- Over at Joe Ludwig's ProgrammerJoe.com, he makes some interesting comments about Game Developer magazine's postmortems, in which he dissects some of the frequently-listed complaints in our magazine's monthly game analyses.

Ludwig specifically says: "The trouble is that there are so many disciplines at work on a game that the top 5 bullet points are never specific enough to actually benefit anyone. It’s all well and good to say that you should have a well-scoped schedule with plenty of time for iteration and tools, but actually pulling that off is much more difficult. The postmortems never go into specifics on HOW because they are only 5 pages long."

There have, in the past, been some postmortems focusing on subsets of the whole game - Jamie Fristrom wrote one on Spider-Man 2's web-swinging effects, for one. But we tend to find that a lot of games don't have a particular 'special' feature like that to hang the entire postmortem on.

Plus, I've found that postmortems such as Alex Seropian on Stubbs The Zombie do end up focusing in on unique facets of development, despite being a generalized postmortem - in that case, the relatively pioneering development structure the team used, and how well it worked out.

So... what should we do? Should we ask creators to focus on, say, just the code of a particular game, or the art? Or do you folks enjoy the more wide-ranging postmortems as it? Comments welcome - specifically on the best ways to focus postmortems, if you think that's the right way to go.