next »

[Kren]

Well, there is an easier way to do it, if the game is small of course.

Just tell him them to help you make your game and that you will help them making their game no matter if you like their idea or not, so it's a win win, no reason to argue since you will be also helping them in the game you think it's crappy and they will help you in your game that they think it's crappy..

[Twitch]

Having a three person core team has really helped us in this regard.
Jesse and I argue a lot - I mean a LOT - and Beau is usually the tiebreaker.
The other person has to just deal with it, which is easier the more you do it, especially after experiencing the realization of their past ideas, and they of yours.

[Tynan]

I'm kind of amazed this hasn't been brought up before:

Each person has a natural bubble of authority around the decisions about which they know the most.

The person with the final say on any decision is the one with natural authority over it. That is, it's the person with the most understanding of it because of their training and their specific knowledge of the project.

For example, if you're deciding which collision detection algorithm to use, the programmer decides because he understands the decision best. That's one's obvious, but it's a starting example.

In deciding how something looks, the artist has final say.

In deciding the structure of a challenge in one level, the designer of that level has final say (not designers of other levels. Even if they're also good designers, they don't have the specific knowledge of that one level the way its designer does).

In deciding the gross structure of the game or overarching story concepts, the leader has the final say.

In deciding details of coloration, algorithm design, or balance, the person working on it (not the leader!) has final say.

These people may gather knowledge from others to inform their decision. But the decision should ultimately rest with the person who knows the most about it.


Leaders arrogating authority over others' decisions just reduces decision quality over the long term. The only way to get good decisions over and over in game design is to distribute them over the team. Concentrated power just leads to systemic incompetence.

If I could draw an analogy, it's the difference between liberal economies and communist ones. The communists have a central body make every decision, while the liberals spread those decisions out over the whole population, thus making better use of existing knowledge (which can't be concentrated). Which is why South Korea is awesome and North Korea is hell.

**

In your specific case, you need to figure out who understands which choices best and define a role structure for your partnership up front. Then it usually becomes pretty obvious who decides what. And in the end everyone is happier. Unclear authority bubbles are what cause friction.

[Archibald]

There has to be ONE leader who takes the responsibility for the final outcome of the project. There should be discussion and everything but there can't be democratic voting. The moment all the threads leave the hand of one person the project will fail. It's basicly that you join a project because you trust the leader. If you don't you join another project.

Especially on the working via internet there is this typical democratic mistake. People start a project and talk, talk, talk... Instead of one person stepping up, getting all the threads in his steady grip and tell everyone what should be done and what kind of game it will be.

I would definitely prefer to work with a nasty dictator that has a clear vision and leads us in a stright way to the goal than a nice democratic guy who talk until consensus and acceptance of all team members is reached. In the end we join teams to make games, not to participate in a talking club.

[Garthy]

I have found that this situation is actually surprisingly difficult to come up with a good suggestion to. :}

In any collaboration I believe that it is important that each person that is contributing has had a say and an influence in the direction of a project, in line with their level of contribution in the project, but ensuring that other people's wishes are *also* taken into account. Everyone should be able to look at a project and see a part of it that expresses what is important to *them*, so that they can feel passionate about it.

Another understanding that is important is that there is finite time available, and so any one person should only expect *some* of their great ideas to make it in, and should restrict them to the best of them. Everyone needs to do this, and in a fair manner.

Basically, I think that the "I want A", "No, I want B" discussion should be shut down quickly. The best direction to take things when this situation comes up is to try to find a solution "C", that includes the elements of "A" and "B" that are important to the person suggesting them. That is, you listen to every suggestion, and then you find a way that can make it work for *everyone* on the team, perhaps slotting it in with a bunch of other suggestions.

Unfortunately, if you attempt this with too many fragile egos on the line, and a deadlock occurs, if you lack a respected leader to objectively force a fair decision through, then the project will probably crash and burn.

[Bishop]

I've ran into this problem a few times. Usually it's because people start arguing over an idea before seeing it implemented and playable. I usually try and get everyone to create all their ideas, then we cull back, removing ones that clash or turn out to not flow as well as we'd imagined.

That being said, my main solution has been not to work with those people. I now only with people I know will let me lead the design. I think it's important that a game is mostly one persons vision. Being able to sell your vision and state why your idea is good is key too, keep it fairly vague, specifics can be picked apart by pedantic team mates.