Tip for people that want work in the games industry

[Gilberreke]

http://trenchescomic.com/tales/16887

I typed up a post, but it was too opinionated, akin to politics. I'll let the article speak for itself :)

The gist of the post was this: You can get a job developing games by doing QA at a company. Making a mod or indie game and then just applying directly for a job is way faster and easier imo. I've got quite a few friends working the industry and most of them used the second way, very few managed to go through QA.

Be lazy in life, choose the easy path :)

[FlowerChild]

I'll second that. Valuable QA staff is valuable. If you prove yourself to be effective at QA, you're more likely to be promoted within that department than for a company to take a risk on your untested development skills.

I've seen very few people promoted out of QA during my time as a developer. Also, QA is a hellish job :)

[Gilberreke]

I'll second that. Valuable QA staff is valuable. If you prove yourself to be effective at QA, you're more likely to be promoted within that department than for a company to take a risk on your untested development skills.

I've seen very few people promoted out of QA during my time as a developer. Also, QA is a hellish job :)

Ah, thanks for the confirmation :). I think it's a bit of a trap companies tend to use, to get more QA personnel (as it's a hellish job indeed). I'm not saying all of them are deliberately spreading lies, but they are certainly not trying to dispel the myth that QA is a good stepping stone.

[FlowerChild]

Well, the thing is for designers with no experience and no other skills, it's not entirely inaccurate.

Nobody is just going to hire an unproven designer out of nowhere. QA may thus be your best bet to get your foot in a door at a company and hope that someone spots that you have design talent (if indeed you do have any).

It's kinda like working in the mail room at a traditional company or something. Do people occasionally get hired out of there because they are recognized as a gem in some other way? Sure. However, most will just be stuck there indefinitely, or until they decide to leave.

It's basically an overall question of unskilled labor. QA is the place where such people can feasibly get into a game company. Will they likely ever make it out of there? Of course not, as after all, they don't have the skills that would have gotten them hired in another position in the first place.

So yeah, overall, this isn't so much a problem with the companies themselves. It's a problem with people just waking up one day and saying "I'm going to be a game designer!", without ever having actually made a game, and thinking they stand a snowball's chance in hell of making that happen without investing all the hard work involved in learning how to make games.

As I've said many times: being a designer is a professional skill that demands a professional salary. If done right, it's probably one of the most demanding jobs and rare skills in the industry. Way too many people think they can just magically become one based on desire alone.

As I've also said many times: everyone thinks they're a designer. You see it everywhere from the forums for "community driven games" like we're discussing in that other thread, to modders, to the ongoing development of games like Minecraft. Personally, I think many people don't even consider design to be an actual skill, when IMO, designers are the ones that must be most aware of every other field of development, and skilled at the rather abstract and distinctly separate task of being able to combine them all into a greater whole.

As someone who has largely devoted their life to developing games and evolving as a designer, it's all full of massive face palm for me.

[Gilberreke]

Ah yes, that's all true. Biggest problem seems to be that people play games and think: "how awesome would it be to make games?", not realizing that playing games gives almost no skills to become a dev, artist or designer.

I see two alternate routes to your skills problem though:

1) Make a game. With today's tools, you can make a game even if you know nothing about programming or art. An old friend of mine did just that, and with enough promotion, made enough money to live off for a while. http://www.blossomsoft.com/?p=182

2) Become an English major. Cell phone companies like Gameloft NYC are known to hire English majors straight out of college and offer them to do the game design for crappy cell games. It's a crappy company, it's a crappy job, but it gives you real experience being a game designer. Enough to get a job at a good company? I honestly don't know, but it's the only low-level game design job I know of.

[FlowerChild]

Or option 3:

Get off your lazy ass and learn a gods damned skill :)

I strongly suspect that the thought process of many people involves something along the lines of "Programming is too hard. Art is too hard. Sound engineering is too hard. I know! I'll be a designer!"

It's a totally backwards way of thinking for all the reasons I listed above.

[FlowerChild]

Actually, one area where I can recommend a slightly better foot in the door approach:

Make levels.

If you have some design talent making levels for existing games is a great way to demonstrate to a company you know what you're doing, especially if you can demonstrate that there's an existing audience for the stuff you've created. If you can do that, getting hired as a level designer isn't that hard, and gives you a much better position with regards to upward mobility than working in QA, as you'll be working side by side with game designers on a regular basis and learning valuable skills along the way.

It's still a long shot for someone with no other development skill, but I'd say less so than QA. If you can't make fun levels for existing games, or lack the motivation to learn to do so, well then...I really recommend a different field other than game development :)

If you really want to go pro on it, research what local companies are working on, and design levels for similar types of games so that you can demonstrate your skills are directly applicable to what they're doing. Making a Quake level isn't going to impress a company making music games for example.

The tools they are using are also an important piece of information if you can find out what they are. If, for example, a company is using Maya for level design, and you can honestly say you know your way around it (again, showing them something you've already done is important here), that will significantly improve your chances as they'll know there will be less training involved to get you up to speed.

