Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
October 21, 2014
arrowPress Releases
October 21, 2014
PR Newswire
View All

If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:

DICE 2010: Naughty Dog's Lemarchand On Why The Studio Has No Producers
DICE 2010: Naughty Dog's Lemarchand On Why The Studio Has No Producers Exclusive
February 18, 2010 | By Brandon Sheffield

February 18, 2010 | By Brandon Sheffield
More: Console/PC, Exclusive

We dont have anyone at all at the studio who has the job title of producer, says Naughty Dogs Richard Lemarchand, co-lead designer of Uncharted 2, speaking at the DICE 2010 Summit in Las Vegas.

Indeed, he says, nobody in the company -- not even its co-presidents -- solely manages people. In fact, one of the co-presidents wrote the network code for the multiplayer aspect of the studio's latest game.

This is because, he claims, "the only way to make a good game is to empower [developers] to organize themselves, empower them to make decisions," and then let them actually do it. "Weve always worked in what could generously be referred to as a loosely structured way," he explains, and the main tenets of Naughty Dog's production methodology come from that principle.

The team begins with preproduction, but there are no conventional deadlines or deliverables expected from it. It's a freeform brainstorming period, during which team members discuss ideas and do previsualization, concept art, and gameplay prototyping.

By the end of preproduction, the the team creates a short spreadsheet, the "macro design" - a list of the game's levels, locations, play mechanics, allies and enemies per stage, and story.

"Macro is something like a master game design document," says Lemarchand, "but its a lot more concrete than any 100 page design document ever written." The macro design document for Uncharted 2 was simply a 70-row-long spreadsheet.

"Don't waste time on details that are going to get changed anyway," urges Lemarchand.

Next, the game rolls into full production and runs more like traditional game development, with levels service as milestones and a certain number of weeks assigned to each area. The microdesign -- that is to say, the nitty gritty design work like level layout and mechanics design -- is usually completed barely ahead of the level schedule, using a "just in time" method.

"This is what I think would scare a lot of producers, but in the reality its how a lot of games get made anyway," Lemarchand points out.

Lemarchand says the studio culture had to be built around this idea, and leads therefore became de facto managers. "Anyone who wants to step up and take responsibility for some aspect of the game is encouraged to do so," he says. Leads might redirect people if their energy is being misspent, but they never slap down the will to get busy.

"It helps us stay very focused on the realities of what were making, in terms of whether the game is fun yet, or whether the assets are up to snuff in terms of quality," says Lemarchand.

At Naughty Dog, the people who control quality are the same people who make the assets, so they're very personally invested in the process. Lemarchand refers to this as a "do-ocracy," in which "individuals choose roles and tasks for themselves, and then execute against them."

The more you take on and feel like doing, the more responsibility you take on, Lemarchand argues.

"People only get formally promoted to a role if they've already been performing in that role for quite some time," he says. This only works if you trust the people youve hired to do what you've hired them to do, because the studio feels that "micromanagement is the enemy of quality."

The final piece of the production puzzle is fosternig a culture of communication. "We encourage everyone in the studio to contribute ideas and constructive criticism to what happens at Naughty Dog," Lemarchand says. Of course, this means people have to be good listeners who are able to keep things professional. If people on the team see something that's broken, the person responsible will get asked about it daily until it's fixed. Those with thin skin will likely not survive under those conditions.

These aspects of company culture don't come from a list of rules, Lemarchand notse. "We get it from the fact that the people at the top of the organization model this idea," he says, and that trickles down all the way to new hires.

The company employs a cross-disciplinary model by which artists and coders sit together to work things out, and that often results in level or mechanics design -- meaning designers have to accept a few missteps or over-written ideas. That brings its own risks.

Throughout the process, team members generate only enough documentation to keep tabs on the state of the game. "We don't have a formalized sign-off process, and we dont always take time to say, 'Let's make sure everyone that needs to be here is in here,'" Lemarchand says. This means people can get left out or have their toes stepped on, so Naughty Dog employees must be able to cope with that.

As a final word of advice, Lemarchand cautioned that production this loose may not work for every studio. But if your games seem clunky or wooden, he says, consider giving more responsibility to the studio's creative staff, particularly the game designers.

"I would encourage you to devolve enough responsibility as possible onto those artisans," he advises. "That is to say, the people actually making the game."

Related Jobs

Trion Redwood City
Trion Redwood City — Redwood City, California, United States

Senior Graphics Engineer
Crystal Dynamics
Crystal Dynamics — Redwood City, California, United States

Audio Lead
Trion Redwood City
Trion Redwood City — Redwood City, California, United States

Senior Network Game Engineer
Cloud Imperium Games
Cloud Imperium Games — Austin, Texas, United States

Server/Backend Programmer


Glenn Storm
profile image
Really neat! This is a great take on a looser organization model. I'd be willing to bet that the added buy-in actually helps to raise job satisfaction, perhaps translating to more loyal staff. This can't be an easy organization model to staff for. I assume the way this works must be taken into account during hiring process. I wonder just how this is brought up to new hires at ND, and when, and how they vet the interviewee for this? Referral hires must be key. Just guessing.

JR Vosovic
profile image
Always a pleasure Rich, good stuff here guys.

Daniel Rodriguez
profile image
A 70 row long spreadsheet? Wow!

luke ward
profile image
Well, I would say this model probably wouldn't work all that well, but looking at ND's games, they got something right.

Glen M
profile image
"That is to say, the people actually making the game."

Save you money on producers as well. Trust your talent.

Jason Hughes
profile image
They only hire the best people. That's why their games are good. The organization probably doesn't matter as much as hiring practices, except in that it promotes those people to work at their top capacity. At least, that's my opinion.

David Fried
profile image
The problem I've found with producers is when they start making calls on what to cut from a game to make the schedule. It's rare that they trust the design, art, or programming team to do it themselves. If you let the development team choose, they will always know what's an easy cut and what they'll work day and night to save because it's critical to the game.

ND has it right. Producers are unnecessary and sometimes very detrimental to the development of a good game.

Lindhart Grant
profile image
sweet! good to see a working form of Anarchism. :)

Dan Fish
profile image
Just because ND have no formal producers doesn't mean no one at ND is producing games. For example, leads are also managers which implies some production responsibility. What's interesting and impressive to me is ND's game development philosophy, management style, and organizational culture.

@Dave Fried - Games are always produced, regardless of whether the job rests with a producer or by committee.

Kellee Santiago
profile image
Richard's talk also didn't really address the fact that there are some terrible quality of life-related issues at ND. The final product is not the only measure of a successful production model. The Uncharted 2 team was pulling 6-7 day weeks at 12+hour per day for over 6 months of the project. To me, that is a failure of process, and indicates that the production model is unsustainable. Before ND encourages other developers to take this approach, they should invest some time into discovering a way to retain what they see are pros of this system, while eliminating some really horrible cons.

Nathan Frost
profile image
Kellee, I wholeheartedly agree that 6-7 day weeks at 12+hour per day for over 6 months of the project is a failure in process -- if the developers involved don't want to work those hours.

If Naughty Dog only hires people who enjoy working at that pace, then that schedule's just a natural expression of their organization's culture.

Of course I'm sure there's a physiologically measurable cost associated with working 6-7 day weeks at 12+hour per day for half a year every project cycle -- possibly with long-term physiological consequences -- but if this is what a group of developers really wants to do, I would see that work-pattern as a success when viewed through that group's values.