5 factors that you can optimize to become more successful at game development.
Time: Simple, don't waste it. The two biggest wastes of time in game development are spending time optimising something that doesn't need to be optimised (usually before something is even being used in a game) and implementing stuff that's already been done elsewhere. Sure, there are cases where implementing a known algorithm like a rendering pathway or whatever is a good use of time, but for it to be useful you need to have really studied what it is you're implementing - which usually means exposure to how other people have done it - otherwise you're wasting time.
Money: Most things are free these days, but generally you're looking at money being a function of time for most indie projects. See above for that... Otherwise it's always good to get paid for something that's not finished yet. Easiest way to build a game that can earn you money that way is to release to the public often and early in development, that way you build a following with the early versions, get a ton of good testing (for free!) and can optimise your time spent even better due to player feedback stopping you groping for gameplay in the dark.
Skills: Learn a single skill at a time. This takes research and forethought. First step is always seeing what other people have done, then reading up on alternatives and messing with those if at all possible, then plan which skills you're going to practice in which order. Again, this is a serious function of time, but the main thing here is not to try and learn multiple skills at once, you'll find that learning things that way will take longer than learning them one by one. Synthesis at the end should be simpler that way too.
Perseverance: The easiest way to get discouraged is to not see any results. So to help keep your perseverance up, try to do things that have the best results for the shortest amount of time. In game development, that's usually always prototyping fast and getting other people to play your games. Few things are as rewarding as watching someone enjoy something you've built, that kind of motivation can help keep you going when things get tricky. Plus, if you're releasing early and often, it tends to form a bit of a positive reinforcement loop: You'll have clearer goals for what you're trying to do, so your skills will grow faster and you'll have more possibilities for someone to want to give you money for what you're producing. Luck: Luck is all about repeatedly trying. Releasing just one game after you've spent years and years working on it before you know if it's any good or not is incredibly risky. That requires a huge amount of luck to get right... Rather follow the release early and release often route and stand more chances to get lucky with exposure or just the right mechanics or just the right kind of theme. Plus as you build your skills, you'll find that you need less luck to make something succeed.
Or are people arguing because they've chosen a side and are now sticking to it regardless?
Because the above post is tool agnostic, and seems really common sense to me. Maybe that's my misunderstanding. And this is the sort of advice I hand out regularly, and I really don't want to be handing out bad advice.
If there's something wrong, what would you change?
I tried very hard to keep the post above completely tool agnostic and merely to make recommendations in the general sense in the hopes of establishing common ground on which to build agreement from.
I'd like to know why that didn't work.
I'm also curious as to what "the other side of the argument" might be for each of these areas of optimisation.
Thank you Evan. I think this is far more appropriate here under this title.
To clarify: It was not about this in itself being contentious. It was about taking something from a thread that had become little more than mudslinging and posing it within a thread that seems 'official'. Inviting a fight into that arena by taking words that were part of a fight out of context is not constructive.
One thing that we need to make peace with is that Make Games SA no longer exists as just a place for people to hang out and chat. Yes it is at its heart a community. But, and this is the important bit, it is also now a LEGAL ENTITY that aims to speak on behalf of game dev in SA. As people we can bicker and argue, but as the entity - so in announced threads, as committee members, and in dealings with the community and the public - we should be striving for professionalism.
No one involved in games in SA can afford to step out of this forum. As long as the entity that is MGSA speaks for us all, it can not be a personal playground for stronger personalities, it is no longer a legacy chat board. And people who are in authority have the RESPONSIBILITY to conduct themselves professionally when acting in this arena.
I fail to see how the above points I posted are not professional, nor do I understand why useful information cannot be evaluated regardless of its source and used accordingly. The above points weren't even engaged with in the "conflict" in that thread - they were actually actively ignored, which further underlines how I tried to write them as a bridge to resolution and common ground.
To insist that everything must be tarred with the broadest possible context that it was posted in means that all one needs to do in order to completely stifle any information being disseminated by MGSA is to begin an argument in the thread that holds that information. It doesn't matter how valid or specious the argument, merely that the existence of one is enough to present a veneer of polarisation and thus, we of the MGSA cannot be affiliated with it for fear of looking unprofessional/being biased/encouraging conflict/picking sides.
I'm sorry, but as a rational human being and strong believer in the power of objective analysis whenever possible, I must reject this idea wholeheartedly. To do anything less would be to be complicit in the creation of a culture ruled by conflict-mongers and negativity. While I can see how @hanli believes that these measures are designed to prevent conflict based on her feelings against "strong personalities", they fail because they don't present a paradigm for ending or even better, transcending conflict and turning the outputs of even controversial threads into useful material.
In short: If the only thing wrong with my post was that I posted it, we badly need new criteria to judge wrongness.
I fail to see how the above points I posted are not professional
The problem is not the information you posted. The problem was that during the heated debate the information was taken directly out of that thread and posted into a thread that is supposedly "the voice" of MGSA. Some people who over think things (like myself) might even have thought this looked like a challenge to disagree with it.
nor do I understand why useful information cannot be evaluated regardless of its source and used accordingly
This is something that we as human beings should certainly strive for, but while we try to attain that level of objectivity try to keep in mind that you are dealing with people and people are fallible.
To insist that everything must be tarred with the broadest possible context that it was posted in means that all one needs to do in order to completely stifle any information being disseminated by MGSA is to begin an argument in the thread that holds that information. It doesn't matter how valid or specious the argument, merely that the existence of one is enough to present a veneer of polarisation and thus, we of the MGSA cannot be affiliated with it for fear of looking unprofessional/being biased/encouraging conflict/picking sides.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, the original thread is still there(although it's locked). The information you posted is still here. I'm not sure where all the stifling of information is happening.
I'm sorry, but as a rational human being and a strong believer in the power of objective analysis whenever possible
I'm also a rational human being(mostly), and I'm also a strong believer in the power of objective analysis. Just wanted to point that out.
or even better, transcending conflict and turning the outputs of even controversial threads into useful material.
Ok, so in an attempt to transcend this conflict without the use of illegal substances, may I suggest that when a specific person asks a specific question about their specific situation that we address specifically that person in that situation and that question. In general terms the advice you gave is certainly relevant and I believe we can put it back on the announcement thread at some point in the near future, but I fail to see how the thread that the advice originated in was helpful to the original poster.
In short: If the only thing wrong with my post was that I posted it, we badly need new criteria to judge wrongness.
There was nothing wrong with your post. The timing that it was moved from the original thread to the announcement thread just REALLY sucked.
I wonder if maybe "game programmer" is itself rather ambiguous.
I mean, someone who wants to be a game programmer might be someone who wants to program gameplay, in which case I think we'd all agree that writing an engine is a really long-winded way of doing it because it'd take forever before any gameplay code/design actually gets written. Programming gameplay is pretty much the same thing as doing iterative game design, and then you want to do your iteration as quickly as possible, like using one of the ready-made engines. Learning C++ can't hurt, except that game design and gameplay are things that are language agnostic, and you might as well learn whatever allows you to bang prototypes out asap (including paper, sticks and stones). If there are languages that allow you to code faster, then I don't think there's any reason not to use them. There are people who really enjoy the experience of creating something that "feels" great, engaging, deep.
