it till you try it (S&M, not Objectivism; knock Objectivism
all you like). Anyway, just don't go blowing up any buildings.
>
>
> : What, exactly, makes the corporate game developers the "enemy"?
>
> While I am in no way agreeing with the original poster, he has a point.
> They are the "enemy" because their goals don't coincide with mine, and
> their method prevent me from obtaining my goals. All the suggestions in
> this thread were essentially ways to overcome the "enemy", but most of
> them were from a diplomatic direction - ie do what they say until you see
> the golden opportunity.
>
> I agree that seeing them as an "enemy" is very counterproductive, but they
> are the enemy and this is a war. How you interpret or deal with that fact
> is where maturity and diplomacy come in.
It's only a war if you make it a war. Unless they hijacked you and are
forcing you to participate in this project against your will, they have not
aggressed against you. It seems to me that the only "goal" they're
preventing you from obtaining is imposing your vision on an unwilling team.
Are you funding this project? Were you promised some special jurisdiction
over design decisions?
My suggestions should, in no way, be taken as ideas for "overcoming" the
"enemy". I'm more focused on ways you can draw some benefit out of and
ultimately help improve what may or may not be a dysfunctional development
environment.
> I don't think the poster has the best approach AT ALL. I just wanted to
> make that clear, even though it may appear that I am siding with him.
>
He not only has the wrong approach; he has a dangerously toxic assessment of
the situation: your co-workers are not your enemies. You are all on the
same side. If not, then, to quote Danny DeVito from "War of the Roses":
"There's no winning with this; there's only degrees of losing."
Brandon Van Every
> guts, at least in their world and the world of the people who
> responded to your message, except me of course and some other
> "coporate world sux, don't it?" guy. So you posted the message, but
> now you're gonna chicken out? That's kinda a waste of energy don't
> you think?
Learning is not a waste of energy, it's an inevitable process. The
difference is you can either recognize the learning or ignore it.
> See, what's happening is that you're being assimilated already.
> You're starting to think like them. You're forgetting who you are and
> what collaboration should be like, which is, equal standing among all.
Viva la inDUHvidual!
> Now you're gonna "climb the ladder", making small suggestions here and
> there to please the boss, while holding it all in, slowly disolving
> your innards until you're nothing but a "ghost in the shell".
Hey man, I've spent 8 years making my own mistakes on my own nickel, 4 years
after college and 4 years after working at DEC. In game development,
there's a lot of real world pain that has to be faced regardless of whether
you have a boss or not. In many instances the boss is just an easy
scapegoat to blame. Reality is that Life Is Hard. You can free yourself to
make your own mistakes and find yourself facing every bit the difficulty of
being this "ghost in the shell."
That said, I'm happy with my trajectory lately. 4 years is a stiff price
for enlightenment though. At least I'm not in as much debt at some people I
know.
> Sounds silly to you? am I being too metaphoric? perhaps even corny?
> That's because your ears have grown filters to muffle the truth and
> amplify the bullshit.
Those who can, do.
Those who can't do, teach.
Those who can't teach, administrate!
> Why have you come here into the "usenet plane", ask yourself that.
> Why is it you can't talk to your coworkers?
'Cuz he's young, has a lot of personal ego issues at stake, and hasn't
learned the tools of diplomacy or strategic focus yet. There's nothing
wrong with learning these things and even making a few waves while learning
these things. Everyone's entitled to their own learning. But what really
annoys people, are those who become cynical and just say "Nyaaah! NYAAAH!"
forever.
> And now that I've written what you wanted to hear why do you disagree
> with it, as if your fighting with your own ideas.
>
> And the answer isn't "compromise" like so many of the "ghosts" here
> suggest, that's the biggest lie they ever told you. Why compromise
> with something you disagree with?
'Cuz you're not omniscient, nor omnipotent. It is illusion to think we can
control all aspects of our lives. You don't have time to control
everything. It is important to look at the Big Picture of what you need to
control and what you really don't. Also, to look at the consequences of
having the control. Are you ready to self-direct yourself for 4 years doing
your own development? Well, it seems I wasn't. Seems I needed to learn a
few discipline and productivity skills that I'm only now starting to get a
handle on.
> That's politics, and that's why you feel so ill about it, as you
> should feel, because it's exactly the thing you're being attacked
> with.
The reality is, he has no political power. He has to manufacture it, build
it up. That's life. Even an indie developer has to manufacture political
power from somewhere. Get enough people willing to buy the title. Get the
buy-in of enough business partners to make it happen.
> Falsehood and compromise is what gives the enemy their power.
People who see things in black and white terms are easy to notice, easy to
figure out, and easy to manipulate. True in wargames, true in corporate
games.
> So Sean, it's your choice.. I still say damage the enemy as much as
> possible then get out of there and continue to do your work.
Well, the ruthless warlords of old simply cut people's heads off for such
antics. Actually, they cut people's heads off for a lot less. It is not
skillful to be obvious.
Brandon Van Every
That's reactive. Create the opportunity. People can piss, whine, and moan
all they want about how bad The Man is, but you have to take responsibility
for causing things to happen instead of just complaining. That means
pleasing people at times you'd rather not because Life Is Hard. The issue
doesn't go away just because you got rid of your boss, it merely mutates.
