Hodgman: That really sounds like the type of environment I'd like to work in! If the posts from frob and Tom Sloper didn't give me pause, I'd cancel my weekend plans, re-write my resume and start working on a demo project in the morning!

Actually, now that I think about it, maybe this is the passion frob is talking about - in which case, that problem is solved...

However, that leaves Tom's post. As someone who has seen friends snagged by Catch-22s, his post hit me harder than I realized (I apologize for the strength of words in my reply; I hope I did not offend) as I have feared landing in that position myself. Tom probably intended his post to mean something other than I interpreted it; but nevertheless the reason I interpreted it that way in the first place is not only the experience my friends had (and I fear), but primarily what my acquaintance has shown me the industry has said about him, and heard his version of what they've done. What I've seen lines up exactly with what I first thought Tom suggested with his statement: that unfitness for the career is arbitrarily assumed if you ever have a period where you are employed without already having a job lined up. You can't even take two weeks of vacation between leaving your last job and starting to look for another one - you are "out" if you have not already been hired. I'm just struct with the appearance that the idea that he was unemployable was taken as a philosophical axiom, and their efforts laid in justifying that axiom after the fact.

And to be blunt, after seeing this, I could see no reason that someday this couldn't happen to me too. There's no way I could prevent this. I might be able to make it unlikely, but "unlikely" is a horrible thing to hinge an entire career on.

So, please forgive me if I cast aspersions onto a site member that he didn't deserve. But as unpleasant as my current position and field is, I can't let go of what I've seen without some counter-argument that there is a way out of the self-reinforcing cycle of being declared "unemployable" because you *aren't employed*.

Incidentally, I've told my acquaintance about this chain - I assume he's going to keep up with it.

"

"People who are slow and methodical may work well in other jobs, but tend not do well in software";

Being slow and methodical can be fine, but it is also correlated with not being particular agile. In software development, especially in games development, there can be a lot of sudden shifts in the direction of one's tasks due to various changing requirements. Maybe some system reached a prototype stage and was determined to be really boring and needs to be cut or reworked. Maybe you do need a demo for E3 even though your publisher said last week that you didn't. Maybe the system you checked in four days ago and which you've now moved on from has a sudden, mission-critical bug and you need to drop everything to fix it.

If weathering those sudden randomizations of your task list is difficult for somebody, that somebody may find it more frustrating than they'd like working in games.

Second, you mention passion - a lot. I've never seen the word passion mentioned that many times in a safe-for-work context.

Most of the time when reasonable people say refer to a "passion" for working in the industry they just mean "do you want to work in the industry?" (As opposed to "are you just in this for the money/benefits/whatever?) Most reasonable people, at least. Frob is a reasonable person, so I would not let the term scare you off.

To be honest, part of "passion for working in the industry" is also a filter for "we underpay drastically for talent because so many people want to work in this field, so we don't want you to quit for better money/benefits/hours".

Second, you mention passion - a lot. I've never seen the word passion mentioned that many times in a safe-for-work context. It's almost cult-esque in its flavor - not that I'm accusing of anyone in the games industry of being in a cult. It does give me great pause, however; if passion - not deliberate, careful thought - is necessary to create a game, it is contrary enough to my experience to wonder if it's the right fit for me.

Interesting to see the "safe for work" note. Passion does not mean sex, although many people are passionate about sex.

When I write of passions, I mean the whatever you are passionate about. The person being enthusiastic, wanting to participate, they have opinions and beliefs. In order to form opinions and beliefs you need to have some knowledge and at least a little experience.

To be honest, part of "passion for working in the industry" is also a filter for "we underpay drastically for talent because so many people want to work in this field, so we don't want you to quit for better money/benefits/hours".

There are some bad places that are like that. They exist. But there are many places that are amazing places to work that do not abuse their employees.

Shop around, look at regional salaries, and know what you are worth. When you get a job offer use that knowledge to ensure you are treated fairly and negotiate a wage that is fair for what you are providing. If you are an experienced game developer living in Santa Monica, feel free to start your salary negotiation at $160K because that is a reasonable wage in that area. If you're an experienced developer living in Arkansas or Iowa where cost of living is far below the national average, you may start your negotiation at $80K because that is a reasonable wage in that area. If you are inexperienced you should ask for less, but still require a reasonable wage considering your location and experience levels.

I am passionate about programming. I love it. I have no problem spending minutes or even hours teaching people about programming concepts. If someone wants to talk about the merits of different sorting algorithms in a certain context,m or the tradeoffs for choosing one algorithm or another, I love that stuff.

