IGDA Focus

That's a question, not necessarily my opinion. But I'm willing to raise the question: I do think Craft is a weak area of IGDA endeavor.

I chose Craft not because I think it's what the IGDA is about, but because it's important to me and something I'd like to see the IGDA handle. In other words, I didn't follow the letter of Kathy's survey instructions. I think stating what we want is just as important as impassively analyzing what we've got.

This is the International Game Developers Association. But I feel it usually behaves like the International Game Businesspeoples Association.

For instance, I had an idea about organizing industry celebrities and notables into a Virtual Roundtable service, and somehow linking that up with local chapters. Jason Della Roca totally didn't like the idea, and has the attitude that all of those kinds of efforts should be ceded to outfits like Gamasutra and Gamedev.net. I can appreciate the labor rationality of his stance, but I think he's missing some points about ownership in a volunteer organization.

Gamasutra is not my organization. Gamasutra cannot and will not advocate on issues of Craft in a completely independent manner, being the product of Miller Freeman. Gamasutra is a very useful part of the landscape, but I do not want it to be the entire landscape. And, um, yes I know Miller Freeman is in a management partnership with the IGDA. Although I have no specific beefs at this time, it all strikes me as a tad too cozy.

What's wrong with Gamedev.net? Well, everyone and anyone can join. I prefer some nominal barriers to entry to keep people serious. I advocate having some members-only IGDA forums, for instance. Also, for some accident of history, Gamedev.net is strong on programming expertise, weak on other stuff. I think of Gamedev.net as a "programmer outfit."

In fairness, the IGDA has a few committees dedicated to Craft:
- AI Interface Standards Committee
- Online Games Committee
- Education Commitee, arguably

This is far from a full plate though.

I think the Independent Games Festival is the most important thing happening in industry regarding issues of Craft. But, it has nothing to do with the IGDA. Somehow I spaced that out. As an IGF judge, I'm actually a lackey of Miller Freeman and didn't quite realize it. It seems I'm not currently doing anything in the IGDA at all. I've had a membership for 2 years... if I were to let it lapse, nothing would change.

I think refining game design and the skills required for it will benefit aspiring game designers by giving them more specific qualifications to aim for.

I agree with whatever you meant by that!

Brandon, with all due respect, this conversation has gone on at board level for at least two years, so implying that you were the catalyst is a stretch.

I appreciate the passion behind your statement:

"Why did we join the IGDA, to have a board tell us everything that we should and shouldn't do? No! This is the International Game Developers Association, and we are the developers. This is our organization. Many of us are extremely intelligent individuals, capable of all sorts of wonderful things. If we allow people to Do them."

Setting aside the fact that every nonprofit has an elected board that delivers umbrella guidance and structure to the org at large, the real challenge we're facing is more along RedBull's comment:

"I am new to the associate, and not in a position at the immediate time to really volunteer much of my time, and not by choice. But I do look forward to helping out as much as I can."

This thread has been very enlightening...watch for the next question in the next monthly bulletin.

Thanks.

Kathy S.

Yeah, maybe a two-tier system. A "Full Resources and Effort" tier and a "Volunteer Led" tier. The idea being that in the latter tier, volunteers are expected to come up with most of the resources necessary for implementation, with coordination resources provided by the IGDA. Coordination would require a delegation hierarchy of volunteer coordinators, as Jason Della Roca is not enough to meet all needs.

I don't know how I would tell if it's an original Gurkha Army knife or not. It's got "GORKHA ARMY" and the number "1036" stamped on the blade. Googling around, there are many knives of this style made in Nepal. Mine is fairly plain and functional. I suppose I'd need to ask an expert.

In real life I'm strictly low tech. Weapons of choice would be any of: 24" baton, 42" riot baton, any 2 of these in combination, or a 6' bo stick. Failing these, I'm happy to use my bare hands.

Erm, that's assuming the match is non-lethal. I mean, I could kill someone using any / all of those, but it would be much easier if I brought something built more to task! Options: 2 14" iron bars, 2 common household hammers - although amusingly my 2nd hammer is a 9.5" baby, good mainly for laughter. Or, if it's really really serious, I'll sharpen up my Ghurka knife. Honestly it's mostly proven its worth on ivy and tall weeds, and I don't keep it sharp lest I hack my own hand off!

Does this remind anyone of the beginning of Dungeon Siege? I'm thinking of training with a Shovel...

