Our Properties: Gamasutra GameCareerGuide IndieGames Indie Royale GDC IGF Game Developer Magazine GAO
My Message close
Contents
Game Dev Collaboration: Google Docs Style
 
 
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
 
Latest News
spacer View All spacer
 
February 9, 2012
 
DICE 2012: The five keys to Rocksteady's Batman success [2]
 
What Nintendo's 2011 sales mean for Wii U, third parties [10]
 
Road to the IGF: Alexander Bruce's Antichamber
spacer
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
February 9, 2012
 
Nickelodeon Animation Studios
Lead Pipeline/Database Engineer
 
CCP - North America
Level Design Director
 
Disney Interactive Media Group
Software Engineer
 
Disney Interactive Media Group
Senior Software Engineer for Disney
 
LOLapps
Game Designer for Popular Social Games
 
Quantic Dream
Quality Assurance Manager
spacer
Latest Features
spacer View All spacer
 
February 9, 2012
 
arrow Principles of an Indie Game Bottom Feeder [12]
 
arrow Postmortem: CyberConnect 2's Solatorobo: Red the Hunter [1]
 
arrow Jerked Around by the Magic Circle - Clearing the Air Ten Years Later [34]
 
arrow Building the World of Reckoning [4]
 
arrow SPONSORED FEATURE: TwitchTV - How to Build Community Around Your Game in 2012 [13]
 
arrow Happy Action, Happy Developer: Tim Schafer on Reimagining Double Fine [9]
 
arrow Building an iOS Hit: Phase 1 [11]
 
arrow Postmortem: Appy Entertainment's SpellCraft School of Magic [5]
spacer
Latest Blogs
spacer View All     Post     RSS spacer
 
February 9, 2012
 
Double Fine's Kickstarter Windfall: Will Patronage Supplant Traditional Game Publishing? [4]
 
The Principles of Game Monetization
 
Did DoubleFine Just break the publishing model for good? [3]
 
The Devil Is in the Details of Action RPGs - Part One: The Logistics of Loot [4]
 
Xbox LIVE Indie Games at it Again
spacer
About
spacer Editor-In-Chief/News Director:
Kris Graft
Features Director:
Christian Nutt
Senior Contributing Editor:
Brandon Sheffield
News Editors:
Frank Cifaldi, Tom Curtis, Mike Rose, Eric Caoili, Kris Graft
Editors-At-Large:
Leigh Alexander, Chris Morris
Advertising:
Jennifer Sulik
Recruitment:
Gina Gross
 
Feature Submissions
 
Comment Guidelines
Sponsor
Features
  Game Dev Collaboration: Google Docs Style
by Chris Oltyan [Business, Game Design, Production]
15 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
September 2, 2010 Article Start Page 1 of 3 Next
 

[Unsure if Google Docs is the right way to manage online collaboration with your video game team? Game industry veteran Chris Oltyan takes a hard look at its strengths and weaknesses, offering examples, praise, and criticism.]

It was 10 PM and my eyes were blurry. I was at home keeping company with a wracking cough and pounding headache, trying to give the team the information they needed to finish an essential milestone.


We had been keeping a wiki somewhat up to date, but now, when it mattered the most, there wasn't enough detail to knock out the final game systems. As I painfully slogged through updating and submitting HTML while talking the team through desired functionality on my cell, I screamed to the gods, "There must be a better way!"

Almost everyone I know who has been a producer in the industry has a story similar to the one above. wikis, design docs, or interpretive dances are made at the beginning of a project, and, by the second day of development, are hopelessly out of date.

Over the years I've dabbled in every bit of tech buzzwordery I could. At the end of it, I settled on online collaborative tools to help solve the pain and suffering that come from out-of-date docs of dubious freshness.

My Brief History of Collaborative Tools

When I started my own studio in 2002, we had a very process-oriented CTO. He insisted that, before we even finished forming the company, we establish some baseline norms. We had a file naming convention that insured proper versioning and easy sorting, and a directory structure for projects that we kept to meticulously.

We used Word for our docs -- everyone else did too -- and even had nifty document templates that allowed for easy identification and automatically noted who last updated them. All in all, it was probably the best document system I've ever been a part of. It lasted all of two weeks in production before it became impossible to identify the latest design doc.

The system was solid, but it just couldn't keep up with how quickly we moved. Soon, we just gave up, and tried to keep a running conversation on what was expected. While we were small enough for this to work most of the time (five people in the same 15-by-20 room makes it easy to know what other people are thinking.)

Of course, this broke down completely when we got more people involved, and specifically when we had to expand to two rooms. The second that the running conversation had to loop in additional people, we were unable to keep up with the shifting changes in the project.

The next time I was at a company and we had a chance to do something different, I offered up using SVN for design docs. After all, it worked great for code; it must work for docs, too! Those who have tried this method, go on and skip ahead. You don't need to relive the horror.

What is the horror, you may ask? I have one SVN command for you: "SVN lock". It allowed us to prevent collisions in files, and made sure the version we saw was up to date, but practically guaranteed that someone on vacation or offsite had left the file locked, requiring a new version with a different file name. After a few months of this, you'll be right back with me in 2002, saving out different file names for every doc, with half of them actually more up-to-date than what you are working on right now.

Another day, another company, and this time we were going to wiki the problem to death. A recent Gamasutra article on wikis tells us that these things can be useful, and work to make them even more relevant continues onward.

In the IGDA Production mailing list, there was a recent post about how wikis with the best intentions still fall out of date frighteningly fast. Regardless of the flavor of wiki you try, they are generally powerful, flexible, and impossible to manage -- unless you have someone who is an expert in house.

If you didn't have a good awareness of it before, you will amaze yourself at the power of your own entropic force when it comes to a wiki. With the information just a little out of date, you will create just enough incentive for your team to abandon the wiki and just move to a quick conversation on changes.

