Thread: All of you employed developers, what are your jobs really like?

Originally posted by nvoigt
Don't kid yourself. Game development is development with another target. Not more or less challenging than programming applications.

I don't want to get into an argument on the topic as I'm obviously pretty biased, but I really disagree. If I sound offensive here I don't mean it to be, but a lot of people in here seem to be telling me my responses are harsh, so take this as a disclaimer.

In game programming you have a lot more concerns and different time constraints. When you make a game, there's a lot more to it than getting it to work. It has to look good, it has to sound good, it has to play well, it has to have replay value, and most of all it has to be fun. Sure, there's more to any application than "getting it to work," but on games, it's much moreso. A lot of it is objective but even more of it is subjective. Not only do you have to be smart, quick, and creative, but with games, it often times also means that you have to be an artist. You have to be a talented programmer, but you also have to be unqiue, you have to know what looks good, and you have to know what is "fun."

Not only that, but there's efficiency. That's something which is important to any application, but in games, it's usually moreso and in all areas. You need the game to be small, it's gotta tweak the most out of the hardware, and you have to get it to run in real time at fast speeds on an average computer (or on a console, etc.). Things like loadtimes don't become just a "downside" to your program, but can be what makes or breaks sales.

On top of all that, a game programmer can't just be a "programmer." He, in most cases, has to be a mathematician, a physicist, an artist, and, of course, a gamer. A game is often a complex model of real life that has to run in real time, and be more fun than real life as well . That's a very big task -- bigger than most other applications. There are always exceptions to that, but in most cases, this is true.

A game has to keep a player occupied and having fun for many hours. It's tough to make a game that retains the player's attention and keeps him wanting more after 20 hours. A game has to be detailed, interesting, and massive. You have to know what the player wants, you have to anticipate what the player will be feeling, and you have to be able to evoke emotion. You have to work with a team of artists, designers, musicians, etc. to have any hope of being successful. It's an incredible task with many sides, many more than an application in most other fields.

Ask an application programmer to make a game and he most often won't even know where to start; ask a game programmer to make an application and it's quite a different story.

Originally posted by gordy
i couldn't program a normal app. wouldn't know where to start. i know about 20 lines of winAPI code. and one of them is return 1.
don't know hardly any file i/o. don't know more than 2 windows messages. can handle even less. can only start up full screen apps. don't know how to write a run time loop without a idle section.

Sounds like you couldn't program a complex game either.

Poly, im sure alot of those things you described are spread about many people (ie, artists, graphic designers, writers, concept developers, etc). And math and physics are necessary in many types of programs one can write. Perhaps you were making your comparison between game programming and programming business apps

Originally posted by Polymorphic OOP
Sounds like you couldn't program a complex game either.

and that makes me think you havn't tried or you'd know its enough. so lets no start this hmm ?

edit:
people tell you your responses are harsh because they are.

people tell you your responses are harsh because they are.

poly isn't a harsh person...is it considered harsh after you already bashed yourself down in your own post?

Now that I have stuck up for poly I'm going to blatantly disagree with him (which may or may not be a good idea)

On top of all that, a game programmer can't just be a "programmer." He, in most cases, has to be a mathematician, a physicist, an artist, and, of course, a gamer

This doesn't seem to be true. A game programmer would probably have to be a physicist and a mathematician, but by no means an artist. The people who are in charge of keeping the user occupied are actually not the game programmers, but rather the artists, world designers, and character designers. They have to constantly be creating new things, the formulas used to model the real world stay the same. Don't get me wrong, the software engine running the game has to be very robust and very good, I'm just saying you had the game programmer made out to be more than what he/she really is.

Now I'm going to get bashed for all eternity...sweet

Originally posted by gordy
and that makes me think you havn't tried or you'd know its enough. so lets no start this hmm ?

No, I was trying to be nice in saying "you haven't done much." I was implying the fact that making a program to read .X files (a built in functionality with the Direct X SDK, mind you, as you obviously already know), would not exactly make you a game programmer. Of course you can make a quick world display based off .X files in a weekend with Direct X. You can do it in a day. Loading .X files is a build in functionality. That's not exactly a "wow" claim.
I haven't tried!? What makes you say that? I've done a hell of a lot more than what you've apparently done, that's for sure. Does that make me a game programmer yet? No. Do I claim to be? No.

A game programmer would probably have to be a physicist and a mathematician, but by no means an artist.

First, by artist, I was refering to all programmers, though often times it's easier to understand with game programmers.

What makes an artist? Someone who is creative, that can harmonize, create unity, and can make something that others marvel at or enjoy. What does that include, to name a few? Graphical Artists: harmonize with color. Authors: harmonize with language. Architects: harmonize with structure. Musicians: harmonize with sounds and the passage of time. Programmers: harmonize with code and design.

It's not that bold a claim. Go back a century and ask someone if a movie is a piece of art. Most would say no it is not. Ask someone today and what is your response. Quite different.

A good program is well structured and has to bring together code for audio, graphics, time, and make them blend seemlessly into one application. You have to be intuitive and be able to model a concept in such a way that others can understand what you are trying to portray.

Just like with everything else, just because programming can be an art, it isn't necissarily. Not all drawings are works of art, neither are all movies. Same goes for programming.

if your referring to the first post since when has offering another opinion been bashing anyone?

if your referring to the second post there is only one person who ever comes near these boards who knows how well i can't program. anyone who tells me what i have and havn't done who has never even spoken to me before is gonna get bashed back.

i didn't say using .x files was a big claim. i wrote that particular item as an experiment to see what was involved in using models like tiles and how they looked when you did. .X files served nicely because they are built in. personally i prefer to make a round peg for a round hole rather than making a square peg and changing the hole. (no i don't like openGL much).

i do remember saying to do it i used very little winAPI code. which i think was my original point. you don't see many standard windows GUI features in many games. would you get very far in a 'normal' app without a GUI? if there are any relevant MFCs i think they'd be a bit on the general (ie underoptimised) side for games. directX overlays the GDI and plays much nicer. all these are however common features in a windows program. anybody seeing my point yet?

edit:
"just enough education to perform"

hmm... what is my job really like? Here's my normal day...

get to work and check my email
maybe grab some water or something, talk to some of the co-workers
sit down and do some coding for a few hours
break for lunch... come back... code for a bit
roam around the internet for a bit if i'm stuck on something
back to coding
go home

You code, you get stuck, you STFW, you keep going... it's a vicous cycle... but I'm just an app/system developer. No game developing or anything goin on here (sorry, didn't read your origonal post, just the question)

hmm... what is my job really like? Here's my normal day...

get to work and check my email
maybe grab some water or something, talk to some of the co-workers
sit down and do some coding for a few hours
break for lunch... come back... code for a bit
roam around the internet for a bit if i'm stuck on something
back to coding
go home

You code, you get stuck, you STFW, you keep going... it's a vicous cycle... but I'm just an app/system developer. No game developing or anything goin on here (sorry, didn't read your origonal post, just the question)

you forgot the url for your work ober

EDIT:
I also forgot to ask how much pressure do you guys generally get put on you from 'higher management'. Software development seems to have this cutting edge frisky panicky rush to it (or so it seems from job descriptions proclaiming how quickly projects need to be completed and such).

www.adamsec.com

don't blame me for the website... I'm not in charge of that one, but I did redesign that one before they published it but they liked their butt-ugly version better. Mine also downloaded in 1/4 of the time.

Pressure? I don't get that much pressure... but being the main software developer here... i am expected to do certain things in a timely manner.