next »

[sheep herd]

Would anyone be interested in making a game in accordance with a collective or co-operative model? There would be no specifics roles within the team and all decision making would be done collectively (i.e. by consensus or democratically).

If anyone is interested then the specifics (what tools we use etc.) would be something we'd work out as a group. There is no barrier to entry other than willingness.

Please ask any questions you might have  ^{don't you forget about me}

[Grhyll]

Well, I'm curious to see if this could work, but not interested at all in participating, because I think it's very likely it will fail. (It's just my personal opinion, which I should probably develop a bit more, but not right now  )

[sheep herd]

Well, I'm curious to see if this could work, but not interested at all in participating, because I think it's very likely it will fail. (It's just my personal opinion, which I should probably develop a bit more, but not right now  )

It's atypical, and as such unproven, but if noone takes the negligible risks then it can't become proven . It definetly requires a specific attitude though.

[Grhyll]

Here are some reasons why I think it is not a good idea (based on my pro and amateur xp as well as readings from other people post-mortems):
- Things tend to get blocked if there isn't one person in charge of taking the decision. We all have very different views of how things should work, and discussing about the best approach can be an endless (and counter-productive) debate, until the participants get tired of negotiating. The issue is that there isn't One Best Way to do things, but several possible ways, so it's absolutely possible that people won't ever fully agree, in all good faith.
- Some of the most remarkable video game are known and recognized because they didn't compromise on core aspects. To have a game that stands out, you often have to take a brutal position and stand to it. If you let several people discuss it until they reach a compromise, there are chances the discussed feature will have turned in the meantime in something classical at best, incoherent at worst.

As I said in my previous post, it is really just my personal opinion, and I wouldn't say it's totally impossible for such a project to success. However, I am so tired of projects where endless discussions happen between my partners and me because we didn't agree on one leader to take final decisions (it's a bit more complicated than that, but ultimately it's something like this). In comparison, my real day job, with a boss who exactly know when to take decisions or when to let me do as I think it's best (which doesn't prevent short discussions to have each other opinion, it's just that it's clear at some point who makes the final call), is so much easier and more efficient!

(Edit: I'm sorry, I understand you didn't want to start a debate about the feasibility of your project, but rather look for partners... I just thought I may warn you, even if it could turn to the better (or, at worst, I could just let you do that mistake if it turns out to be one, and learn from it).)

[sheep herd]

However, I am so tired of projects where endless discussions happen between my partners and me because we didn't agree on one leader to take final decisions.

I realize that this is a common issue, and one I have faced myself. However I think if aparatus are agreed upon specifically to navigate around these issues (for instance a vote system) then it will mean they are avoided. Whenever I have faced this problem it's always because no decision making procedure has taken place. Heirachy is, in this context, a decision making procedure.

In comparison, my real day job, with a boss who exactly know when to take decisions or when to let me do as I think it's best is so much easier and more efficient!

In some ways I think this is true but in many ways it is wrong. Many people despise this kind of working arrangment (although it is clear you're happy with it) and find it arbitrary and frustrating. And to quote Jantelagen 'you're not to think you know more than we do.' By coming to collective decisions the expertise of all members is taken into account and all members have an equal role in deciding what they work towards collectively.

(Edit: I'm sorry, I understand you didn't want to start a debate about the feasibility of your project, but rather look for partners... I just thought I may warn you, even if it could turn to the better (or, at worst, I could just let you do that mistake if it turns out to be one, and learn from it).)

No, I appretiate it, you didn't just say 'you're idea is shit and you're an idiot' Constructive criticism is always (well usually) helpful

[Grhyll]

(Ok, I keep on debating then ^^)

About decision making, I think a vote system may lead to flavourless gameplay. A game isn't just a pile of brick thrown together, it has to have a consistent, high level purpose, and it's probably simpler to reach that with a single person who has a clear goal in mind, than with several people pushing in different directions. In fact, I just found a gamasutra postmortem about that, which is one of the sources for my opinions about those matters: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/AdriaanJansen/20160905/266289/Post_Mortem_Renowned_Explorers.php

However, I don't really understand your answer about the way things work at my job; my boss is a designer, I'm a programmer, so I feel it's very natural that he does know more than I do when it comes to design (he's dedicated his life to that field, after all), and I do know more when it comes to programming. I won't pretend I'm an expert in design if I'm not but he is, I wouldn't see the point. It doesn't prevent me to give my opinion, but ultimately, it's his responsibility (in the same way he won't tell me to use a given algorithm for a given task, because that's my domain of expertise, and he is fully aware he doesn't know programming as much as I do).

[sheep herd]

However, I don't really understand your answer about the way things work at my job.

Firstly many games that have been made by teams led by experienced designers are bland or poorly recieved for other reasons (Daikatana comes to mind) so I don't have as much faith in that method of decision making as you do. But there are more things to consider, such as the enjoyment of those who aren't involved in decision making but still work on the project. Whilst perhaps you don't have a problem with this I would and I know there are many others like me. I also think that for many, perhaps most, projects with a vareity of opinions exerting direct control over design is a good thing. Games like WoW or any of the Elder Scrolls game, or something like Magic, the Gathering, rely only having a vareity of people working towards a common goal. I'm sure these teams do have someone at the top of the pyramid but I don't think their value comes from that individual but rather the team as a whole.

As for the article you linked they say

That meant that we would let everyone contribute to the next project (and the company as a whole) the way they thought was best.

This free-for-all isn't at all what I'm proposing. What I'm proposing would be structured, each individual would have specific tasks etc. but what this structure was, what there tasks were, would be collectively agreed upon.

Finally, if making the most profitable game possible is your goal then of course taking risks is unlikely to be wise. That is not my attitude. I want to make things that I am proud of and enjoyed the process of making. I think this model has greater potential of achieving this aim than either working on my own or a heirachically structured team.