Also, may seem obvious, but you wouldn't believe how many people I've interviewed that failed to do this: make damn sure you play the company's library of games, the competition for what they're currently working on, can intelligently discuss both and provide intelligent commentary on how they can be improved, before ever stepping into an interview. I've interviewed a shit load of aspiring level/game designers who couldn't even name a game released in the last year that they played (often times with the excuse "I don't have time to play games anymore"...no joke), let alone the competition for what we were currently making.

Even when interviewing for strictly programming jobs, I made absolutely certain to do the above, and it goes a hell of a long way towards showing you're serious. Interviewing for any kind of design position though, I'd consider it an absolute must, as you'll look like a complete idiot if you can't discuss these things coherently in a "well...what the hell did you think we wanted to talk to you about?" fashion.

[CreeperCannibal]

I'd like to think obsessing over all design discussions on the Better Than Wolves forums helps a bit ;)

I strongly suspect that the thought process of many people involves something along the lines of "Programming is too hard. Art is too hard. Sound engineering is too hard. I know! I'll be a designer!"

I certainly suffer from the above as I constantly write down changes to a project I working on for myself, yet I've never been in a job involving game design. Hence I tend to think of designing as jotting down ideas, anaylizing their impact on each other and expanding them into a whole game on paper and putting all of it into coding afterwards (easy). All of it really doesn't matter so long as I lack expirence in the industry.
I'm glad to have read this as I understand a little more of what awaits me should I decide to go down a more professional route.

[FlowerChild]

As you have probably seen with me many times, I only consider an idea "good" based on how feasible it is to implement. The whole "bang for the buck" thing.

If you're designing in a vacuum just jotting ideas down without ever implementing them, you aren't actually designing, as you have no idea how feasible these ideas are. It would be the equivalent of an "architect" planning buildings that he has no intention of ever constructing. Will they stand up, will they fall down? Can they be built within a certain budget, with a certain crew at your disposal. Who knows?

The above is basically just doodling random shit, and what I tend to refer to as "theoretical wankery". Whether you are respected or fired as a designer is all about what happens afterwards when people try to actually implement those doodles.

[FlowerChild]

I'll try to put it another way: being a designer isn't just being an "idea guy". It means basically being the brain in a jar that's guiding the efforts of an entire development team, and all the money that's being poured into it.

This may mean determining the direction of 50+ professionals, all earning professional salaries and all the overhead of keeping them on staff, and keeping them pointed in the same direction. Every time someone has a question as to which way they should be going, you're the guy they expect to have the answers. Whether or not the game remains on time, and on budget, and is in a complete and fun state when it is released is largely on your shoulders.

Maybe some of you wonder why I take design issues so seriously at times, but the above is the environment that I am habituated to where an ill conceived idea may add up to millions of dollars in lost development effort.

I remember one of my last industry jobs, I had an agreement with my girlfriend of the time that she wouldn't ask me any questions within the first half hour of me getting home. Why? Because the entire day I had been answering a non-stop barrage of questions with dire consequences should I get the answer wrong and was completely overloaded by the end of it.

So yeah...suffice it to say, unless you try to actually implement your ideas and learn from that what is feasible and what's not, strictly theoretical "designing" in a bubble really don't mean shit.

[CreeperCannibal]

Designing involves a lot more than I had ever known. I've really only manifested ideas for physical objects than those for games and the former have been proven to be challenges. The whole brain in a jar thing...

[FlowerChild]

It's an incredible juggling act man. Throw in typical corporate politics and such, and it can become an outright nightmare. Like, I have major problems with most producers, with most of the really soul crushing experiences I've had during my career involving them in some way. I think I've ever only had one really good one that actually helped me in my job rather than hindered me.

Producers tend to be some of the worst examples of not recognizing game design as an actual skill, and thus assume they know as much about it as the designers under them. They are basically the bottom rung on the corporate ladder where pure suits start to appear. Below them, you have developers who are all talented in a particular skill. Above them, you tend to have business men that are totally detached from the games themselves. In my experience, as the primary point of contact between development and corporate, the designer/producer relationship is one of the most difficult things to manage. They have more power than you in terms of being above you in the corporate hierarchy, and thus have the ability to override your decisions. They likely don't understand games or game development very well and are thus approaching it from a strictly business angle. In combination with everything else you have to worry about as a designer, it can all spiral into total hell very quickly.

JPod largely had it right where they get a new manager that decides to insert a cartoon frog into their ultra-violent skate-boarding game. I had experiences that were eerily reminiscent of that :)

Now granted, what I'm describing in my post above is a lead position with a fairly large team (not as large as they can get in the major studios like an EA or Ubisoft mind you), which is definitely not where you'd be expected to start in the industry. However, I think it is illustrative of my overall point in that professional game design is not a trivial skill to acquire or practice, and at the end of the day, it may actually be one of the toughest jobs on a dev team.

