Elderos

joined 1 year ago
[–] Elderos@lemmings.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I have worked in the gaming industry and let me tell you that in some game studios most of the people involved in making the games are not gamers themselves.

Lots of programmers and artists don't really care about the final game, they only care about their little part.

Game designers and UX designers are often clueless and lacking in gaming experience. Some of the mistakes they make could be avoided by asking literaly anyone who play games.

Investors and publishers often know very little to almost nothing about gameplay and technology and will rely purely on aesthetic and story.

You have entire games being made top to bottom where not a single employee gave a fuck, from the executives to the programmers. Those games are made by checking a serie of checkboses on a plan and shipped asap.

This is why you have some indie devs kicking big studio butts with sometime less than 1% the ressources.

Afaik even in other "similar" industry (e.g filmmaking) you expect the director, producers and distributors to have a decent level of knowledge of the challenges of making a movie. In the video game industry everyone seems a bit clueless, and risk is mitigated by hiring large teams, and by shipping lots of games quickly.

[–] Elderos@lemmings.world 1 points 1 year ago

It is almost always due to the anticheat programs.

[–] Elderos@lemmings.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The best codebase I have ever seen and collaborated on was also boring as fuck.

  • Small, immutable modules.
  • Every new features was coded by extension (the 'o' in S.O.L.I.D)
  • All dependencies were resolved by injection.
  • All the application life cycle was managed by configurable scopes.
  • There was absolutely no boiler plate except for the initial injectors.
  • All of the tests were brain-dead and took very minimal effort to write. Tests served both as documentation and specification for modules.
  • "Refactoring" was as simple as changing a constructor or a configuration file.
  • All the input/output of the modules were configurable streams.

There is more to it, but basically, it was a very strict codebase, and it used a lot of opinionated libraries. Not an easy codebase to understand if you're a newbie, but it was absolutely brain dead to maintain and extend on.

Coding actually took very little time of our day, most of it consisted of researching the best tech or what to add next. I think the codebase was objectively strictly better than all other similar software I've seen and worked on. We joked A LOT when it came time to change something in the app pretending it would take weeks and many 8 pointers, then we'd casually make the change while joking about it.

It might sound mythical and bullshity, and it wasn't perfect, it should be said that dependency injection often come in the form of highly opinionated frameworks, but it really felt like what software development should be. It really felt like engineering, boring and predictable, every PO dreams.

That being said, I given up trying to convince people that having life-cycle logic are over the place and fetching dependencies left and right always lead to chaos. Unfortunately I cannot really tell you guys what the software was about because I am not allowed to, but there was a lot of moving parts (hence why we decided to go with this approach). I will also reiterate that it was boring as fuck. If anything, my hot take would be that most programmers are subconsciously lying to themselves, and prefer to code whatever it is they like, instead of what the codebase need, and using whatever tool they like, instead of the tools the project and the team need. Programming like and engineer is not "fun", programming like a cowboy and ignoring the tests is a whole lot of fun.

[–] Elderos@lemmings.world 1 points 1 year ago

It is very hard to have rational disccussion when people disagree on the basic observable facts, ignore the "rules" of debate, and are struggling with critical thinking. You can meet difficult people on all the political spectrum, but certain idealogy attract more difficult people, and certain stuff mainstream conservatives believe right now has absolutely no basis in reality.

[–] Elderos@lemmings.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I assure you, even though it is likely that the environment failed them, some kids are just plain evil and will require lifelong support. Parents arent always to blame.