> I agree that seeing them as an "enemy" is very counterproductive, but they
> are the enemy and this is a war.
Charging bulls are easily thrown to the mat.
Brandon Van Every
"Jason Shankel" <see...@bottom.com> wrote in message
news:USnt8.4189$Yb1....@sea-read.news.verio.net...
>
> It's only a war if you make it a war. Unless they hijacked you and are
> forcing you to participate in this project against your will, they have
not
> aggressed against you. It seems to me that the only "goal" they're
> preventing you from obtaining is imposing your vision on an unwilling
team.
> Are you funding this project? Were you promised some special jurisdiction
> over design decisions?
Well, clearly what he's after is job satisfaction. He doesn't get it when
his suggestions aren't listened to and he's ridiculed. But what he needs to
realize, is that suggestions have to be pitched towards the receptivity of
others, not just whatever he thinks is the best idea. When you're on a team
you're stuck with being on a team. When you're on a lowly position within
the team you have to use more skills to get your visions to happen. Rather
than picking any old fight, and getting made about it, he should be picking
some Big Picture fight that will both please him and be well received by the
rest of the team. Something that matters. Not some friction over a mere
virtual keyboard that's only a few days' worth of work.
Jason Shankel
news:pEot8.1335$L1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
I agree that suggestions need to be pitched toward receptivity. I also
agree that Sean has a right to seek job satisfaction.
What I disagree with is the notion of casting his employers as enemies.
Thinking of this as some great moral war or battle of the wills is (most
likely) a grandiose fantasy. If it's not, then the situation is even more
untenable than it looks and he should bail now.
Team relationships are like any other. The keys to overcoming hardship are
honesty and respect. If the company doesn't respect him enough to
appreciate his honest opinions and he doesn't respect them enough to extend
them his best courtesy in expressing those opinions, then the relationship
is frelled and there's no winning.
Sean Howard
: You may want to reconsider any Howard Roark fantasies you have. Ayn Rand
: wouldn't have lasted five minutes in a real corporate environment. Working
: and playing well with others is de rigueur.
Roark was based on Frank Lloyd Wright, who was every bit a brilliant and
confrontational as Roark was made to be. However, The Fountainhead was
an idealized work of fiction, with Rand injecting her own idol worship
at times. Her Objectivism did cloud what would've otherwise been a
fascinating portrait of a brilliant man.
: the situation: your co-workers are not your enemies. You are all on the
: same side.
That's right. We all want the same thing, at least periphially. We all
have different motivations, different needs, different experience
(both in-industry and not), and even different capabilities. It is hard
to fault a designer who is trying to make a good game, even if the end
result might not end up working like he thinks it will.
I'm reading "The Mythical Man Month" right now, and despite being over 25
years old, that book is dead on (in fact, it appears that we are going
through the dreaded "second project"). That book, more than anything, helped
me realize that the best thing I can do for the project is to just
do my job. However, reading the book, I realize that the project managers
haven't read the book, and are making many of the same mistakes that are
explained, and solved, in the first dozen pages.
@@
Sean Howard
Jason Shankel
> Jason Shankel (see...@bottom.com) wrote:
> Roark was based on Frank Lloyd Wright, who was every bit a brilliant and
> confrontational as Roark was made to be. However, The Fountainhead was
> an idealized work of fiction, with Rand injecting her own idol worship
> at times. Her Objectivism did cloud what would've otherwise been a
> fascinating portrait of a brilliant man.
>
If Roark was so brilliant, he should have known that Toohey (or was it
Keating? It's been a long time) could never have held up his end of the
bargain.
Roark was no Frank Lloyd Wright. Roark was a deranged psychopathic rapist
version of Frank Lloyd Wright: the fevered sexual fantasy of a woman who had
more issues than TV Guide.
I will say this, though: in terms of career development, Rand hit it right
on the head. Guys like Roark don't end up leading projects. More often,
they end up in court, reading their manifestos to a jury (*cough* Unabomber
*cough*). Only juries aren't usually so eager to acquit (I know, it was a
civil case, whatever) guys who BLOW UP FUCKING BUILDINGS.
In any event, I don't think Frank Lloyd Wright would have made it very far
either in modern corporate America, sad to say.
> I'm reading "The Mythical Man Month" right now, and despite being over 25
> years old, that book is dead on (in fact, it appears that we are going
> through the dreaded "second project"). That book, more than anything,
helped
> me realize that the best thing I can do for the project is to just
> do my job.
MMM is a classic, but don't over-rely on one interpretation of software
development. Especially considering that MMM is geared toward solving
technical problems and your issues seem to mostly be creative.
For example, are you really falling victim to the second system effect? Is
your project over-engineered? Does the code solve problems it doesn't need
to? Anticipate situations that will never arise? Do you spend endless
hours formalizing protocols for trivial black-box subsystems?
Sean Howard
: If Roark was so brilliant, he should have known that Toohey (or was it
: Keating? It's been a long time) could never have held up his end of the
: bargain.
It has been almost 10 years since I read the book too, and I'm not
clear on the events you are talking about. However, it probably
stemmed from Roark's single minded focus, either purposely ignoring
possibilities or being better at building than people management.
