|
Logos,
‘I'm just pointing out the reality of the situation, and the reality is that programmers get paid more than writers do because they are worth more to the people paying their respective services.’
The reality of the current situation, regarding the payment offered to builders and programmers, is irrelevant to the stance you are taking. One could easily say that men are still paid more in the workplace and that employers paying for their services are justified in doing so, based upon traditionally supported and conventionally accepted salary calculations.
The reality of the current salary climate may be that male employees are allocated higher monetary awards and in some cases esteem than their female counterparts. However, this does not necessarily support the illogical deduction that one of them is of greater value to an organisation than the other party. It is organisations that think in this limited manner that are frequently suprised when their vital employess hand in their resignations, after being head-hunted by a more astute company.
If we wish to employ a broader-based comparison with another field of construction why not refer to the reality of house building. A MUD is after all a collection of built areas and components for the use and amusement of people. And in this appeal to reality, who is paid the highest salary in the development of a house, the constructor of the house’s shell (the programmer), the interior designer that furnishes the house (the builder), or the architect (the game designer).
Arguments centred upon our current conception of reality are often very poor arguments, just because it ‘currently is so’ does not entail that ‘it will be also be so tomorrow’. The world is constantly changing and with it our conception reality, the construction industry framework might well become the accepted game-design framework of tomorrow. After all programming involves a language and recent advances have created translators for a number spoken languages, how long will it be before we have Online Code-creating tools with simple interfaces? And if such tools are developed what commodity will command the highest salaries? I dare say it will be creativity.
In the case of a specific scenario, such as graphical games, it may be safe to say at the outset that programmers warrant a higher salary. When dealing with the rendered eye candy and tile based approach of graphical building tools the basic skill requirements of a builder are relatively low. Even the creation of original actors is based around a small collection of tools that are quickly mastered in relation to the skills required to develop the supporting systems infrastructure.
However, I am certainly not saying that all graphical builders are created equal and that mastering the technical requirements of graphical building tools is all that is involved. To use a metaphor, two woodcarvers could be taught how to use the tools involved in their craft. The first, after many hours of failed inspiration could produce a very tidy pile of shavings and wood chips. The second, after a similar length of time but with the creative muse seated upon his/her shoulders, could produce a veritable work of art.
Mastering the tools used in a piece of work is only one of the aspects used in determining the worth and value of a crafter. As Molly, in my opinion rightly pointed out, the difference between a great programmer and a competent programmer is often their ability to write creative code. By this I mean code that takes the program in novel new directions and squeezes every ounce out of the resources available to them. It is one thing to modify an existing function and give it minor twist, it is another thing entirely to write function that opens up a new and previously unexplored dimension to the activity of gaming.
Viewing a working system in one game and replicating it another is the work of a competent programmer. A great programmer would simply view the working system as a source of inspiration, recognising its contents, its limitations, and its relation to other functions employed elsewhere, similar or otherwise. Then, by using their creativity, they would improve upon the general idea and code a fresh version – propelling the idea forward through a number of evolutionary or revolutionary phases.
The same is true for builders and in the case of textual games this value multiplier is of tenfold importance. Not only do they have to fabricate zones, without access to preformatted tiles and rendered textures they have to create every visual elements of each room they build virtually from scratch. It is creativity that defines the difference between a great builder and a competent builder, not the mundane mastery of tools.
Having visited more than my fair share of MUDS the general quality of building IS pitifully low. Grammatical errors, spelling errors, descriptions with engagement factors reminiscent of watching paint dry, historical inaccuracies (a cuirass is a back and breastplate it never covered arm slots), replicated rooms (either direct copies or shallow semantic facsimiles), objects without extra descriptions, rooms without any extra descriptions. Object placements and obstacle settings that meet with gaming stipulations/agendas but have no sense of realism or logic, and above all else a distinct lack of thematic or creative originality (I’m new here where is the nearest goblin village/cavern). I could go on, I haven’t even mentioned scripting, but it is relatively safe to state that GOOD builders are few and far between.
The misconception relating to the number of GOOD builders available commonly arises from the lack of building knowledge exhibited by those hiring. One need only place a zone built by a GOOD builder into a game to highlight the difference and quality such a person includes in their work. Most employers believe they are merely looking for a needle in a haystack when attempting to attract a GOOD builder. However, most employers have never seen the needle in question because they are so rare. Only when they are confronted by the work of a GOOD builder do they finally realise what they have been mistakenly calling good work and what it was they where really looking for all along.
The intrinsic worth of a GOOD builder is every bit the equal of GOOD programmers. In relation to their importance to a game the two positions are also equally important. A GOOD builder involved with a poorly coded project will have few options available to maximise their creativity. A GOOD programmer will be able to code a great project but to the players it will appear sterile, disenchanting, and possibly unfinished - if it has not be furnished by a GOOD builder.
Programmers provide builders with the tools their creativity needs to glorify the finished project. Neither a builder nor a programmer can create an engaging and enjoyable end product by themselves, unless an individual is highly skilled in both areas. The work of one is required by and exemplified by the other, it is a symbiotic relationship and as a direct consequence each party must be accorded equal value. To allocate either party less than equal value is to be guilty of naivety and gross indifference to their particular talents and contributions to the creation of a GOOD game.
On a more specific note I would be interested to hear how you define the worth of contributors to the franchise operations of iron realms Entertainment, such as Imperian.
Being that the engine used is - or one would realistically assume - already developed to a high degree of completion, would a programmer involved in such a project be accorded a lesser value than the one attributed to its builders?
Are we to assume that the code changes a franchise project requires are extensive enough to warrant the allocation of equal billing to programmers involved with such projects?
And if so what would be the point of starting out with the limitations of the Raptor Engine? Other than having something to strip down to its core and virtually rebuild.
If the programmers of such a franchise are merely modifying an existing game engine then surely they have little value. In this situation the builders are directly responsible for generating the diversity required to distance the franchise from its parent game, along with the simple thematic code changes made by the programmers. Wouldn’t the builders be of greater worth to such an enterprise?
-------------------------------------------
Never mind the width feel the quality
|