When I interview I will ask questions to search for passion. I'm looking for the person to show they are passionate. Usually asking a few probing questions about their favorite projects is a great way to find some passions. The job candidate will talk about how they made this choice and everything fell together in amazing ways, they'll talk about how great it was how such-and-such algorithm was perfect and solved all their problems, becoming animated and excited, speaking faster and with more vivacity. Or it might be something negative, they made this decision and it caused no end of problems. In either case I can ask technical questions about some topic -- whatever topic they start to show interest in -- and be able to get the person really excited about their work.

During interviews I will push hard to get people to expose their passions, even if they aren't about game development. I want to know you are passionate about not just playing games, but about making great software and also passionate about other areas in life. If your only passion is making game software then you aren't very well rounded as a person and I probably won't end up hiring you. Many programmers are quiet, but there are still tell-tell signs of passion.

If I cannot get a candidate to show any passion, or if their passion for software development only reaches a mild warmth, they'll go on the no hire stack.

People can work on projects they are not passionate about. However, they tend to not produce good results. When I am working on a project I don't particularly care about I may put in less thought, less effort, less care. When I am passionate about something I will be mindful of my decisions, I will get involved when I see an issue, I will get after any coworkers who I catch causing problems, I will care deeply.

It applies to all facets of life, to work and to play.

If a person isn't passionate about game development they should figure out what they really are passionate about. My recommendation is the book "What Color Is Your Parachute?" which has a deeply introspective exercise called the flower diagram. Once you know what it is that you are passionate about you can find a career path along your passions in order to find a job that is also your personal bliss.

I've had several co-workers over the years who took quite a lot of effort to become game developers only to later realize their passions were elsewhere. One, for example, had his guitar at work and would occasionally play songs, he was quite good. One day he notified the office that while he liked making games his passion was in music, so he was leaving to become a music instructor. Another person left because even though making games was not too difficult, their passion was in plants so he was leaving to work in a greenhouse.

Making games is fun for some people. Some people are passionate about it. Other people are not. I am not passionate about automobiles but I know people who absolutely love everything about them, they can talk for hours about different car engines and different model bodies and why this one is good or bad in any situation. That is wonderful, since I know who to talk with when I have vehicle problems. While I could probably spend time learning their job it would not be my passion. They could probably learn how to program, but it would not be their passion. Everyone has their own passions and that is a good thing.

People who thrive as game programmers in the industry are passionate about making computer game software. If you are not passionate about that, if you have no passion about computer software or about game technologies, then you probably wouldn't be a good game programmer.

People who thrive as game artists in the industry are passionate about computer game artwork. If you are not passionate about that, if you have no passion for art or for art as it applies to games, then you probably wouldn't be a good game artist.

Repeat for all the roles. Designers are generally passionate about rule sets and game balance and social balance, how systems can be in a state of perfect imbalance or become self-balancing through careful rule structure. Producers are passionate about schedules and people and dancing the dance of social circles.

Finally, passions change. Everyone should re-evaluate their passions every few years to see how they have shifted. As you learn and grow and develop you may satisfy your needs in one area and discover you have new passion for something else.

Frob: So, basically you are saying that passion - of some kind - is considered a prerequisite for the game industry. Is this true for the larger programming industry as well?

I doubt I'd have a problem with that, but the acquaintance I've been talking about has had some heinous acts perpetrated on him which make the type of passion you talk about psychologically impossible - and treatment is not available to him. Couldn't enough experience compensate for a lack of passion? I can't believe someone of his skill level is being shut out of an industry simply because he isn't excited enough about it - and due to being a victim of a horrible crime, no less. If you are locking him out, is there anywhere else he can turn? Anywhere else his skill will be valued? Or are you telling him that he has spent half his lifetime trying to rebuild himself after a horrible event in vain?

A person can make their career out of something they aren't passionate about ... but why would you do that to yourself?

My first guess is that you need the money...

According to him, my acquaintance's passion was "systematically beaten out of" him by the very people interviewing him. He had plenty of passion during the job, but the interview process in the game industry is "intentionally" demoralizing. As someone who's had his fair share of interviews, I can sympathize with his position, even if I disagree that's the interviewer's intent. Nevertheless, if it is true that the interviewers are the cause of this destruction of passion, it would seen especially cruel for the interviewer to demand the very thing he's destroying.

Furthermore, if it's one thing I can attest to, it's that he will never lack for a passion for quality. He speaks almost in terms of Bushido in regards to his "code of honor" in regards to his code quality. I'm convinced he would deliver quality code even if he *detested* the person or company he delivered it to because it would be a matter of "seppuku"-risking honor to him.

I can understand a preference for passion when selecting candidates, but to insist on a dog-and-pony-dance of passion while mocking the dance smacks less of professional discretion and more of frat-house hazing antics.

If nothing else, please be mindful that you're not destroying what you seek, because what is plentiful today could be scarce tomorrow.