: Roark was no Frank Lloyd Wright. Roark was a deranged psychopathic rapist
: version of Frank Lloyd Wright: the fevered sexual fantasy of a woman who had
: more issues than TV Guide.
You are absolutely correct. I already acknowledged that Rand tainted
the subject matter. However, she was spot on in at least parts of
his character. For instance, the scene at the very beginning between Roark
and the dean of his college was impressively accurate.
FLW wasn't exactly a people person either. He had plenty of issues all by
himself.
: In any event, I don't think Frank Lloyd Wright would have made it very far
: either in modern corporate America, sad to say.
I think he would. He was fought tooth and nail for every inch of his
career.
: MMM is a classic, but don't over-rely on one interpretation of software
: development. Especially considering that MMM is geared toward solving
: technical problems and your issues seem to mostly be creative.
I'm mostly interested in the issues involved with architecture (design)
and communication. Right now, our team, probably like many industry teams,
is one big blob with no communication taking place. I mean, my code
is pretty much the only code that is documented (and even I have gotten
a bit slack).
: For example, are you really falling victim to the second system effect? Is
: your project over-engineered? Does the code solve problems it doesn't need
: to? Anticipate situations that will never arise? Do you spend endless
: hours formalizing protocols for trivial black-box subsystems?
There is more to learn from the book than just those few topics.
@@
Sean Howard
Alex Sramek
> While I am in no way agreeing with the original poster, he has a point.
> They are the "enemy" because their goals don't coincide with mine, and
> their method prevent me from obtaining my goals. All the suggestions in
> this thread were essentially ways to overcome the "enemy", but most of
> them were from a diplomatic direction - ie do what they say until you see
> the golden opportunity.
>
> I agree that seeing them as an "enemy" is very counterproductive, but they
> are the enemy and this is a war. How you interpret or deal with that fact
> is where maturity and diplomacy come in.
Sounds like someone needs to go on some company lunches, play some ping
pong, arrange a movie night, and have a LAN party with co-workers.
Social interaction brings about friendships among workers, and it's a
lot easier to work with "friends" than it is with people you only regard
as "co-workers" and "bosses".
-Alex
Brandon Van Every
>
> There is more to learn from the book than just those few topics.
Well, it wouldn't be a shocker to hear about a badly managed game project.
:-) Maybe you can become an expert in diplomatic subterfuges for improving
such dysfunctional managerial dynamics.
Nathan Mates
Sean Howard <ro...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote:
>: MMM is a classic, but don't over-rely on one interpretation of software
>: development. Especially considering that MMM is geared toward solving
>: technical problems and your issues seem to mostly be creative.
>I'm mostly interested in the issues involved with architecture (design)
>and communication. Right now, our team, probably like many industry teams,
>is one big blob with no communication taking place. I mean, my code
>is pretty much the only code that is documented (and even I have gotten
>a bit slack).
Buy some copies of MMM, and leave them around the office, lend out
your copies, or otherwise get the word out. Having a well-stocked
bookshelf (and/or candy jar) in your office is a good way to be useful
to coworkers and spark random discussions at times.
Nathan Mates
--
<*> Nathan Mates - personal webpage http://www.visi.com/~nathan/
# Programmer at Pandemic Studios -- http://www.pandemicstudios.com/
# NOT speaking for Pandemic Studios. "Care not what the neighbors
# think. What are the facts, and to how many decimal places?" -R.A. Heinlein
Sean Howard
: Buy some copies of MMM, and leave them around the office, lend out
: your copies, or otherwise get the word out. Having a well-stocked
: bookshelf (and/or candy jar) in your office is a good way to be useful
: to coworkers and spark random discussions at times.
Those are some good ideas (I like the candy jar). Maybe I'll look into
something like that. Of course, our producer has the shortest attention
span of any person I've ever met (there was this 4 year old at a movie
theater that got up and started doing jumping jacks during the credits
one time, and he is a contender).
@@
Sean Howard
Nathan Mates
Sean Howard <ro...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote:
>Nathan Mates (nat...@visi.com) wrote:
>Those are some good ideas (I like the candy jar). Maybe I'll look into
>something like that. Of course, our producer has the shortest attention
>span of any person I've ever met (there was this 4 year old at a movie
>theater that got up and started doing jumping jacks during the credits
>one time, and he is a contender).
The candy jers at my desk (yes I was talking from personal
experience) is stocked w/ Jelly Bellies, a mixed bag of Hershey's
miniatures & Cookies & Creme, Andes mints, and a grab-bag of random
other candy. Smart & Final has all you need to get things going. [I go
to the one on Pico & Sepulveda]
Peter Cowderoy
> Of course, our producer has the shortest attention
> span of any person I've ever met (there was this 4 year old at a movie
> theater that got up and started doing jumping jacks during the credits
> one time, and he is a contender).
>
You shouldn't be telling us this!
Jason Shankel
> Jason Shankel (see...@bottom.com) wrote:
> : For example, are you really falling victim to the second system effect?
Is
> : your project over-engineered? Does the code solve problems it doesn't
need
> : to? Anticipate situations that will never arise? Do you spend endless
> : hours formalizing protocols for trivial black-box subsystems?
