What does a game director(Iga) do in a team?
Jun 19, 2016 17:51:08 GMT -6
Ciel, gunlord500, and 7 more like this
Post by dareka on Jun 19, 2016 17:51:08 GMT -6
It is interesting to observe the differences between Japanese and western developers. Iga has shown to take a fairly hands-on approach when developing games. By that I mean paying attention to where each part of team is and offering opinions or advice when questions come up or decisions need to be made.
On the other hand, a director like Inafune seems to have a different approach. He and his company Comcept seem to be less involved with day-to-day aspects of development and contribute broader creative and thematic direction. Of course this is mostly conjecture, since Japanese game development has historically been a fairly private process. I'd love to know how involved Inafune was for games like Onimusha. Whatever the case may be, there definitely does seem to be a difference of job roles between developers like Iga and someone like David Jaffe. Interesting stuff.
While the approach to game development is very different in Japan, when you get right down to it it's the personality of the guy in charge that makes the biggest difference, regardless of the overall approach you're following.
The way I see it, you've basically got these leader types (examples taken from Japanese game developers, but the same applies to western developers):
The obsessive: always hands on, goes over everything to make sure it's just the way he/she wants it. Example: Hideo Kojima.
The team player: maybe hands-on or hands-off, but tends to delegate responsibilities and accept the creative input from others. Example: IGA, Yoshi-P(FFXIV)
The whip-cracker: maybe hands-on or hands-off, but the person's style is basically to push the team. Example: Keiji Inafune, Shigeru Miyamoto.
None of these types is good or bad per-se ... they each have their advantages and disadvantages, and all leaders have to be a bit of each - but they do translate into very, very different results.
Here are some advantages and disadvantages that come to mind.
The obsessive
Advantages: can lead to the creation of truly innovative and revolutionary games, as one guy's crazy vision is not diluted by those of others - no one else's opinion matters.
Disadvantages: the whole no one else's opinion matters extends to the players as well, so controversial issues are not addressed. Think of the cut-scenes in Metal Gear: there are those who love them, but they've also been criticized for being too long, which is something Kojima never addressed.
The team player
Advantages: leads to the creation of games enriched by several different perspectives.
Disadvantages: more likely to result in an evolutionary product as opposed to one which is revolutionary. Also, if the team player leader is not a good project manager, the game might never come out, since competing ideas eat up time and resources.
The whip-cracker
Advantages: leads to games that represent the very best a team has to offer...
Disadvantages: ... provided that the team is very good, or that the whip cracker him/herself is very good and very hands-on ... otherwise, demanding that stuff be better isn't going to make it better, and might actually make it worse.