On the other hand, someone who writes a game engine from the ground up is also a "game programmer", but is something more like a software engineer (according to my understanding as someone who isn't a programmer. Sorry if I offend anyone for using the wrong term). In which case learning C++ and DX/OGL is the way to go about it, right? Playing with other engines is super helpful for learning how engines actually work and how other people (probably far more experienced) went about doing stuff, but at the end of the day, your C++, managing memory, and all the low-level stuff are pretty much core, fundamental skills. And there are people who actually really enjoy doing this too, eking out an extra 10ms saving, or being able to draw an extra 10,000 triangles per frame, or whatever it is. What results may not actually be a game, never mind an engaging one... but if this game programmer doesn't care, then hey, I don't either.
Is this something we all agree with?
-- We're all really bright. And we're not malicious. And we're doing what we feel is best for growing a game community, whether it's trying to get people to learn things in the most optimal manner, or providing support, or wanting to step in when we believe someone is spreading incorrect information, or just trying to figure out what the right response is for when this pops up in future.
And given that, I think I empathise with pretty much everyone. Which sounds like fence-sitting, but I think it really isn't: in terms of advice for beginner programmers, from where I'm standing, I kinda think you actually believe the same thing... (And I can explain that if you want, but just not right now, because it's really late I don't have the energy for it.)
But I'm all for our figuring this out, finding agreement, and posting it in the FAQ, and just link to that in future, and not have things explode the way they have the next time something like this comes up. :)
Ok, so in an attempt to transcend this conflict without the use of illegal substances, may I suggest that when a specific person asks a specific question about their specific situation that we address specifically that person in that situation and that question. In general terms the advice you gave is certainly relevant and I believe we can put it back on the announcement thread at some point in the near future, but I fail to see how the thread that the advice originated in was helpful to the original poster.
There was nothing wrong with your post. The timing that it was moved from the original thread to the announcement thread just REALLY sucked.
So who is going to go back over old posts and elevate the content that is useful? When is that going to happen, both in terms of people's actual time and how long after a debate has ended? I contend that if there's any valuable information in a post then that information is useful immediately and not after some arbitrary time limit. In fact, elevating useful information right away is a much better way of pushing a debate towards usefulness instead of tit-for-tat back and forth. How else are we supposed to smooth ruffled feathers and encourage progress towards agreement if we don't recognise good content straight away?
I hazard that a better system for doing that could be put in place: Perhaps a "I nominate content X for resource thread Y because reasons" thread or even just that form of response in the originating thread itself. That would give people a chance to consider the value in something without content promotion being seen as a political move. It also helps change the tone of discussions that have moved more towards destructive arguments and re-focuses debate on useful topics/ideas that are usually the first things to be ignored when discussion turns from progress-driven to winning vs losing.
Plus, it is rather unreasonable to expect a single thread to stay on a single topic for long. People will bring up other points and arguments, sometimes those will be engaged with. The only real problem is when it's not obvious which argument/point a reply is addressing. As I quoted the comment I was responding to in the original post that spawned this thread (and note how we're not talking about that information in said post right now, which is totally ok) I don't think it was confusing as to what I was addressing at all.
I wonder if maybe "game programmer" is itself rather ambiguous.
...
This is along the lines of what I was trying to start from in that thread. I was moving towards a rather specific point though: That starting with a non-technical mindset doesn't exclude technically minded potential game programmers, they just advance to their technical niches "faster" - with more understanding of engines, like you mentioned; Starting with a technical mindset for gameplay-centric potential game programmers is incredibly destructive for them and they're unlikely to progress at all, dropping out relatively predictably.
Given that it's hard to impossible to accurately determine which type of game programmer someone interested in game development actually is, it makes the most sense to start with the focus that is, at the very least, not destructive to an entire type of programmer.
We're all really bright. And we're not malicious. And we're doing what we feel is best for growing a game community, whether it's trying to get people to learn things in the most optimal manner, or providing support, or wanting to step in when we believe someone is spreading incorrect information, or just trying to figure out what the right response is for when this pops up in future.
I believe that the discussion in question would have gotten to the point where we were actually talking about this rather than flaming each other eventually... It simply takes patience to move beyond the point where people are defending specific anecdotal experiences and a lot of attempts to ask questions and normalise/clarify.
You've seen this happen yourself numerous times on Game.Dev. All we need to do is remind each other that we're not actually being malicious and/or intentionally evil. Eventually that message breaks through, despite how poorly "strong personalities" are perceived by some.
Thank you @Elyaradine. I think you have summed up my position as well. I also think you expressed it far better than I did originally. :)
Speaking of... I'm sorry @hanli, but you have yet to actually respond to what you considered unprofessional in my posting. I don't think it's fair to leave that sort of accusation hanging if that's not what you actually meant.
I must also point out that as MakeGames Committee Members, we are accountable to the MGSA members who voted for us because it is they we represent. If they consider us to be in bad faith or poor representatives due to how we conduct ourselves, they simply won't re-nominate/elect us at the upcoming AGM. Unless I misunderstand you, I don't feel that the judgement of conduct you've been doing is helpful to what MGSA elected us to do because I'm not seeing any suggestions from you on how people should behave instead: All I see right now is admonitions to stop talking... Which is why I'm asking you for clarification on certain remarks.
I have to harp on about the information only being useful after a point thing.
Were these boards anonymous and the 5 factors were posted I don't believe there would have been anything near the outcry that there was. Or if I posted them to Dev.Mag, right after they were posted on the forums, would there have been such a response that Dev.Mag was taking sides?
[quote = dislekcia]So who is going to go back over old posts and elevate the content that is useful?[/quote] I don't know if that is possible, like you mention I don't think anybody has time for that. I suggest we learn from our experience and maybe come up with a plan that will benefit the majority of the community(you can never please everyone) going forward.
[quote = dislekcia]I contend that if there's any valuable information in a post then that information is useful immediately and not after some arbitrary time limit.[/quote] My problem was timing...not time elapsed. People weren't given enough time to digest the information and process it as good or bad advice. This is my opinion mind you...
[quote = dislekcia]I hazard that a better system for doing that could be put in place: Perhaps a "I nominate content X for resource thread Y because reasons" thread or even just that form of response in the originating thread itself. That would give people a chance to consider the value in something without content promotion being seen as a political move.[/quote] I would support this. Definitely worth a trying the next opportunity we get. :)
[quote = dislekcia]Plus, it is rather unreasonable to expect a single thread to stay on a single topic for long.[/quote] I agree. And usually this isn't a problem. The issue I took with the thread was that I didn't see how it was constructive to the member that posted the thread. Established members were addressing each other and in no way correlating the issues back to what the original poster was asking. It might have lead to something good in the future, but I couldn't see how. I was content to see it play out but for some reason I'm not aware of it was locked.
[quote = dislekcia]Speaking of... I'm sorry @hanli, but you have yet to actually respond to what you considered unprofessional in my posting. I don't think it's fair to leave that sort of accusation hanging if that's not what you actually meant.[/quote] The accusation doesn't make sense. The post itself was not called unprofessional. It is the manner in which it was moved to an "official" thread without the issue being settled yet. I realize that you had no control over this. Also, the suggestion you made should probably help with this not happening again in the future. @hanli, please correct me if I'm seeing this wrong.
