So as I look out, bleary-eyed, at the huge puffs of steam being vented past our window by the building’s boiler, I’m kind of sorry that moving to a proper office has meant that I can’t just stay at home in the nice warm flat and work from there on frosty days like these. Still, the office itself is warm enough, it’s just the trip to it that means I have to brave the icy conditions.

Just read an interesting article here on longer term planning with the Scrum methodology. Good stuff, but there’s still the big chasm of “how do we get the publisher to sign up to this”. Until the people paying the money are okay with the less detailed milestone definitions that come along with agile planning, there will continue to be issues. It’s all very well running teams on agile internally, but until there is a solid contractual way of satisfying the publisher’s need for security with the developer’s need for flexibility, there will still be problems. At the moment the milestones are defined fully at the start, but it’s a naive producer that doesn’t expect the content of those milestones to change. It’s at the developer’s disadvantage though – the contract states that they are bound to deliver what’s in the milestone list, and if they don’t the publisher is within their rights to cancel the project at their discretion. They generally won’t, but it’s a quick get out if they want it. Even if the publisher and the developer both know that the milestones have become meaningless, when they’re written into the contract it means that there needs to be a re-negotiation to fix them again.

Personally I think it’s far better to start out with a high level statement of intent – that the developer will be working on a particular title for the publisher, and that they will use their best efforts to deliver builds of acceptable quality. The regular delivery of those builds is part of the process, and the method of arbitration as to what is ‘acceptable’ is written into the contract as well. That way the publisher still retains the majority of the power (control over what they deem acceptable), but they can’t use that control to avoid their responsibilities to allow the developer reasonable time to deliver something acceptable.

Well, with the recent furore around Manhunt 2’s omission of certain developers from the credits of a game they clearly developed, the IGDA has put a reminder up about their work on establishing a Game Crediting Guide. It’s a fairly comprehensive guide now, and looking over it I agree with most of the  stipulations within. I could argue that attribution of team roles to individuals is perhaps not necessary (especially when some developers fulfil many roles and so appear in the credits many times), but that’s probably a rare enough case not to worry about.

Proper credits is certainly a real issue though, as it’s a tangible benefit to your team. Being able to point to a good and/or successful title and say “I made that” is of real value for their sense of worth and their career long term. While not being credited isn’t the end of the world, there are enough unscrupulous people that claim credit for the work of others that not being credited when it is due is sufficient cause for doubt on the part of an interviewer.

Credits are, in my experience, usually knocked together at the end of the development process, and not thought about in advance. The list of people is usually drawn up quickly, and if there has been a lot of movement in and out of the team, people can easily be missed. It’s the producers job to maintain a credits list throughout development, detailing who worked on the title and for how long, and it’s not a chore which should be neglected.

Finally, my biggest bug-bear is with the ordering of the credits. I’m sorry, but the publishers, external producers and company management are not the most important people for a game. The director comes first, followed by the core team, and then the less involved parties. It might seem like a good idea to pander to the management or external partners, but you’re selling your team short if you don’t proclaim them loudly to be the most important part of the game.

Interesting post here from Richard Bartle on problems in games industry education and the new games academy that TIGA has been pushing. I agree with most of it, especially the focus on the need for an education, not training. I don’t need people who have worked through a ‘my first game’ tutorial, and it seems like that’s what the computer games courses in the UK provide. The quality of graduate from these courses are rarely better than the wider pool of people who either studied a more traditional course, or who have come from elsewhere in the software industry. I don’t think that’s because the courses are bad at teaching, I just think they are focusing on the wrong things.

What we need are people who has learned the importance of structured programming, or the fundamentals of databases, or any one of a hundred other things that are vital to understanding exactly how to develop software for games. Basically what I need are people who have been educated to the level of a Computer Science degree, but with all of the extraneous parts taken out. Games developers rarely need to know formal proof notation for languages, or details of the electronics behind the hardware on which their software runs. They also need to be aware of the constraints under which they must develop – fixed memory environments, designing algorithms that never take longer than a fraction of a frame to execute, etc. Possibly the hardest thing to learn about games programming is how to make things happen with all of those shiny tools and bloated constructs unavailable.

Of course, my idea of an ideal course for a games developer is probably a bit of a hard sell for universities. After all, if you signed up for a games course, you’d expect to be making games for at least some of it. But the fundamentals of making games are the same fundamentals for all software – it is only when you reach the high-level concepts do ‘games programming’ and ‘regular programming’ diverge.