However, the IGDA is now facing growing pains. While managing limited resources is certainly one of our challenges, at a more fundamental level, with so many initiatives having been sprouted it is difficult to tell what the IGDA truly "stands for". Is it improvement of the craft? Agitating for change in the industry? Working to set industry-wide standards? Or, building social networks via chapters? We may be any number of these things, but we're beginning to realize that we can't be all of these things equally well.

I was going to eneumerate my poll chocies (1. Advocacy, 2. Craft) and then justify them, but instead, I won't. Working on my TBS, Ocean Mars, has taught me to think more strategically.

I may have precipitated Kathy's missive. That said, I may have been but one straw on a camel's back. Recently, Jason Della Rocca and I had a big argument about the idea of a Virtual Roundtable Service. To cut a long story short, I was for, Jason was against. Jason (reasonably) worried about his energies being spread thin. No matter how many burdens are taken on by volunteers, there's always some coordination work for him to do with them. Jason (unreasonably, IMHO) worried about the "focus" of the IGDA being at stake.

I countered that what we really need to do is enhance our ability to mobilize volunteer labor. If Jason isn't enough, then we need more than Jason. If that can't be a paid person, then we have to mobilize volunteers into a delegation system.

Then, Kathy's missive appears.

Frankly, all of the agendas in the poll need doing. And, everybody is going to differ about which agenda is "most important." For any given agenda, someone will YeaSay, others will NaySay. In all instances, Progress comes from Doers, Regress from Talkers. I would like to see an IGDA that's focused on Doing. Not Restricting or Limiting or Guarding or Voting or Controlling or Bickering. If a volunteer is willing to do something, if they will own the problem and marshal the needed resources, then I want to see that volunteer supported.

I have a different managerial theory than Jason does. I think Jason thinks about management as though we're all getting paid a salary. But the reality is, we're all paying dues. I think, in a volunteer organization, volunteers put their energy into what they want to do, and nothing else. They aren't widget labor that you can "focus" into problems that you think need solving. They put their labor into problems they think need solving. A properly mobilized volunteer organization is thus somewhat anarchic. Or Democratic, if you see each act of Doing as a continuous, ongoing vote about what the IGDA is or isn't.

I am sure there are some strategic resources where yes, a high level management group has to make a decision about what will be purused and what won't be. But apart from that, there's a lot of tactical room for Doers to volunteer and get things Done. I see no reason to restrict that or try to "focus" it. It is not profitable from a labor mobilization perspective, it doesn't utilize the large pools of manpower available to us.

Nor is it is equitable from a membership perspective. Why did we join the IGDA, to have a board tell us everything that we should and shouldn't do? No! This is the International Game Developers Association, and we are the developers. This is our organization. Many of us are extremely intelligent individuals, capable of all sorts of wonderful things. If we allow people to Do them.

And, I must emphasize: if they own the problems. That's the golden rule of Volunteerism. You thought it, YOU OWN IT. You're the one who has to Do it, not pass the buck to somebody else.

It should be known that when someone says What do you associate with something, typically, the answer received is not merely subjective, but personally subjective.
Association, by its nature, asks one to associate with something.
So, when one asks, , the answer reflects, most directly, what the respondent personally associates with the concept or perception of the IGDA.
It is not necessarily an answer that can be used to define the IGDA, but an answer which reflects the driving factors behind ones involvement with any given area or subject, eg. Game Development.
A game programmers answer will be, information and something that pertains to the activity of programming a game or the implementation of concepts given to the programmer in the form of source code and game functionality.
A game designers answer will be, information and community as the game designer typically focuses on creating a concept, as opposed to implementation of said concept .
A game producers answer will be community and information because that is what the game producer typically deals with every day that s/he is responsible for the production of a game is community and information.
A related example:

The person quoted associated what s/he loves about finding ideas and information that can help her/him in what s/he is doing where games are concerned. Information and Ideas.
I associate more than two things with the IGDA.
If I had answered "Community and Standards" it would have completely changed the current poll standings.
Given that the poll currently states, Advocacy and Community are most associated with the IGDA.
Does IGDA only cater to game activists then? Is that what the IGDA wants as their primary target and mission?
Those at the heart of IGDA are those who are doing the work or those who want to be doing the work or desire to be more active in some area of game development.
However, when it comes to What IGDA is, as opposed to What an individual participant who wants to be involved in developing games (and getting paid for it) associates with IGDA. There is a major difference.
Clearly, there is a need to define terms such as game development, participation in game development, game activism and IGDAs' official role or mission is in terms of game development. In this context, IGDA is a forum.
From another standpoint, IGDA is a repository. From yet another standpoint, IGDA is, and can continue to be a communication medium, targetted on fighting the police state of awful censors and criticizing the prevailing needs and desires of individuals who have absolutely nothing to do with the actual development of any given game and everything to do with their status as consumers.
In closing:
IGDA is not just one thing or another, but it is all of what follows -- do not assume I am prioritizing or, in any way, advocating anything:

The above should be weighted on an individual basis. It should not be limited to one or two associations, as that sort of limiting can only hurt the existing dynamicity of the IGDA.
If the IGDA is to remain dynamic, it can not be locked in to simply one or two foci. It must have the freedom in the truest, most subjective sense of the word, to choose its own mission and its own purpose.
If the IGDA can remains dynamic, then the IGDA can facilitate a more dynamic approach to all those areas that are associated with game development on all of the related conceptual levels that might be perceived as being applied to or for the activity of game development.

The utility of the IGDA varies greatly depending upon what level you approach it from. Established members who have jobs in the industry are naturally goin to percieve it as a kind of social club, suitable for the exchange of ideas and a great place to bitch about outdated management techniques and marketing driven design.

People who are still breaking into the industry are going to look at it as a way to supplement the nepotism and hard work they've had to endure to try and make games.

The real question is:

Is the IGDA about gaming, or about the people who make games?

I've always felt that it was about the former.

But given the wording of the initial question, I'm thinking that it's really some form of collective bargaining tool.

Not that I object to that. Hell, [good] games designers are the musicians of the 21st Century (i.e. underpaid cash cows), but it's always nice to know where us peons stand.

I voted for Community, because I believe that is what an "International Game Developer's Association" should have as it's primary focus. Once a strong community and associated network is in place, a lot of the other concerns will fall into place. Continue to grow relationships, and try to maintain regular meetings and events, because that's what its really about.

My secondary vote was for Information. Set high standards for your formal information programs. Siggraph/ACM and IEEE all have excellent academic papers available. Continue to work with both educational and commercial groups to improve the level of their contribution. Provide outreach programs when possible, to help novices learn how to bridge the gap between research and applied development.

Also set high standards for your informal information, such as: general news, forums, and online meetings. Hire some really good moderators who can act in a neutral manner to coach quality interaction, without becoming emotionally involved in a discussion. Busy game developers, business managers, researchers, and students really don't want to wade through terabytes of raw flaming noise to get or contribute salient information.

Continue the current trend of improving the forum organization. (And please clarify the home page: it is way too busy for someone who just comes through once or twice a month--where the heck is the login prompt, anyway!)

As far as Advocacy goes, I wouldn't worry about it unless something really pressing comes up. Then, if you have Community, it shouldn't be too hard to organize strike forces to take care of a legal issue here and there. I'm against a full-time lobby, as well as unionization. I also recommend against the related issue of government--don't try to provide government for game developers. Would you govern art, music, or literature? Something like the ESRB is fine, but leave it at that.

Finally, regarding industry standards: if there are enough interested people, they should form independent standards committees. I don't believe that the IGDA itself should be heavily involved in the production of industry standards, but keep itself leaner and meaner: focus on the key concepts of Community and Information. By limiting its role as a catalyst for innovation, rather than as implementors of the innovation, the IGDA will avoid becoming bogged down in special-interest activities, and keep touch with its members.

Thanks for your time,

-rjh

Everyone wants to be honored. Especially game developers. If the IGDA had some kind of contests, people would enter because you might win. Another way to honor people is to teach. If the IGDA set up some sort of regular seminars with a plethora of useful information, people would go. The GDC could use more breakthrough sessions, but I'm talking about the chapters. How about encouraging the chapters to advertise seminars and workshops on the main page. For example, an advanced GPU programming techniques session at a chapter would motivate me to attend.

I think the credits issue can be solved in a year (that's quick) as long as we focus on the simplest problems first.

Instead of focusing on who gets what credit and why (Derek is right --- for now, that's the project leader/producer's job), we should focus on what the credits ARE so that there is uniformity in credits.