 
Article Start Page 1 of 3 Next
 
Comments

Maks Teper
profile image
Google docs was really a great tool for our work. Creating concept docs was never that easy - we loved it. But now we're using google wave as a primary creativity tool - and it works great!

Jonathan Jennings
profile image
Absolutely excellent article chris, the fact you provided a ton of information, kept it interesting and provided us with numerous examples to play with was amazing. this is the best blog post I have read thus far and It is an excellent demonstration of the capabilities of Google docs.

Ichiro Lambe
profile image
I like(d) Wave for its realtime collaboration. One of my favorite planning tools is to have a small group simply start spouting off-the-cuff questions into a Wave, pick out the important ones, then iterate on answers. If I understand correctly, Google Docs is now pretty speedy and can handle that collaboration too.

I would also like to go on record as saying that the article's author pioneered the almost-meme "Penis Cat" at PAX East 2010.

Darius Kazemi
profile image
I second Ichiro's going-on-record.

Jonathan Hartley
profile image
Hey, Thanks for a great article!

Perhaps using conventional source code control tools would have more mileage in this scenario if you didn't use file locking. Normal useage of SVN does not require locking files. Such a mode of working is specifically discouraged, in fact. (personally, I've never locked a file in SVN in my life, nor seen one locked by anyone else)

As you know, for best benefit when using source code control, you're better off using formats that can be diffed and merged, which means plain text or something not too far from it. HTML is too cumbersome for humans to be wrestling with. Instead, I like any one of the lightweight human-readable markups, such as RestructuredText or MarkDown. (e.g. a section heading is just a line of text by itself, with a line of minus characters underneath.) Some automated ten line script can convert these documents into styled HTML or glossy PDFs on checkin, if that's even required.

For what it's worth, I really love using RestructuredText for my presentations too. A nifty script called 'rst2s5' converts these lightweight text files into a glossy styled presentation viewable in any javascript-enabled browser. This means I can concentrate on the content of my presentation, and the few words that will go on my slides, rather than having to fuss over the layout or appearance in a wysiwyg application.

Of course, when you add binary file formats like images into the mix, then this becomes less effective. Does anyone know of good tools for diffing or merging images that they would recommend?

Also, I'd be interested to hear Chris (and others) opinions about what it is that makes docs less suitable for conventional source code control than code. Are there other reasons other than binary files? Are there different patterns of usage (e.g. more frequent collaborative updates?) I'm having difficulty nailing it down.

Thanks again!

Sean Farrell
profile image
I use git and RestructuredText for my documents and they are checked in with the source code. This has the advantage that when someone pulls a specific version he also gets the correct documentation for THAT version. But we are talking here technical docs for the engine and such, so it really matters what version you are using.

For design documents I use a wiki, but Google Docs does look promising. (Especially since I am using Google Apps for Mail and Calendar...)

Chicken Soup
profile image
Good article, we've just started a wiki... let's hope it goes well..
Maybe google docs will be the next attempt.

Also, obviously no one else here gets that bug in which having a google doc window open for too long (~half hour) causes the cpu to chug a whole core. I was using google docs to keep tabs on my to-do lists and things like that and had to keep closing it :P

Maykel Braz
profile image
Thank you so much for the amazing article. Here, we can see a lot of pros and cons about the tools. I think the wiki is a great tool, but is dificult to get people involved. Maybe i will try the google docs in my next project!

Rob Schatz
profile image
Let's not forget that Msft just put Office docs online. http://office.live.com/ The only draw back is that if you ever want to edit those docs OFFLINE, you'll need to upgrade to Office 2010. Then again, we were all going to do that anyway.

Tim Carter
profile image
Actual writing ability is far more important.

Andrew Dobbs
profile image
I use dropbox plus MS Office. I find Google docs a little slow and the interface and features are not as extensive as Word. Dropbox puts everything online and offers simple version control.

I like gmail, but other than that Google software often doesn't "feel" right to me.

Nicholas Mountford
profile image
Nice article. Which wiki softwares were evaluated?

Maykel Braz
profile image
I like Doku wiki <>, which require less resources and have a lot of usefull plugins.

Sean Farrell
profile image
I think it does not make a difference at what wiki software was used. The thing with wiki is that it is a completely different approach to writing documents than word processors. The strength of wikis are that it is a soup of small bits of information with no rigid organization. You need a proper tag and search system (which all wikis have) and you are way more effective in putting information with nice cross references into the wiki and pulling it back out. (Graphics are a problem, true...) The power comes from the fact that you do not need to think about where to put the information into your design document, you just put it there. (There is WYSIWYG for wikis, too...)

The big downside is that a good number of people don't get how wikis work. If you take a one document approach to writing documents you are wasting your time with a wiki. Google Docs kind of merge the tow worlds, the accessibility of a wiki (being web based) and the writing style of well formed documents. It's not perfect and my preference are still on the wiki side, but I can see how many favor something like Google Docs.

Allen Pestaluky
profile image
Google Docs is great, but for those looking for all the full capability of Microsoft Word (styling, tables, shapes, objects, etc., etc.) Microsoft Live Office is looking extremely promising and is directly competing against Google Docs. Check it out, it's still new, but looking totally awesome so far.


none
 
Comment:
 




UBM Techweb
Game Network
Game Developers Conference | GDC Europe | GDC Online | GDC China | Gamasutra | Game Developer Magazine | Game Advertising Online
Game Career Guide | Independent Games Festival | Indie Royale | IndieGames

Other UBM TechWeb Networks
Business Technology | Business Technology Events | Telecommunications & Communications Providers

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Contact Us | Copyright © UBM TechWeb, All Rights Reserved.