Nowhere is this more obvious than the field of Artificial Intelligence. I gave up the Artificial Intelligence part of my degree after second year, when it became clear to me that the fields on which it concentrated were not going to help me make games. Neural networks, machine vision, genetic algorithms, knowledge based systems – are all good for cutting edge research programmes, but utterly out of place on even the highest-end hardware for playing games. As such, the AI that you find in games bears little relation to the AI that you would research in a university. Sure, maybe you can build an all-singing all-dancing AI that can respond to your questions and think and act like a real person; but if you can’t make it run in less than 3ms and occupy less than a few hundred kilobytes of memory, then you might as well forget it.

Regardless, it seems that the good people, the ones who shine in their job, are the ones who would do well in games regardless of the course they studied at university. They are the people who make games on their own, who code them in their spare time and learn by doing, not just by being taught. I think there is very much a place for games courses, but they should be far more like Computer Science degrees than vocational courses.

Well, looks like we’ve been outed by the folks over at scottishgames.biz. I think most of the people who find their way to us either knew us in our past lives at VIS, or have been referred to us by word of mouth. There are a few brave and hardy souls who stumble on us via search engines, but they are quickly dispatched and their bodies pillaged for games consoles and cash.

Anyway, I’ve been keeping a relatively low profile until we were more firmly established, but I think there is probably no good time to make a big entrance into the industry, so we might as well stick our heads above the parapet a little. There will be pictures of Pete and I forth-coming, and I will finally get around to updating our About page! The Scottish games industry has seen some high profile losses over recent years, but the blood letting appears to have subsided, and I’m confident we’re on the way back up. Now if we could just persuade the journalists who write for the Scotsman not to keep telling the public how it’s all gone to pot, we might get somewhere.

Aside from that, I’ll be taking advantage of the discount available to Scottish-based developers for the EIF this year (thankfully it’s lost the cumbersome title, although I still preferred just ‘Edinburgh Games Festival’); but we’re a little busy so I’ve decided to miss out on Develop in Brighton this year.

Of course, the end of our second tax year is not nearly so significant a date as the 2 year anniversary of our date of incorporation. But that was yesterday, so I’ve missed it! Gah. In my defence, I was working very hard yesterday, as I was feeling productive. And I still have a wretched viral infection, although I’m not feeling as bad as I was at the weekend, so no celebrating for me. Boo, hiss.

Anyway, here’s a quick link to another new start-up – Power of Two Games, run by Charles Nicolson and Noel Llopis, both of whom post regularly on the game-dev mailing lists and have done some great stuff which we’ve learned from here (not least of which, UnitTest++, a version of which we use at the Company for our own unit testing). All the best to the guys, and it’s great to see that I finally have an office that’s bigger than someone else’s!

This news about the initial sales figures of the Wii amused me more than a little this morning. So far, pretty much all of the launch titles for PS3 have been unimpressive to say the least. I haven’t got my hands on either console yet, but Zelda, Rayman and even Wii Sports are all looking good, and I’ll be out on the 8th to try and pick up a Wii for myself and Pete. If the Wii’s sales momentum keeps up, it will be looking to eclipse the XBox 360’s by sometime next year, but unless some serious fan support (and better production rates) shows up, the PS3 is looking like a poor cousin. I’m wondering how much of a co-incidence the timing of the Gears of War release is – given that its a much more impressive title for the 360 than I’ve seen to date. We shall have to see how it pans out, but I’m sticking by my early bet on Nintendo.

Its been quiet on the posting front recently, mostly because I’ve been working overtime on my contract role, with various planning and build automation things occupying the extra time. But I’m taking some well deserved time back in the home office this week, and tackling the pile of paperwork that has accumulated in my absence. Double curses to the inland revenue now that I have to deal with VAT returns as well as payroll and corporation tax. When the CBI are complaining about the massive tax burden the UK industry is bearing, they’re talking not just about the amount of tax, but the sheer size of the administration required to keep up with all the obscure rules.

We have a winner! Got to love that Potatamoto guy.

Pete and I have been banging our head against tools, makefiles and cross-platform compilation this last week, along with a continuing spree of unit tests. Barco time is sucking up my 9-5 day, but I’ve been working while commuting, and doing paperwork in the evenings. Speaking of which, its time to figure my way round our first VAT return.

