Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sun_Tzu
I've never quite understood the argument that democracy has to be introduced into every aspect of everything because the leader that is chosen might turn out to be horrible. Is it just me, or is it blatantly easy to spot horrid leaders before they are ever chosen? At any rate, any decent manager would of his own accord consult with the people he appoint for each task before making decisions on the subject, that's just common sense.
Whilst there are huge differences between coders, the key is to build a modular infrastructure which allows a single person to work on a single aspect of the game which is then patched into the game as a whole. It is also paramount that coders always document their code, even as the saying goes, "a piece of well written code is better than any amount of documentation". Editing or patching together code should really not be a problem, as has been discussed before here, open-source software is far more stable than closed source, even with hundreds, even thousands of coders working on it independently and their efforts being patched together to form the programs.
|
I prefer good old dictatorship ofc, thats when things go smooth and things dont need to be discussed hundred of times, but since I know how lame taste people has, its gona be a popularity vote and some jerk gets chosen, which eventually appointments more jerks to the tasks, and soon we have a game full of dickheads in charge. MARK MY WORDS.