[quote = dislekcia]Given that it's hard to impossible to accurately determine which type of game programmer someone interested in game development actually is, it makes the most sense to start with the focus that is, at the very least, not destructive to an entire type of programmer.[/quote] I know you like to ask questions, so I suggest that we do more of that. A person new to game development usually doesn't have the vocabulary to describe exactly what they want to do. If we ask enough questions give examples of types of work that we think they are talking about and eventually get to what they are most interested in we can give GREAT advice instead of good advice. I know this takes a lot more effort but I'm willing to do the extra work to nurture an informative AND supportive community, and I believe you and everybody else are as well.
[quote = karuji]Or if I posted them to Dev.Mag, right after they were posted on the forums, would there have been such a response that Dev.Mag was taking sides?[/quote] There wouldn't have been, because Dev.Mag is an entity on it's own if I'm not mistaken. As far as the information only being useful after a certain point...that is not the issue. The information is useful. The moving/elevation of the information to an "official" thread was badly timed.
Given that it's hard to impossible to accurately determine which type of game programmer someone interested in game development actually is, it makes the most sense to start with the focus that is, at the very least, not destructive to an entire type of programmer.
I think it's only hard-to-impossible if the person himself doesn't know what kind of game programmer he wants to be. If he already knows, then it's really easy to know simply by asking a few questions and coaxing it out of him. :)
If he doesn't know, or if he's not certain, then I agree that C++ isn't a good idea if he's not sure what his goals are. Playing with a whole lot of different stuff, including making lots of tiny, tiny games, using different engines, different media, different languages (which might well involve C++) is much better. (And if he chooses to do pure C++ anyway, even though he wants to program gameplay, then hopefully we've dealt it in a positive way, where we're the people he turns to when he hits a brick wall.)
-- I don't know how useful it actually is to try and break down what went on. But apparently I have the time -- for a change! -- and maybe we'll learn to see things from someone else's view?
I think a lot of people believed that Danny and Evan were harping on about something well after Fanie'd already made clear his intentions, and they felt this kind of apparently zealotry was super horrible.
The thing is, I think if it were just a conversation between them and Fanie, it would have been a much shorter conversation. If he wanted to program gameplay starting with C++ (I'm still not certain what his goal actually is, by the way), and was adamant he wanted to despite their initial advice, I think they would have shrugged their shoulders, maybe facepalmed, and left the issue well alone.
I think the problem was more to do with some of the other advice that was given -- advice from unqualified sources giving what would really be bad advice for someone who wanted to be a gameplay programmer. I mean, if someone went around telling wannabe artists that they should totally learn to model before they learn 3D form ("Because hey, that's what I did, and it's worked for me!"), I'd feel compelled to step in and wave a giant red flag, and ask to see their work, and their portfolio, and which studio/game they're working at/on, and how long it's taken them to get there (i.e. "What does it mean for it to have 'worked for you'?". It'd be completely against not only the advice that I'd normally give, but against the advice of every professional game artist I've ever met, both IRL and online, from indie to AAA. And when I say that pushing vertices around before learning art is a foolish thing to do, my intention isn't to be calling the OP foolish: I'd be trying really hard to justify why my advice is the one that's better to take, because it's consistent with that of the professional game art community (of which I'm a part), and that the other person's advice is singular, and comes from someone who has no actual professional game art experience. I don't think I could stop myself from doing this either, because SOMEBODY IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET.
And that kind of thing has to happen, because if future lurkers of the forum read the posts, they might think that the advice should be treated equally, without knowing that one comes from a place of countless peoples' successes, while the other comes from a place of relative inexperience. Yeah, maybe it becomes a dick-measuring contest. But I do think it's the responsibility of those with more experience to step in when we see people giving bad advice.
On the other hand, as another observer, I might have stepped in and seen the other me being vehement about how stupid it'd be to be focusing on learning software instead of being an artist when learning to be a game artist, and seen that as an attack on the OP. Or that he was so passionate about his argument that I felt he was going to scare the OP away. I would be compelled to step in, and remind other-me to check his tone. I don't think I could stop myself from doing this either, because OTHER-ME IS TOTALLY EMBARRASSING/MISREPRESENTING US.
So in different contexts, I think I'd have ended up being in both camps.
I'm not a robot who can perfectly separate the logical content of a post from the context/perceived-emotion/diction. And I don't think I always say what I mean either. I hate that about language. I look back at old posts, like where Hanli and I had a bit of a spat, and while my belief hasn't changed at all, I can see how the way I'd said it actually diluted the point I meant to make. (What I meant to say was "Education is what you make of it, so realise the weaknesses in your method of learning and make an effort to patch them up", but what it came out as was "Schools are useless", which is both untrue and not what I meant to say.)
If what I say is likely to cause some kind of rift, or be taken in the wrong way, I'd also appreciate it if the people who correct me do in a PM, or do so humbly, without accusing me of being some kind of dictator, because that doesn't exactly help when someone who's trying to correct me does so condescendingly.
I don't want to feel censored. And things I say can blow up in my face. And I can let them blow up, and let them continue blowing up, until it subsides, and we finally come to realise what we actually meant, and not what we thought we meant. And we may mature from it or something. But it's also the kind of thing that can make people (both those involved and spectators) just walk away, throw their hands up in disgust and not return. It happens on forums all the time. Forums suck.
The difference is that I don't think we can afford to lose anyone with a community as young as ours.
By the way, those 5 points are things that I think are awesome, and following them has paid off for me. :)
Thank you @Rigormortis Rigormortis wrote: "The accusation doesn't make sense. The post itself was not called unprofessional. It is the manner in which it was moved to an "official" thread without the issue being settled yet. I realize that you had no control over this. Also, the suggestion you made should probably help with this not happening again in the future. @hanli, please correct me if I'm seeing this wrong"
That addresses my point extremely well.
@dislekcia Dislekcia wrote: "Unless I misunderstand you, I don't feel that the judgement of conduct you've been doing is helpful to what MGSA elected us to do because I'm not seeing any suggestions from you on how people should behave instead: All I see right now is admonitions to stop talking... Which is why I'm asking you for clarification on certain remarks."
This is something we have discussed many times, in the forums, individually, and in committee meetings. This is not about 'censorship' (the word you used in the last meeting in which it was discussed). It is about putting through an opinion, advice, critique, in a measured tone. We are not in a position to judge other peoples credentials, reply before we hear someone out, or write off dissenting opinions because they don't apply to us. It's not about not speaking our minds, not interacting, or not giving advice. It is about acting responsibly, speaking kindly, and behaving professionally when we do speak our minds and give advice. Those ARE my suggestions.
MGSA elected us to represent the organisation. I simply want us to do so well, and present it in the best possible light. I believe that this should be as supportive, helpful, inclusive and reasonable.
Didn't mean to cause further furor. Thanks for pointing out this should be split from the Newcomer thread @Hanli.
Elyaradine said:
I think the problem was more to do with some of the other advice that was given -- advice from unqualified sources giving what would really be bad advice for someone who wanted to be a gameplay programmer. I mean, if someone went around telling wannabe artists that they should totally learn to model before they learn 3D form ("Because hey, that's what I did, and it's worked for me!"), I'd feel compelled to step in and wave a giant red flag, and ask to see their work, and their portfolio, and which studio/game they're working at/on, and how long it's taken them to get there (i.e. "What does it mean for it to have 'worked for you'?". It'd be completely against not only the advice that I'd normally give, but against the advice of every professional game artist I've ever met, both IRL and online, from indie to AAA. And when I say that pushing vertices around before learning art is a foolish thing to do, my intention isn't to be calling the OP foolish: I'd be trying really hard to justify why my advice is the one that's better to take, because it's consistent with that of the professional game art community (of which I'm a part), and that the other person's advice is singular, and comes from someone who has no actual professional game art experience. I don't think I could stop myself from doing this either, because SOMEBODY IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET.
