Add new comment

Uh, wow.

OK, first off, there is no "DNA lock." Certainly nothing intentional. One does not set out to make a game that nobody else can run. That's silly. The corollary is that I somehow bring something so special and so unique to these games that there's nobody else like me, and I think that's crazy -- I am not that special.

Secondly, there were giant mountains of compromise on every aspect of the project. At peak, there were over 30 designers and apprentices working on it -- check the credits. Do you think that I, or anyone, can control or vet everything that 30 people are doing every hour of a crunching day? No, it's impossible. There were and are piles of things that I still don't even know are in the game.

Third, the biggest pushback source for "fights" was actually the producer, who had a very different gameplay style than I did. And I reported to him. :) We used to say "any day where one of us wins all the arguments is a bad day."

Fourth, yes, of course it was flawed. I've tried to own up to that where I can. We disagree on some of the flaws though -- there are things you don't list that I think of as problematic, and vice versa.

Fifth, I moved on because I thought that by taking the CCO job, I would be able to exert greater influence over how online games in general would evolve. I did not see that as an abandonment of SWG.

Sixth, others are right when they say that locking in a lead designer for the life of a project is a mistake. It is a guaranteed way to lose that lead designer FASTER than having them move on eventually.

Lastly... you list two kinds of game designers: ones who make one game over and over, and ones who make one game and then crap. I've seen more types of designers than that...? I'll ponder what you are saying here as I go off to tune this new boardgame I came up with. :)