As I alluded to before, we need to stop calling Age Builders "coders" or "programmers" or "engineers." They are artists. You don't call a person who commissions a public mural, and describes to an artist exactly what it should depict, a painter, do you? And you don't call the person who used the brush a "technician," do you? The person who commissioned the concept will get whatever credit that they're owed, but they are simply not a painter. It's that simple.
And more importantly, by granting these unique artists the title "Writer," it has the added benefit of motivating more people to learn those skills, which would greatly benefit the Guild. If the only way to become a "Writer" is to produce something for an age (models, textures, music, etc) then I guarantee you that it would lead to more actual "Writers." If you don't have to learn these skills to become a Writer, then how will the Guild grow? It won't, it just won't.
And on the other side of that coin, giving proper and special credit to the actual age builder is needed or else a fair number of skilled people may not be motivated to put in the (tortured) work required of them to create ages. It becomes next to thankless.
As for the titles, I think we are getting closer to a partial consensus here (or more accurately, we're all realizing that we all pretty much agreed on this stuff already), but I still have major worries about how the Guild will be structured, and I'm afraid that actual age builders may get a more reduced role in the Guild than they are owed.
Know that I totally understand the notion that if you contribute your ideas and efforts, but don't get the title "Writer" that you may feel inferior or something (which may very well happen, but I think is silly and a totally overblown concern), even then you are still part of the Guild and a known participant in the process of creating an age, on top of that, you will get credit for your work, and everyone will understand what that means. Anyone feeling inferior under that arrangement over titles is just being insecure.
But if you allow me to use the same reasoning... what happens to the morale of the hard working modelers (who are also designers, too, let's not forget) when they have to watch people run around the cavern calling themselves "Writers" when they didn't put in the time to build anything? This isn't about skill, this is about labor. Surely designing an age is as difficult as building one (and I hate that I have to say that every time I make this argument because it's obvious), but a loose IC analogy is appropriate here, in that the "Writers" are the people who "write" ]the age.
If people do attach such value to the titles, as some propose, then some group is going to be demoralized no matter which option we choose... so then, which situation is worse: Fewer "concept designers," or fewer Age Builders?? I think the answer is obvious. I'd be satisfied to make a few "concept designers" feel undervalued, if it means that the Age Builders get valued at all.
No one solution will please all people, so we need to find the least "bad" option. Can we all understand that?
But what I just don't understand is the emotional need to make everyone feel equal by way of a uniform title. Why bother with a Guild at all, then? We *have* to distinguish people from each other by skillset, so that the Guild can actually be organized. Who has voting authority? Shouldn't the "ruling council" of the guild, however it's formed, represent people from diverse skill sets? Without titles and some kind of distinguishing system, we're left with ambiguity at best and anarchy at worst.
In the end, the quality of a person's work is what will determine their standing in the community, not their title. People on a film set don't all get the same title, do they? And in this case, building ages is a special skill (under which the Guild is wholly and completely dependent upon) that frankly deserves a special IC title.
Using an example someone else posed: The Rand brothers devised the ages of Myst, and many of the ones in Uru, and they get the credit for them. They didn't model the Cleft, and yet we credit them with it's design. If they had built it in the GoW, they wouldn't be called Writers, but their reputations would still be as they are. Can anyone argue that being not called a "Writer" would take anything away from the people who designed and conceptualized the ages in Yeesha's Journey?
Think of it this way: how many people, off-hand, can name who "wrote" Kadish or the Cleft (and no fair looking at the credits)? The credit is with the game producers and designers, and that's perhaps the way it should be, but my point is that giving the age builders the exclusive title of "Writer" isn't going to change how credit is perceived one iota. All it does is define who did what, it doesn't take anything away from anyone.
And I can't believe that I have to say this with a disclaimer, but here it is: Don't take this as a judgment on "designing" or whatever, because I've made clear that I give it the same weight as any of you, but... without age builders, there would be no ages. From a purely objective standpoint, they are the *only* people who are absolutely required for the process. Please don't extrapolate anything else from that statement. It is undeniably true, and doesn't that mean something?
Perhaps, in an attempt to find a useful title for "concept designers," we can call them "Outliners" "Sketchers" or "Notetakers" or some other title which implies a contributed effort? I think the sticking point is that non-builders want a proper title. I don't disagree, and maybe you don't like my suggestions (anyone else have a good one?), but it's not "Writer."
_________________ KI#01165421
Hey! Visit The Jalak Registry, the source for all things Jalak. Yes, it's still open!
|