>
> There is more to learn from the book than just those few topics.
>
So, let me ask this. What is the rough experience breakdown of your team
(ie # of years in industry, products shipped, which platforms)? Is everyone
new to this company (a startup)? Or have some of your teammates worked
within this particular system before? Is everyone new to their particular
position (ie has everyone been promoted recently)? Or are there a few who
have been doing their current job for at least a few years?
It sounds to me like the primary problem is communication. You may or may
not be right about the particulars, but the fact remains that you don't feel
you're being heard and you don't have confidence that the team is working
well, even independent of you.
Now, this may be because you're an arrogant prick or it may be because your
teammates are incompotent boobs, or both :) But, in any case, it sounds
like you should focus on improving the process (ie design review, input and
feedback mechanisms, open design sessions, whatever works) and focus less on
getting your particular ideas heard.
Until there's a process in place by which you can be heard, it really
doesn't matter what you have to say. Of course, I recognize the chicken/egg
conundrum here, but you've got to start somewhere.
Or you could just start drinking now. Good day for it.
Bart P. Jaszcz
specials about how corporations are using this "friends and family"
bullshit to trap workers even more than they have ever been before.
After all, how can you disagree with your friends or if you do, you'll
do it much more nicely than you would with strangers, right? Or if
the family needs you to work a little longer after hours for no pay,
how can you refuse your family, right? This is sounding more like a
mafia now, except even the mafia rewards their minions with some
actual rewards, like cash money!
See, before, if the company wanted to make the employee feel
better about working there, they'd just give them a raise or time off,
hell maybe even more creative control! But now through years of
brainwashing, they have managed to take away the raises and the time
off and subsitute a false feeling of friendship. That's one brilliant
move on their part, I must admit, but the war rages on..
Alex Sramek <asr...@csulb.edu> wrote in message news:<3CB67616...@csulb.edu>...
> Sounds like someone needs to go on some company lunches, play some ping
> pong, arrange a movie night, and have a LAN party with co-workers.
> Social interaction brings about friendships among workers, and it's a
> lot easier to work with "friends" than it is with people you only regard
> as "co-workers" and "bosses".
Now, it's friday night, I bet I know what you're doing tonight..
later on y'all,
--bart
Brandon Van Every
> specials about how corporations are using this "friends and family"
> bullshit to trap workers even more than they have ever been before.
> After all, how can you disagree with your friends or if you do, you'll
> do it much more nicely than you would with strangers, right? Or if
> the family needs you to work a little longer after hours for no pay,
> how can you refuse your family, right?
Poor poor whiney you. Whose choice is it to watch TV? My TV doesn't
receive channels, I only rent videos. Whose choice is it to have a
family? It's hardly something that a 20-something junior employee at a
game company need worry about. In fact, that's the problem: no family,
no legitimate excuse to end the workday and put one's foot down.
> See, before, if the company wanted to make the employee feel
> better about working there, they'd just give them a raise or time off,
> hell maybe even more creative control! But now through years of
> brainwashing,
This is a pile of shit. The free market mechanism is operating, and if
you're not looking out for your own interests it's your own fault.
Nobody said you have to work for a slave driver company. If you
acquiesce to it, it's 'cuz you're a lazy sod who complains instead of
taking responsibility for his career. I feel more sympathy for a
previous generation of employees who were expecting a certain
cradle-to-grave ease in the workplace. That was never promised in my
generation (I'm 32), we knew corporate loyalty was dead going into the
game.
> they have managed to take away the raises and the time
> off and subsitute a false feeling of friendship. That's one brilliant
> move on their part, I must admit, but the war rages on..
I'm nominally self-employed. What's your excuse?
Nathan Mates
Bart P. Jaszcz <fres...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Even the mainstream TV stations have been broadcasting after school
>specials about how corporations are using this "friends and family"
>bullshit to trap workers even more than they have ever been before.
>After all, how can you disagree with your friends or if you do, you'll
>do it much more nicely than you would with strangers, right? Or if
>the family needs you to work a little longer after hours for no pay,
>how can you refuse your family, right? This is sounding more like a
>mafia now, except even the mafia rewards their minions with some
>actual rewards, like cash money!
Nobody forces you to make friends at work, let alone consider them
family. However, it is certainly probable that over the course of some
years and dozens, if not hundreds of possible coworkers, you will run
into some that are good people with shared interests.
Having cool coworkers is a job perk of a good company.
Sean Howard
: Now, this may be because you're an arrogant prick or it may be because your
: teammates are incompotent boobs, or both :) But, in any case, it sounds
That's uncalled for. Dont do that again.
@@
Sean Howard
Peter Cowderoy
Calm down, it was clearly meant in good humour.
Brandon Van Every
It is called for. Notice the word *may*. He didn't say you *are*, he
said you *may* be. And that's a reality you have to consider every time
you lock horns with a co-worker or a boss. Are you really in the right?
To what degree? If you had to put your position and your opponent's
position on a sliding scale from 0.0 to 1.0, where would you both be?