This was pretty much what I experienced. Which isn't to say I'm proud of my behaviour, just that Elyaradine summed it up well (as well as the other perspective also in his post, maybe?). I'm going to try do better in the future.
But that isn't to say I don't believe this particular subject is incredibly important. I think aspiring game developers need the best information they can get, those that ask questions here and those that are passively reading these forums (if they're judging our behaviour then they're also reading our information).
I think that after a time, and when the dust is settled, the OP here could be moved again to the NewComer thread. I think it's a genuinely useful piece of advice.
Also, I can think of at least one other factor I'd like to add (like optimizing "Feedback").
I wanted to edit in a section in the FAQ with the question "I want to write my own engine" and both sides of the argument but unfortunately when i try edit it it's just a garbled mess of HTML that I don't have the patience to sort through :(
@raithza I like that idea. The first thing it should say though is "What are you trying to achieve?" then split the advise into streams based on the desired result. So - I am primarily interested in game play - answer 1, I am primarily interested in software - answer 2, I don't know what I'm interested in - answer 3. (answer 3 will be the hard one) If everyone is prepared to work on it together, and to construct it as a holistic, reasonable, document it could be very useful. It may also be good to start these as discussion threads first - then move them into the FAQ when consensus is reached. As you noted, it is really important to represent both sides, as neutrally as possible. That way it could be referred to, without needing to rehash it and get sidetracked by arguments.
The point is to acknowledge difference, see value in different approaches, and tailor advise to individuals, based on their own needs. So when someone says "help me with X" we can respond with "go read that first, and decide if that is what you really want." If they say "ah, great point, I thought I wanted X, but I actually meant Y" that's great, Y experts step in. If they say, "thanks but I really want X" then allow people interested in X to handle it.
@BlackShipsFilltheSky Optimising Feedback should definitely be there. And yes, this should be moved into the newcomer section again later - maybe we should look at restructuring the newcomer section though? Having several smaller sections rather than a single thread? Not sure...
MGSA elected us to represent the organisation. I simply want us to do so well, and present it in the best possible light. I believe that this should be as supportive, helpful, inclusive and reasonable.
I find it strange then that my least supportive, helpful, inclusive or reasonable post in the Starting games programming thread was the only one you hearted.
I welcome criticism that engages with what I wrote and/or the reasons I gave for writing them. Right now I'm getting the impression that some of us are apparently just blanket not supportive, helpful, inclusive or reasonable. I would like to know where I'm failing those things in particular in order to do better next time. Right now it's the vagueness of the solutions that makes things feel like general censorship because it's not clear what the problem actually is.
The point is to acknowledge difference, see value in different approaches, and tailor advise to individuals, based on their own needs. So when someone says "help me with X" we can respond with "go read that first, and decide if that is what you really want." If they say "ah, great point, I thought I wanted X, but I actually meant Y" that's great, Y experts step in. If they say, "thanks but I really want X" then allow people interested in X to handle it.
And that is exactly how the Starting game programming thread went. At first. Then the discussion moved. That happens too... The real issue was that apparently people were judged as not sufficiently expert in something to comment about it. Facts and reality were both flagrantly ignored because people got upset. There are very definite ways to handle this sort of thing, holding that both sides of a misunderstanding are valid arguments based on the emotions of their proponents is not one of them.
I have continuously tried to present a framework to help keep those sorts of debates more reasonable, the major factor is how we as a community respond to them (because individuals will get upset sometimes, that's just a fact of life) if we choose to purposefully engage only with helpful content, we'll get more helpful content. If we encourage reasonable argument and rational discussion, we'll get more of that. That means we will have to wade through unreasonable arguments, looking for the nuggets of awesome to hold up and say "Hey, this is cool, talk about this more, ok?". I don't see how a time-limit on when things can be useful helps either of those situations.
So in different contexts, I think I'd have ended up being in both camps.
I'm not a robot who can perfectly separate the logical content of a post from the context/perceived-emotion/diction. And I don't think I always say what I mean either. I hate that about language. I look back at old posts, like where Hanli and I had a bit of a spat, and while my belief hasn't changed at all, I can see how the way I'd said it actually diluted the point I meant to make. (What I meant to say was "Education is what you make of it, so realise the weaknesses in your method of learning and make an effort to patch them up", but what it came out as was "Schools are useless", which is both untrue and not what I meant to say.)
I have been in both camps.
And I guess I just try to be more robotic. At least in terms of trying to constantly re-state what it was I was trying to say in different ways, depending how someone misunderstood the first time. That needs people to meet me halfway, just like I'm trying to meet them.
If what I say is likely to cause some kind of rift, or be taken in the wrong way, I'd also appreciate it if the people who correct me do in a PM, or do so humbly, without accusing me of being some kind of dictator, because that doesn't exactly help when someone who's trying to correct me does so condescendingly.
Or to score points. Or "win" an argument. I don't care about any of those things, because I'm trying to get to "and we finally come to realise what we actually meant, and not what we thought we meant. And we may mature from it or something" faster.
And if I'm making incorrect assumptions, tell me! If my facts are wrong, tell me! But don't tell me I'm being a dictator or browbeating someone or attacking you with rhetorical arguments. Don't be vaguely upset in theory at something like "tone" as though you can glean verbal emphasis from text. That doesn't help anyone.
The difference is that I don't think we can afford to lose anyone with a community as young as ours.
I think that we should always be prepared to look at our consequences and re-evaluate our use to the goals of the community. If my involvement in MGSA is nothing but detrimental, I'll be the first to walk away. Conversely, if anyone is trolling the forums or trying to capitalise on MGSA's reputation in a predatory way, I'll be the first to call for their censure.
[quote = dislekcia]Right now it's the vagueness of the solutions that makes things feel like general censorship because it's not clear what the problem actually is.[/quote] What exactly do you feel has been censored. I'm not sure I understand what you are referring to.
[quote = dislekcia]I don't see how a time-limit on when things can be useful helps either of those situations.[/quote] What do you mean by time limit? I get the feeling we are talking past each other here.
[quote = Aequitas]So everyone seems to think those points are good. Can we put them in the FAQ now?[/quote] Depends...anyone want to try out the solution @dislekcia suggested and hold a sort of a voting that everyone in the community can respond to?
(Apparently I only discovered the quote functionality in this thread :()
@Rigormortis Everyone has said that they had issue with the timing of the post, not the content. No one has dropped any counterpoints/corrections/objections into this thread (I believe that was the idea), so let's put it up, and we can change it when better/dissenting information comes along.
What exactly do you feel has been censored. I'm not sure I understand what you are referring to.
