The article talks about the different aspects of the gaming industry and how those aspects affects the workers. One of the key things that I found interesting was the concept of the structures of video game programming and how the institutionalized companies often take an idea and morph it to fit the standard more, instead of allowing the idea to blossom on its own. In the article O’Donnell talks about how the producers come in and the programmer has to negotiate to keep in aspects of their own game that they designed, in the games final product. If the parts that didn’t make it into the final game design become an issue or if the programmer feels like it, there is a website where they can add what went wrong during the production cycle of the game.
I found this article almost tear jerking or at the very least frustrating, because of the blood, sweat, and tears that people put into something they are suppose to “own,” but end up being able to do nothing to save their envisioned product in the end except for negotiate. O’Donnell made me think back to all of the video games in the gaming world that were disliked or games that were complained about because they could have been better. As I remember the comments that I read, most people blamed the designer for the errors, when in reality it was most likely the game producers who took key elements out of the game because they would like to think they know the community better.
The article also made me think in reference to the conversation we had in class about play, work, and ownership. Although you can play something and work on something, as long as you’re under the foot of these all powerful gaming companies it seems like all of your work can be for nothing.
Game Studies 