hi.

maybe you say its an unimportant question but im curious about it. i searched in internet for it but i found its a general responsibility that is in many different field of art even music.

i think its better to call it creation director. someone who have the whole idea in all process and part of creation of product. for example in a game we have art director, gameplay director, director or cinematic director, and...

all of these people work with ideas of creative director and he directs all these parts to a solid main idea.

i want to know who really he is, because i think its the most important post in game process and always we see creative directors interview about their games.

thanks

From my experience:

- Creative Director

An all-encompassing job from macro-level. The Creative Director focuses on the brand and broad vision of the game. Oftentimes overseeing several projects.

- Game Director

The Game Director needs to 'live the vision'. If we're making a Pirate game, he needs to keep review the progress and insure all decisions have been made in such a way that the game feels pirate. Generally assigned to 1 or 2 major projects.

- Director of Game Design

This is a managerial role. Instead of focusing on the project, he focuses on the resources (designers). He gives them training, followups, and insures that the design task force performs optimally and delivers.

- Lead Game Designer

Entrusted by the Game Director to actually 'get shit done'. Putting the vision into actual gameplay mechanics, etc.

Still pretty much varies from place to place, but these are from personal experience.

i want to know who really he is, because i think its the most important post in game process and always we see creative directors interview about their games.

It means whatever it means to whatever studio gives an employee that titles. Job titles in the games industry are not in any way standardized, and the role of a "creative director" at any two different studios may vary widely.

It is generally shortsighted to think that there is a "most important role" in the process of game development: they are all fairly critical and without any one of them, the others will suffer, occasionally to the detriment or failure of the project.

You generally see two classes of people (from large studios) talking about games to the press: designers/creative people (because what they can talk about with authority tends to resonate more with a broad base of consumers) and employees who are high up in the management hierarchy (because they often serve as frontspeople as part of their daily roles, and generally have a broader view of everything going on in a project). In many large studios, no-one is allowed to speak to the press unless they have undergone some form of press training, and generally is it easier to train a fewer number of people, which is why you often see upper-level management from design and production roles being interviewed.

It is generally shortsighted to think that there is a "most important role" in the process of game development: they are all fairly critical and without any one of them, the others will suffer, occasionally to the detriment or failure of the project.

That +1000

No earlier than yesterday, I was arguing with a VP that a VP has no value when there are no programmers, but that programmers have value without a VP.

People higher up in the hierarchy's role is to focus everyone else's value towards common general goals. In other words, they are supposed to be 'buffs'.

It is generally shortsighted to think that there is a "most important role" in the process of game development: they are all fairly critical and without any one of them, the others will suffer, occasionally to the detriment or failure of the project.

That +1000



No earlier than yesterday, I was arguing with a VP that a VP has no value when there are no programmers, but that programmers have value without a VP.

People higher up in the hierarchy's role is to focus everyone else's value towards common general goals. In other words, they are supposed to be 'buffs'.

i think im in a little disagreement with you my friends. i believe what made call of duty and the the last of great games are designers not programmer. but designers that have good technical understanding of programing and technical limitations.

when a designer or creative director design a gameplay or feature, programmers are obligated to make that and start to prototype that idea. if the programmer couldnt do with expected quality that there will be better replacement, as directors in naughty dog say: just hire best possible people.

i think you idea is about indie developers. in an indie team as you dont have enough budget, even you have a great idea, you have to program and prototype it on your own, so in that situation programing is most critical part.

dont want to tell stories. just short examples.

which names are known with name of call of duty: west, zampella, dave anthony and... non of them were programers but a director have to find which idea makes a game sell too much or what most of people want. or we know gears of war series with cliff bleszinski and the last of us with neil druckman and bruce straily because in the end i think they define what the main feeling of the game should be. maybe programmers suffer much more than them to create those ideas but designers and directors. what you say is like peter jackson is not important until you dont have visual effects team. but in the end if there was a success for lord of the ring most of prizes was for him and there was a lose all of punishments was for him.

still we have great and known people in technical side of the games like john carmack and tim sweeny but that is for algorithms, engines and...

i think you idea is about indie developers. in an indie team as you dont have enough budget, even you have a great idea, you have to program and prototype it on your own, so in that situation programing is most critical part.

I totally disagree, and as you can tell from my above post, my experience comes primarily from within the industry (I'm still a long way to becoming a full-fledged indie!).

which names are known with name of call of duty: west, zampella, dave anthony and... non of them were programers

Ah, but you touch on a very sensitive point. Which of them were 'known' doesn't meant they did all of the work. For example, you always know the frontman of any group (heck, I'm sure you know who your president/prime minister/etc. is, but could you name every minister? or vice-minister? Well, believe it or not, they're the ones doing a lot of the work, and the top dog only gives a general direction.

what you say is like peter jackson is not important until you dont have visual effects team.

Interesting you should jump straight to movies? The relationship is definitely not the same. That being said, Peter Jackson is the frontman, once again, and he sure as hell had a great run from his VFX team but more importantly his cast and costumes dept. Then again, I never said he was NOT important. I said that, he alone, couldn't have made the movie, or else, it would've been with a cheap handycam and 3 buddies in a basement and paid them with some of his booze. No one would've remembered that movie, at least, not positively.

john carmack and tim sweeny but that is for algorithms, engines and...

and basically allowing 3D games to exist at all? That's a pretty big achievement right there. Looking back at the DOOM days, I recommend you watch the classic post-mortem on it from the GDC vault. There were a lot of things created then that still exist to this day and are assumed by Game Directors.

That being said, I did not imply the Game Directors were worthless, but as any half-decent Game Director would tell you himself, they can't do the work on their own, they are just there to inspire the road to take. Being decision makers, they do have a say in what will be, but ultimately, if left alone, they can't do anything (unlike a programmer).

For reference: I'm a producer in the video game industry and have been for several years now. On smaller scope titles where a Game Director is not required (the majority of games that get released yearly) the Producer pretty much does both jobs, so I've been in these shoes a number of times now. When I say that Game Directors couldn't do it without people, I mean it: I couldn't do it without people! And mind you, I actually know how to code ;)

A "Creative Director" is someone who direct "Creative's", that is, people who have a work that falls under the (a bit arbitrary) collection of "being creative", that is, art, writing, music or design. All those things people for a brief time thought had something to do with the right hemisphere of the brain. (A misconception which have been pretty throughly disproven by now).

And a "Director" is a top level manager.

That's pretty much all there is to the title.

To me, it seems the importance of "Directors" in general are a bit overvalued, specially in the american culture.

Most of the actual work (and ideas) come from the team as a whole, and all good managers know that...

Most of the actual work (and ideas) come from the team as a whole, and all good managers know that...

Amen