I don't think this holds to scrutiny. This breaks down as soon as you get out of the idea phase.
Everyone has visions, and most great achievements today are the results of an amalgamation of them. The really big achievements are almost always the result of groups, not individuals.
People that idolize others have to turn a blind eye to everything surrounding that individual's achievement. It's simply easier to simplify big achievements as "this person was great". In reality though, it's a culmination of everything that came before that individual, the support around them, some of their decisions and much more.
In other words: monuments are a bad argument to evaluate if something is good or not. Especially in today's individualistic society.
> This breaks down as soon as you get out of the idea phase.
No, it does not. Most ideas fail, and a significant amount of "off the ground" projects fail.
To be successful long term, it requires vision and commitment. You can find people to grind on your vision, but you cannot make them see what you see.
The overwhelming majority of massive successful projects and companies have a key figure that drove them to success.
I'd wager there are very few examples (if any) of a massive and successful companies that began life as a startup with a 30+ person board, for example.
> You can find people to grind on your vision, but you cannot make them see what you see.
I call bullshit. If you can't explain your vision you're a shitty leader. Good leaders can share their vision and get people to buy into them, adding their visions on top of it.
This is an oversimplification of very complex human interactions. Humans seek the simple explanation, even when there isn't one.
>The overwhelming majority of massive successful projects and companies have a key figure that drove them to success.
s/a key figure/key figures/g
Every project that is big enough has multiple people driving them to success. This idea that the person at the top is the only one driving it is insane. It's individualistic propaganda. No, you did not build your company/product/achievement alone. It's self-serving bias being projected onto someone else.
>I'd wager there are very few examples (if any) of a massive and successful companies that began life as a startup with a 30+ person board, for example.
That's moving the goalpost. Nobody's saying you need 30 people for things to happen. Anything greater than 1 is, by definition, no longer an individual effort.
Take one of the most known examples: Apple. It took both Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak to make it happen. After their initial success, it wouldn't have grown to today's behemoth without the thousands of others that came after and worked on each and every product to make them successful. It's always a group effort. We can simplify and say "Jobs did it" but it's absolutely inaccurate.
I don't understand why smart people need idols. I get why the masses need their figures, but once you think about it for 5 seconds it's obvious they are mostly myths.
> We can simplify and say "Jobs did it" but it's absolutely inaccurate.
It actually would not be. We got to witness Apple with Jobs, without and with-again... the track record unambiguously demonstrates how impactful a single visionary, highly motivated leader can be within an organization.
We're now seeing Apple without Jobs yet again, and while the stock price has coasted upwards under Cook, Apple has not been the "bold" "think different" Apple ever since. Present-day Apple largely relies on it's existing products and small iterations. Apple, under Cook, has produced nothing market-changing or revolutionary, like they consistently delivered under Jobs.
If you've got 30 people on a committee, or 30 people on your board, well, good luck with that (in any context.)
My business has always had 3 or 4 people as owners, and hence as the "executive committee". I've found that to be helpful. If you can't convince your fellow owners then it's likely a bad idea.
(We've also turned away good ideas, and executed on bad ideas, the group approach is not infallible.)
But it really helps to develop a vision beyond just "my idea this morning" before diving into implementation.
Seems like confirmation bias. We often than not like to lionize successful individuals, but plenty of visions are false or otherwise fail. On the other hand, we tend not to remember group efforts because it's harder to remember multiple individuals at a time. But surely they do exist. Was there a single visionary behind Bell Labs? Xerox PARC? The traitorous eight? The Apollo program? The Manhattan Project?
There are different types of group governance and almost all of them having an individual decision-maker at the front. Oppenheimer directed the Manhattan Project but he wasn't a "visionary individual," he had plenty of talented geniuses working under him.
I believe there would be a single polymath who has skills in multiple fields, such as Oppenheimer who was great at science and administration who can lead a group for successful execution. For Apollo moon mission, it was the US president vision at the foremost. Even for TSMC and other companies such people exist. I don't want to say that entire credit goes to an individual but leaders with multiple skills are necessary.
Nah, this is not true. This is just the narrative because someone want to get the honors or the stacks of cash. Apple wasn't created by Steve Jobs. Not even created by Steve Jobs and the Woz. They did start something that eventually became Apple. They had a lot of sway, but without all the other people that worked there and created all the important details it would have just been a pipe dream.
Seems like it's deliberately using "committee" as a pejorative to make a political point. Flip it to "you'll find no statues of groups of people" and it's patently false.
Conversely, I think this book is applicable to non-game software too. I could just as well have called this book More Design Patterns, but I think games make for more engaging examples. Do you really want to read yet another book about employee records and bank accounts?
That being said, while the patterns introduced here are useful in other software, I think they’re particularly well-suited to engineering challenges commonly encountered in games:
- Time and sequencing are often a core part of a game’s architecture. Things must happen in the right order and at the right time.
- Development cycles are highly compressed, and a number of programmers need to be able to rapidly build and iterate on a rich set of different behavior without stepping on each other’s toes or leaving footprints all over the codebase.
- After all of this behavior is defined, it starts interacting. Monsters bite the hero, potions are mixed together, and bombs blast enemies and friends alike. Those interactions must happen without the codebase turning into an intertwined hairball.
- And, finally, performance is critical in games. Game developers are in a constant race to see who can squeeze the most out of their platform. Tricks for shaving off cycles can mean the difference between an A-rated game and millions of sales or dropped frames and angry reviewers.
Performance part alone is worth reading about game development for non game developers.
Retail off the shelf machines these days are so powerful that it encourages sloppy design and development.
Games are just normal software dev dialed up to ten, though there are many problems that game developers enjoy not having to care about (and visa-versa). Attempting to make a basic 3D engine is probably a good exercise for all developers - even if it goes uncompleted.
You are trying to focus too much on money and control. Instead focus on experience, are you learning new things, are you somewhat enjoying the process.
There are ways to communicate your objections without triggering other person defensive response.
Am I learning new things? Yes. But not sure if I'm learning enough to be effective. There's still lot of industry jargon terms, processes, norms which I don't understand. I only understood part of IA doc that was shared, nor the PRD.
Am I somewhat enjoying the process? Until now, yes. I just don't like not knowing what's happening.
Very similar to Hinduism. Hinduism also describe multi verse, number of species on planet.
A lot of theory in science is around advance Civilization that existed before modern day human (they are usually referred to as Giants). Hinduism talk about how earlier human were larger in height and have been reducing since the beginning.
Dude, stop posting comments like this which is just ignorant and gives a bad name to Hinduism where the subject of "Cyclic Creation and Absorption of Universe" is well detailed.
I know good developers pay for tools. Maybe the lesson for someone who wants to be best at what they do is do things 90% of people they are competing with wouldn't do.
You know there is no score board for software engineers right?
And you know that the company is supposed to buy this stuff and you can get fired for using unapproved tools that send code and probably violate copyright.
