how to break into the game industry

[scratchdisk]

http://playingwithpower.com/2007/02/25/so-you-want-to-be-a-game-programmer.aspx

[soniCron]

I know a forum full of independent indies here at Indiegamer will appreciate it! D'oh! :p

[scratchdisk]

I know a forum full of independent indies here at Indiegamer will appreciate it! D'oh! :p

Ya I get that, but the experience of a few years at a company like EA is a huge advantage for someone who wants to turn IndieGamer.

[KNau]

I don't know if it would provide an advantage so much (unless you mean learning how not to make games) but a couple years at EA will definitely give you the motivation to go indie. :)

[Applewood]

Ya I get that, but the experience of a few years at a company like EA is a huge advantage for someone who wants to turn IndieGamer.Hell. A couple of years at EA is guaranteed to turn you into an indie! :eek:

Edit: Er, what he said. lol

[Twitchfactor]

I don't know if it would provide an advantage so much (unless you mean learning how not to make games) but a couple years at EA will definitely give you the motivation to go indie. :)

Ha ha... obviously inexperience teaches you to make silly comments and have wild speculation about the inner-workings of a place. :rolleyes:

I think having and sort of solid formal education will always give a leg up to the person that doesn't, all things being equal. Knowing how a game gets made, doing it from start to finish, actually getting it out and selling 10x more than the average indie game sounds like some knowledge I wouldn't scoff at.

[Applewood]

Here in blighty, computer science degrees are kinda laughed about tbh. Demos are everything.

I guess they (degrees) prove that an individual is motivated enough to finish it, but that's about it. The standard of fresh grads' knowledge of lower-level stuff is quite shocking the first time you see it. I've not met one who understands what "L2 Cache" even means. I get "well, I've heard of it" at best.

If you want to a) break-in initially, and b) learn stuff that will really help later: Do a decent demo and approach a smaller firm - they will actually take time to bring you on as a team member and teach you stuff instead of just putting you on the max plugin for 3 years.

As a n00b, the very worst thing you could possibly do is go somewhere big like EA. Quite apart from the above, and possibly contrary to uninformed opinion, saying "I worked 2 years at EA" is not the door opener you'd think. Quite the reverse in fact.

[scratchdisk]

Quite apart from the above, and possibly contrary to uninformed opinion, saying "I worked 2 years at EA" is not the door opener you'd think. Quite the reverse in fact.

hmmm, I have to respectfully disagree with you man, I can't think of a situation where 2 years of experience at EA would *hurt* your chances at a game job opportunity.

[svero]

Here in blighty, computer science degrees are kinda laughed about tbh. Demos are everything.

Computer science has nothing to do with making games really.

Computer science isn't even about programming. It's really the study of computers at more of a math and theoretical level. What kinds of problems can computers solve? Are there theoretical limits to computing power? Can we write an algorithm to do x in logrithmic time. Theoretical approaches to data encryption etc... Any of that sound game like? I suppose there are some aspects that are a little computer sciencey like developing a new 3d graphics engine, but for the most part... Games is about animation, art, gameplay, feel etc... It's really a whole other thing. From what I've seen the best game developers actually tend to be artists, or in some cases programmers with an artistic bent. I think artists would almost always be better except that they tend not to have the basic technical skills required to produce code etc... to make their visions come alive. You really need people who are slightly capable of being jack's of all trades.

[PoV]

Demos are everything.
I'll 2nd that motion. People without the knowhow to produce something on their own are too risky of an investment. Of course, that doesn't mean people wont make the mistake of hiring you with out any cred, but you're talking lottery odds.

Game schools are sometimes frowned upon too. Game school projects are often teams, and you can't really know how much the candidate contributed. You need to develop something of interest on your own for a hiring developer to care.

hmmm, I have to respectfully disagree with you man, I can't think of a situation where 2 years of experience at EA would *hurt* your chances at a game job opportunity.
How does a developer know you weren't let go because you were just filling space? Senior Programmer, Engine Programmer, or a fancy title can answer that question, but you can't be too careful. No released titles can be discouraging too. Not to mention, if you're a jerk about have 2 from EA, that works against you.

