Fun fact, any game dev's financial data can be stolen if you're capable of answering my riddles three
That strikes me as highly reflective of google's position of power; from the employer's perspective, the point where the diminishing returns are no longer worth it is related to the point where they're losing too many applicants from interview exhaustion. If you're not google, not offering the kind of pay and such that google does, your break-even point is likely much sooner.
Additionally, from the worker's perspective, the only-3-interviews rule is an assertion of our power. And, as an added plus, if enough people adhere to it, it will shift that break-even point even for places like Google, and resist the shifting of that burden onto unpaid workers.
The question that raises from a process improvement perspective then is "were the first 3 rounds really effective tests?" Perhaps a better solution is not more interviews, but more focused interviews conducted by the people that actually have the knowledge and power to make the decision. (And if the knowledge and the power are divided among multiple people, another great improvement would be empowering the people with the knowledge.)
Yeah, it saves you money...by costing the prospective employee. There's only so much we as employees can or should be willing to give up for free, and it's 3 interviews.
I also question if more than that is really improving the quality of your hires. Far more often (100% of the time, in my experience), multiple interviews are more a symptom of bureaucracy; multiple managers insisting that they get to stick their fingers in the pie, rather than actually learning anything more meaningful about the candidate.
Never do more than 3 interviews. And that's assuming they're relatively short, maybe 1 hour apiece. Any more than that, and they don't want you bad enough.
There are probably legitimate uses out there for gen AI, but all the money people have such a hard-on for the unethical uses that now it's impossible for me to hear about AI without an automatic "ugggghhhhh" reaction.
I didn't overlook it, I specifically used the term "plagued" in reference to that.
And America wasn't actually empty frontier, either. It was full of the native people that had been living there since time imemorial, and the ex-europeans slaughtered and plagued their way through.
Battlemaps are good if you're going for a swashbuckling or strongly tactical feel. I like to say 'your players can't swing from the chandelier if they don't know there's a chandelier.'
Battlemaps are great for a certain aesthetic (in the the game design sense of the word) because they allow you to add things for players to improv with without explicitly enumerating a static set of options. If you draw the inside of a tavern, when the tavern brawl breaks out they may do something that surprises you; "Can I throw the bottles at him/flip over the table/dive behind the houseplant/throw him out the window/etc" Whereas theatre of the mind requires your player to either intuit that there would be a bottle on the table that they could throw, or you to explicitly say "and there's a bottle on the table in front of you." And if you tell them there's something in front of them, they will laser focus on it and never even think to flip the table/dive behind the houseplant/etc.
Theatre of the mind is good for games that put the emphasis elsewhere. If the focus of your game is on entrigue, or courtly drama, or in a setting that's highly improvised, that's when theatre of the mind shines.
What was the game
Ooh, I will have to check that out for my own game, thanks!
view more: next โบ
Not a very high quality article. Makes constant reference to "faction and domain play" without adequately defining the terms for someone that didn't grow up with them. (Presumably, the target of the article.) And a lot of typos.