Quote: Original post by Sqorgar
Game interviews are not interrogations [...]

You clearly have strong opinions of what an interview should not be. However, you provide very little constructive criticism, in terms of stating what you think an interview should be. I'm interested in hearing what questions you think an employer should ask to figure out whether an applicant has enough smarts, skills, and experience to be a good fit for, say, a senior game programmer position (and why you think those questions are good).

Quote: Original post by Sqorgar
I've always wanted to say "Okay, I solved your brain teaser, now you solve mine". I hate that they seem to completely ignore the fact that you are interviewing them as well, and seem to use brain teasers as a way to cement their authority over the interviewee.

Maybe that is how you approach interviewing but it certainly isn't the case in any interviews I have been involved in (both as an interviewer and an interviewee).

Yes there are some people out there who aren't qualified to be interviewing (programmers with poor social skills dragged in to check someone's technical knowledge) and also some supposed "HR experts" who just follow a check list they found somewhere without understanding what the purpose is. However there IS a purpose to asking trick questions and it is to see how people react under pressure.

There are idiots, office psycopaths and inexperienced fools in every industry and I am sure that some of them spend all day playing pointless mindgames. However, most people just want to get their job done - and when interviewing that means trying to find out what the applicant knows and how they react under pressure. In the latter case the only way to do that is to actually put them under pressure.

Quote: You make it sound like we need to live up to YOUR expectations and who gives a rat's ass if you live up to ours?

If you are INTERVIEWING for a job, especially in the game industry, chances are you need it ALOT more than they need you.

Game Development has no room for Divas.

And to add more fuel to the fire, look at how many cuss words and how heated you got to my post...that tells me ALOT about you and I didn't even have to use a trick question...merely ruffle your feathers enough to get a reaction. Seems like you post is a perfect example of the "trick question" philosophy in action! :)

Curse words? The only curse words I used was "shit" - both times in reference to your own "shit hitting the fan" comment. Unless you consider "ass" or "damn" to be curse words (and as someone who said the word shit to a complete stranger, I doubt you do). You introduced that level of discourse and then proceed to single me out for it? I think you've told me everything I need to know about you as well.

What have you really learned about me? That I'm passionate about game development, that I vehemently disagree with the hiring standard of the game industry, that that I'm no longer in the industry because I also vehemently disagree with the double standard between boss and employee (bosses can be bigger fuck ups than their underlings - I said "fuck up" because that's the level of discourse we are at right now, and no other words convey exactly the right level of contempt and ineptitude).

Obscure:

I fully agree that not all companies are like this. I've had the pleasure of interviewing with two of them. However, after a year of sending my resume out to nearly every open position advertised, I can say that they are by far in the minority in my experience. Maybe it's because the good companies don't hire fresh meat, leaving the chaff to pick up the slack - and if this is the case, there's plenty to take issue with there as well.

Mr. Ericson:

Constructive criticism? My entire stance is that people tend to learning animals, capable of growing over time, as well as being individuals that deserve to find their own place on the team rather than be wedged into an existing hole. The industry has such a high turnover rate that the only way it could possible survive is if it outsourced its training. This means hiring people you need now rather than hiring a person and teaching them the things they need to know. If it weren't for the completely absurd practices in the game industry, the very concept of on the job training would no seem so absurd itself.

When I started my first day on the job, I was presented with a cubicle and about 100,000 lines of undocumented spagetti code with so many dependencies that any change anywhere in the entire program would cause the entire thing to recompile and undocumented actions that were counter intuitive (ie smart pointers which had additional behavior in their destructor which frequently had unpredictable side effects). Whenever I asked a question about how the code worked, I got an answer that was completely worthless, answering the bare minimum (if that), and then being sent back to my cubicle... where I could ponder in the dark.

I don't want to just change how interviews are done, I want the entire experience of what it means to be an employee in the game industry to change. This means hiring head strong employees who will stick up for their right to see their family on weekends, who will fight against stupid management decisions, and will not simply cave in to moronic authority at every conceivable opportunity. The interview process, as it stands, doesn't just selectively hire skillsets, it also weeds out the people who are most passionate and unwilling to take shit because someone thinks they have to. You've got an entire industry full of pussies who cave under disingenuous authority, and then you wonder why everybody gets taken advantage of by the big publishers.