That's exactly my problem. Wording like "needs to be kept as neutral and useful as possible", "Inviting a fight into that arena by taking words that were part of a fight out of context is not constructive", "but as the entity - so in announced threads, as committee members, and in dealings with the community and the public - we should be striving for professionalism" and "It is about acting responsibly, speaking kindly, and behaving professionally" all imply that these are things that weren't happening. Yet without concrete examples of where this was failing to be done, the message that comes across is "You, stop talking! All your talking is BAD". And foolishly, I agonise over what it might have been that caused such a poor reception.
That feeling, which I have spoken to @hanli about before, is not helpful. It must have reminded her of a discussion we had previously where I called certain kinds of forum policies "censorship". The time-limit concept is one of those...
What do you mean by time limit? I get the feeling we are talking past each other here.
Apparently everyone seems to think that the original content @BlackShipsFilltheSky copied into the FAQ thread should actually be in the FAQ thread. I don't think it's OK that the reason it wasn't considered acceptable before was due to assumed politicking on @BlackShipsFilltheSky's part. If the timing of a post being recognised as useful information is enough to get it removed from the pile of useful information, despite the information not actually changing (because there have been no suggested changes), then there must be some sort of time-limit after which posts are magically OK again.
I do not think this is a good forum policy, for multiple reasons that I have laid out above. Does that make more sense now?
@dislekcia, I didn't assume that @BlackShipsFilltheSky was politicking. But I do understand how it could have been perceived as politicking, and I think that is what brought up the issue. I'm not saying it's ok, I'm just saying it happened.
So the way something like this should have played out in my head is as follows: 1) Some thread starts a discussion that leads to an "unreasonable argument" 2) A person posts some useful information in the thread that has evolved out of the argument. 3) People ignore the useful information while they keep ranting some more(because let's face it, we like to voice our opinions :P). 4) People engage with the useful information and each other and agree that it's useful. 5) Somebody moves the useful information to a place where it can be easily referenced/found for future members.
The way I see it, step 4 was skipped. I feel this is the most important part, because this is the part that growth and understanding occurs. But if you skip the step all the people that haven't had a chance to get closure yet might feel like someone is saying : "You, stop talking". Does that make sense?
I think the lesson we should take away from both the thread and the issue that spawned this thread is that it's easy to have misunderstandings. Emotions can quickly get in the way of rational thought because all of us are so passionate about the community and making games. I don't think we should stop having these "unreasonable arguments", because in the long run they will probably benefit the community, but we shouldn't do it at the cost of fracturing or breaking the community.
If something is bad advice people should feel free to voice their concern. We shouldn't propagate bad advice for the sake of sparing someones feelings, but we must also keep in mind that their is a person at the other end of that anonymous avatar with their own insecurities and vulnerabilities and we should treat each other with respect and empathy.
I don't know if what I said is helpful...but it's what I can offer.
I never suggested 'imposing a time limit', I merely pointed out that the timing was poor. I made only one post in the original argument, subsequently I only tried to call for reasonable, professional behavior. I am at a loss as to why that is such a terrible request.
I never suggested 'imposing a time limit', I merely pointed out that the timing was poor. I made only one post in the original argument, subsequently I only tried to call for reasonable, professional behavior. I am at a loss as to why that is such a terrible request.
I have explained my problem with the idea that elevating content should be time sensitive to prevent accusations of politicking at length above. I have also explained why I feel that this thread actively stunted the culture of resolution that we should be fostering here as a community. If you're unsure of the ramifications of that approach to running a forum, I'd be totally OK with answering any questions you have over PM or email.
Calling for reasonable, professional behavior is all well and good, but if you don't point out what isn't reasonable or professional, you run the risk of being seen as simply calling everything someone posts useless - especially after repeated requests for clarification. Suffice to say that your expectations of reasonable professionalism seem to allow some rather nasty things to be assumed about other people regarding their motives and desired outcomes. I don't think anyone here should have to worry about being labeled manipulative for responding to a post they thought was useful, nor should we as a community ever assume that someone's post be meant in anything but the most positive light, to do anything less is a disservice to all of us.
Arguments and disagreements will happen on a forum, that's part of what a forum is all about. They need to run their course so that emotional issues don't fester AND they need to be dealt with through recourse to information when things "go bad" so that people can air and understand the assumptions being made. Setting up a culture of conflict avoidance and elevating opinions to fallacious "equality" over and above available information and logic only makes inevitable clashes of opinion horrible events that rattle all the friendly neighbors, instead of harnessing them into useful minor misunderstandings that help us all get along better.
Comments
Time: Simple, don't waste it. The two biggest wastes of time in game development are spending time optimising something that doesn't need to be optimised (usually before something is even being used in a game) and implementing stuff that's already been done elsewhere. Sure, there are cases where implementing a known algorithm like a rendering pathway or whatever is a good use of time, but for it to be useful you need to have really studied what it is you're implementing - which usually means exposure to how other people have done it - otherwise you're wasting time.
Money: Most things are free these days, but generally you're looking at money being a function of time for most indie projects. See above for that... Otherwise it's always good to get paid for something that's not finished yet. Easiest way to build a game that can earn you money that way is to release to the public often and early in development, that way you build a following with the early versions, get a ton of good testing (for free!) and can optimise your time spent even better due to player feedback stopping you groping for gameplay in the dark.
Skills: Learn a single skill at a time. This takes research and forethought. First step is always seeing what other people have done, then reading up on alternatives and messing with those if at all possible, then plan which skills you're going to practice in which order. Again, this is a serious function of time, but the main thing here is not to try and learn multiple skills at once, you'll find that learning things that way will take longer than learning them one by one. Synthesis at the end should be simpler that way too.
Perseverance: The easiest way to get discouraged is to not see any results. So to help keep your perseverance up, try to do things that have the best results for the shortest amount of time. In game development, that's usually always prototyping fast and getting other people to play your games. Few things are as rewarding as watching someone enjoy something you've built, that kind of motivation can help keep you going when things get tricky. Plus, if you're releasing early and often, it tends to form a bit of a positive reinforcement loop: You'll have clearer goals for what you're trying to do, so your skills will grow faster and you'll have more possibilities for someone to want to give you money for what you're producing.
Luck: Luck is all about repeatedly trying. Releasing just one game after you've spent years and years working on it before you know if it's any good or not is incredibly risky. That requires a huge amount of luck to get right... Rather follow the release early and release often route and stand more chances to get lucky with exposure or just the right mechanics or just the right kind of theme. Plus as you build your skills, you'll find that you need less luck to make something succeed.
(originally posted by @Dislekcia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iterative_and_incremental_development
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_application_development
http://gamasutra.com/blogs/ShellyWarmuth/20101213/6627/The_Importance_of_Rapid_Iterative_Prototyping.php
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/179501/rapid_prototyping_tips_for_.php
http://gamasutra.com/view/news/189258/Triple_Town_devs_on_finding_the_fun_in_freetoplay_game_design.php (Daniel Cook did a great talk about iterative prototyping processes at last year's GDC)
Or are people arguing because they've chosen a side and are now sticking to it regardless?
Because the above post is tool agnostic, and seems really common sense to me. Maybe that's my misunderstanding. And this is the sort of advice I hand out regularly, and I really don't want to be handing out bad advice.
If there's something wrong, what would you change?
I'd like to know why that didn't work.
I'm also curious as to what "the other side of the argument" might be for each of these areas of optimisation.
To clarify:
It was not about this in itself being contentious. It was about taking something from a thread that had become little more than mudslinging and posing it within a thread that seems 'official'. Inviting a fight into that arena by taking words that were part of a fight out of context is not constructive.
