[Experienced game developer and manager Troy Dunniway, a veteran of
studios like Microsoft, EA, Insomniac, and Ubisoft, discusses some of the major
risks involved in transitioning from a small to large development team and how
to identify and avoid them. This second installment tackles the nitty-gritty
risks different disciplines will face.]
My earlier Gamasutra article Small Developers: Minimizing Risks in
Large Productions - Part I talked about what general risks a
small company might face as it tried to expand and take on larger projects. It
gave a general overview of these risks: risks in running a game development
business, risks in not having adequate or proper game preproduction, game
development process risks which occur when you don't have a defined roadmap for
how to work, and risks around your team members and staff.
In Part II, we will continue the article and dive into: schedule
and project management risks which occur when you fail to properly schedule,
risks involved in poor game design, art, testing and programming decisions and
the risks involved in outsourcing. This article will focus on more specific
problems on your projects which you must look out for.
1.
Schedule
and Project Management Risks
The risks of improperly scheduling a project are numerous
and ongoing throughout. There is no right or wrong answer on how to develop or
how to schedule. Some teams utilize a waterfall methodology; some use an agile
method. Most use some kind of hybrid methodology.
No matter how you handle it, you
will incur a tremendous amount of risk to a project if you don't schedule your
projects, and you will also incur a lot of risks if you schedule poorly, fall
behind, or make bad decisions in your scheduling.
Many producers just like to add a 20 to 50 percent (or
more!) buffer to every task and schedule, allowing for unforeseen problems.
While this is a good practice, it can't account for all problems. If you are
scheduling the game or a feature you are working on, and know that there is
some inherent risk in it, you should account for that from day one. "Plan
for the worst; hope for the best," as they say.
The risks and solutions for how to properly schedule your
game could fill an entire book. The important thing to keep in mind is that not
scheduling your project, or doing it poorly, will usually lead to lots of
problems. This is one of the reasons that larger teams usually employ one too
many development directors, whose whole job is to manage the schedule for the
project, or sometimes even just a team or feature.
The biggest thing you can do to avoid risks in scheduling is
to establish a process where your leads are not tasked at 100 percent for the
project -- rather, usually at 50 to 75
percent -- and can then safely spend time scheduling, hiring, managing the
team, doing status reports, having 1:1 meetings with reports, and so on. Many
teams expect their leads to be as productive on the project as everyone else,
while also shouldering the additional responsibilities of being a manager. This
tends to burn out leads more quickly and is a major source of aggravation for
many.
If your team is too busy to stop and schedule, you have a
problem.
2.
Design
Risks
Understanding when and how to make something extremely new
and innovative and when to utilize existing technologies is an important
decision. Many designers like to do things differently just because they can.
Sometimes this can be good, but it usually leads to a project assuming the
maximum amount of risk. It is good to understand what risks your game design is
going to possibly impose on the project and how to minimize them.
Design risks can come in many shapes and sizes, so it is
impossible to categorize them all. Things can be risky because the team has
never done them, or because no game
has ever done them. Things can be risky because they could require a lot of
resources to do correctly, or because there are no tools or processes in place
to do them. In the end, only the team can decide if there is a lot of risk or a
little risk associated with each feature, and weigh in on how to minimize these
risks.
Early on it is good to brainstorm wild and crazy ideas, but
it is also good to put some limits on things and try to reduce some of the risk
as soon as you can. This can include setting a limit to how many new things you
are doing (I usually try and do no more than three to five new things in a
project if possible), or putting a time limit on when the new stuff must be
proven -- before you go to plan B, or cut it.
The design pipelines must also be identified for risks. You
need to take a look at your tools and processes and make sure that they are
optimized to let designers create, tweak and balance content as quickly as
possible, as well as allow the maximum number of designers to work on the same
stuff as possible. The design tools problems are especially amplified for open
world, role-playing and other less linear and more complicated games. If your
tools pipeline isn't optimized, you run the risk of the design team not being
able to start until others have finished, getting behind, and then not being
able to catch up -- forcing the game to be delayed.
It's especially important to remember that designers are
also majorly at risk from others on the project falling behind and delivering
their assets late. Since the designers are usually the last to touch a level,
and do most of the assembly, they are much more susceptible to problems faced
by the entire team. Designers must try and ensure that the other teams stay on
track.
In the end, making the wrong design decisions, and having a
game director that is going to force the team to do them regardless of what
everyone else thinks, can be a massive risk to the project and should be
avoided at all costs.
|
According to this article, schedule and project management risks: "not scheduling your project, or doing it poorly, will usually lead to lots of problems", design risks: "making the wrong design decisions ... can be a massive risk to the project", and risk mitigation: "best way you can reduce risk however is just to talk about it and create a plan to avoid it". Duh, duh, and no, just no.
I would understand something like this as a blog, but for some reason, I expect higher editorial standards for feature articles.
Best,
Michael.
In any case, as a developer that hasn't been in the industry as long as most others, it was an interesting and insightful read for me. Yes, a good portion of it is common sense, but how common is common sense these days?
There's common sense, and then there's tautology. Saying "One of the problems with scheduling can be when it's done poorly" doesn't actually communicate anything. It doesn't define what types of problems you can run into; nor does it define what makes poor scheduling poor. If you're trying to avoid poor scheduling, there is no take-away from that kind of statement. This article is largely content-free in spite of all its words.
Worse than that, it is actually wrong in some places. Avoidance is not the only strategy for risk management. Some risks you simply have to accept; they are part and parcel of the project and/or team. Most risks you try to mitigate; every risk has a potential impact and a potential to trigger; you can try to reduce one or the other, but often you try to address both. Avoidance of risks as a strategy generally happens at project inception, not once a project is underway. And "just talking about it and making a plan" is no way to manage risks. A plan without execution is a waste of time. How you execute on a risk management plan effectively is a valuable topic, but one this article does not even begin to gesture towards.
That's simply an expanded version of what I initially said, but hopefully it will clarify what I meant.
Best,
Michael.