Creativity, believe it or not, is NOT in short supply in the Industry. I know that post-consolidation it's all good fun to point at the surviving (read:Successful or Lucky) studios and claim that they're all Corporate Shills who've lost that quivering, wide-eyed sense of fun and innocence that says that anything and everything is possible. It's not accurate or fair, though.
In my time in the industry the biggest problem I saw was that half of the time it couldn't find it's own arse with both hands. There was a clash going on between the professional and creative side of the business that is probably still being played out, because when either side wins we seem to get poorer quality games. Lack of creativity wasn't an issue, it was just that creativity is absolutely no help at all when it comes to managing asset lists, estimating how long or hard something is to complete, learning from the mistakes of the past, managing communication within continually expanding teams and successfully managing growing budgets so that the focus is kept on the things that will, as many have said, ACTUALLY MAKE THE GAME MORE FUN.
I maintain that games like DF really oughtn't to use the professional game development communities jargon - as it just don't fit. That said, I also reckon if y'are going to use that jargon then y'ought to use it properly, otherwise you come off looking like you don't know your Alpha from your Omega, but I think I may have made that point once or twice earlier so I'll sidle away from it now...
Now the bit where I respond to the peeps who attacked me. I'm sorry if some of you don't like my posting style, I'm a language wonk and I'm English and I'm overly verbose, so my postings can come out looking as if Professor Yaffle from Bagpuss wrote them. (Youtube it, if you're confused). All I meant to do was come in here and tell you what the word you were using meant. That's it. I am kinda proud that I put the time I did into following a career that I was passionate about, but I'd be the first to agree that I'm not exactly Carmack, Specter, Molyneux or, god forbid, Shigeru Miyamoto. The only reason I raised it in the first place was that it was kinda germane to the point I was arguing, you know, claiming that I knew what Alpha, Beta and so forth meant.
If you guys want to have your own definition of Alpha so that it means whatever Toady has decided it means, then more power to your arm. Just, you know, if you use it outside this forum be aware that it doesn't mean what you think it means to anyone else, that's all.
It's also a little harsh to say that I'm 'everything that's wrong with the games industry at the moment' don't you think? For a start, if you didn't know what Alpha means then you REALLY don't know what's screwing up the games industry. Also it's inaccurate, as I'm out of the industry and have been for a couple of years now. If you're not liking the games that are on the market now, you can blame any bugger but me.
Finally, I doubt you can find the conventions I defined within the hallowed manuals of the International Standards Organisation. I imagine that you can't find any Cockney Rhyming Slang in there either, but East End thieves have been using it in their line of work for a long while. I bet you also won't find the definition of the term 'Money Shot' there, but I'd advise against using it as a convention to describe a picture of your next pay cheque. Seriously - telling me off for being pedantic by insisting that widely accepted terms are not properly defined without ISO classifications is a bit counterproductive...
Anyway, apologies to anyone I honked off. I'm a big believer in full and frank exchanges of opinions. I still find it a little odd that you all decided the sanest course of action in response to a misuse of a technical term is to redefine the term. What can I say except "Nonetheless, it still moves".
Author
Topic: Not Exactly a Loveletter to Fans (Read 15963 times)