I generally try to read as many books as I can (ie, in addition to all the magazines, web sites, blogs, etc). And, sitting on crazy long flights to Asia and Europe certainly help with the effort. I didn’t quite make my goal of two books per month, but did manage to bang out 22 books total (certainly a lot better than my gaming action this year (hmm, note to self, check if PSPs function high in the sky ;)
Anyway, here’s what I’ve read over the past year:
So, a bunch of non-profit specific books (gotta keep them IGDA members happy), some game books, some self-help books (the Line of Fire book is a really good tool for improving interview techniques), some general biz and culture books and two books from the ’60s (Understanding Media and Logic of Collective Action (which seem to be written in another language at times)).
Freakonomics and Rebel Sell were particularly insightful with many aha type moments. And, for the ongoing political defense of games, Everything is Bad, Savage Pastimes and a Theory of Fun were particularly helpful.
Top of my 2006 reading wish list is Jesper’s new book, Half-Real: Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds.
A developer buddy sent along this great editorial by software guru Steve McConnell from the March/April 2000 issue of IEEE Software magazine. It is an interesting comparison between process heavy and “commitment” based projects - and their pathological counterparts. Does this sound familiar?
“Commitment-oriented development goes by several names including “hero-oriented development” and “individual empowerment.” Commitment-oriented organizations are characterized by hiring the best possible people, asking them for total commitment to their projects, empowering them with nearly complete autonomy, motivating them to an extreme degree, and then seeing that they work 60, 80, or 100 hours a week until the project is finished.”
This pointer was shared in response to an interview on EA’s use of BuildForge (ie, a cool software process dev tool). It smells badly of cog-in-the-machine development… Or does it?
Everyone talks about the many similarities, and differences, between the game industry and Hollywood — along with the convergence of the two. Many in the industry have a general sense of the way movies are made, the transition from the studio system to project based contracting, the slippery modes of accounting, etc, etc. Given the extent to which so many of us use Hollywood examples and analogies, I thought it wise to do some actual background research/reading.
Luckily enough, I came across the superb book “The Big Picture: The New Logic of Money and Power in Hollywood“. The Big Picture not only goes into great detail on the history of Hollywood, providing interesting morsels of trivialis along the way(eg, the term “blockbuster” comes from the movies that were so popular that the ticket queue went around/over the next street block, or “box-office” comes from the fact that the money made from a money was kept in a box in the office, duh), but parses out the economic, political and social logic behind Hollywood, the global movie industry and films as an art form.
So while the history was certainly informative (eg, who knew it was mainly Walt Disney’s drive to focus on character based IP that would provide for the new/current model that the old studio system would evolve to), it is the exploration of the intersection between the political, social and economic implications. Sadly, when most mainstream media look at the game industry, they are mainly looking at economic impact, the tech or simply the negative social issues… Sadder still, most folks in the industry rarely stop to consider all these aspects as well. Here’s a great section that nails where us in games really fall short (for countless reasons):
“…cynicism notwithstanding, even in terms of their enlightened self-interest, studios require more than just commercially successful projects. In addition to their desire to offer a product that will appeal to financiers, merchandisers, and licensees, studio executives need to preserve and nourish their relationship with the stars, directors, producers, and agents who define the Hollywood community… If studio executives made only films that maximized the amount of money in their clearinghouse, they would do so at the serious risk of losing their standing in that community and, with it, their connection to the people, events, honors, and opportunities that brought them to Hollywood in the first place. …they have concerns that go beyond the economic logic dictated by the balance sheet of the clearinghouse. Their decisions must also take into account a broader if less tangible consideration: the social and political axes of Hollywood.”
Amen.
While I we don’t actually make games at the IGDA, I can certainly sympathize with Matt Sakey’s latest column on developers not playing games as much as they perhaps should.
During 2005 I only played/completed three games: Jade Empire, Psychonauts and Burnout Revenge. I also got through about 50% of Half-Life 2 and dabbled some with a few casual games, various demos, etc.
With work demands and a full fledged family, there just never seems to be enough time to play games (let alone a hundred other really important things that I never find the time for (eg, like a vacation)). Oddly enough, in my role as director of the IGDA, I actually feel guilty that I don’t play more.
On the upside, my son (who is turning three at the end of the month) said he wanted a video game for xmas. I must admit, it kinda stunned me when he said it, as I’ve not really played much with him. So, I picked up the Madagascar game (to go along with the DVD, which he also asked for) and a mini-controller to accommodate his small hands. I’m hoping this development will increase my/our play time… A propos, The Escapist ran a whole issue on kid-parent gaming and related topics…
So, how about you? Play more? Play less? Play at all?