At Sputnik in April, a Microsoft XBox guy did a dry run of his GDC talk
about making the XBox. He did a 1 slide Postmortem that was a sendup of
all the postmortems that appear in GameDeveloper magazine. Some of the
items, if I remember correctly: "We took on too much." "We didn't have
enough money." "The marketing people suck." "Nobody knows how to
communicate." "Nobody outside of my department/group knows what they're
doing." It's always the same sob story for every postmortem, who cares?
Life Is Hard. Instead of pointing fingers at who's the asshole, it's
better to realize that the process is going to make assholes out of all
of us sooner or later. It's only a question of degree, of how much time
one spends in assholicity.
Sean Howard
: > : Now, this may be because you're an arrogant prick or it may be
: > : because your teammates are incompotent boobs, or both :) But, in
: > : any case, it sounds
: >
: > That's uncalled for. Dont do that again.
: Calm down, it was clearly meant in good humour.
It takes more than a smilie to turn a blatant insult into good humour.
There is no excuse for using that language, directed at another
individual, in any semi-intelligent and halfway decent conversation.
There is a distinct difference between calling someone a jerk and
calling them a fucking asshole. Same meaning, but a much more aggressive
and violent connotation.
Long story short, regardless of humour, if you don't want someone
to take offense at being called a prick...don't call him one. There
are better ways to get a point across.
@@
Sean Howard
Gerry Quinn
> See, before, if the company wanted to make the employee feel
>better about working there, they'd just give them a raise or time off,
>hell maybe even more creative control! But now through years of
>brainwashing, they have managed to take away the raises and the time
>off and subsitute a false feeling of friendship. That's one brilliant
>move on their part, I must admit, but the war rages on..
Poor little revolutionary, deprived of oppression...
- Gerry Quinn
Alex Sramek
Another valuable skill for the workplace is discerning between when
someone is seriously insulting and when they are saying something in
jest. Different people have different senses of humor.
Your defensive and overly-serious nature in these postings seemed to
indicate that a "prick" comment, in jest, may be appropriate. I may
have said the same thing. Not because I would think so, but because it
would be a logical exaggerated hyperbole of the situation, said in a way
to indicate humor.
Had he said "You're an arrogant prick" straight out, that would be an
insult. However, the way it was phrased it's clear that was not the
intention. A smiley is usually used to indicate a humorous tone of
voice that is not easily conveyed in writing.
If someone said this phrase to me, I'd get a good laugh out of it, then
examine my recent actions and see if I was beginning to slowly lean
towards arrogant-prickism. It's easier to keep yourself in check by
laughing about it than to let it get out of control and, 6 months later,
end up actually BEING an arrogant prick. :)
LIGHTEN UP!
-Alex
Brandon Van Every
> Peter Cowderoy (psy...@cowderoy.co.uk) wrote:
>
> : > : Now, this may be because you're an arrogant prick or it may be
> : > : because your teammates are incompotent boobs, or both :) But,
in
> : > : any case, it sounds
> : >
> : > That's uncalled for. Dont do that again.
>
> : Calm down, it was clearly meant in good humour.
>
> It takes more than a smilie to turn a blatant insult into good humour.
"You may or may not be an asshole" is a logical statement that is true
of all people at all times. The post was meant lightheartedly and you
are being oversensitive. And on the serious site, you need to face the
possibility that you may have behaved like an asshole, and/or your
co-workers did. There are different ways and means of being an asshole.
There's passive asshole and active asshole. Most of us get around to a
good sampling of the ways and means eventually, because Life Is Hard.
Recognizing that Life Is Hard and that job stress has to be channelled
and mitigated somehow, is a way of freeing oneself from the Asshole
Trap. But an inability to recognize and control your emotions leaves
you forever vulnerable.
> There is a distinct difference between calling someone a jerk and
> calling them a fucking asshole.
Quote where the exact words "fucking asshole" were used, let alone
whether it was unambiguously suggested that you were such, without any
possibility of alternate interpretation or meaning. You are guilty of
running away with your emotions and imagination. It's easy to keep
getting more and more riled up about something, imagining that all kinds
of slights are happening around you. The diplomatic skill is to detach
and let go.
Sean Howard
: "You may or may not be an asshole" is a logical statement that is true
: of all people at all times. The post was meant lightheartedly and you
: are being oversensitive.
Can you be both insensitive and oversensitive at the same time?
I agree that what he said was ... or rather, could be... true. However,
I don't think the language used fit the rest of the dialog. It stuck
out like a sore thumb. Why use the words "arrogant prick" rather than
another lesser title like "ego maniac" or just plain old "jerk"? Up
until then, harsh language was neither present nor required. Like
I said, it was _uncalled_ for, as in, there was no presidence that
called for that sort of language.
Also, I find it interesting subtext that I *may* be an "arrogant
prick" but my coworkers *may* merely be "boobs".
Look, I'm just a guy who is having some issues at work. I want to
help make the best game that our team is capable of, but office
politics are making that problematic. It is that simple, and nobody's
character needs to be called into question over it.
: > There is a distinct difference between calling someone a jerk and
: > calling them a fucking asshole.
: Quote where the exact words "fucking asshole" were used, let alone
It was an example of how different words have different connotations.