Different companies use the terms producers, project leaders, directors, and even designers interchangeably. This has got to stop. Otherwise, the terms carry different meanings depending on the game or the company.

This is why I stated earlier that standardized credits will enhance the appreciation of certain skills. For once, the skills will be understandable and have a consistent meaning when they are identified. Standardized credits will have defined meanings and hopefully various game-related guilds will be a part of that.

However, if IGDA does not have the "community" involved (if more than half the industry workers are not IGDA members) then maybe now is not the time to start talking about credit standards.

I think Derek said there is little member participation. I think we need to find out why and create a new system around the needs of the members. If meetings aren't working, and you've exhausted ways to maximize their effectiveness, then it's time to try something else to achieve the desired effect.

Thomas J. Allen

This would work better if chapter coordinators could get their members to do such a poll.....

Which is why I - being the only one so far - voted other. Because quite frankly, not only is the poll skewed, I simply can't see its usefulness as it pertains to the scope of the discussion. But hey, if the bigwigs want numbers, there you have it. What they do with skewed results, is entirely up to them. But I predict, that this time next year, we won't have progressed much beyond where we are now. One think I know for certain is that the issue of credits won't have been solved by then.

And speaking of pessimism, most people regard someone's version of harsh reality as pessimism. The good thing about being pessimistic is that at least you stand some chance of being surprised in the long run. Dare to dream.

I recent finished a book by Robert Jones titled, "The Big Idea" and I think the core concepts are applicable.

Big Ideas are
1. About the future
2. Value for money
3. Distinctiveness
4. Virtuous
5. Stands for something
6. Worth belonging to
7. Everyone's property

With 61 votes the clear concensus is community.

Community, therefore at this stage, should be the focus IGDA start with. Community should be IGDA's big idea.

With relentless pursuit of this focus, the community should be vibrant enough to address other areas such as advocacy, standards, information, etc.. Without community and community contributions, the organization would be quite shallow.

Side notes:
1. Interested to see how the polls goes from here...
2. The above book is a recommended read

The pessimism on whether or not standardized credits can be achieved is counter-productive. The first step is to abandon that mindset. I refuse to believe that, when each profession is allowed to develop the standardized credits for its specific profession, that people in this business can not come together.

There is far too much personality being displayed on these issues, which could be the very reason that many are alienated from these things. Let's see what we can agree on first before sagely claims of "it can't be done."

Art directors can work on art credits; programmers can work on programming credits... it is simple, it is small, but it will have an impact. It will and should not be one guy at IGDA coming up with a list.

Most of the standardization exists informally --- now we just need to formalize it, and Eric Zimmerman's ideas fall perfectly into place. The guilds could keep "black books" on companies that use non-guild workers and non-guild approved credits.

I was not referring to the gaming press when I said "mainstream press." I believe the mainstream press is either largely ignorant or manipulative when it comes to game coverage. All you need do is view the dozens if not hundreds of Grand Theft Auto stories as evidence of that.

Thomas J. Allen

Returning to the topic at hand, I have always seen the IGDA to have a single purpose:

To promote the development of videogames as a cultural and artistic form of entertainment.

(btw, read development as evolution of the medium, not development in game creation terms)

While this is broad (it covers pretty much everything the IGDA does), I feel it gives a higher sense of importance to activities which do more to achieve this goal.

I would also like to say that there is a huge need for a standardised gaming "language". Has anyone else noticed that we don't even have a universally accepted name for our medium? I use "videogames" above, but many would argue that this excludes PC and arcade games. I believe the IGDA should set up a committee to agree upon standardised terms for videogaming, and publish a small lexiconic paper with accepted definitions for each of these words.

Thats easy. Because its not a small issue. And even if it was, standards, no matter how small, are never an easy thing to dispense of quickly. Its not like the IGDA is going to assign someone to draw up a list of rules and regs related to how its members derive their credits. And even if they did, it won't amount to nothing more than someone - who is probably getting paid for that particularly pointless time wasting excercise - writing an op ed that most are going to read. And ignore shortly thereafter.

And even if by some unexplained miracle it does happen (note: drawing up rules, regs, standards is great - getting people to adhere to them is clearly another matter), how many are going to heed and adhere to said standard? I can just see it now, some producer tells his counterparts at EA that, overnight, the IGDA (that particular suit is probably going to go ....who?) has declared one half of the credits and business cards listings, obsolete. And all have to be redone. I wanna be that fly on the wall. Can I be that fly on the wall? Please? I swear I won't make a sound and I promise not to laugh my ass off.