[Applewood]

hmmm, I have to respectfully disagree with you man, I can't think of a situation where 2 years of experience at EA would *hurt* your chances at a game job opportunity.Fair enough. You're right, it wouldn't subtract anything (once PoV's excellent points are addressed), but it would add far less than anything else relevant you could've done in those two years, including making a kick ass demo

[Twitchfactor]

LOL...

Man, this makes me laugh.
I've been in the position to hire/fire and have seen more resumes pass my desk than there are active members on this forum and I can tell you, someone with experience will always have a leg up over someone who doesn't, that's just the way the world works.

As a matter of fact, somebody working for a "big machine" will get more love from me than somebody at some little grind house. The reason? Because they more-than-likely understand procedures, protocol and most-importantly, what it takes to ship a product.

As for education, that's all well and fine, but I misspoke when I said, "formal education," since someone fresh out of university with a bog-standard CS degree isn't going to impress me next to someone who's made something/shipped something/has something to show.

My best advice is, make a demo, however you can. Put together something that shows what you can do, whatever that is. If what you can do can't be best showcased by yourself, try and utilize this forum to hook up with some help. Be sure to disclose what exactly you did in a multi-person project, because the worst thing is plagiarism. I'll actively blacklist someone who takes credit for another's work (since I've had people rip off my work for years).

[Applewood]

I've been in the position to hire/fire and have seen more resumes pass my desk than there are active members on this forum and I can tell you, someone with experience will always have a leg up over someone who doesn't, that's just the way the world works.Well, your world anyways. I've been the hiring guy at a couple of firms, including my own, and the guys with the demo always know more than the guys from uni. That is a fact.

As to the guy with a demo vs the guy with 2 years from EA. Well, I've interviewed a number of guys that have done 2 years at a big firm and want out. They were all shite without exception. At least the guy with the demo has an open-ended top line. They can be shite too, and often are. Point being, a couple of years experience working as a 3rd max plugin technician gets less weight than a good demo from a n000b every time. I've hired a couple of those and they're doing just fine, thanks.

[Sharpfish]

how to break OUT OF the game industry

http://www.indiegamer.com

:)

[Sharpfish]

how to break OUT OF the (retail) game industry

http://www.indiegamer.com


- do it twice it's that good - and on the second go, stress the 'retail' part. :)

[zoombapup]

Sounds a bit like a "my dad is bigger than your dad" argument.

I think its pretty rational really. ANYTHING you can do to convince the hirer that you are the hiree that is most suitable for them, the better. Ideal being the exact guy they want (i.e. they already know you), second best is fulfilling the criteria for the guy they want. Everything else is a sliding scale.

What we're talking about are degrees of proof of eligability. So a demo is one degree of proof, having had the job is another.

I dont think there is a single thing that I'd put my finger on that would say absolutely hire/not hire so much as a feeling for the aptitude of the person.

I'd never say that our degree's are the only thing that would get someone a job, far from it, but we DO provide the ideal time to get yourself a demo together (hell, when is a good time if you cant do it while studying games at a university that is game-centric?). Getting a 1st from my degree pretty much shows you have commitment and SOME ability.

Most of my guys who put the effort in to get a 1st are worth hiring. Some of them who put the effort in but are a bit rough round the edges or lacking some knowledge are worth taking a shot with too. This is bourne out by our pretty good hit rate of 2.1 and above getting into jobs.

I do think its probably easier for our students to get into EA or somewhere where they chew up graduates a lot. Thats a good thing imho though, as its experience that really matters. I dont agree that EA experience isnt worth anything, to the majority of hirers it IS worth something.

You can usually spot the really good guys a mile off though. In fact, during the first year of a 3 or 4 year degree, I could give you a list that would be probably 90% accurate on the final year grades.

People are strange, by and large quite predictable beasts. I find academia interesting from this point of view.

[andrew]

I'm not sure what a "1st" means (UK-specific?), but I'm imagining the US equivalent is the 4-year bachelor's degree...

For any serious game industry job, you want to see work samples -- whether it be code, models/textures, audio, etc. A degree isn't going to cut it without some sort of provable, real-world experience. I have a 4-year CS degree and found it fairly worthless in the game industry. Certainly people can be trained, but you have to figure out if they have some sort of talent to begin with. Every employer has stacks and stacks of identical-looking resumes of kids just out of college -- the trick is finding the future stars.

[PoV]

As a matter of fact, somebody working for a "big machine" will get more love from me than somebody at some little grind house. The reason? Because they more-than-likely understand procedures, protocol and most-importantly, what it takes to ship a product.
I don't know about you, but I'd find the opposite. The grind house people (a great term with a movie tie in) would know how to ship a product, 'cause that's exactly the point of a grind house. 3 years as assistant tools programmer on Sports Game 2k7 gives you the confidence to ask for more, but you're still no more qualified to code a game in it's entirety than entry level student. But entry level student with a critically acclaimed freeware game, he's more qualified than our assistant tools programmer. And that's the sort of people we care about. Why manage if you don't have to.

And my golly, you can spend a weekend doing one of our LudumDare compo's (http://www.ludumdare.com) and within 2 days meet the qualifications. If you can't even put the time in to that, why should I care about you.

I think its pretty rational really. ANYTHING you can do to convince the hirer that you are the hiree that is most suitable for them, the better. Ideal being the exact guy they want (i.e. they already know you), second best is fulfilling the criteria for the guy they want. Everything else is a sliding scale.
Right, absolutely. I was just trying to stress considerations to not hire the experienced guy on experience alone. The other side of it is cost. If you're looking to shape a programmer to suit a role, and it's a low risk project or contribution, then you're better off with a skilled student than an experienced person. That sad truth is you sometimes need gruntwork programmers. They'll be overly ambitious, need to be taught way of the industry, but if you handle them right, in a year or so they'll be both experienced and have an understanding of your workflow. Else fine, go hire your experienced fellows, but I can get 2-3 for the price of one, and they come with very little industry taint. Deal. Sure, you're going to need experience to structure at the extremes of the company, but that's not my point.

[zoombapup]

Hmm, it might sound like a good idea, but experience DOES mean a lot. Particularly experience of how NOT to do things can count for as much as anything.

Sure, you might get 2 or 3 guys for the price of 1 experienced guy, but for some types of tasks, that really isnt a great option. Anything requiring a deep understanding of technical issues for instance might not be a good idea (sure, if youre turning out 2D casual games, I'd say go for it!).

Anyway, I think its all pretty subjective. I've known VERY experienced guys I wouldnt touch with a barge pole and I've known students I'd hire in a heartbeat. So its not a one-size-fits-all kind of thing. You have to play things by ear a lot.

The trouble is, most people arent really good at interviews, either giving or recieving. An interview process is also generally quite poorly prepared.

I've been to 2-3 day grilling sessions and I've been to 10 minute sit down chats. Seems that there is no real concensus here.

I guess the best bet for getting a job, is to:

1) Be capable of it
2) Be able to demonstrate that
3) Be flexible enough that if you fail at interview a few times you can learn where youre shortcomings are
4) Be capable of working hard enough to overcome those shortcomings

I'll tell you a little story.

I have a student, who shall remain unnamed. He left a few years ago from our Computer Games Software Development BSc course. Anyway, before he left I did a few "mock interview" sessions with him and a few other guys. At these mocks, he clearly didnt understand some pretty fundamental issues to do with C++ and pointers. I told him to go and read up on them. He also didnt have a strong portfolio at the time.

Now this guy was a bit of an anomoly, because he was actually pretty good at writing shader code! He was into shaders and 3D stuff and had a little sort of planet demo thingy, but it wasnt very gamey.

After about 6months he was having no luck getting an industry job. He'd got work in some game-related place, but wanted a real gig in the industry. We chatted about it a bit and he decided to keep working on his demo with another guy. Anyway, after another 6 months, he told me that the other guy got a job via the demo they worked on, but he was still having issues.

The point is (although being a sad story), clearly this guy has a ways to go with his knowledge, its THIS that is letting him down. He really IS worth hiring in that he's enthusiastic and is actually strong in some areas (shaders), but is too weak in his weakest areas to get the gig. So maybe the take-out from this is that you need to have no real weak spots AND a highlight for you to stand out. So covering all the bases to at least competent level, then having some area of yourself that really shines (a speciality) can help.

I'm hoping to catch up with this guy in the future. We're starting a new course soon that might help him out a bit more. I think another year doing the type of course we're planning and his weaknesses will be fixed.

[zoombapup]

Andrew, a "1st" is the top of the Honours degree scale (batchelors degree). Its basically over 80% consistantly I believe.

My best students get 1sts. The ones that need some more work get 2.1, the others generally go down from there (2.2, 3rd).

I would NEVER say that a 1st would guarantee you a job, but from the guys who've gone out with 1sts, I think we're batting on 100% right now. Or very close to it.

I'm sure there are plenty of other places where a 1st doesnt mean a lot, but for us to give a 1st its a very big deal. Its quite rare that someone has the commitment and skill to allow them to consistantly deliver to that sort of level.

Anyway, I agree that a degree doesnt guarantee anything, but it IS a lot of work (on our degree at least) and it CAN help prepare you, so I'd recommend it to anyone. Where else will you get 3-4 years of "time off" to pursue your own personal and technical development?

[Applewood]

That's the sort of guy who'd maybe get a job with me, when we were looking for newbies. I look at what they can do and how confident they are. I'm probably not a technically excellent interviewer if you asked a HR expert to rate me, but I've had way more successes than failures. Touch wood.

All these "what does this bit of code do" exams are a complete waste of time. My own knowledge of more esoteric C++ is average at best, my maths is average at best and there are some areas I know fuck all about - that's what a balanced team is for. I'd probably do horribly at one of those interview exams assuming I didn't refuse (as I once did) to go through all that pointless shite. It has no bearing on suitability as a games programmer at all. None. Zero percent. I feel sorry for anyone caught out by them.

As a good, if off-base, example, a friend of mine can't work out that "x==10" should say "x=10" because he's seriously dyslexic. He is however one of the best programmers I know. He lets the compiler sort out the syntax with appropriate errors and warnings.

I don't know about you, but I'd find the opposite. The grind house people (a great term with a movie tie in) would know how to ship a product, 'cause that's exactly the point of a grind house. 3 years as assistant tools programmer on Sports Game 2k7 gives you the confidence to ask for more, but you're still no more qualified to code a game in it's entirety than entry level student. But entry level student with a critically acclaimed freeware game, he's more qualified than our assistant tools programmer. And that's the sort of people we care about. Why manage if you don't have to.This is my argument too, in a nutshell. I guess one of my own floors is being too verbose! :)

[Applewood]

Anyway, I agree that a degree doesnt guarantee anything, but it IS a lot of work (on our degree at least) and it CAN help prepare you, so I'd recommend it to anyone.Don't get me wrong, I think these new games degrees are a giant leap forward. We just hired a guy who got one from Luton.

However, he's now a n00b with some useful background as opposed to a n00b with none. We actually offered him the job based on his demo and general knowledge and enthusiasm. If he'd not had that degree, we would've still hired him. How much the degree helped him actually make his demo I couldn't say, but it's not a prerequisite. I've not got one for a start.

My original point was not about knocking degrees, or even experience at grind houses (I love that term). It was actually about what is the best way to spend time to get a job.

1) 3-4 years spent on a degree course
2) 2 years at a grindhouse
3) 2 years working on a great demo using self-taught talent

Assuming our guy has the talent, which do you think will impress an employer the most ? This isn't an either or - all 3 would be nice. However, the combo that gets least points is 2) all by itself. By a long way imo.

[PoV]

Hmm, it might sound like a good idea, but experience DOES mean a lot. Particularly experience of how NOT to do things can count for as much as anything.
Agreed, but the line of quality between real world and fake world (indie :)) experience can be a very gray one. I'm also not pretending that you'll find 3 good candidates for the same price. More what I'm getting at is you can get 3 chances of finding a kickass noob, for the same cost as a single guy with EA cred, who could suck.

The trouble is, most people arent really good at interviews, either giving or recieving. An interview process is also generally quite poorly prepared.

I've been to 2-3 day grilling sessions and I've been to 10 minute sit down chats. Seems that there is no real concensus here.
Yeah, I suppose having been on the other side, so in concept, interviews don't bother me as much anymore, not that I've needed to do one in a long time. What I got out of the interviewing process was, the interview is a way for us to A: Make sure you're not a psychopath; B: See if your personality would mesh with the team. I feel any sort of technical grilling that we'd do at such a session would be mean. But at the same time, it can be tough to know how capable they are. I do like the idea of a test game. Be explicit that they must do it alone. Programmer art encouraged.

But at the same time, I'd love to get a good idea of how they work. Perhaps, bringing them on site for their test game, give them an internet connection, a couple days, allow them to ask any questions that don't involve anybody touching their computers (unless it's broken), to get a feeling of how they work. Hell, force them to install Visual Studio or other compilers/tools on a freshly formatted machine while you're at it. That might be asking too much, since I do know several programmers with very little PC tech knowledge, but it depends what you're looking for.

Great story BTW. I kinda feel bad for the guy, but as I said, you can never be sure who's the asset of the team on a team project.

[PoV]

3) 2 years working on a great demo using self-taught talent
I don't know if anyone's parents would have let that happen, but I honestly think give a kid a year, a PC, some books, a $2-5k allowance budget (with approvals and advice of parent), milestones, and they'll be miles ahead of any 2-4 year grad. Of course, that assumes parent comes from such an industry and can actually mentor the kid in some way.

At least if I ever get cruel enough to be a parent, that's what I'd propose. :)

Can you tell I dropped out? ;)

[Applewood]

Heh, I was never in.

Left school at 16, got a job via my dad as an apprentice printer. Furthered my burgeoning computer/games knowledge in the evenings and weekends and produced a kick ass game demo. Got the first games job I applied for and the rest was history! :)

[PoV]

Nice. You missed the opportunity to create a mockery game of a teacher you hated though. :)

[Applewood]

There were plenty of those at Junior school - probably why I left as soon as I could. I was academically able, school just bore me to tears

[zoombapup]

I'm self taught too and was never happy at school.

But these days are VERY different guys. You simply cannot look at it through your own eyes. These days nobody programs at school. Nobody does anything remotely technical or hard.

There are no 8/16 bit home computers anymore. Most people interested in games have a wii or a 360 or a ps3 and have NO experience of programming.

So projecting your own experience into that sort of area isnt right.

The fact is we know that people COULD self teach, because many in the industry ARE self taught. But the reality has changed over time, with the dying out of cheap access to programmable computers. Probably a good 15 year timespan without people having any exposure to programming in general.

When we did it, it was a cool new thing. These days its very rare to find a college or school that does any form of programming at the level we're talking about. They might get onto excel macro's if youre lucky during an "IT" class.

So I think the 4 years of a degree ARE the best method, in general.

[electronicStar]

These days nobody programs at school. Nobody does anything remotely technical or hard.

There are no 8/16 bit home computers anymore. Most people interested in games have a wii or a 360 or a ps3 and have NO experience of programming.
I don't agree with that.
Although there have been a dark age in the nineties where it was difficult to access some simple and powerful tools (unlike on the 8/16 bit computers where you could make industry quality games with a bit of self-teaching), nowadays there are many systems that enable young enthusiasts to learn the job, and there is a huge reservoir of talents that learnt to make games by modding half-life or the unreal engine or the torque engine or with blitz basic.
Maybe the industry doesn't have enough consideration for these people but it's a great mistake.

As for school, well it probably depends on your area but where I live you can still learn how to code complex things in high-school if you are motivated.

