|
There's no doubt about it, for the most part working on games is fun. I've worked as a programmer for companies that had nothing to with games and while the jobs were fulfilling I could have hardly described them as 'fun'. What makes them fun? For me it's the atmosphere. Being around many creative people coming up with a game that others will find fun brings with it a certain bonding that I just haven't seen in the non-game world. We constantly make fun of each other and it's not unknown to throw things at each other in jest. I bought Mark Morris (Introversion's CEO) a plastic shotgun that fires foam darts for a christmas present so now when you go into Introversion's offices you can expect to be fired upon. It's all part of the fun and atmosphere of working for a very creative company and I must admit I like it. Except it's not all fun is it? Sometimes the fun goes wrong and when it does it goes badly wrong. What one person interprets as a harmless jibe another can interpret it as a personal insult and in an environment where this goes on all the time it can easily be overlooked. When this happens resentment builds until finally something blows, often with messy results. In a small company like Introversion this is not so much of an issue because it's not to difficult to notice when one of our ten employees is not engaging with the rest of us but in a team of 30 upwards its too easy for somebody to remain relatively anonymous and brooding. In my experience games companies are not very good at dealing with issues like this because it's not something that we factor into the day to day business of creating games, so leads don't tend to notice when somebody is falling off the rails other then when their productivity begins to falter. Along with this fun culture we have also accidentally fostered a 'game at all costs' culture which means the individual doesn't really matter. You only have to look at the recent arguments created by the IGDA quality of life debacle for evidence of this. The only company I have worked for that appears to put the individual first is Introversion. Last year we were all sent to Italy for a week to do a Myers-Briggs type indicator course. It was a very useful exercise and for those who have been through this particular course, my type was ENFP.I have yet to see how Myers-Briggs can be put to great practical use in the workplace but it does provide something of an insight into dealing with the other developers. I'm not suggesting that every workplace should out their employees through this type of course - I can imagine the cost would be too prohibitive but as an industry we can take more notice of the developers around us and cater to their needs. An example of this is that I can now tell when the lengthy silence one of our introverts descends into at a meeting is not just thinking about a reasoned response but really a silence that means they are unhappy but unable to voice their concerns. This particular issue has come to a head over the last few weeks with an employee of Lionhead Studios suing Microsoft. I am not privy to the details of that case and I am not going to speculate about it here but I do wonder how many more employees are going to end up doing the same thing. Is it a sign that we as an industry need to finally mature beyond the fun into a more corporate atmosphere where employee life and relations while at the workplace are far more regulated? Would this be a bad thing? Or perhaps game development companies are already trying to do this and it's us as developers who need to re-think how we interact with our fellow developers?
|
That being said, adapting a corporate culture isn't exactly the same as growing up. As your studio grows in size, you're going to need more sophisticated tools and methodology, but not the corporate mentality of strict hierarchy and division of responsibilities. I mean, in a typical corporation everybody more or less knows what they're responsible for, which is good, but the mindset is that they're automatically not responsible for anything else, and that can be particularly harmful to game development.
You certainly need to stay sensitive to specific needs of each of your coworkers, and that's not something big companies are good at. Game development is somewhat artistic in nature (regardless of whether we consider games an art form or not), in that people need to use their broadly defined creativity and imagination. This often leads to their workplace needs being a bit quirky. You certainly don't want to put everybody in uniform cubicles. You don't want to prohibit them from hanging posters or personalizing their workstations. You don't want to impose any stupid regulations against your staff having tea together. A few tables with chairs, scattered throughout the office, will do you more good than a fancy conference room. And the day you move your team into an open space is the day you've killed half of their "creative output" beceause of all the noise and lack of privacy.
I've noticed a lot of people have a lot of trouble getting used to formalized methods, such as assigning a task to someone via specialized software rather than by paying them a visit and asking verbally. The sad reality of a large project is that all tasks MUST be accounted for, but that doesn't mean you can cut off personal contact with your colleagues. This is more difficult than both the "small studio" and the "corporate" ways. Metaphorically speaking, you need to adapt the mind of a grownup, but keep the heart of a child. You ARE at work, but it's not the same kind of work you would perform in a bank or factory.
As I understand it, the suit is over discrimination based on sexual orientation. Does the atmosphere of a studio foster the expression of homophobia more than say, a bank? That's an interesting question. On the other hand, I'm not sure homophobia and maturity are the same value. There are "mature" individuals who are homophobic, perhaps out of upbringing and sheer ignorance, or religious belief.
I would personally not like to believe that the game industry is inherently homophobic because of its social structures. I'd like to think, in fact, that with all the creative, open-minded types I've met in my brief time here, that it's better than the norm. Perhaps I'm wrong, but if there's any data on this one way or the other I'd love to see it.
And surely much of that initial impact could be reduced simply by having a word to the various teams involved about having a little tact around the newcomer, until they feel comfortable, and the team has an idea of what this person can and can't "take" so to speak. The reverse should also be done, a new worker should be warned that the environment is a bit raucous, and that anything that gets said needs to be taken with a pinch of salt and if anything others them to just speak up about it.
I know this doesn't prevent all incidents from occurring, some people truly were born without a sense of humour, and some are serious enough about some topics that they have no sense of humour when it comes down to that particular topic. But then some people suffer when they cannot express themselves or share the funny side of something, and feel repressed and burdened and this can be just as bad as someone who feels insulted. (though not so much litigation wise).
As far as I can see it would be best to simply work on minimising the possibility of such issues while retaining the fun and free expression, perhaps have people keep their jokes "in team" to prevent things spilling out to people who won't understand the context or meaning. Perhaps some form of anonymous issue raising that could let upper management note the problems that are occurring and thus take positive steps to prevent the issues spiralling out of control.
I would think these kind of issues could be dealt with by HR when hiring new crew. Finding people that will assimilate into the culture of your studio, be it regimented or open, would be key to avoiding any kinds of issues that may come up.