Sometimes, you need someone to get in there to kick ass and take names for the greater common good. You don't have to toss out passion because you have some sort of mistaken belief that showing any sort of strong personality, and questioning authority does not always make you a bad employee. The game industry is a demeaning and horrific place to work exactly because nobody has the balls to stand from the mountain tops and shout what needs to be heard, because nobody with balls ever gets hired in the first place.

You want my constructive criticism? Throw away all that crap you read about model employees and start hiring some people with useful flaws, because a model employee is like a throw rug: it looks nice, doesn't clash with the decor, it's made to walk all over, and when it gets used and violated, it can be replaced cheaply. Real people aren't like that. We're like beat up Hondas - we require frequent attention and maintenence, but we get you where you are going (even if we shudder going more than 80 mph), and you wouldn't trade us in at the first sign of problems because we're part of the family.

Quote: I don't want to just change how interviews are done, I want the entire experience of what it means to be an employee in the game industry to change.

Quality of Life is a huge topic in Game Dev today. However, we aren't talking about such gradiose goals or how passionate we are about change. You may be talking about sweeping reform; the rest of us are just talking about interview practices and what we feel they should be like.

Quote: The game industry is a demeaning and horrific place to work exactly because nobody has the balls to stand from the mountain tops and shout what needs to be heard, because nobody with balls ever gets hired in the first place.

Quote: You've got an entire industry full of pussies who cave under disingenuous authority, and then you wonder why everybody gets taken advantage of by the big publishers.

This sounds more like resentment based on your bad run with the game industry than passion for change.

Quote: My entire stance is that people tend to learning animals, capable of growing over time, as well as being individuals that deserve to find their own place on the team rather than be wedged into an existing hole

Problem with this stance is that if the project is managed correctly, there is an exsisting hole first and THEM comes the employee...don't put the horse before the cart...the job is there to be done BY the employee...the job is not TO BE CREATED by the employee.

Quote: Throw away all that crap you read about model employees and start hiring some people with useful flaws,[...]We're like beat up Hondas - we require frequent attention and maintenence, but we get you where you are going (even if we shudder going more than 80 mph), and you wouldn't trade us in at the first sign of problems because we're part of the family

Ok first off, what in the heck is a "useful flaw" and it's opposite a "useless flaw"?

Now, consider having an entire fleet of beat up Honda's on your team that you have to constantly supervise on the level you suggest...consider having to manage 40 peoples "useful flaws"...consider having 40 people each trying to find their own place within the team...you'd get no where! The interview, taking this analogy further, is then like a test drive and the trick questions are you "slamming on the brakes" or "making a very sharp turn" in order to see how the car performs under stressful situations.

Your viewpoints I feel are valid for small team, indie projects...but for anything larger than 20 or 30 people, you just don't have the luxary of "finding your own voice within the team"...if the project is to succeed and the project is properly managed, then you have positions to be filled by ANY individual so that if a person gets sick or leaves, you can replace them. Yes, it's a cog mentality and yes combined with poor Project Managment, Documentation Practices, Programming Practices, and Crunch Time makes the mainstream insdustry what it is today. But no matter what, you will ALWAYS have the need for a "second round accept/reject" and that's what the interview is for and the trick questions are there to see which cog fits my project best.

[Edited by - fastlane69 on August 30, 2005 3:18:38 PM]

Quote: Original post by fastlane69
Quality of Life is a huge topic in Game Dev today. However, we aren't talking about such gradiose goals or how passionate we are about change. You may be talking about sweeping reform; the rest of us are just talking about interview practices and what we feel they should be like.

I merely explained WHY I think these interviewing practices are stupid - they represent a barrier that keeps a significant number of people out of the industry, some of whom could make serious contributions by virtue of the very criteria that weeds them out. It was on-topic and relevant.

Quote: This sounds more like resentment based on your bad run with the game industry than passion for change.

I have always been passionate about the game industry, which is why I put up with crap I desperately disagreed with in order to get in and stay in. My resentment is reserved for specific people in the game industry. My indignation is directed towards the whole thing, and even then, that indignation takes a back seat to wanting to see a better game industry.