One thing that we need to make peace with is that Make Games SA no longer exists as just a place for people to hang out and chat. Yes it is at its heart a community. But, and this is the important bit, it is also now a LEGAL ENTITY that aims to speak on behalf of game dev in SA. As people we can bicker and argue, but as the entity - so in announced threads, as committee members, and in dealings with the community and the public - we should be striving for professionalism.
No one involved in games in SA can afford to step out of this forum. As long as the entity that is MGSA speaks for us all, it can not be a personal playground for stronger personalities, it is no longer a legacy chat board. And people who are in authority have the RESPONSIBILITY to conduct themselves professionally when acting in this arena.
To insist that everything must be tarred with the broadest possible context that it was posted in means that all one needs to do in order to completely stifle any information being disseminated by MGSA is to begin an argument in the thread that holds that information. It doesn't matter how valid or specious the argument, merely that the existence of one is enough to present a veneer of polarisation and thus, we of the MGSA cannot be affiliated with it for fear of looking unprofessional/being biased/encouraging conflict/picking sides.
I'm sorry, but as a rational human being and strong believer in the power of objective analysis whenever possible, I must reject this idea wholeheartedly. To do anything less would be to be complicit in the creation of a culture ruled by conflict-mongers and negativity. While I can see how @hanli believes that these measures are designed to prevent conflict based on her feelings against "strong personalities", they fail because they don't present a paradigm for ending or even better, transcending conflict and turning the outputs of even controversial threads into useful material.
In short: If the only thing wrong with my post was that I posted it, we badly need new criteria to judge wrongness.
I mean, someone who wants to be a game programmer might be someone who wants to program gameplay, in which case I think we'd all agree that writing an engine is a really long-winded way of doing it because it'd take forever before any gameplay code/design actually gets written. Programming gameplay is pretty much the same thing as doing iterative game design, and then you want to do your iteration as quickly as possible, like using one of the ready-made engines. Learning C++ can't hurt, except that game design and gameplay are things that are language agnostic, and you might as well learn whatever allows you to bang prototypes out asap (including paper, sticks and stones). If there are languages that allow you to code faster, then I don't think there's any reason not to use them. There are people who really enjoy the experience of creating something that "feels" great, engaging, deep.
On the other hand, someone who writes a game engine from the ground up is also a "game programmer", but is something more like a software engineer (according to my understanding as someone who isn't a programmer. Sorry if I offend anyone for using the wrong term). In which case learning C++ and DX/OGL is the way to go about it, right? Playing with other engines is super helpful for learning how engines actually work and how other people (probably far more experienced) went about doing stuff, but at the end of the day, your C++, managing memory, and all the low-level stuff are pretty much core, fundamental skills. And there are people who actually really enjoy doing this too, eking out an extra 10ms saving, or being able to draw an extra 10,000 triangles per frame, or whatever it is. What results may not actually be a game, never mind an engaging one... but if this game programmer doesn't care, then hey, I don't either.
Is this something we all agree with?
--
We're all really bright. And we're not malicious. And we're doing what we feel is best for growing a game community, whether it's trying to get people to learn things in the most optimal manner, or providing support, or wanting to step in when we believe someone is spreading incorrect information, or just trying to figure out what the right response is for when this pops up in future.
And given that, I think I empathise with pretty much everyone. Which sounds like fence-sitting, but I think it really isn't: in terms of advice for beginner programmers, from where I'm standing, I kinda think you actually believe the same thing... (And I can explain that if you want, but just not right now, because it's really late I don't have the energy for it.)
But I'm all for our figuring this out, finding agreement, and posting it in the FAQ, and just link to that in future, and not have things explode the way they have the next time something like this comes up. :)
I hazard that a better system for doing that could be put in place: Perhaps a "I nominate content X for resource thread Y because reasons" thread or even just that form of response in the originating thread itself. That would give people a chance to consider the value in something without content promotion being seen as a political move. It also helps change the tone of discussions that have moved more towards destructive arguments and re-focuses debate on useful topics/ideas that are usually the first things to be ignored when discussion turns from progress-driven to winning vs losing.
Plus, it is rather unreasonable to expect a single thread to stay on a single topic for long. People will bring up other points and arguments, sometimes those will be engaged with. The only real problem is when it's not obvious which argument/point a reply is addressing. As I quoted the comment I was responding to in the original post that spawned this thread (and note how we're not talking about that information in said post right now, which is totally ok) I don't think it was confusing as to what I was addressing at all. This is along the lines of what I was trying to start from in that thread. I was moving towards a rather specific point though: That starting with a non-technical mindset doesn't exclude technically minded potential game programmers, they just advance to their technical niches "faster" - with more understanding of engines, like you mentioned; Starting with a technical mindset for gameplay-centric potential game programmers is incredibly destructive for them and they're unlikely to progress at all, dropping out relatively predictably.
Given that it's hard to impossible to accurately determine which type of game programmer someone interested in game development actually is, it makes the most sense to start with the focus that is, at the very least, not destructive to an entire type of programmer. I believe that the discussion in question would have gotten to the point where we were actually talking about this rather than flaming each other eventually... It simply takes patience to move beyond the point where people are defending specific anecdotal experiences and a lot of attempts to ask questions and normalise/clarify.
You've seen this happen yourself numerous times on Game.Dev. All we need to do is remind each other that we're not actually being malicious and/or intentionally evil. Eventually that message breaks through, despite how poorly "strong personalities" are perceived by some. Speaking of... I'm sorry @hanli, but you have yet to actually respond to what you considered unprofessional in my posting. I don't think it's fair to leave that sort of accusation hanging if that's not what you actually meant.
I must also point out that as MakeGames Committee Members, we are accountable to the MGSA members who voted for us because it is they we represent. If they consider us to be in bad faith or poor representatives due to how we conduct ourselves, they simply won't re-nominate/elect us at the upcoming AGM. Unless I misunderstand you, I don't feel that the judgement of conduct you've been doing is helpful to what MGSA elected us to do because I'm not seeing any suggestions from you on how people should behave instead: All I see right now is admonitions to stop talking... Which is why I'm asking you for clarification on certain remarks.
Were these boards anonymous and the 5 factors were posted I don't believe there would have been anything near the outcry that there was. Or if I posted them to Dev.Mag, right after they were posted on the forums, would there have been such a response that Dev.Mag was taking sides?
I don't know if that is possible, like you mention I don't think anybody has time for that. I suggest we learn from our experience and maybe come up with a plan that will benefit the majority of the community(you can never please everyone) going forward.
[quote = dislekcia]I contend that if there's any valuable information in a post then that information is useful immediately and not after some arbitrary time limit.[/quote]
My problem was timing...not time elapsed. People weren't given enough time to digest the information and process it as good or bad advice. This is my opinion mind you...
[quote = dislekcia]I hazard that a better system for doing that could be put in place: Perhaps a "I nominate content X for resource thread Y because reasons" thread or even just that form of response in the originating thread itself. That would give people a chance to consider the value in something without content promotion being seen as a political move.[/quote]
I would support this. Definitely worth a trying the next opportunity we get. :)
[quote = dislekcia]Plus, it is rather unreasonable to expect a single thread to stay on a single topic for long.[/quote]
I agree. And usually this isn't a problem. The issue I took with the thread was that I didn't see how it was constructive to the member that posted the thread. Established members were addressing each other and in no way correlating the issues back to what the original poster was asking. It might have lead to something good in the future, but I couldn't see how. I was content to see it play out but for some reason I'm not aware of it was locked.
