Jesus Christ, on 18 July 2021 - 11:39 PM, said:
@ck3D, you kinda brought this up already, but it does seem like they were all a bit cunty at id and Willits seems like a convenient bogeyman, probably because he wasn't as useful as Carmack, although if you read between the lines, Sandy didn't think that highly of him either besides his obvious programming talent.
And I wasn't there obviously so I can't speak for how "bad" things really were, but I've just found this to be true generally that conflict is good for creativity. I don't mean working in an office under a shitty boss where you're not really making anything, but between a partnership of equals, such as in a band or a small team of developers, being kept on edge by everyone can brute-force great work. Long term it definitely destroys the band/company, yes. Maybe the product is worth it, though. All good things come to an end one day.
Honestly, I've noticed my personality in a team situation is definitely more abrasive and if someone isn't pulling their weight, I have let them know. Being too "gentle" with another man can almost seem more disrespectful than just letting them know in an insensitive way. If I've completely lost faith in someone and don't even see them as being capable anymore, that's when I start being really soft and nice. They had a macho atmosphere at id and in the end they made a lot of great games and carved their names into history. You don't do that shit with a feather, you do it with a hammer and chisel.
Ah yes then in this case I completely agree with you. Regarding the situation at id, just like you it seems I try to never project over situations I realistically don't know jack about and basically live in fantasy world but in general from the descriptions, it really just sounds like the basic, typical situation where everybody was the others' collective bogeyman at some point or the other in the history of the company for this or that reason, when there's probably some truth and some delusion to every person's version in the end. The 'scapegoat rotation system' Petersen has been describing is one that often leads to deaf communication, in that usually blaming the next guy for all the trouble instead of considering one's own part of responsibility in the matter is sterile as far as serious teamwork is concerned (and so, much ado for nothing any more constructive in the long run than the clash of a few limited egos).
Of course that certainly doesn't mean you should tolerate someone constantly fucking up if that's an evident isolated case, and I'm in fact very much in favor of raw honesty in general (and then if someone is too immature to understand justified criticism of their position, that's purely on them). If you'd ask me I'd say this world cruelly misses more honesty in general, which is exactly why I feel like things actually wouldn't go as far as someone evidently and singlehandedly fucking up teamwork if people just knew how to communicate a bit better and openly keep each other in check - then problems can be defused before they develop and egos start degenerating.
A big part of me used to think sugarcoating criticism was a complete, superfluous waste of time and in fact it still exists, but sometimes I'm also tempted to relativize; if the person is too weak to accept their bubble being bursted then perhaps it's actually just as counterproductive to not learn, and keep poking it, as all they will get from the interaction anyway is oh noes you're attacking them and so you personally are an asshole, while they really never did anything wrong, comforting their ego. Whereas sometimes if you can read and adapt to the other person's 'language' (not just verbal, also non-verbal and, most fundamentally, their cognitive patterns and psychological profile altogether), even if that feels like stepping down into what feels new lows to you, they will actually get the gist of what you're trying to express as opposed to only hear noise. It's possible to bark both bullshit and honesty (and so the solution doesn't reside in the barking per se); where things get a bit tricky is when your honesty is being received as bullshit, but that only signifies you still have a few gaps in communication to bridge with the individual you're dealing with (if you can, or need to bother) because if you could actually speak their language then they would understand you as soon as you need them to. I don't think that's sugarcoating stuff, just being the wiser and more mature person, one more prone to efficiency too since then no energy is absurdly lost on unnecessary bickering and more on general progress.
Also just to say, I do like Petersen's approach to level design, it's unique in its own way and I always like at least seeing that (not necessarily playing, though; depends). Specifying because my previous post sounds a bit harsh on Petersen rereading it in retrospect while I didn't mean any negative commentary on the guy in particular (and I don't think I even really expressed any, but surely can see how some people could read it the wrong way).