Quote: Problem with this stance is that if the project is managed correctly, there is an exsisting hole first and THEM comes the employee...don't put the horse before the cart...the job is there to be done BY the employee...the job is not TO BE CREATED by the employee.

Even in non-creative engineering fields, that's a bad idea. It's been shown repeatedly that hiring people late in the project actually causes the project to take longer, just like it has been shown repeatedly that cubicles contribute to unsatisfactory workplaces, and that crunchtime lasting over two weeks contributes greatly to employee burnout and a high turnover. It may be hard to believe this, but the biggest engineering problem associated with something as large and complex as a game is not technical, it's communication and moral. The employee has to come first.

Quote: Ok first off, what in the heck is a "useful flaw" and it's opposite a "useless flaw"?

Oh come on, it's not that hard to figure out. How about an employee that does nothing but roam from cubicle to cubicle, chatting with all the other employees. He never gets any work done individually, but he's a great guy and not only keeps moral high with his amusing demeanor, but lubes the communications bottleneck by transferring important details between employees personally.

In a place I used to work at my university (though not tech support, it was treated that way by faculty and staff who refused to use the same channels as the students), there was a really gruff guy there. He definitely knew what he was doing, but he answered the phone with a sigh and was generally quite grumpy. By most standards, this would be consider "undesirable", but in certain situations, he literally saved our asses. Sometimes, it was neccessary to tell off somebody, and he did it with flair. He made a decent scapegoat, allowing us to let our own feelings through while still maintaining an air of professionalism ourselves. When management was changing, he said what needed to be said to the people who needed to hear it. The new management eventually fired him, but not before his outspoken protests managed to significantly hobble their hostile takeover.

You ever read a thread by people in the game industry when the subject of a union is brought up? Here is something that would be absolutely beneficial to them and their working environment. Sure, it would use strong arm tactics to pressure publishers later, but right now, it'd get the work week down to 40 hours a week and paid vacations. In the game industry, nobody wants to rock the boat. Everybody thinks the same there, and I partially blame the hiring practices of the industry which automatically weeds out anyone who gives a damn and would be willing to do something about it. NOT a model employee, but the best kind.

Quote: Now, consider having an entire fleet of beat up Honda's on your team that you have to constantly supervise on the level you suggest...consider having to manage 40 peoples "useful flaws"...consider having 40 people each trying to find their own place within the team...you'd get no where!

You missed the point of my analogy. The beat up old Honda was like family. You may not always get along, and not everybody is perfect, but you have the same interests at heart, you honestly like each other, and you're willing to work together for the greater common good of the family.

Quote: The interview, taking this analogy further, is then like a test drive and the trick questions are you "slamming on the brakes" or "making a very sharp turn" in order to see how the car performs under stressful situations.

No, the trick questions are like driving the Honda off a cliff, letting it crash to the floor below, and counting how many seconds until it explodes.

Quote: Your viewpoints I feel are valid for small team, indie projects...but for anything larger than 20 or 30 people, you just don't have the luxary of "finding your own voice within the team"...

If you can't have your own voice, whose do you have?

Quote: if the project is to succeed and the project is properly managed, then you have positions to be filled by ANY individual so that if a person gets sick or leaves, you can replace them.

More code per man hour, eh? Do you also agree that shoes should be made by children in Thailand because they demand only 5 cents an hour and don't have child labor laws or unions to protect them? Face it. People aren't interchangeable or disposable. They are unique and allowing them to be unique (and happy) is the best way to get damn good work out of them. Working them 100 hour weeks, through holidays, while drilling into their head that they can be replaced at any time is exactly what lead to the stupid game industry we have now.

Quote: Yes, it's a cog mentality and yes combined with poor Project Managment, Documentation Practices, Programming Practices, and Crunch Time makes the mainstream insdustry what it is today.

Nope. You've got it wrong. Those things are just smokescreens. Yes, documenting code is important, but it's not what made the game industry what it is or prevents it from being what it could be. Neither does the programming practices. Crunch time is a symptom of a far worse problem and not an issue unto itself. Project management... well... if you think more lines per man-hour is the definition of successful, then maybe you are on to something.

And why are they all capitalized? Those aren't proper nouns.

Quote: the trick questions are there to see which cog fits my project best.

I hope to baby Jesus that nobody I care about ever ends up on your project.