[andrew]

Learning to program is tough. Learning how to program a game is a whole different set of skills on TOP of that. Data management, graphics/shaders, lots of math (either 2D, or worse, 3D), collision detection, various programming API's, how to write modular code, input and message handling, load/save/serialization, pathfinding algorithms, AI processing and state graphs, etc etc

A lot of it you learn by doing, but you can also learn a lot of it by talking to your co-workers and asking them how things are being done. This is why I don't think 2-3 years at a big company (EA or a "grindhouse") should be underestimated. You learn a lot of general concepts in areas that are unrelated to what you're specifically working on -- and that only makes you a more well-rounded programmer.

Certainly doing a "one-man" game will also introduce you to these issues. But you have to have the right attitude, and must be able to learn things on your own, through books / googling / forums / etc.

[Twitchfactor]

I'm not sure why, but for some reason people keep wanting to shove me in the "people from university are better than people with demos" box, when that's not what I said. As a matter of fact, a paragraph down from the last bit quoted, you'll find that I said...

As for education, that's all well and fine, but I misspoke when I said, "formal education," since someone fresh out of university with a bog-standard CS degree isn't going to impress me next to someone who's made something/shipped something/has something to show.

My point is, DO don't SAY. Somebody that has SOMETHING, anything is going to get more consideration (emphasize the word CONSIDERATION), than somebody that doesn't. Anyone who operates any other way is a fool.

[Applewood]

I'd also never get hired by you guys, since I've worked for most of the major publishers in the videogame biz
We're talking about noobz. If your CV is a foot long yet you still want to earn 20K, drop me a line :)

[Twitchfactor]

We're talking about noobz. If your CV is a foot long yet you still want to earn 20K, drop me a line :)

Depends on what you want... ;)

I'm certainly not gonna turn down an extra $20k.

Anyway, back on topic... hey, what was the topic? Oh yeah, breaking into the industry.

My advice is this; doers do and talkers talk. Put together something that compels a person to *WANT* *YOU*. Whether that be a demo, a portfolio, a website, whatever. Feverishly go after and focus in your chosen craft, whether that's art, animation, audio, programming, design (which really encompasses all of the previous arts) or production.

Most importantly, know your sh*t, because if I'm ever looking at a demo or resume and make the jump from "oh that's interesting" to the magic phone call, I'm expecting somebody on the other end to *want it* and want it badly.

Passion, understanding and respect for this industry goes a long way with me. Having a few titles doesn't hurt and working for EA is by NO MEANS a negative for any reasonable outfit.

[PoV]

But these days are VERY different guys. You simply cannot look at it through your own eyes. These days nobody programs at school. Nobody does anything remotely technical or hard.
That really sucks, but I think you might be right. Nearly every kid has a computer now, or has access to them. The development tools are all free now. And there's so much knowledge just a click away. Hell, the world runs on computers these days. Why aren't kids learning this stuff?

Is it because the games they pull reference from are the monster nextgen titles far outside their reach? The old "I'm going to make an MMOFPSRPG" problem?

Passion, understanding and respect for this industry goes a long way with me. Having a few titles doesn't hurt and working for EA is by NO MEANS a negative for any reasonable outfit.
Hahaha. I'm unreasonable. That's awesome. You missed the point. Professional experience is just as scrutinizable as unprofessional experience. You're not doing a good job if the EA flag is enough to sell you on a candidate. You should carefully weigh that experience if it's worth the cost markup.

Back to my example of assistant tools programmer. If he can't back up that he can do more by spending a weekend or two on something of his own (most tools being proprietary unable to leave the company), then you still don't know if he can operate more effective than a noob in this environment. Zoom's student can do shaders, but he can't do a self sufficent command line too that scales a bitmap image. Our assistant could be the same way. Knows shader programming inside and out (was involved in an internal shader compiler for example), but had to be given the framework to do it. That's unfortunately not the sort of people we have the luxury to bring on in our 2-8 person low budget low cost development environments.

[Applewood]

Why aren't kids learning this stuff?

