News Realms Remove Ads - Go Premium! Sign In or Register

Bluetracker

Tracks Blizzard employees across various accounts.

my belief is that it's difficult for a game team to do great work without looking at their own work in context-- that is, by playing the game. that doesn't mean you have to play it for 1000 hours. but i think it should be part of the workday a few days a week, as a team ritual.

my belief is that it's difficult for a game team to do great work without looking at their own work in context-- that is, by playing the game. that doesn't mean you have to play it for 1000 hours. but i think it should be part of the workday a few days a week, as a team ritual.

  • kchironis
    Posted 4 years ago (Source)
    my belief is that it's difficult for a game team to do great work without looking at their own work in context-- that is, by playing the game. that doesn't mean you have to play it for 1000 hours. but i think it should be part of the workday a few days a week, as a team ritual.

    • Iksar
      Posted 4 years ago (Source)
      @kchironis Do you think this is true for all disciplines or only some? I find it’s easy to make the case for design but less easy for some other roles. Especially on very large teams with very specialized roles.

      • kchironis
        Posted 4 years ago (Source)
        @IksarHS i believe it's important that everyone is playing. if we're talking like third party vendors or outsourcers that do hyperspecialized short term work, i could see an argument for "no," but IMO the benefit comes from broad coverage/familiarity *outside* of design.

        • kchironis
          Posted 4 years ago (Source)
          @IksarHS sometimes too (i suspect riot/blizz are esp bad about this) there can be an ingrained notion that "only design's opinions about the game matter" and i think this helps to counterbalance that. especially if many folks on the team are feeling something en masse.

          • Iksar
            Posted 4 years ago (Source)
            @kchironis A value on Hearthstone we had in the beginning was 'everyone is a designer'. I underestimated how difficult maintaining that value became as the team went from 25 to 40, 50, 75, 100+.

            • kchironis
              Posted 4 years ago (Source)
              @IksarHS hahaha. if you've ever seen Bring It On, i like to say "this is not a democracy, it's a cheerocracy, and design is still head cheerleader." i want everyone's opinions & i want them often. but that doesn't mean everyone is making calls, and it still means you disagree and commit!

              • Iksar
                Posted 4 years ago (Source)
                @kchironis We've tried break down into smaller, multi-discipline groups. I don't think we ever found a way for everyone on the team to feel agency (or even awareness) in conversations they might be passionate about participating in.

                • Iksar
                  Posted 4 years ago (Source)
                  @kchironis The theory is that it feels better to be involved and impactful in the feature you are working on rather than have medium awareness but very little agency in the total game experience.

                  • Iksar
                    Posted 4 years ago (Source)
                    @kchironis Definitely downsides. Helps create mini-teams that really feel like teams, but it further disconnects those teams from the larger group. Can also disconnect people from the real player experience, which is engaging with everything.

                    • kchironis
                      Posted 4 years ago (Source)
                      @IksarHS is this for work or for feedback? if the former, we have something similar-- called "pods." it's a pretty prevalent structure within riot but different teams do it differently. agree it has some upsides and downsides haha

                      • Iksar
                        Posted 4 years ago (Source)
                        @kchironis For work, but they end up related. Teamwide playtests are great for awareness, but reaching back to connect with each of 50+ people for context on their feedback can start to feel unsustainable.

                        • Iksar
                          Posted 4 years ago (Source)
                          @kchironis We read and honestly consider everything, but I understand the sentiment of someone who feels their thoughtful feedback was just being thrown into the void unless there is a resulting conversation.

                          • Iksar
                            Posted 4 years ago (Source)
                            @kchironis Then when compared to giving feedback to your own 'pod'. You have some agency over the choices, there is conversation. Hard for people to feel the desire to go back and give feedback on things outside that pod.

                            • Iksar
                              Posted 4 years ago (Source)
                              @kchironis But again, feedback consumption and discussion is something I think we still do poorly at. In retrospect, we should have spent more time thinking about how to change our feedback process as the team scaled.
Tweet