Quote: Even in non-creative engineering fields, that's a bad idea. It's been shown repeatedly that hiring people late in the project actually causes the project to take longer

Creativity has nothing to do with it. It's still Software Engineering pure and simply. I said if a project was managed correctly...which means you aren't adding anything that wasn't in the project plan to begin with. The "hole" I describe starts of with the PM stating "I need 5 programmers who fulfill these requirement" and then searching for those 5 people. If this "hole" where to open up in the middle of the project, you have know what to look for in a person fulfilling that role. What I'm hearing you suggest is to hire 5 people and then see where they fit in. IF this is what you are saying, then this is an absurd way of running ANY business.

Quote: The employee has to come first.

Even above the needs of the project? Sorry, as a business man, I just can't buy that.

If I'm creating a game, let's put me in the CEO role, I'm concerned about shipping a game that will be profitable. If I'm in the role of the PM, then my concern is about getting the prodcut shipped on time, on budget, and on quality. I'm not suggesting by any means that this is an excuse for the deplorable current quality of life in teh industry, just suggesting that in a BUISNESS the BUSINESS comes first, not the employee. The problem in todays industry is that the employee is LAST and that too is wrong. The employee has a very important role within a company and they must understand it to be effective. AT the same time, no employee should believe that the entire company revolves around their needs.

Quote: How about an employee that does nothing but roam from cubicle to cubicle, chatting with all the other employees. He never gets any work done individually, but he's a great guy and not only keeps moral high with his amusing demeanor, but lubes the communications bottleneck by transferring important details between employees personally.

So your definition of a usefull flaw is someone that has a job to do, DOESN'T do it, but because he's a "charming fellow", he keeps his job? Odd way to run a business...

Quote: By most standards, this would be consider "undesirable", but in certain situations, he literally saved our asses

Here is where an appreciation of the "hole" that the person has to fit in comes into play. If social skills were important in that job, then he should be fired. What you are talking about is the stereotypical Unix Guru who has zero social skills but can keep 100 computers humming along nicely...very "standard" in this case for people skills are not necessary above and beyond grasping the problem.

Quote: In the game industry, nobody wants to rock the boat.

You know very well what happens if everybody rocks the boat...it sinks. There is a balance between individuality and conformaty. It is unrealistic to expect that in a team of 50 people, you can have everyone acting individually. The very definition of a TEAM is giving up a piece of your individuality for the greater good of the project. You employee-centric mentality means that no one has to give ANYTHING up for the team and again, that's not the way to run a business.

Quote: The beat up old Honda was like family

But then your analogy fails outright for eventually, the Honda WILL fail me and I WILL have to replace it...not so with family.

Quote: If you can't have your own voice, whose do you have?

The Teams. The projects. Think about it, which approach will be most likely to land you a job in ANY industry: "I'm a team player and I'm willing to put all my individual skills at your disposal" or "I have my way of doing things and I expect you to respect that".

A team (or successful business) is like a chorus: everyone is individually singing...everyone has their own voice...but the audience only hears one sweet melody. Sometimes, people will come out and solo and that's great, but only if it fits the piece you are singing. Sometimes a voice will falter and you must try all you can to fix it, but you must also be wiling to dismiss that voice and bring in a fresh one if need be.

Quote: Do you also agree that shoes should be made by children in Thailand because they demand only 5 cents an hour and don't have child labor laws or unions to protect them? Face it.

Way to take things out of context and put an emotional slant on it. You have taken my point about replacing people who may be sick or unable to do the work and equating it with abusing children and demanding they work slave hours....this is absurd.

Quote: People aren't interchangeable or disposable.

I don't know what you do or how well you do it and yet I KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that a) you are NOT the only person who does it b) some people do it worse c) some people do it better and d) your job exsisted before you got it and it will exsist after you leave it. Yes, people are not disposable, we should not have a "use and lose" mentality, but they are definitely interchangable.

Quote: Nope. You've got it wrong. Those things are just smokescreens.

Uuuu sorry, you're right, the IGDA hasn't a clue what it's taling about... how could I have been so naive as to trust the International Game Developers Association to tell me what's wrong in the video games industry...silly me. :(
Each of those has been determined to be a factor in the low Quality of Life in the games industry. You are quick to dismiss my points, but only a few posts up, you yourself stated an example of where poor programming affected your quality of life, so at least be consistent please.