In our case (UK), it's largely that "Media Studies" is an easier degree than "Business Studies" which in turn is easier than "Computer Science" which is shitloads easier than the "Theoretical/Applied Physics" that should be mandatory imo.

Kids just want a degree because people tell them they have to have one. If only we could get em to study something worthwhile, then maybe in 30 years we won't be walking everywhere.

[MrQ]

Ha ha... obviously inexperience teaches you to make silly comments and have wild speculation about the inner-workings of a place. :rolleyes:
Knowing how a game gets made, doing it from start to finish, actually getting it out and selling 10x more than the average indie game sounds like some knowledge I wouldn't scoff at.

Definatley good knowledge, but the politics alone would drive you insane (all good lessons to learn of course) :D

[Twitchfactor]

Hahaha. I'm unreasonable. That's awesome. You missed the point. Professional experience is just as scrutinizable as unprofessional experience. You're not doing a good job if the EA flag is enough to sell you on a candidate. You should carefully weigh that experience if it's worth the cost markup.

My point is simply this, don't let any one thing be a deciding factor in your choice to hire or not hire. The reason this splinter-thread started was becasue someone did the ever-popular EA bashing, making a joke (or maybe being serious ) about not hiring someone because they worked at EA. Well, let me tell you, I've hired people that have worked for COMPLETE CRAP companies and people who have worked for "ROCKSTAR" companies and guess what? It comes down to the individual, period.

[Twitchfactor]

Definatley good knowledge, but the politics alone would drive you insane (all good lessons to learn of course) :D

There's politics at EVERY company, and on EVERY team, no matter what industry. Don't get caught up in the hype. EA's no more political than any company it's size. There's just more bureaucracy (which can definitely hamper you).

But as you say, good lessons to learn. I've taken something away from every company I've worked at and every project I've worked on, so if you can get the experience/knowledge, take it, use it, learn from it. That's what life's all about.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Oooh! This thread is fun.

Going back to the original post, I think - in general - there is a big difference in what it takes to get a job in the mainstream games industry and being a successful indie.

The teams today working on titles for PS3/360/PC are huge, and there is a lot of room for specialization and need for "grunts". A person can spend years on one of these projects and still have their knowledge restricted to tiny of fraction of what was involved in the title(s) they worked on.

On the other hand, what I see most common in the indie space, is the need for a person to be very well rounded and know something of engine code, game code, tools, art, sound, and... well.. just about everything, even if some of it is outsourced/etc.

I find the well rounded people more often in the very small development shops and/or working on DS/PSP/Mobile -- where being well rounded is much more often a matter of survival/necessity.



When it comes to who I would hire for an 'indie' project.. well just like everyone else here -- it all depends. Sometimes someone walks through the door and its obvious they have "it" -- not just the knowledge, but more importantly the attitude, approach and drive to thrive in such a situation. But I don't find these people to be very common.

[MrQ]

When it comes to who I would hire for an 'indie' project.. well just like everyone else here -- it all depends. Sometimes someone walks through the door and its obvious they have "it" -- not just the knowledge, but more importantly the attitude, approach and drive to thrive in such a situation. But I don't find these people to be very common.

Your right, being able todo the job is only half the requirements. The other half is their ability to work with a team constructively and professionally.
There are a lot of big egos in the game industry and I find the larger the games company, the larger the head-aches and more personal conflicts.
I personally prefer smaller like-minded teams to large companies which is half the reason for pursuing my own projects.

[PoV]

My point is simply this, don't let any one thing be a deciding factor in your choice to hire or not hire. The reason this splinter-thread started was becasue someone did the ever-popular EA bashing, making a joke (or maybe being serious ) about not hiring someone because they worked at EA. Well, let me tell you, I've hired people that have worked for COMPLETE CRAP companies and people who have worked for "ROCKSTAR" companies and guess what? It comes down to the individual, period.
Congratz. We're all fighting because we're in the mood for a fight. Hooray for us.

I'm pretty sure we've all said the exact same thing, but each attacked poorly chosen wording of generalizations. Go team IndieGamer.