-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Neil Druckmann and Troy Baker, talking about The Last of US Part II
- Thread starter BoJack
- Start date
It's really good. I love how Neil is just like "fuck it, I'll say it." The part about Laura is pretty sad. I feel for her so much :(
Watched a bit of it earlier, very interesting stuff. Will watch the rest later, it's long as hell.
lol we've had it backwards this whole time ... people LOVE crunch. Our bad.
The toxicity and harassment to her and Neil and everyone else is disgusting.
It continues:
"Like, employees were UNHAPPY when we tried to force them out of the office."
Oh hahaha sure. Right. I hear they also get upset about having days off and they really, REALLY hate lunch breaks.
While I don't work in the video game industry, I can relate to that statement. It's easy to get peeved when you as an employee are not allowed to finish the task / project / work you're currently doing because you are forced to leave. Proper implementation of a flexitime system solved pretty much all overwork problems I've ever had because it's done on my terms. Although I don't know how common flextime-like systems are in the US.
I do think that might actually be true in the context of Naughty Dog, but I don't mean that as a good thing. Schreier's article specifically said that they don't necessarily overtly encourage/push their employees to crunch BUT they specifically target profiles that tend to crunch of their own volitions eg. extremely passionate young talent, workaholics, ... So I could imagine there being pushback from at least some employees if an initiative to limit how much they can work was put in place.
Again, not saying that as a defense of anyone in charge at ND, though my profile pic shows that I admire the work produced there I don't believe that some of the practices in place there are healthy, and I don't think it's OK to push the blame for crunch on employees wanting to push themselves hard because you're not overtly telling them to, while specifically looking for people who will do so and maintaining conditions that naturally encourage it. But from what we know, it does seem possible/probable that the kind of people they hire wouldn't be down with being "forced" to work less.
I mean he did say some stuff was based on facts they were not proud of. But is it too far fetched to think that some people WOULD want to work longer? Like if they felt that passionately about it why is it so hard to believe? Idk. I don't like crunch and think steps should be taken to avoid it but I really do think Neil is being genuine here.
The whole talk about crunch starts around 1:20:00 in or so.
The unhappy part does come off as management speaking on behalf of all employees without really focusing on those who did have issues so it's not great there. There probably are some that feel that way but there's obviously some who don't, so how do you avoid creating that unwanted pressure from needing to work from those who are intimidated about being vocal regarding the crunch.
The acknowledgement of the reputation and the discussion about changing tactics and bringing outside help to change things on the next project is good however. What I want to see is what ND intends to do going forward so this is the first I've heard of regarding that even if there's few details.
The unhappy part does come off as management speaking on behalf of all employees without really focusing on those who did have issues so it's not great there. There probably are some that feel that way but there's obviously some who don't, so how do you avoid creating that unwanted pressure from needing to work from those who are intimidated about being vocal regarding the crunch.
The acknowledgement of the reputation and the discussion about changing tactics and bringing outside help to change things on the next project is good however. What I want to see is what ND intends to do going forward so this is the first I've heard of regarding that even if there's few details.
I work in TV. I have absolutely worked 14 hour days for weeks on end where they had to kick me out of the office and I didn't want to go.
I'm not saying it's healthy, and I'm not saying it overrides people who get burned out and want to actually see their families, but workaholics wanting to spend every waking moment grinding trying to get something done is not the laughable concept you think it is.
At any point have you demanded a 75% increase in pay? Because you're working 75% more hours than a standard 8-hour day.
Believe it or not, but in computer science and that sort of field, and when working especially with younger developers you will meet a lot of workaholics. I was in a place and I felt like it was really frowned upon not working enough hours a week, not due to some corporate exec's directive but because there were a bunch of people who are basically competing with each other about how much you can work, and they actually want to do it.
Maybe it's not the right position for Neil to take, especially now as a company VP, but in terms of reiterating what the reaction was he's probably not lying.
No, because I already feel my compensation is fair and this is the industry I'm in. It's normal.
Again, there are caveats: I'm not saying because it's okay to some employees that it's okay for everyone. And in TV you do this for weeks, or months, but not years on end. But plenty of employees do genuinely want to stay because the project is their life and they want to dedicate themselves to getting it done.
Also, I've gone weeks without taking a lunch break — choosing not to take a lunch break — because I was busy with something. It happens.
But it's management's responsibility to make sure you are working within the state/federal law guidelines. That you take your breaks, get your time away from work, are rested, etc.