Quote: They are unique and allowing them to be unique (and happy) is the best way to get damn good work out of them. Working them 100 hour weeks, through holidays, while drilling into their head that they can be replaced at any time is exactly what lead to the stupid game industry we have now.

I agree completely, you must appease to the unique qualities of ALL your workers to get the best out of them AS LONG AS those unique qualities don't come into conflict with the business. This is what I mean when I say that the employee should not be first nor a diva, but they shouldn't be last either.

Putting this all together, the job-application will therefore test whether you are a cog that fits the exsisting machinery and the trick-question-interview will test to see how that cog reacts to pressue and test. If you know what you are doing ;), you'll find there are PLENTY of chances to express your voice and individuality in both steps and if you know what you are doing your application and interview will let you speak your voice just fine, only as part of a chorus and not as a solo-gig as I get the feeling you suggest.

So you are right, this process does does weed out people who rock the boat and instead focus on people that can row the boat...one keeps the boat at a stand-still, moving it side to side...the other moves the boat forward. So call me naive, but I'm guessing that moving forward is what a every good business man and project leader want, not getting stuck rocking side-to-side.

Quote: I hope to baby Jesus that nobody I care about ever ends up on your project.

Ohhhh, I wouldn't worry too much about this. :D

[Edited by - fastlane69 on August 31, 2005 1:45:43 PM]

Quote: Original post by fastlane69
What I'm hearing you suggest is to hire 5 people and then see where they fit in. IF this is what you are saying, then this is an absurd way of running ANY business.

I'm saying hire 5 PEOPLE, not 5 POSITIONS.

Quote:

Quote: The employee has to come first.

Even above the needs of the project? Sorry, as a business man, I just can't buy that.

That IS the needs of the project. Might I recommend to you some books? "The Mythical Man Month", "Peopleware", "Game Architecture and Design", "Code Complete", and probably a few more I can't remember without looking at my bookshelf. What do these books all have in common? Significant sections on the PEOPLE who write code and how to get them to work together. Unanimous conclusion? Happy people write better code. Grumpy people stall out projects and can destroy them. Your solution is to hire happy people and throw them away when they become grumpy. Mine is to hire people, happy or not, and make them happy.

Quote: If I'm in the role of the PM, then my concern is about getting the prodcut shipped on time, on budget, and on quality. ... BUISNESS the BUSINESS comes first, not the employee.

Would a project with zero communication between employees that hated each other ship on time (or at all)? How about employees that come in late, take three hour lunches, and go home early because they cannot stand to work in a darkened cubicle without human interaction? Perhaps people who get burned out by two years of working 100 hour weeks, weekends, and holidays only to leave the game industry FOREVER and be replaced by someone who has far less experience with the project? Happy people IS business.

Quote: AT the same time, no employee should believe that the entire company revolves around their needs.

It may be counter productive for them to believe it, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be true. What good is making games if YOUR needs aren't met? Money? What if you can get more money somewhere else and have your needs met better? You leave and you don't come back.

Quote: So your definition of a usefull flaw is someone that has a job to do, DOESN'T do it, but because he's a "charming fellow", he keeps his job? Odd way to run a business...

You weren't listening - or chose to ignore what I said. I said that he contributed greatly to the project, just not in ways that he can list on the resume, and which would initially appear to uptight people like you to be unproductive because he's not sitting in his cell pumping out more code per manhour.

Quote: What you are talking about is the stereotypical Unix Guru who has zero social skills but can keep 100 computers humming along nicely...very "standard" in this case for people skills are not necessary above and beyond grasping the problem.

So, social skills don't matter to you as long as they can solve the problem you want? That's fine, works for me. However, would you hire him based on a phone interview where you asked how many gas stations were in California? What answer do you think he would give you?

Quote: You know very well what happens if everybody rocks the boat...it sinks.

IT'S ALREADY SINKING!!!

Quote: There is a balance between individuality and conformaty.

If you had any individuality at all, you'd never say that. You'd also spell conformity right. What game company did you say you interviewed for?

Quote: It is unrealistic to expect that in a team of 50 people, you can have everyone acting individually.

