Games Made Under Crunch Conditions Don’t Deserve ‘Best Direction’ Awards

Last night, The Last of Us Part II walked away from The Game Awards with seven trophies, including those for Game of the Year, Best Narrative, Best Audio Design, Best Performance (by Laura Bailey as Abby), Innovation in Accessibility, and Best Action/Adventure. Arguments can be made as to whether it deserved those or not, but I think it’s pretty obvious that no game that required its developers to crunch, like The Last of Us Part II did, should be given a Best Direction award, which The Last of Us Part II somehow also won.

Let’s be clear: the existence of crunch indicates a failure in leadership. It’s up to game directors and producers to ensure workloads are being managed properly and goals are being met. If workers are being forced to crunch, explicitly or otherwise, it means the managers themselves have fallen short somewhere, either in straining the limits of their existing staff, fostering an environment where overtime is an implied (if unspoken) requirement, or both. And as ambitious as The Last of Us Part II director Neil Druckmann and his projects may be, “questionable experiments in the realm of pushing human limits” are not required to make a great game.

https://kotaku.com/games-made-under-cru ... 1845863225

Should go without saying but the industry rewards crunch, critically and commercially so realistically how will it ever change.

Very sad state of affairs. Makes me feel very sorry for those involved and their families. Regulation is definitely required yet, when work demand far outstrips supply - especially in well-regarded studios - they can say like it or lump it. Guess it's up to us as consumers to vote with our wallets, but I can't see that happening either so a bit of catch 22 at the moment.

Couldn't agree more. Crunch is a result of piss-poor project management, and is an abuse of staff. Gamers themselves don't help, mind, because as soon as a delay is announced, there is a flood of death threats from inadequate little boys.

100% agreed. As to how it should change, it won't without government intervention. We can and should definitely try to change things by voting with our wallets in the meanwhile though. Any difference, however small, is better than nothing.

"Voting with wallets" is surely more likely (although still unlikely) to get people laid off than to make CEOs rethink their whole outlook on working practices?

Zilnad wrote:"Voting with wallets" is surely more likely (although still unlikely) to get people laid off than to make CEOs rethink their whole outlook on working practices?

A small number of politically active consumers deciding they feel uncomfortable purchasing a product isn't likely to measurably affect the revenue of that product. But if they talk about that decision, and the issues that they're concerned about, it might lead to wider support for political action within that industry.

In general, "if you try to improve our workers' rights, we'll just fire half of them!" can apply to any kind of organisation/action, and is the most despicable kind of bourgeois hostage-taking. If you give into it, nothing will ever change for anyone. A victory for workers' rights anywhere is a victory for all workers everywhere.

I posted this in the Cyberpunk thread, but it's relevant here, too.

twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/1337556039634481152

CDPR untying bonus payouts from a Metacritic score, which they never should have been tied to anyway, is absolutely a result of the wider scrutiny of crunch in the industry, and conversations that are happening around fair treatment of workers. While it almost certainly isn't a result of lost sales, given that this looks set to be one of the biggest games launches ever, if people weren't saying they don't want to support that, and talking about it, they could have easily slipped not paying bonuses at all past people. A minority of people making the decision not to support a practice, talking about it, with the help of supportive press scrutiny, absolutely has the potential to effect positive change.

It depends what is meant by "Best Direction" and whether production has any relation to it. "Best Director" would more obviously include how the individual manages the production, but "Best Direction" to me is about the game itself (although it's still confused because mechanics, level design and cinematic direction all seem like separate aspects of a game's direction).

The more publicity crunch and other bad working practices/conditions get the better. It needs to be addressed through legislation and unionisation.

The award is clearly for creative direction, not a 'best managed game production' award. The Game Award website itself says it's 'Awarded for outstanding creative vision and innovation in game direction and design'.

Edd wrote:The award is clearly for creative direction, not a 'best managed game production' award. The Game Award website itself says it's 'Awarded for outstanding creative vision and innovation in game direction and design'.

Sure, but it's clearly also functionally a reward for the director themself, and the argument being made is that a truly great director would be able to achieve their creative vision without abusing their team.

Karl_ wrote:
Edd wrote:The award is clearly for creative direction, not a 'best managed game production' award. The Game Award website itself says it's 'Awarded for outstanding creative vision and innovation in game direction and design'.

Sure, but it's clearly also functionally a reward for the director themself, and the argument being made is that a truly great director would be able to achieve their creative vision without abusing their team.

Exactly this.

The industry needs to rewarding directors for achieving something via slave labour, no matter how good quality the end product is.

Zilnad wrote:"Voting with wallets" is surely more likely (although still unlikely) to get people laid off than to make CEOs rethink their whole outlook on working practices?

From everything I've read, whatever happens with a games sales layoffs and the like are usually planned ahead. Like when activision announced the Millions or billions in profit and still laid off something like 100 people.

Also Last of Us 2 in no way fulfills that description even if you ignore the working practices, there is zero innovation in either direction or design on display.

Karl_ wrote:
Edd wrote:The award is clearly for creative direction, not a 'best managed game production' award. The Game Award website itself says it's 'Awarded for outstanding creative vision and innovation in game direction and design'.

Sure, but it's clearly also functionally a reward for the director themself, and the argument being made is that a truly great director would be able to achieve their creative vision without abusing their team.

Only implies a reward for the director themselves because of the name of the award. If the award was called 'Best Creative Vision and Innovation' it would probably be the same result except no one would be saying they don't deserve it because of a mismanaged production - which is caused by a lot more people than just the director.

But again, it's neither an especially creative or innovative game.

I'd disagree with you Jen, although I don't think it relevant to the question here.

The guy responsible for the never ending development disaster that was Duke Nukem Forever has some opinions on what it takes to make great games, and being spoken to by people with not enough twitter followers.

twitter.com/georgebsocial/status/1337571007150907392

twitter.com/georgebsocial/status/1338024659774824449

Jenuall wrote:But again, it's neither an especially creative or innovative game.

The amount of accessibility options was pretty innovative tbh.

It won the accessibilty award for it!

I don't know whether that means it shouldn't double count

Games Made Under Crunch Conditions Don’t Deserve ‘Best Direction’ Awards

Who is online

Affiliates