@@
Sean Howard
Brandon Van Every
> Brandon Van Every (vane...@3DProgrammer.com) wrote:
>
> : "You may or may not be an asshole" is a logical statement that is
true
> : of all people at all times. The post was meant lightheartedly and
you
> : are being oversensitive.
>
> Can you be both insensitive and oversensitive at the same time?
Do you want me to explain exclusive sets vs. bounded ranges?
> I agree that what he said was ... or rather, could be... true.
However,
> I don't think the language used fit the rest of the dialog. It stuck
> out like a sore thumb. Why use the words "arrogant prick" rather than
> another lesser title like "ego maniac" or just plain old "jerk"?
Because some of us don't mince words about what we think. It's a
difference of personal style and just because you don't like it doesn't
make it invalid. Of course, the risk carried with such a style is that
someone will misconstrue it. But often, the person using the style
could care less if someone else misconstrues it, they see it as the
other person's responsibility to lighten up, not their responsibility to
tone down. The whole world is filled with such cost shifting, that is
probably what makes it run. Speaking for me personally, I wouldn't
think hard or make design decisions about this stuff unless I was in a
business context with clients/money on the table, or a barroom where
someone might get into a fight about it, or some other such higher
stake.
Kids, don't try this at work. ;-)
> Up until then, harsh language was neither present nor required.
We aren't even required to be here.
> Also, I find it interesting subtext that I *may* be an "arrogant
> prick" but my coworkers *may* merely be "boobs".
Incompetent boobs. Which is worse, to be an arrogant prick or an
incompetent boob? Bill Gates and Andy Groves are arrogant pricks.
Anyways I'm not going to mince words: you're wasting your time worrying
about this stuff.
> Look, I'm just a guy who is having some issues at work. I want to
> help make the best game that our team is capable of, but office
> politics are making that problematic. It is that simple, and nobody's
> character needs to be called into question over it.
Consider this a lightening up exercise. Inhale, exhale. Inhale,
exhale. It'll help you scads back on the job.
> : > There is a distinct difference between calling someone a jerk and
> : > calling them a fucking asshole.
>
> : Quote where the exact words "fucking asshole" were used, let alone
>
> It was an example of how different words have different connotations.
Well, "pig fucker" has a different connotation from "Japanese sword
twirler." What of it? These words weren't used in the present
instance, and when you make comparisions to words that weren't used,
you're just emotionalizing the whole thing instead of looking at the
context the actual words were actually used in. Change the benchmark
and you change the meaning of the scoring.
Peter Cowderoy
> Also, I find it interesting subtext that I *may* be an "arrogant
> prick" but my coworkers *may* merely be "boobs".
>
You're getting paranoid. I dare say that to most of us the different words
have little difference in strength, especially given that they're clearly
not being delivered in the harshest manner possible.
Bjoern
(perhaps because the headhunters are reading the newsgroup, too?).
Sure, the bit about turning the thing into a war and undermining the
company you work for doesn't make sense. But on the other hand, there
IS a danger of being assimilated. Life is rather short, and how many
people spend all their life unhappy in the wrong job or with the wrong
wife or whatever, just because they think they have to?
While I think compromise will always be necessary, the interesting
question seems to be where to draw the line. Perhaps sometimes people
really aren't made for each other, then it's better to split up rather
than spend years arguing with each other.
Therefore I think Bart deserves some credit, trying to prevent a young
programmer from a sad fate. Although in Seans case, it seems to be a
bit early to come to such an extreme conclusion.
Personally I always find it very hard to know when to draw the line. I
guess when you find yourself doing only the minimum work requested of
you, it's a sure sign, though.
Anyway, what are experiences with Corporate Software Development. Does
it really suck so much on average? I have to admit that I am quite
pessimistic in that respect. I'm not that experienced with working in
the industry (Software Development, currently not Games, though). I've
only recently decided to give 'them' another chance (changing jobs),
but ultimately I expect that I'll only be happy as a freelancer. There
are benefits to working in Corporations. But even if the colleagues
are great, it can still suck because the management doesn't care. I
stayed a bit over a year with the last company I worked for, deciding
to leave when it became absolutely clear that things wouldn't change.
Sometimes I wish I had left earlier. On the other hand the predominant
advice given to Sean also rings true. I had no problems finding
another job due to my work experience, but was told that less
experienced programmers would have a harder time these days.
On the downside, I have some trouble getting the reluctance I have
accumulated in my old job out of the system, which I find rather sad.
I suppose that's the beginning symptoms of being assimilated :-(
I suspect most people who were trashing Bart's post are actually
already working as freelancers?
My impression in Software Design is that it's usually Freelancers who
get to do the interesting work (architecture, design). What's left for
employed programmers is filling in the missing pieces, doing the grunt
work, fixing bugs, design changes etc. There opinions are generally
not of much interest. Am I right, or was that just a coincidence with
my experience so far?
Anyway, if there are any people happily employed, please speak up ;-)
Bjoern
fres...@my-deja.com (Bart P. Jaszcz) wrote in message news:<a0907de9.02041...@posting.google.com>...