This is coming from a guy that's played multiple development roles on teams through the years. While design is my particular passion, it's definitely not the easiest way to make a living :)

[Gilberreke]

It's still a long shot for someone with no other development skill, but I'd say less so than QA. If you can't make fun levels for existing games, or lack the motivation to learn to do so, well then...I really recommend a different field other than game development :)

If you really want to go pro on it, research what local companies are working on, and design levels for similar types of games so that you can demonstrate your skills are directly applicable to what they're doing. Making a Quake level isn't going to impress a company making music games for example.

The tools they are using are also an important piece of information if you can find out what they are. If, for example, a company is using Maya for level design, and you can honestly say you know your way around it (again, showing them something you've already done is important here), that will significantly improve your chances as they'll know there will be less training involved to get you up to speed.

Also, may seem obvious, but you wouldn't believe how many people I've interviewed that failed to do this: make damn sure you play the company's library of games, the competition for what they're currently working on, can intelligently discuss both and provide intelligent commentary on how they can be improved, before ever stepping into an interview. I've interviewed a shit load of aspiring level/game designers who couldn't even name a game released in the last year that they played (often times with the excuse "I don't have time to play games anymore"...no joke), let alone the competition for what we were currently making.

Even when interviewing for strictly programming jobs, I made absolutely certain to do the above, and it goes a hell of a long way towards showing you're serious. Interviewing for any kind of design position though, I'd consider it an absolute must, as you'll look like a complete idiot if you can't discuss these things coherently in a "well...what the hell did you think we wanted to talk to you about?" fashion.

This. I have a 100% hire rate when I get invited to interviews. The reason? I do my homework. Most people don't, crazily enough. I've been on the other side of the hiring desk lately and it's ridiculous what kind of people you get. They don't even know the core values of the company (non-profit in my case, same deal).

When I go into an interview, I go through the company's website, click all links, look at everything they stand for. Maybe try to find some blogs from employees. Then try to assess the company's core values, strategies, etc and read up on those. Do this for an interview (and have some required skills of course) and you will almost consistently get hired. Scoring an interview is a different beast altogether that I won't get into right now (maybe later).

[TheAnarchitect]

I love your architect analogy, because I am an architect. Which is probably why I instinctively understand your design philosophy. I've also had to do a lot of 3d rendering. I've often wondered if my architecture education would translate well into being a level designer. But there aren't many game development companies where I am, so it's mostly a passing fancy.

That said, Architecture is FILLED with pure "idea guy" designers. The most famous architects of the last 50 years are pretty much all that sort. They draw pretty sketches, get the contract based on those, then give them to other designers and engineers to "work out the details" that make it work. I worked for a major international firm who never drew their own construction documents. They only did design development, and would hand the design off to a locally licensed firm to do the actual construction documents. Having now worked as an architect, an engineer, and a contractor, I can tell you that it's usually up to the last two to make the ideas of the former work. Which is why we hate them. We hate them so much.

[FlowerChild]

I love your architect analogy, because I am an architect. Which is probably why I instinctively understand your design philosophy.

Well, the feeling is mutual man. Some of the comments you've made regarding the design of BTW and our general design conversations have left me still considering them months down the road.

The statements you made on the value of minimalism in design for example are something I still ponder from time to time, and made me cognizant of my own design tendencies in that regard when I had not been previously fully aware of them.

I've also had to do a lot of 3d rendering. I've often wondered if my architecture education would translate well into being a level designer. But there aren't many game development companies where I am, so it's mostly a passing fancy.

It just might actually. Not so much in terms of aesthetics or what have you (there are way too many "level designers" that focus on big pretty set-pieces that mean nothing in terms of game play), but more in terms with your familiarity with organizing a structure around the flow of people within it and that kind of thing.

If you ever have some free time, you might want to play around with creating a 3D level for an MP FPS or something (the "Quake Level" I mentioned above). It can be an interesting 3D thought exercise in organizing something almost akin to traffic patterns.

[FaceFoiled]

I've actually seen quite a few people be promoted from QA and CS departments, into production (anything from game design, programming, artistic side and such). QA is something that is not the hardest thing to train in :P. If you have someone with the skillset for a better job (for example programming) than it would be more beneficial for the company to hire that person instead and train a new hire into QA.

In the end of the day though, the person with the best skillset/background is likely to get the job. If that is not you (whether you already work in the company at QA or not), than work on your skillset. :P I do think that having a QA background on your CV would help out in various places. And you can always apply for another job elsewhere, whilst doing the QA job (if your company does not do any internal promotions).

[TheAnarchitect]

If you ever have some free time, you might want to play around with creating a 3D level for an MP FPS or something (the "Quake Level" I mentioned above). It can be an interesting 3D thought exercise in organizing something almost akin to traffic patterns.

Oddly enough, the first Computer Drafting I ever did was putting together a level for Doom II.

If I ever find myself unemployed again, I'll seriously look into repurposing my education in that direction. Right now, I spend too much time at a computer at my job, so I mostly get my gaming kicks (both design and play) at the tabletop these days. I'm working on something I think will be publishable in e-book format by the end of the year.