Fascist
Game Design
The basic gist of the discussion
was which approach to design works best: one person with a strong vision
and the clout to make it happen (fascism), or a group of people who
achieve consensus (communism). In the moderator's opinion, each approach
has advantages and disadvantages.
The moderator would like to point out that the roundtable topic was
chosen because of the passion it engenders on both sides of the debate.
Because of this controversy, it was an invigorating discussion for those
who participated. Facilitating such a controlled argument requires focus
and diligence, which made it difficult to take comprehensive notes during
the session. Hopefully, the following will suffice.
Note that counterpoints are provided for discussion points whenever
they were provided by another attendee. These counterpoints are written
in italics for ease of reference.
Wednesday, May 6, 11:30am
Demographics
The room was overflowing with attendees, thanks in part to the time
slot. About 50% called themselves designers, 25% were programmers, and
the rest were producers and the elusive "other".
Those in favor of fascism...
The following points were made in favor of a "fascist" approach.
- Someone has to be the final arbiter
- better it's a designer than a producer or publisher! Needless
to say, this caused a few moans from the producers and publishers
in attendance...
- Fascism works if the dictator is
a channel for ideas, not the sole source of them. This is especially
true during the production phase, when the designer has to weigh
new ideas against the original vision for the game.
- People on large teams (the norm
today) generally like to know who's in charge. They like making
suggestions, but take comfort in knowing someone is the shepherd
for the design.
- With communism, people avoid decisions
- consensus is required for everything.
And those in favor of
communism...
The following points were made in favor of a "communist" approach.
- Fascism has a tendency to crush
creativity and/or buy-in. If a person constantly has their ideas
rejected, they'll stop making suggestions altogether. This can be
mitigated to a degree by the designer making it a point to tell
people why their ideas don't work. If it's largely one person's
opinion vs. another, though, the designer must take charge and simply
make a decision.
- People tend to ignore fascists and
do what they want anyway - which hurts the game in the end.
- You get consensus from day one,
from everyone involved. But it takes longer to reach it...
- Once you have buy-in, people tend
to think broader than just their discipline. The programmer will
consider design implications to code changes, and the designer will
reciprocate.
Things that make the moderator go "Hmmm"
These points were interesting to the moderator because they had not
been considered prior to the roundtable.
- Perhaps different models should
be used during pre-production and production. Enlightened Fascism
may work best during production, but you need the consensus of Communism
for the "green light".
Which is better?
The overwhelming majority were in favor of a benevolent dictatorship.
Thursday, May 7, 10:00am
Demographics
There were a large number of programmers in attendance, considering
the time of day - which overall contributed to a smaller crowd. Most
considered themselves designers/programmers, though, which is also notable.
Those in favor of fascism...
The following points were made in favor of a "fascist" approach.
- Dictatorships are very efficient.
- Communism prevents decisive action.
But also prevents poor decisions...
- "Vision" issues are best left to
one final arbiter. But technical issues are solved better by groups.
- Design by committee yields watered-down,
least-common-denominator products. Or does it yield products that
appeal to a broader scope?
And those in favor of communism...
The following points were made in favor of a "communist" approach.
- Fascism results in far more turnover
than fascism. Whether the game is a success or failure, people tend
to leave in droves (seeking creative freedom/control) after the
project is complete.
- Under fascism, information flow
is restricted - only the dictator has the vision. Everyone else
has to ask them what to do, so they become a bottleneck of sorts.
Things that make the moderator go "Hmmm"
These points were interesting to the moderator because they had not
been considered prior to the roundtable.
- Will one method work better/worse
at a developer vs. at a publisher?
- There are companies that were founded
by a creative person who do not suffer from that person going around
mucking with the creative process (usurping control from the designer).
Really? Wow...
Which is better?
Fascism wins against the committee once again. This was interesting
because "pure" designers were outnumbered in this group. Apparently,
those in attendance had poor experiences with "design by committee"
scenarios.
Friday, May 8, 5:00pm
Demographics
The room was about half full for the first 5 minutes or so, as expected
given the time period. Surprisingly, though, by 10 minutes into it about
3/4 of the seats were occupied. Again, the majority of attendees were
designers, with the rest being producers and programmers.
Those in favor of fascism...
The following points were made in favor of a "fascist" approach.
- If one examines the biggest blockbuster
games, few (if any) come from communism. That depends on how communism
is defined - what about a small group in charge (junta?).
- Only a fascist can maintain a coherent
vision for a game. But how many times does the narrow focus of one
individual exclude appeal of the product to tertiary markets?
- Lots of people like fascism because
it allows them to shirk responsibility ("Hey, it's not my fault
- blame the designer!"). And this is a good thing???
And those in favor of communism...
The following points were made in favor of a "communist" approach.
- There are decisions broader than
the team, so it has to be communistic. But marketing should not
be dictating design. Rather, they should be consulted during the
design process.
- Don't underestimate the value of
having complete "buy-in" throughout a game's development. EA has
proven the value of getting marketing excited about a product early
on.
- Communist teams/companies have higher
morale overall. Yeah, until the game flops!
Things that make the moderator go "Hmmm"
These points were interesting to the moderator because they had not
been considered prior to the roundtable.
- It is especially problematic when
there are two Kings. For example, in a developer-publisher relationship
where the Development Producer and Publisher Producer are vying
for control.
- What about democracy as a model?
A democracy requires an entire team up-front (not usual) and a vote
on everything of importance (not feasible).
Which is better?
Enlightened Fascism won out again, but there were several notable votes
for a more communistic approach.
