QUESTION AND ANSWER
International Game Developers Association
Back to Credits Main Page PDF Version 8.5
[edit] Q: Why aren’t there more strict inclusion rules to prevent people from getting undeserved credit?
A: While more detailed qualification rules could be developed on a per company basis, the Committee believes that it may be counter-productive and that simple rules are preferred for standardization at this early stage of the process.
[edit] Q: Why is seniority mostly inappropriate in crediting terms?
A: For comparison, credits in the motion picture industry do not credit writers and directors any differently for debut work or career longevity. In the game industry, these terms serve only to confuse what is a leading contribution. For example, a Lead who serves only in a managerial capacity would be mistaken for contributing more than a Senior who performed hands-on work. Conversely, if a Lead contributes a significant hands-on role, the implication would be less so if a Senior is credited not for work on a given title but for overall company seniority while working mostly on other projects. When the temptation exists to give Senior credit to a substantial hands-on leading contributor, the credit should be attributed as a Lead along with any other Leads. This is consistent with the film industry which credits a Director and 1st Unit Assistant Director. Note that the distinction does not mean that the Director has had a longer career than the 1st Unit Assistant Director.
[edit] Q: Who should be considered the creator of an original concept, idea, or design known as the “intellectual property”?
A: Where that credit attempts to identify a creator, such as “Created by,” caution should be exercised. Whereas television, as a similar precedent, usually assigns “Creator” credit to the original writers of a pilot episode, it does not assign such credit to a technical craftsman, such as a film or tape editor, who serves as the “glue” for the project similar to a game programmer. Studios granting legacy credit may or may not want to observe this distinction.
[edit] Q: Are there viable alternatives to the ordering of disciplines?
A: Design-centric studios may want to use the order exactly as proposed, while programming-centric studios may opt for a slight alteration preferring top billing for programmers. However, in all cases, the source of the primary creative “vision” should come first. Consider that special effects movies do not list the special effects artists first and instead follow an industry standard.
[edit] Q: If sorting credits by “days spent on project” is too time-consuming to calculate, is alphabetical ordering really the best option?
A: Various alternative sorting methods are quite commonplace, and precedent to that effect is easy to find. However, additional sorting methods aren’t much better. Criteria such as who has worked at the company the longest, who has since left the company, and who worked during crunch and who didn’t… all seem out of place in the context of crediting. Companies can have other, more appropriate ways to recognize achievement or contributions in these alternative areas. Credits are to reflect actual roles served, not the conditions in which the role was served.
[edit] Q: What is a reasonable credit cap, and do caps exist in the film industry?
A: Though arbitrary in nature, a three-credit cap per small-team project or a three-credit cap per discipline in a large-team project with many narrowly defined roles may be an appropriate guideline. For comparison, motion picture screenwriters only receive credit for writing at least one-third of a screenplay, with the exception of foreign films (e.g. “Children of Men”) and non-union work. Also, due to the overly broad definition of a Producer, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in recent years has resolved to credit only three Producers for a Best Picture nomination. However, this example refers to three or more different persons with shared credit, not a single person with multiple unshared credits. In any case, this reference highlights an arguably effective, arbitrary solution to an issue arising out of credit excess. In addition, the solution is exercised even in cases where the excess itself may be genuinely deserved or justified.
[edit] Q: Why should I give credit and effectively advertise my team for other jobs?
Some companies may cite unsolicited recruiters as the reason for their failure to give credit. However, unsolicited recruiters generally seek out only top talent and management, with little impact on the larger workforce. Due to this tendency, as well as the fact that the larger workforce statistically turns over or burns out in an average of 5 years according to the IGDA’s own Quality of Life Survey, the “unsolicited recruiters” excuse does not seem to hold water. Therefore, failing to give credit for this reason is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Due to this fact, industry leaders and top talent are encouraged not to let themselves become the excuse for a lack of proper crediting.