You mean like assigning them all different tasks, like one guy working on the animation system while another did the front end?

Quote: The very definition of a TEAM is giving up a piece of your individuality for the greater good of the project.

NO, you are WRONG. The definition of TEAM is a bunch of individuals working towards the same greater good.

Quote: You employee-centric mentality means that no one has to give ANYTHING up for the team and again, that's not the way to run a business.

That's EXACTLY my point. Nobody HAS TO.

Quote: Think about it, which approach will be most likely to land you a job in ANY industry: "I'm a team player and I'm willing to put all my individual skills at your disposal" or "I have my way of doing things and I expect you to respect that".

Based only on that information, I'd hire the second guy because he can contribute more to a project than just his time.

Quote: A team (or successful business) is like a chorus: everyone is individually singing...everyone has their own voice...but the audience only hears one sweet melody.

I believe that's my point, not yours - replace one singer and the entire melody changes (unless you replace him with somebody with an identical voice).

Quote:

Quote: Do you also agree that shoes should be made by children in Thailand because they demand only 5 cents an hour and don't have child labor laws or unions to protect them? Face it.

Way to take things out of context and put an emotional slant on it. You have taken my point about replacing people who may be sick or unable to do the work and equating it with abusing children and demanding they work slave hours....this is absurd.

Not quite. You were talking about more code per manhour - you don't think employees are people, or at least should be treated as individuals. If you follow that belief, how is working a 20 year old programmer 100 hours a week without over time or vacation any different than working a 13 year old girl 100 hours a week without over time or vacation? The children choose to work, just like the programmers - but it's still slave hours.

Quote: I don't know what you do or how well you do it and yet I KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that a) you are NOT the only person who does it b) some people do it worse c) some people do it better and d) your job exsisted before you got it and it will exsist after you leave it. Yes, people are not disposable, we should not have a "use and lose" mentality, but they are definitely interchangable.

Seeing as I'm self employed and nobody in the entire world can do what I do in my particular circumstances, I'd say you are very, very wrong with your assessment.

Quote: Uuuu sorry, you're right, the IGDA hasn't a clue what it's taling about... how could I have been so naive as to trust the International Game Developers Association to tell me what's wrong in the video games industry...silly me. :(

You mean to tell me that the IGDA has ALL the answers, and yet somehow the game industry still sucks to work at? That crunch time still clogs EVERY project, and employee burn out is still absurdly high? That games are STILL just simple clones of each other with relatively minor differences and STILL suck? What... are they keeping the answers to themselves? Because if they have the answers and the industry still sucks, then either they have a reason for keeping it that way or they don't really have the answers. Don't trust authority. Trust results. I don't see any results coming out of the IGDA.

Quote: only a few posts up, you yourself stated an example of where poor programming affected your quality of life, so at least be consistent please.

Not as much as the environment I worked in or the people I worked with. For your information, I received terrible code, but I eventually figured it out and I fixed it. I removed a lot of the redundancy, reduced almost every single file dependency, and cleaned the code up considerably. I didn't fix it completely - this would've been impossible with the lead programmer hovering around, and I certainly didn't have enough information to document the code, but I left it in a lot better shape than I found it. That was in the first month of my job. My complaints come from the many months afterwards.

Quote: I agree completely, you must appease to the unique qualities of ALL your workers to get the best out of them AS LONG AS those unique qualities don't come into conflict with the business. This is what I mean when I say that the employee should not be first nor a diva, but they shouldn't be last either.

You have a very low opinion of divas, but appear to be one yourself. I guess it's so that you remain the only diva?

Quote: So you are right, this process does does weed out people who rock the boat and instead focus on people that can row the boat...one keeps the boat at a stand-still, moving it side to side...the other moves the boat forward.

You need both. Sometimes you get stuck on rocks, and you need someone to wiggle the boat free. An interview process which insists on only one type of person will end up with an industry of only one type of person. Imagine my surprise when all the games look the same and suck the same. Why only move forward when you are just following the boat in front of you?

My apologies for starting this.

Perhaps it would be better to start another thread... "when ideologies go bad!" or something.

When people reach the point of insulting each other over their spelling its safe to say that a thread has run its course.

This thread has passed on! it is no more! it has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker!