[quote name='glhf' timestamp='1334946955' post='4933312']
[quote name='PyroDragn' timestamp='1334946750' post='4933311']
[quote name='glhf' timestamp='1334943967' post='4933299']
[quote name='Tom Sloper' timestamp='1334943082' post='4933296']
[quote name='glhf' timestamp='1334936158' post='4933250']
1. It's not me that is having hard time understanding.
2. The team working with the game designer doesn't have to trust him.. They have to understand him.
3. There shouldn't be anything about trust in business..

1. Yes. I said that it is not only the OP who misunderstands that trust in the game designer is a prerequisite. I know you aren't the only one who doesn't see this.
2. It's the game designer's job to make himself understood. And trusted.
3. Business is ALL about trust. There must be trust, else there can be no business.

50 million downloads!!! You're a shining example of what starting indy developers like me dream to be!
[/quote]

Let's back off from the high emotionality. I think this is an important discussion, but if it gets vituperative, I'll shut it down.
[/quote]

Completely wrong on all points.
I am not misunderstanding anything.
People don't always understand stuff, I don't think you have experience in this since from looking at your site you seem to be more of a consultnt for non-indy studios and stuff.. it's completely different.
And busines is not about trust. It's about statistics and research and predictions.. emotions are what kills business.
People who don't understand the game design but decides to just trust the game designer is stupid.

Excuse my spelling but I'm getting really bored because this thread seems to just repeat its arguments over and over.
[/quote]

Every business is about trust. You pay a price, and you trust that you will get a return. You hire a developer, you trust he can get the job done. You buy a product, you trust that it will be the product you expect. You order online, you trust that the product will be sent to you. No business gets an instant return on investment. You invest in something, you trust that you will get something out at the end which was worth the investment. Trust does not equate to emotionality.

With regards to emotions, if you don't put your emotions into the game you produce you're not going to get an emotive response out of them.

glhf, the problem you seem to have with this thread, is that everyone agrees that game design is important. Not everyone agrees that having a "dedicated game designer" is a necessity. You don't seem to understand that having a miraculous Game Design Document is not the same as having a good game designer. Having a game designer that refuses to make changes to his design is the worst thing you could have. If you try to work as a designer with that mindset, you're not going to get very far.
[/quote]

Says you who don't even understand business.

When I pay a price and expect a return it's not based on trust.
It's because I've done my research that shows a high chance of getting the return.

When I hire a developer, I don't trust he can get the job done.
I check his portfolio and question him and ask for a CV to see if he has the qualifications and experience to get the job done.

etc
[/quote]

High chance of getting the return. High chance of return = low chance of failure. You could make the choice as logically as you like. But you still do not get instant return, and you have to trust that the return will come in the end. If you design a game, and you hand it off to a developer to be made, you have to trust him to make it. You can do your research, and you can choose the best developer in the world; You can minimise the risk, but without instant return there is always trust involved.

You expect a return on your investment. Your judgement is not based on unfounded trust. But it still requires trust.
[/quote]

There is always risk.
If you want to work with a designer you can read the GDD and decide for yourself what you think the likelyhood of everything being correct and logical in it.
There's never 100% chance of success... so if you say "Ok I trust this designer, if this doesnt work out I lose all trust in him and never work with him again"... that's so amazingly moronic. It's like he can't read or think by himself.. read the GDD and think for yourself what the chances of success are.

Trust is for people who don't understand business or game design... or whatever they are venturing into.. and can't evaluate stuff by themselves and isntead need to trust someone.

Even 5 star screenwriters for hollywood movies create a bad movie every now and then.. But most of their movies turn out great.

There is always risk.
If you want to work with a designer you can read the GDD and decide for yourself what you think the likelyhood of everything being correct and logical in it.
There's never 100% chance of success... so if you say "Ok I trust this designer, if this doesnt work out I lose all trust in him and never work with him again"... that's so amazingly moronic. It's like he can't read or think by himself.. read the GDD and think for yourself what the chances of success are.

Trust is for people who don't understand business or game design... or whatever they are venturing into.. and can't evaluate stuff by themselves and isntead need to trust someone

If there is always risk, how do you explain investing in someone or something, if not by trust? You put your money/time/effort in to something or someone, and there is always a risk of not getting a return, and therefore you always have to trust that it is worth your money/time/effort. You seem to misunderstand that trust isn't always unfounded. If you give an example of a monetary transaction which has no necessity for trust, then I will concede that I don't understand what I'm talking about.


Simple transaction example:

I buy a PC game in a game store. I pay cash.

I have to trust that the ATM gave me real notes to pay with. The teller has to trust I'm giving him real notes. I can inspect the money, the teller can inspect the money, but people get away with forgeries all the time.

I have to trust that the game disc is inside the box. I have to trust that it's the right game disc. I have to trust that the game disc is printed properly and not corrupted. I have to trust that installing the game will not damage my PC.

The risk for every instance can be reduced, but as you said before, there is always risk.

[quote name='glhf' timestamp='1334947830' post='4933316']
There is always risk.
If you want to work with a designer you can read the GDD and decide for yourself what you think the likelyhood of everything being correct and logical in it.
There's never 100% chance of success... so if you say "Ok I trust this designer, if this doesnt work out I lose all trust in him and never work with him again"... that's so amazingly moronic. It's like he can't read or think by himself.. read the GDD and think for yourself what the chances of success are.

Trust is for people who don't understand business or game design... or whatever they are venturing into.. and can't evaluate stuff by themselves and isntead need to trust someone

If there is always risk, how do you explain investing in someone or something, if not by trust? You put your money/time/effort in to something or someone, and there is always a risk of not getting a return, and therefore you always have to trust that it is worth your money/time/effort. You seem to misunderstand that trust isn't always unfounded. If you give an example of a monetary transaction which has no necessity for trust, then I will concede that I don't understand what I'm talking about.
[/quote]

Like I said previously.
Trust has nothing to do with this.
You do your research that shows a high chance of getting the return.

You dont just go and ask someone on the street "Hey, Can I trust you? Take these 100 bucks and give me back 200 next month".
You start interviewing him if he has an income to be able to pay you back next month. And if he don't you also have created a contract that you can get him in trouble for.. not sure what the businesses are called in english that get your owed money back.
Nothing to do with trust.

Wow, this shit's getting weird.

I honestly think this is just someone who's trying to convince themselves that their limited skill set is all that matters and that they shouldn't pay any effort to expand it (because that's actually hard work.)

-Xaan

I honestly think this is just someone who's trying to convince themselves that their limited skill set is all that matters and that they shouldn't pay any effort to expand it (because that's actually hard work.)

-Xaan

Or that want's to submit their ubber GDD to a team and claim a huge proportion of the proceeds while maintaining an unwillingness to adapt as things take shape, referring everyone back to "their work", which was completed (as far as they're concerned).

[quote name='glhf']50 million downloads!!! You're a shining example of what starting indy developers like me dream to be!

Let's back off from the high emotionality. I think this is an important discussion, but if it gets vituperative, I'll shut it down.
[/quote]

I erred there. I misread the emoticon, thought it was sarcasm rather than love. So I misread the level of emotionality. This discussion could become overheated, though, and I hope we can keep it civil, is all.

People who don't understand the game design but decides to just trust the game designer is stupid.
[/quote]

It's you who misread my meaning. I never said trust must be given. Just the opposite. Trust must be earned. Since, with most indies, experience has not yet been gained, trust cannot be earned. This goes to the heart of the original question - why indies don't "respect" designers. Because the designers haven't earned it yet. The only reason I am repeating this is because my original meaning seems to have been misread.

[quote name='Tom Sloper' timestamp='1334943082' post='4933296']
[quote name='glhf']50 million downloads!!! You're a shining example of what starting indy developers like me dream to be!

Let's back off from the high emotionality. I think this is an important discussion, but if it gets vituperative, I'll shut it down.
[/quote]

I erred there. I misread the emoticon, thought it was sarcasm rather than love. So I misread the level of emotionality. This discussion could become overheated, though, and I hope we can keep it civil, is all.

People who don't understand the game design but decides to just trust the game designer is stupid.
[/quote]

It's you who misread my meaning. I never said trust must be given. Just the opposite. Trust must be earned. Since, with most indies, experience has not yet been gained, trust cannot be earned. This goes to the heart of the original question - why indies don't "respect" designers. Because the designers haven't earned it yet. The only reason I am repeating this is because my original meaning seems to have been misread.
[/quote]

It wasn't misread. Trust is bad for business. Period.
I've already explained why several times.

Trust is the williness to accept the risks of a 'deal' breaking down and going ahead with relying on 'something.' The concept is inexcapable. A business associate could have some very impressive credentials and a high success rate. However, could they still imbezzle from you or blow off their work. Yes, they could do that, but if you don't make a decision whether to take that risk of relying on them or a different associate nothing can be accomplished. To reiterate, trust is your statistics, combined with the possibility the statistics could be contradicted at any moment, and finished off with a decision to act so that accomplishing a goal is atleast possible.

Also, I just wanted to apologize to everyone. I am a wannabe and have been since 2009 when I first joined as Glass2099 (my password got corrupted or something). For a few years now I have realized that my life currently does not allow for me to gain the skills required to make my verbose but foggy notions of what I would like to try to play a reality (for one I don't think I would enjoy something that I agonized over every detail before the concept even became a something, but I may never know my true feelings on this). Even though there's not much of anything I can do (unless I can tease out that 'love of the process over the result' that so many professionals in all fields of occupations have nurtured within themselves) but participate in these forums, I am glad to just be able to read and talk about game design on such a personal level.

glhf: Stop trying to fit people into your mold. You can have an effect on people if your ideas are in a positive enough light (but from their point of view, not just your own) and if they can be shown to bare fruit (and as everyone has said you need to keep the ideas flowing, not simply quitting with a GDD; being able to show other skills can just make you seem like a better package, too).

glhf - I would like to ask you if you have ever seriously looked into what many of the others in this thread have mentioned: play-testing and iterative development.

You could indeed have a super rigorous design document, but until the game is actually "running", even in a basic prototype form, you wont be able to see with concrete certainty how much fun it actually is, or how all the designed aspects of your game truly interact with one another.

More importantly, you won't know how your average player will react to it themselves - fun is subjective and everyone behaves differently, it's simply not possible to know how people will sit down and play your game.

This is another tool which game development houses use, even going so far as to record the screens and faces of players as they play-test their game – the team will take note of how many times they got stuck, how often they died, which weapon they preferred and numerous other aspects, possibly even the expression on their face while they died!

This process often brings to light many aspects totally unanticipated to anyone else in the team, and which could not be discovered any other way. This is also one of the reasons why many development houses advocate the “agile” method.

Do you honestly believe that such processors are not just as important to the final design of a game as the fabled monolithic design document itself?