Game Crediting: Is Standardization Really Needed?
Following the recent controversy over Warhammer Online's credits, big sister site Gamasutra has a comprehensive feature talking to reps from the IGDA, Mythic, and Valve - agreeing the need to credit those who worked on games, but not to standardize.
Speaking to Gamasutra, Mythic's Mark Jacobs outlined his previously announced solution for the Warhammer Online MMO -- to have a separate public online database for everyone who worked on the game through its long history to be credited.
But does he think this method should be used through Electronic Arts? "Now it’s up to EA to talk about it, and their studios can make up their own mind," he says. "What I think is really crucial is that studios need to each have their own policies. I don’t want somebody dictating to me how we credit."
"Guidelines are fine, but if the IGDA intends to come up with a standard that says every studio must credit identically, I’d be against that. Frankly, I think the market will sort itself out. If a studio is particularly mean-spirited and doesn’t want to credit its people, no one will want to work there."
IGDA board chair Jennifer MacLean, who also works at MMO firm 38 Studios, represents the independent organization very much in favor of proper crediting. In fact, the IGDA as a whole believes in specific credit standardization for games down to specific roles, setting up a Credit Standards Committee.
MacLean notes in the feature: "I talked to some of our younger developers here at 38 Studios, and they said that it was really tough for them to find jobs because they weren’t officially credited on some of the titles they worked on."
It's agreed that crediting people who worked on the game is important. But rather than crediting with specific named positions, there's another school of thought in the game business. It's those major developers, including companies such as Neversoft, Insomniac, and Valve, who list their employees collectively and alphabetically in the credits, instead of with specific regimented names.
Gamasutra also spoke to Valve's Doug Lombardi -- unaffected by recent crediting controversies -- and he is skeptical of the concept: "You know, in the movie industry, some people put credits at the beginning of their films, some at the end, it’s a creative call. I don’t understand why it needs to be standardized."
He continues: "It really feels to me like a big issue is being made of out … hey, we’re just talking about credits. I mean, if we didn’t list anybody, then I’d say, okay, that’s a little weird. But I don’t think we’ve ever lost a single employee because they were frustrated over the way our credits are done."
The full Gamasutra feature on crediting, including lots more feedback from IGDA members, lawyers, and others previously involved in crediting controversies, is now available on the site.
Comments
I don't think the crediting in the film industry is as creatively flexible as Mr. Lombardi believes. For instance:
"Star Wars and Empire were made in England, and Lucas had little contact with the Directors Guild after he joined for American Graffiti. Shortly after Empire was released, the guild notified Lucas that he was being fined $250,000 for putting director Irving Kershner's name at the end of the movie rather than the beginning. It was the same place Lucas's directing credit had been on Star Wars, but the guild hadn't complained then. If Lucas had put the director's name at the beginning, the union rules would then require that all major credits go there, destroying the impact of the opening shot."
Posted by: Matthew Gallant | October 5, 2008 10:39 AM
Interestingly, Valve's creative process means that it's very hard to separate out exactly who did what, as suggestions are taken from the entire company, and I'm told people in other 'cabals' are allowed to contribute to games they're not working on, so long as the cabal who owns the game approves.
Valve therefore credits the entire company, alphabetically, as "Valve Software". Gabe Newell and Marc Laidlaw, who we know have specific responsibilities (Newell is CEO, while Laidlaw is chief writer), are also credited as regular employees.
A standardised crediting format would rob Valve of that amusing credit role, but more importantly it would put up barriers that don't currently exist - this is my responsibility because I am the "creative director" or whatever, and therefore no-one else is. In movies, this makes sense. There is a lot of technical information people need to know to do their job. In games, it's less so: most people can have a creative impact on the process, and most trained employees can briefly moonlight as another role - a musical director can contribute to programming, as Peter McConnell did for Lucasarts' iMUSE library, and programmers are well known for their moonlighting as artists - the dreaded "programmer art". In games, most roles need specialised knowledge to do something well, but programming is really the only role that needs specialised knowledge to start (until the tools are written, at least).
Posted by: Merus | October 5, 2008 9:32 PM
"I talked to some of our younger developers here at 38 Studios, and they said that it was really tough for them to find jobs because they weren’t officially credited on some of the titles they worked on."
So, HR people only check MobyGames or in-game credits to verify employment or someone's job title or role?
Posted by: steve | October 8, 2008 1:18 PM