Game of the week has to be the Battlefield 2142 demo – big stompy mechs in a combat scenario = much squishing and crunching of bones. Fantastic!

Greg Costikyan announced the other week that the site is now ‘real’ (i.e. bugs are now proper bugs, and not just beta flaws ;-)), so I’ll drop in a link here.

I’ve been browsing the site, and found a bunch of games I want to try, which is surprising, given my cynical take on games these days. Not a lot of time to try though, so I think it may have to be relegated to the 30 minutes on the bus in the morning (I’m at Barco for a brief spell).

I’ve been playing Defcon (available through Steam) a bit – lovely classic game, simple concepts but which combine together to become radically complex when played. I can’t even begin to get my head round some of the strategies needed to be a good player, so I settle for massive early strikes which makes me think I’m doing well, only to be crushed mercilessly by the retaliatory strike. D’oh!

Also got the Battlefield 2142 demo yesterday for a quick blast – looks good, and a decent successor to Battlefield 2 (which has also sucked away some of my precious gaming time). I’ll probably pre-order it, although I’ve got to order a Wii first. Hopefully the rumours of increased production rates are true and the queues for a console will be diminished. Big slap in the face to Microsoft and Sony if that’s true – normally the news is that production rates are less than hoped. I’ve given up bothering on Sony’s continuing stupid press releases and general fumbling of the ball, you can find that elsewhere.

Randomly bumped into one of the few people I’d lost touch with since VIS on the bus last week – Jonny Dobson the director/head of programmer/etc. Still in the industry as an independent (Insurgent Games with Craig Hunter), keeping busy doing consulting work. Yay for a Edinburgh games success story.

Been a while since the last post, due to a frantically busy week followed by a holiday in Glencoe. A rough timeline would go something like: Find out Brave failed submission, attended EIEF (round-up post to follow, albeit rather too late now), off to Dundee to attempt fixes for Brave bugs, day of meetings relating to new contract, burning another set of submission discs for Brave, off to Glencoe (beer, hill, ache, beer, smaller hill, ache, wine, wine, Loch Ness, beer).

We’re still waiting to go forward with the next contract, so groundwork continues apace. Not much else from the world outside, other than the news this morning that Infotari is to fight their Nasdaq de-listing. I’ve got to say, I think the games industry is really too unpredictable for companies to do well on the stock exchange. While its easier for industry people to predict and understand the nature of deadline slips, missed sales targets, etc., the Wall Street investors react violently to things they don’t understand, and can wipe huge chunks off a public company’s value over an entirely foreseeable minor failure. Of course, I’d say that Atari’s loss in stock value is probably due more to long term problems than single slips, but I’m just an uninformed observer. Its likely that they’re just one more big publisher feeling the long term pinch of the things I’ve ranted about before – rising costs and constant returns.

This piece can basically be summed up as: “we need to find more ways to make money out of games, otherwise we’re screwed”. A sentiment I can heartily agree with, although its possibly just my biased spin on the article.

Also, this news on Visual Science is uplifting, if a little late. Hopefully the staff stand a better chance of getting some of their unpaid wages/redundancy on the back of this.

A quieter week this last week, thankfully; mostly dedicated to laying the groundwork for future development. You know the sort of thing, getting all the tools upgraded to the latest versions, sorting out a development structure, and so on. Okay, well if you’re a programmer you know the sort of thing. Suffice to say it’s an interesting challenge to make old code sit nicely in a structure which promotes re-use. So new code doesn’t disappear into a bottomless pit and become wasted work.

Some experimentation was done also to see if a C#/Lua mix would work well in new tools. Short story – it would, but it won’t integrate very well with C++. So tools which need to co-exist with the current engine will have to stay as Lua/C++ instead. There may be scope for a C# tool in the future, but not just yet.

I also spent an hour or so answering questions for an old compatriot (Phil Vaughan, now a lecturer at Duncan of Jordanstone in Dundee) on the old art/code divide, and what it means as team sizes grow larger and larger. I’ll probably polish up and condense what was said and post it up here as a rant, although the gist of it is “agile yay, monolithic management in big teams nay”. I’m a firm believer that game development teams just don’t scale well beyond 20 people, and any project that needs more resources than that should be worked in such a way that it can be done with several smaller teams.