I can't speak as someone with experience but something I've noticed with some people in creative fields who work insane hours compared to the average person in a non creative job is that those people don't actually view what they are doing "as work".
It only comes off badly if you just want to pick and choose little quotes like you're doing instead of taking in all that he's saying. Because he makes it very clear that they're trying to make changes and that the health of the staff is very important. As he's brought up before, even before Sony mandated that their studios work from home ND had already taken the steps to do it.
Are people implying that he's lying? Why when Jason Schreier writes about it people take it as the absolute truth but when the vp of the company says something like that it's weird.
I couldn't put into better words than you have to describe everything that's wrong with modern work culture.
Yes, he says this sentence, but it's misleading to point out this and only this sentence, as if that is all he said on the matter, or as if this accurately sums up everything he says on the matter in this interview, because it's not. He says a lot more about crunch at ND, about their desire to improve and certain things about how they're going to go about it. Next time you should try presenting the whole thing, not just one sentence.
I've seen countless lawsuits where companies have to pay out big for shit like this. Whether you're ok with it or not, it's against the law. And management is failing if they allow this to happen. Shit, I've worked for three companies in my life, two of which have paid my $4,000+ in settlements for not handling breaks right.
Next time I'll transcribe the whole video rather than quote and timestamp a portion that struck me as a gaffe.
Animation, art design, brainwashing...is there anything at which the Naughty Godz do not excel?
You can't just take something like that and post it out of context to try to make it sound worse purposefully.
Next time honestly represent what he said about the topic instead of pulling a single sentence or two in order to drum up outrage. And then also don't be a dick about it afterward.
Thank you for (not) getting the point.
Context matters. Your post lacks context of the entire crunch discussion.
Jason didn't say those things - he quoted the employees who did
Yeah but context doesn't apply when you have an agenda remember.
It is insane to me that so many people are unable to comprehend a concept like this.
I crunch at my job as well, and, that's just one reason why the company I work for is literally the best in the world at what we do. Someone will come along and say we're brainwashed or some shit, but, I dunno, seems to be paying off for me and my company so far.
Is that kind of work structure for everyone? Of course not. Probably not for most people, and that's OK! There is no one-size-fits-all, and that's why it's great that there are so many places to find a job. But to just say people who want to work longer/harder are inherently evil or brainwashed is madness to me.
This right here feels flippant about something serious at best, and reprehensible at worst. The "culture of crunch" clearly comes from the top, and this quote is characteristic of their overall attitude about the problem; Leadership doesn't see it as one.
Conflating [hard work] with [leadership that selects for, banks on, and depends on unhealthy crunch] is being obtuse. Deflecting from known issues of that kind of crunch within the specific company by saying "oh they love it, they wouldn't work any other way" ignores the underlying problem.
Yeah as a web developer I've had to put in 80-100 hour weeks before and there's a certain level of pride that starts to settle in. The problem is when the culture is set up to rely on this day after day, week after week and as a result of poor planning the artists, the programmers, the designers all have to put in more hours than they need to be putting in. A lot of companies went to agile to get around this in my field, and it certainly helps set expectations but web development is much much easier than game development and depending on the company doesn't have as many strict deadlines.
If you skip to that timestamp in the video, Neil says a lot more about crunch at Naughty Dog, which that one sentence (which he does say) does not accurately sum up.
The muppet you're quoting is getting rightfully lambasted for only posting the clickbait part of the sentence instead of including the full context it was said in.
Duh? but he wrote only about the disgruntled employees, what about the ones that find no problem with their working conditions according to Neil?
Laws regarding lunch and general breaks are different if you are exempt or non-exempt. I would assume a lot of people working at ND are exempt salaried employees who are not entitled to paid lunch or breaks. For exempt employees, they are generally exempt from most laws protecting workers due to hours worked and extra compensation for that work.
The mentality around it is that you are a professional and aren't doing physical labor, so you know best if you need to take lunch or not. As an exempt salaried worker, I have worked more than I should sometimes, but I also am paid regardless of how much or how little I work. I can take long lunches or work during my lunch, it really doesn't change anything so long as at the end of the day I am delivering the work I was set out to do.
Of course when you put it like that then you don't get people quoting you so they can quickly jump on ND.
If that user bothered to actually quote the whole thing, you'd realize that's not it, but it's clear the intention was to only quote that part as it sounds bad only without the next things Neil says.