> Maybe I was wrong about you, though, posting this message took some
> guts, at least in their world and the world of the people who
> responded to your message, except me of course and some other
> "coporate world sux, don't it?" guy. So you posted the message, but
> now you're gonna chicken out? That's kinda a waste of energy don't
> you think?
>
> See, what's happening is that you're being assimilated already.
> You're starting to think like them. You're forgetting who you are and
> what collaboration should be like, which is, equal standing among all.
>
> Now you're gonna "climb the ladder", making small suggestions here and
> there to please the boss, while holding it all in, slowly disolving
> your innards until you're nothing but a "ghost in the shell".
>
> Sounds silly to you? am I being too metaphoric? perhaps even corny?
> That's because your ears have grown filters to muffle the truth and
> amplify the bullshit.
>
> Why have you come here into the "usenet plane", ask yourself that.
> Why is it you can't talk to your coworkers?
>
> And now that I've written what you wanted to hear why do you disagree
> with it, as if your fighting with your own ideas.
>
> And the answer isn't "compromise" like so many of the "ghosts" here
> suggest, that's the biggest lie they ever told you. Why compromise
> with something you disagree with? Either you agree or disagree, and
> if you disagree then that thing must be false. And if it's false, how
> can you compromise with it?
>
> That's politics, and that's why you feel so ill about it, as you
> should feel, because it's exactly the thing you're being attacked
> with. Falsehood and compromise is what gives the enemy their power.
> It is how they rise to their corporate ranks. It is the act of being
> wrong yet still getting your way, with the use of money or rank or
> whatever else you can use in that ugly existance (and you know who you
> are).
>
> So Sean, it's your choice.. I still say damage the enemy as much as
> possible then get out of there and continue to do your work.
>
> peace out..
>
> bpj
Bart P. Jaszcz
> "Bart P. Jaszcz" <fres...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:a0907de9.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > Even the mainstream TV stations have been broadcasting after school
> > specials about how corporations are using this "friends and family"
> > bullshit to trap workers even more than they have ever been before.
> > After all, how can you disagree with your friends or if you do, you'll
> > do it much more nicely than you would with strangers, right? Or if
> > the family needs you to work a little longer after hours for no pay,
> > how can you refuse your family, right?
>
> Poor poor whiney you. Whose choice is it to watch TV? My TV doesn't
> receive channels, I only rent videos. Whose choice is it to have a
> family? It's hardly something that a 20-something junior employee at a
> game company need worry about. In fact, that's the problem: no family,
> no legitimate excuse to end the workday and put one's foot down.
Do you ever listen to yourself? I mean, what kind of militant
upbringing did you have sir? Are your masochistic? You seem to be
fundementally lopsided on this issue, wanting to lose more and more of
your freedom, your leisure so that some fat cats can benefit from it.
I mean, you seem to be going back in time to the beginnings of the
industrial revolution into the sweatshops and coal mines. Perhaps
you'd like to be locked up in a sewer somewhere with no air to breathe
and be constantly whipped by a slave driver?
> > See, before, if the company wanted to make the employee feel
> > better about working there, they'd just give them a raise or time off,
> > hell maybe even more creative control! But now through years of
> > brainwashing,
>
> This is a pile of shit. The free market mechanism is operating, and if
> you're not looking out for your own interests it's your own fault.
> Nobody said you have to work for a slave driver company. If you
> acquiesce to it, it's 'cuz you're a lazy sod who complains instead of
> taking responsibility for his career. I feel more sympathy for a
> previous generation of employees who were expecting a certain
> cradle-to-grave ease in the workplace. That was never promised in my
> generation (I'm 32), we knew corporate loyalty was dead going into the
> game.
It's fine that the free market is operating, and I'm not gonna argue
with that as it's "beyond the scope of this discussion", but that
doesn't mean that to succeed you have to become emotionally attached
to your work place and be expected to work overtime with no pay. Yes,
"nobody said you have to work for a slave driver company", but these
days if you don't you're out on the street. Free market is fine as
long as it doesn't run off to a point where the population is being
held hostage at their work place!
Now, what I've been doing is trying to get some momentum going in
the opposite direction. Like convincing people that they should "put
their foot down" when such tactics are being employed against them.
If you continue to give in, like you have been doing, you're just
gonna end up in that sewer being whipped by a slave driver.
> > they have managed to take away the raises and the time
> > off and subsitute a false feeling of friendship. That's one brilliant
> > move on their part, I must admit, but the war rages on..
>
> I'm nominally self-employed. What's your excuse?
Self employed still means you're working for a client, unless
you're a self sustaining farmer, which I presume you're not. Now,
unless you are also masochistic while being self employed, you'll
probably draw up a contract with your client, and probably wouldn't
stand for extra work or disrespect. What's my excuse? I'm a human
being. Good day sir..
--bart
Brandon Van Every
"Bart P. Jaszcz" <fres...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:a0907de9.02041...@posting.google.com...
>
> upbringing did you have sir? Are your masochistic? You seem to be
> fundementally lopsided on this issue, wanting to lose more and more of
> your freedom, your leisure so that some fat cats can benefit from it.
> I mean, you seem to be going back in time to the beginnings of the
> industrial revolution into the sweatshops and coal mines. Perhaps
> you'd like to be locked up in a sewer somewhere with no air to breathe
> and be constantly whipped by a slave driver?