You folks seem to have this misguided notion that you're dealing with ordinary, rules abiding people. We're developers who, on a good month, can barely pay attention to the simple rules of our niche, let alone some other standard e.g. how many try to use a specific high order shader instruction without checking to see if the bloody card (note to self : cream someone at nVidia for those MX travesties) actually supports that version. I did. And I'm supposed to be damn good at what I do. Thats what I'm talking about. So, while the issue of credits may seem like a small thing, try actually standardizing it and see how it quickly snowballs into a massive mess - complete with dissenting opinions. I for one, don't care either way and thats why I don't use Jack Of All Trades as my credits tagline.

I fail to see how this bears any relevance within the scope of this discussion. Last I checked - and having dealt with almost everyone worth knowing in the media - a press person doesn't go looking for a programmer if he's only interested in writing/talking about artwork or sound. So, I think your point is moot. The media, while they may not understand everything about the industry, aren't stupid. OK, I make no excuses for the unprofessional folks running gaming websites and thinking they're in the media. But when you're talking about mainstream press (I'm thinking gaming press btw), I'm thinking the likes of Denny Atkin, Andy Mahood, Steve Bauman, Rob Smith, Jeff Green etc etc. To say that those guys - and their ilk - barely understands anything in the game industry is. just. plain. silly.

I disagree. If I am an artist and I like doing my art, I'd better appreciate my art for what I do, instead of what is written on some piece of paper or what some producer thinks. Its not who people think you are or what you're worth that matters - its who you think you are and what you're worth that does. And you'd better be doing what you're doing because you love doing it.

....continued

http://www.igda.org/Forums/showthread.php?threadid=6382

New thread on credits. Please respond.

derek,

I was stating that EVERYONE wants to be a game designer, but really doesnt understand what they are implying by that, you of all people know that having a vision for a game, doesn't mean you can do it on your own.

and that each person you bring into the mix, adds their own flavour to the game, you cannot stop that.

what you were actually saying was there isnt a need for roll definition.

I was disagreeing with that statement, which is complete tosh. We need to define rolls positions. What I believe a game designer is, would be a Director in a film. He doesnt make the story, he helps shape and interpret it. He doesn't act, he doesnt operate a camera. He sets the scene.

as it is, we dont have tools to support that, we dont have the ability in games to come close.

as for this complete crap about people wearing many hats. Guess what 15 years later in this industry, and I'm SICK OF IT!!! Wearing many hats means doing many jobs, and its not possible any more. Not with the scope of projects we're talking about now.

so enough with the wearing many hats crap... everyone likes to be the martar in this industry, oh I worked 20 hours yesterday... and ... or I had to do an all nighter... these phrases are RUBBISH, and the lack of roll definition and standards just encourage this bs.

trying not to make this too personal derek, you run your company with the intent of what, making a game every 4 years I think it is, though you do make patches every month, why is this ? perhaps its because you're the producer, lead programmer, lead tools, artist, and I commend you on your effect, but the rest of the game industry lives in a 18month reality, if that, EA works on a 12 month release schedule (although teams are staggered),

so derek, I was disagreeing with your lack of standards statement. I hope its clear now. I think standardization is a MAJOR roll for the IGDA to be in, more important than other areas.

andi

derek, I disagree here, strongly.

If we cannot define our rolls within our industry how can we expect people to be adequately trained for those rolls? For instance if everyone is classified as Game Designer ? does this mean art? programming? level designer ? game author?

if we dont define this, its pure chaos, producer, for instance does what ? track and maintain budgets? schedules? or is also a designer ? responsible for design implementation and design approval ? depending where you are it means a different thing.

I see senior engineers now with 3 years experience, but ACM for instance recognizes 7 years as a senior ? bit of a difference, even more annoying if you're trying to figure out resumes

anyway.... I think we need definitions.. it will come out from credit definitions anyway, in some form..

andi

Well smack me sideways with a slab o' beef and color me stumped - because I have NO idea what you're disagreeing with Andi.

...going back and reading my post, and yours, I'm still baffled. Are you suggesting that someone shouldn't be a Game Designer because its too broad? If thats the case, then thats just ridiculous - and you simply cannot be serious. In retrospect, seeing that you wrote two posts about it, you MUST be serious!