[quote = dislekcia]Speaking of... I'm sorry @hanli, but you have yet to actually respond to what you considered unprofessional in my posting. I don't think it's fair to leave that sort of accusation hanging if that's not what you actually meant.[/quote]
The accusation doesn't make sense. The post itself was not called unprofessional. It is the manner in which it was moved to an "official" thread without the issue being settled yet. I realize that you had no control over this. Also, the suggestion you made should probably help with this not happening again in the future. @hanli, please correct me if I'm seeing this wrong.
[quote = dislekcia]Given that it's hard to impossible to accurately determine which type of game programmer someone interested in game development actually is, it makes the most sense to start with the focus that is, at the very least, not destructive to an entire type of programmer.[/quote]
I know you like to ask questions, so I suggest that we do more of that. A person new to game development usually doesn't have the vocabulary to describe exactly what they want to do. If we ask enough questions give examples of types of work that we think they are talking about and eventually get to what they are most interested in we can give GREAT advice instead of good advice. I know this takes a lot more effort but I'm willing to do the extra work to nurture an informative AND supportive community, and I believe you and everybody else are as well.
[quote = karuji]Or if I posted them to Dev.Mag, right after they were posted on the forums, would there have been such a response that Dev.Mag was taking sides?[/quote]
There wouldn't have been, because Dev.Mag is an entity on it's own if I'm not mistaken. As far as the information only being useful after a certain point...that is not the issue. The information is useful. The moving/elevation of the information to an "official" thread was badly timed.
Edit : added repsonse to @karuji
If he doesn't know, or if he's not certain, then I agree that C++ isn't a good idea if he's not sure what his goals are. Playing with a whole lot of different stuff, including making lots of tiny, tiny games, using different engines, different media, different languages (which might well involve C++) is much better. (And if he chooses to do pure C++ anyway, even though he wants to program gameplay, then hopefully we've dealt it in a positive way, where we're the people he turns to when he hits a brick wall.)
--
I don't know how useful it actually is to try and break down what went on. But apparently I have the time -- for a change! -- and maybe we'll learn to see things from someone else's view?
I think a lot of people believed that Danny and Evan were harping on about something well after Fanie'd already made clear his intentions, and they felt this kind of apparently zealotry was super horrible.
The thing is, I think if it were just a conversation between them and Fanie, it would have been a much shorter conversation. If he wanted to program gameplay starting with C++ (I'm still not certain what his goal actually is, by the way), and was adamant he wanted to despite their initial advice, I think they would have shrugged their shoulders, maybe facepalmed, and left the issue well alone.
I think the problem was more to do with some of the other advice that was given -- advice from unqualified sources giving what would really be bad advice for someone who wanted to be a gameplay programmer. I mean, if someone went around telling wannabe artists that they should totally learn to model before they learn 3D form ("Because hey, that's what I did, and it's worked for me!"), I'd feel compelled to step in and wave a giant red flag, and ask to see their work, and their portfolio, and which studio/game they're working at/on, and how long it's taken them to get there (i.e. "What does it mean for it to have 'worked for you'?". It'd be completely against not only the advice that I'd normally give, but against the advice of every professional game artist I've ever met, both IRL and online, from indie to AAA. And when I say that pushing vertices around before learning art is a foolish thing to do, my intention isn't to be calling the OP foolish: I'd be trying really hard to justify why my advice is the one that's better to take, because it's consistent with that of the professional game art community (of which I'm a part), and that the other person's advice is singular, and comes from someone who has no actual professional game art experience. I don't think I could stop myself from doing this either, because SOMEBODY IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET.
And that kind of thing has to happen, because if future lurkers of the forum read the posts, they might think that the advice should be treated equally, without knowing that one comes from a place of countless peoples' successes, while the other comes from a place of relative inexperience. Yeah, maybe it becomes a dick-measuring contest. But I do think it's the responsibility of those with more experience to step in when we see people giving bad advice.
On the other hand, as another observer, I might have stepped in and seen the other me being vehement about how stupid it'd be to be focusing on learning software instead of being an artist when learning to be a game artist, and seen that as an attack on the OP. Or that he was so passionate about his argument that I felt he was going to scare the OP away. I would be compelled to step in, and remind other-me to check his tone. I don't think I could stop myself from doing this either, because OTHER-ME IS TOTALLY EMBARRASSING/MISREPRESENTING US.
So in different contexts, I think I'd have ended up being in both camps.
I'm not a robot who can perfectly separate the logical content of a post from the context/perceived-emotion/diction. And I don't think I always say what I mean either. I hate that about language. I look back at old posts, like where Hanli and I had a bit of a spat, and while my belief hasn't changed at all, I can see how the way I'd said it actually diluted the point I meant to make. (What I meant to say was "Education is what you make of it, so realise the weaknesses in your method of learning and make an effort to patch them up", but what it came out as was "Schools are useless", which is both untrue and not what I meant to say.)
If what I say is likely to cause some kind of rift, or be taken in the wrong way, I'd also appreciate it if the people who correct me do in a PM, or do so humbly, without accusing me of being some kind of dictator, because that doesn't exactly help when someone who's trying to correct me does so condescendingly.
I don't want to feel censored. And things I say can blow up in my face. And I can let them blow up, and let them continue blowing up, until it subsides, and we finally come to realise what we actually meant, and not what we thought we meant. And we may mature from it or something. But it's also the kind of thing that can make people (both those involved and spectators) just walk away, throw their hands up in disgust and not return. It happens on forums all the time. Forums suck.
The difference is that I don't think we can afford to lose anyone with a community as young as ours.
By the way, those 5 points are things that I think are awesome, and following them has paid off for me. :)
Rigormortis wrote:
"The accusation doesn't make sense. The post itself was not called unprofessional. It is the manner in which it was moved to an "official" thread without the issue being settled yet. I realize that you had no control over this. Also, the suggestion you made should probably help with this not happening again in the future. @hanli, please correct me if I'm seeing this wrong"
That addresses my point extremely well.
@dislekcia
Dislekcia wrote:
"Unless I misunderstand you, I don't feel that the judgement of conduct you've been doing is helpful to what MGSA elected us to do because I'm not seeing any suggestions from you on how people should behave instead: All I see right now is admonitions to stop talking... Which is why I'm asking you for clarification on certain remarks."
This is something we have discussed many times, in the forums, individually, and in committee meetings. This is not about 'censorship' (the word you used in the last meeting in which it was discussed). It is about putting through an opinion, advice, critique, in a measured tone. We are not in a position to judge other peoples credentials, reply before we hear someone out, or write off dissenting opinions because they don't apply to us. It's not about not speaking our minds, not interacting, or not giving advice. It is about acting responsibly, speaking kindly, and behaving professionally when we do speak our minds and give advice. Those ARE my suggestions.
MGSA elected us to represent the organisation. I simply want us to do so well, and present it in the best possible light. I believe that this should be as supportive, helpful, inclusive and reasonable.
