How to improve the accuracy of decision in game design field?

One:

"Is it better for the elite team to make a collective decision than the boss Yiyantang?" Can avoid the single person decision thinking blind spot. But it also brings down the efficiency of decision-making. ”

You have identified two points, the collective decision is less efficient than the single decision, agreed.

Collective decision-making is higher than Yiyantang success rate, I do not agree, because can not prove. If you use a known success product for example, you may come to the opposite conclusion.

"Previously involved in a company is eldest brother Yiyantang, Lao Dayi personal decisions, n more obvious mistakes, no one to correct, a number of flattering guy, the boss even if the wrong is also said to be right." Project imaginable. ”

There are some flattering guys in the team, and the boss is right even if he's wrong. Is the question of recruitment and personnel selection.

Yiyantang refers to the lack of democratic style, a person to decide.

Cannot identify Yiyantang "eldest brother" decision-making formation, completely does not discuss with the person, did not think, also did not know other products. Not usually. After all, this has deviated from the basic professional ethics and professionalism of game designers.

"With the organization's ability to correct itself, such a team can evolve with the changes in the environment, not rigidly stubborn living in their own small world." ”

I don't think that in the game development industry, the Organization's ability to correct itself is higher than the individual. There is no evidence that, in the face of environmental change, Yiyantang decision-makers are personally more slow to reflect and evolve than organizations.

I say this not to blame the problem.

Two:

How do I improve the accuracy of decision making in the field of game design? "The understanding is.

Talk to a lot of people.

Listen to the opinions of a few (i.e. the elite team).

A person makes a decision.

Three:

Successful game is difficult to evade a core problem, is the title of the "Boss".

In the gaming industry.

Why the producer is so important.

Why would a producer with a successful product pull a flag and the investor would queue up to send money?

Because a good producer, will greatly improve the accuracy of decision-making.

Because a good producer, compared to the general planning practitioners, with a deeper product understanding, a stronger development skills, decision-making process more clearly their own adherence and the expectations of the player's boundaries, and trade-offs.

Give a few different common scenarios:

1. A bad plan sits in the producer's shoes and tries to improve the accuracy through broad democratic decisions. This kind of game is very dangerous.

2, the worse situation, that is, a completely do not understand the game, even the objective game development rules are not respected boss, Taibaodalan. In this Yiyantang position, the most prosperous, successful traditional entrepreneurs with traditional industry experience such as to kill into the game circle of many examples. Will die.

3, a boss who does not know the game, and a good producer hit, give money to delegate.

There are excellent game products that make the grade. More than one.

4, the successful producer when the boss, the fund is abundant, launches several projects parallel development. He is the producer of all the products of the company. Basically finished,

I give an example too offend. The game industry is not big, can own association.

Boss is not equal to bosses. The boss is not necessarily the boss.

Four:

It is bullying to get away from the truth. Fortunately, take their own examples do not offend.

Before starting a business, I have worked with two companies.

One, is a typical topic of the main description, very much respect for "team collective decision-making."

Another, producer Yiyantang defined the core, but in the design of independent modules, like to convene a lot of planning to brainstorm ways to gather ideas.

These two ways, precisely the past I have frequently participated in, so today flatly boycott.

I am a man of great eloquence.

Good planning has a good mouth is his lucky, but good eloquence planning is not a good plan.

Even a good eloquence of the planning, is not versatile.

Remember my past experience.

Each individual planner, who participates in a meeting, is asked to make a wild offer.

The starting point is often to get approval. Looking back on these schemes, if they are not abandoned eventually, it is often not luck to meet, but finally lowered expectations and standards. The emergence of this situation, in fact, is the project manager's self-indulgence.

I am in the end of the practice stage. I've seen too many debates in the planning seminars, the goal is not to solve the problem, but to prove right and wrong. In order to obtain the approval of the top management participating in the Conference, the inference is infinitely established on the basis of a large number of assumptions.

No one is out of the product itself, the so-called "best direction"; there is a reasonable design, but there is no design without drawbacks The best case, also can not withstand the people to pick up the house meeting.

I have been involved in some of the end of the project, the company has plenty of money and the industry's best talent. The company's boss, with a "deep insight into human nature," appreciates a colleague who has a very heavy commitment to the project as a mix-master planner and producer.

He has a richer life experience than his peers, but lacks the actual exercise process, and the lack of professional competence makes him more reliant on democratic ways to try to improve the accuracy of the decision. Specific design meetings, he is led by the ideological development of the discussion. The whole project began to be pushed back by the idealism of human insight, the inability to form cases effectively. Throughout the process, I believe he must also be very distressed.

Because he has become the main decision maker of the project, but does not have the background knowledge to communicate with other designers, the guidance advice is vague and the decision given is a lot of roll. Procedures and art resources have been repeatedly wasted, and a variety of more serious contradictions emerge.

Five:

I basically agree with Wang Xin-wen's point of view, especially the phrase "the last person who needs a decision".

The end of the project meeting, the democratic vote + statistics, "Boss" said: "Well, we have a minority to the majority." ”。

This is not a man of the final say.

The final decision is to listen to the discussion, even if the direction of their own determination is not the majority. Even stand on the opposite side of most people.

Still can make the decision to say that I want to do so.

This is not a group decision, it is not a democratic centralism.

It's more like "Yiyantang."

I guess Wang Xin-wen has Wang Xin-wen Yiyantang, Wei Wei Yiyantang.

Games, especially today's games, more especially today in China.

is a hero to success and failure of the war.

A Yiyantang game product, encounter failure, is the play abuse, is sad.

A Yiyantang game product, enjoy success, is determined, is passion.

The correct rate of decision, at least in the game development industry, I feel, does not depend on democracy.