An active imagination is generally a virtue. Good that you have one,
it'll help you in the games industry!
> It's fine that the free market is operating, and I'm not gonna argue
> with that as it's "beyond the scope of this discussion", but that
> doesn't mean that to succeed you have to become emotionally attached
> to your work place and be expected to work overtime with no pay.
Right, you don't. We agree completely. So, where's the problem?
> Yes,
> "nobody said you have to work for a slave driver company", but these
> days if you don't you're out on the street.
I'm not on the street, so what's your problem?
> Now, what I've been doing is trying to get some momentum going in
> the opposite direction. Like convincing people that they should "put
> their foot down" when such tactics are being employed against them.
It seems you talk about dysfunctionally attacking corporations as
opposed to dysfunctionally profiting from them. What do you have
against self-employment?
> Self employed still means you're working for a client, unless
> you're a self sustaining farmer, which I presume you're not. Now,
> unless you are also masochistic while being self employed, you'll
> probably draw up a contract with your client, and probably wouldn't
> stand for extra work or disrespect.
Yeah, so, use your negotiating skills. In life you don't get what you
deserve, you get what you negotiate. Contracts work both ways you know.
Nathan Mates
Bjoern <goo...@blinker.net> wrote:
>Anyway, if there are any people happily employed, please speak up ;-)
I'd consider myself that. I've got a fun job with coworkers that
have a clue, management that knows what they're doing, in a good
location. Been at this job since August 98.
One thing that came up recently in regards to the "moderate a games
design newsgroup" is this: I don't consider myself a designer. I
don't have a stack of ideas for games that I'd rather work on. The
few times I have done anything design-related in personal projects
(some dating over a decade back), they've usually been minor disasters
in terms of "fun." I'm perfectly happy to get a spec (detailed or
"port this to platform XYZ") and work on that. I'll leave the serious
design work to the designers at work, and if I do get an idea, I'm not
crushed if they don't like it. I don't know if this attitude helps my
job satisfaction, but it certainly can't hurt to not be fighting on
design issues all the time.
Sören Meyer-Eppler
> difference of personal style and just because you don't like it doesn't
> make it invalid. Of course, the risk carried with such a style is that
> someone will misconstrue it. But often, the person using the style
> could care less if someone else misconstrues it, they see it as the
> other person's responsibility to lighten up, not their responsibility to
> tone down. The whole world is filled with such cost shifting, that is
> probably what makes it run. Speaking for me personally, I wouldn't
This reminded me of
http://www.perkel.com/nerd/tact.htm
a good laugh and too true sometimes...
It's a somewhat humerous explanation of why 'nerds' and 'common people'
often have so much trouble communicating. The article is called 'tact
filter'.
regards,
BuschnicK
--
See what everyone else has seen, think what no one else has thought.
Sören Meyer-Eppler
> industry. Now I'm faced with a problem. The game we're working on is
You should read:
Getting Things Done When You're Only a Grunt
by Joel Spolsky
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000332.html
An excerpt:
"No matter how good your code is, your coworkers write such bad code that
you're embarassed to be associated with the project. Or management is making
bad decisions about what code to write, so you're forced to waste your
talent debugging the AS/400 version of a retirement-planning game for kids.
You could just leave, I suppose. But presumably, there's some reason you're
stuck there. The stock options haven't quite vested, there's no better place
to work in Podunk, or perhaps your boss is holding someone you love hostage.
In any case, dealing with life on a bad team can be infuriating. But there
are strategies for improving your team from the bottom, and I'd like to
share a few of them."
The site contains many more insightful articles and is worth a bookmark at
least, IMHO.
Bjoern
> In article <a5d863b1.02041...@posting.google.com>,
> Bjoern <goo...@blinker.net> wrote:
> >Anyway, if there are any people happily employed, please speak up ;-)
>
> I'd consider myself that. I've got a fun job with coworkers that
> have a clue, management that knows what they're doing, in a good
> location. Been at this job since August 98.
That's good to hear.
[...]
> "port this to platform XYZ") and work on that. I'll leave the serious
> design work to the designers at work, and if I do get an idea, I'm not
> crushed if they don't like it. I don't know if this attitude helps my
> job satisfaction, but it certainly can't hurt to not be fighting on
> design issues all the time.
Could certainly be a factor. Although I was surprised how quickly I
left my issues with user interfaces I felt were unelegant behind. What
bothered me more was when designers or project managers told us how to
code, and it didn't really feel sensible to us. I guess if my task was
to implement a certain spec, I could leave my personal feelings on the
usability/appearance of the product aside. I was feeling much more
strongly about the quality of MY work, which was to code. So if I was
told to write bad code, it hurt.
Bjoern
Sean Howard
: > After a year of trying, I finally landed a job as a programming in the
: > industry. Now I'm faced with a problem. The game we're working on is
: You should read:
: Getting Things Done When You're Only a Grunt
: by Joel Spolsky
: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000332.html
: The site contains many more insightful articles and is worth a bookmark at
: least, IMHO.
Looks interesting, and at least humorous. I'll be sure to check out. Thanks.
@@
Sean Howard