But that isn't to say I don't believe this particular subject is incredibly important. I think aspiring game developers need the best information they can get, those that ask questions here and those that are passively reading these forums (if they're judging our behaviour then they're also reading our information).
I think that after a time, and when the dust is settled, the OP here could be moved again to the NewComer thread. I think it's a genuinely useful piece of advice.
Also, I can think of at least one other factor I'd like to add (like optimizing "Feedback").
Anyone else have other suggestions for it?
I like that idea.
The first thing it should say though is "What are you trying to achieve?" then split the advise into streams based on the desired result. So - I am primarily interested in game play - answer 1, I am primarily interested in software - answer 2, I don't know what I'm interested in - answer 3. (answer 3 will be the hard one)
If everyone is prepared to work on it together, and to construct it as a holistic, reasonable, document it could be very useful.
It may also be good to start these as discussion threads first - then move them into the FAQ when consensus is reached. As you noted, it is really important to represent both sides, as neutrally as possible. That way it could be referred to, without needing to rehash it and get sidetracked by arguments.
The point is to acknowledge difference, see value in different approaches, and tailor advise to individuals, based on their own needs. So when someone says "help me with X" we can respond with "go read that first, and decide if that is what you really want." If they say "ah, great point, I thought I wanted X, but I actually meant Y" that's great, Y experts step in. If they say, "thanks but I really want X" then allow people interested in X to handle it.
@BlackShipsFilltheSky Optimising Feedback should definitely be there. And yes, this should be moved into the newcomer section again later - maybe we should look at restructuring the newcomer section though? Having several smaller sections rather than a single thread? Not sure...
I welcome criticism that engages with what I wrote and/or the reasons I gave for writing them. Right now I'm getting the impression that some of us are apparently just blanket not supportive, helpful, inclusive or reasonable. I would like to know where I'm failing those things in particular in order to do better next time. Right now it's the vagueness of the solutions that makes things feel like general censorship because it's not clear what the problem actually is. And that is exactly how the Starting game programming thread went. At first. Then the discussion moved. That happens too... The real issue was that apparently people were judged as not sufficiently expert in something to comment about it. Facts and reality were both flagrantly ignored because people got upset. There are very definite ways to handle this sort of thing, holding that both sides of a misunderstanding are valid arguments based on the emotions of their proponents is not one of them.
I have continuously tried to present a framework to help keep those sorts of debates more reasonable, the major factor is how we as a community respond to them (because individuals will get upset sometimes, that's just a fact of life) if we choose to purposefully engage only with helpful content, we'll get more helpful content. If we encourage reasonable argument and rational discussion, we'll get more of that. That means we will have to wade through unreasonable arguments, looking for the nuggets of awesome to hold up and say "Hey, this is cool, talk about this more, ok?". I don't see how a time-limit on when things can be useful helps either of those situations.
And I guess I just try to be more robotic. At least in terms of trying to constantly re-state what it was I was trying to say in different ways, depending how someone misunderstood the first time. That needs people to meet me halfway, just like I'm trying to meet them.
So I echo the below: Or to score points. Or "win" an argument. I don't care about any of those things, because I'm trying to get to "and we finally come to realise what we actually meant, and not what we thought we meant. And we may mature from it or something" faster.
And if I'm making incorrect assumptions, tell me! If my facts are wrong, tell me! But don't tell me I'm being a dictator or browbeating someone or attacking you with rhetorical arguments. Don't be vaguely upset in theory at something like "tone" as though you can glean verbal emphasis from text. That doesn't help anyone. I think that we should always be prepared to look at our consequences and re-evaluate our use to the goals of the community. If my involvement in MGSA is nothing but detrimental, I'll be the first to walk away. Conversely, if anyone is trolling the forums or trying to capitalise on MGSA's reputation in a predatory way, I'll be the first to call for their censure.
Can we put them in the FAQ now?
What exactly do you feel has been censored. I'm not sure I understand what you are referring to.
[quote = dislekcia]I don't see how a time-limit on when things can be useful helps either of those situations.[/quote]
What do you mean by time limit? I get the feeling we are talking past each other here.
[quote = Aequitas]So everyone seems to think those points are good.
Can we put them in the FAQ now?[/quote]
Depends...anyone want to try out the solution @dislekcia suggested and hold a sort of a voting that everyone in the community can respond to?
(Apparently I only discovered the quote functionality in this thread :()
That feeling, which I have spoken to @hanli about before, is not helpful. It must have reminded her of a discussion we had previously where I called certain kinds of forum policies "censorship". The time-limit concept is one of those... Apparently everyone seems to think that the original content @BlackShipsFilltheSky copied into the FAQ thread should actually be in the FAQ thread. I don't think it's OK that the reason it wasn't considered acceptable before was due to assumed politicking on @BlackShipsFilltheSky's part. If the timing of a post being recognised as useful information is enough to get it removed from the pile of useful information, despite the information not actually changing (because there have been no suggested changes), then there must be some sort of time-limit after which posts are magically OK again.
I do not think this is a good forum policy, for multiple reasons that I have laid out above. Does that make more sense now?
So the way something like this should have played out in my head is as follows:
1) Some thread starts a discussion that leads to an "unreasonable argument"
2) A person posts some useful information in the thread that has evolved out of the argument.
3) People ignore the useful information while they keep ranting some more(because let's face it, we like to voice our opinions :P).
4) People engage with the useful information and each other and agree that it's useful.
5) Somebody moves the useful information to a place where it can be easily referenced/found for future members.
The way I see it, step 4 was skipped. I feel this is the most important part, because this is the part that growth and understanding occurs. But if you skip the step all the people that haven't had a chance to get closure yet might feel like someone is saying : "You, stop talking". Does that make sense?
I think the lesson we should take away from both the thread and the issue that spawned this thread is that it's easy to have misunderstandings. Emotions can quickly get in the way of rational thought because all of us are so passionate about the community and making games. I don't think we should stop having these "unreasonable arguments", because in the long run they will probably benefit the community, but we shouldn't do it at the cost of fracturing or breaking the community.
If something is bad advice people should feel free to voice their concern. We shouldn't propagate bad advice for the sake of sparing someones feelings, but we must also keep in mind that their is a person at the other end of that anonymous avatar with their own insecurities and vulnerabilities and we should treat each other with respect and empathy.
I don't know if what I said is helpful...but it's what I can offer.
I am at a loss as to why that is such a terrible request.
Calling for reasonable, professional behavior is all well and good, but if you don't point out what isn't reasonable or professional, you run the risk of being seen as simply calling everything someone posts useless - especially after repeated requests for clarification. Suffice to say that your expectations of reasonable professionalism seem to allow some rather nasty things to be assumed about other people regarding their motives and desired outcomes. I don't think anyone here should have to worry about being labeled manipulative for responding to a post they thought was useful, nor should we as a community ever assume that someone's post be meant in anything but the most positive light, to do anything less is a disservice to all of us.
Arguments and disagreements will happen on a forum, that's part of what a forum is all about. They need to run their course so that emotional issues don't fester AND they need to be dealt with through recourse to information when things "go bad" so that people can air and understand the assumptions being made. Setting up a culture of conflict avoidance and elevating opinions to fallacious "equality" over and above available information and logic only makes inevitable clashes of opinion horrible events that rattle all the friendly neighbors, instead of harnessing them into useful minor misunderstandings that help us all get along better.