A Game Designer is just that, someone who either designed an entire game or parts of it. It is not unheard of to have more than one Game Designer on a project, in much the same way you can have more than one programmer, artist, animator etc etc. In fact, if a Game Designer specs out something and another person, say an artist, programmer etc suggests a change, it is no longer the Game Designer's idea is it? So, should the artist or programmer call himself a Game Designer and thus share the credit? Not by a long shot.

I can't think of any one developer who would rather be called Game Designer than say, programmer - if he/she posseses both skills. I mean, its not the movie industry we're talking about here, where a producer or director who mutters something to a Key Grip, automatically gets to share that KG's credits. Or vice versa. By and large, I think the industry has a firm grip on what credit gets assigned to what person. If it ends up being inaccurate or otherwise incorrect, thats up to the individual companies to rectify it. Whats this got to do with the IDGA? Well its not like SAG or the many movie industry credits have a blurry line related to who does what, when and how.

Case in point (and I'm going to use myself as an example once again), I design all my games. I'm also the producer, lead developer (I write approx 90% of the code, put the game together from all out sourced elements etc), CTO (I research new technologies on an ongoing basis), lead coffee maker etc etc. To the extent that, being a qualified artist, modeler and animator (I was pissing around with DPaint, 3DS R1 etc back when most in the industry were still considering crawling out of their diapers), if a modeler sends me an asset that ain't just right, I clean it up myself, and send him back my version. EVERY SINGLE ASSET (all 500+ of them in my upcoming game), I SINGLE HANDEDLY export, convert and integrate into my games. Nobody else does it.
And with all that, the only title you'll ever see me using is what you see in my sig. You don't see me claiming artististic credits (though I regularly direct my artists one what an asset should look like, from concept to completion etc etc). And even in the game credits, I don't claim credit for peripheral work that I do in my games.

continued.....

Let me briefly address each choice in the poll:

Advocacy --- The ESA has a grassroots program and a web site allowing supporters to send messages to Congress re: regulation and content issues. Let the ESA focus on this.

Benefits --- This should be a standard part of anything you do, just to keep people involved. You don't have to do a lot, and it could just be little perks that have nothing to do with games per se. We're not talking health benefits here.

Community --- Obviously this is the main focus as seen in the poll.

Craft --- I think the devs can handle this; innovation is sufficient from year to year.

Information --- Need to know more about how IGDA distributes information.

Standards --- Everyone needs to consider this more. We desperately need standards in credits in the industry. If you wear several hats, you deserve several credits. The film industry has virtually unknown guilds that really drive most of the Oscar nominees. There's an art directors guild, a costume guild, a sound guild, an editors guild, a producers guild, plus the more well-known writers, directors, and actors guilds (SAG awards). We need to develop the game industry this way. Having one big umbrella group look out for everybody will not work; someone will always be getting less attention. The IGDA should work with its members and help THEM set up these guilds, so that each profession can help bring about standards in credits for itself. I can't tell you how frustrating it has been trying to give out awards when the credits vary from company to company for the same jobs. Sometimes it can be very confusing. Having standards will make it easier for employers to assess job candidates once the credits actually mean something clear in all cases.

Thomas J. Allen
Executive Director
National Academy of Video Game Testers & Reviewers Corp.

navgtr.org

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the reason the title “Game Designer” exists is because there are a plethora of people that unfortunately believe one person’s concept for a game is actually valuable. “Game Designer”, to me, means a person that comes up with all the work for the implementers (Artists, Programmers, etc…). For example, I am sure you have heard it said on many of the fan-forums “Wouldn’t it be cool if ‘they’ made a [insert game type] game where you could [insert feature] … massive multiplayer … [insert statement about supporting all platforms]” This is the classic example of a “Game Designer”.

As far as I know, there is no “one game designer”; usually a game’s design comes from the company founders / bill payers. Then through a series of meetings with the leads, the design is born. I don’t know of a company that has so hard of a time thinking of some great game idea, that they employ a “Game Designer” to dictate where the next 2+ years of company time is going to be spent.

Granted, I have a pessimistic view of invention and society. However, it is rather unfortunate there are millions of people that actually believe “few people have good ideas”. I am not saying I have not seen bad ideas. Great game designs come from nearly everyone. In my opinion, the only “Game Designers” in the industry choose to take on other titles like “CEO”, “Founder”, “CTO”, and “Publisher” (although that last one is not really a title).