[Flopper]

Originally Posted by JScones

Yes, you've said this a few times, but I'm curious to hear what your logical rationale is, apart from a tenuous analogy.

I believe I said it just the once, if I'm not mistaken.

Originally Posted by JScones

See, for someone to say that the devs are "not to blame" must mean that they consider the devs to be dumb Lemmings that did exclusively what they were told to do by "the suits"TM.

That logic is weak.

Originally Posted by JScones

Yet I can't imagine a gang of Ubisoft France people standing over the shoulder of the devs saying "type this, remove that, change this", can you? Heck, I reckon most of Ubisoft France would have no idea about the intricacies of U-boat warfare. Why would they?

I can't imagine it either.

Originally Posted by JScones

See, I think the devs are actually smarter than that. I give them credit. I don't think they are robots at all. I think they had a level of autonomy to influence design and content - and if Alex's blog view is an indication of how he managed SH5, then I am sure of it.

I also think they are smart humans.

Originally Posted by JScones

So, let's look at what I mean by "level of autonomy". That would imply that they had some input, pitched a concept, an idea. Heck, they had to convince Ubisoft France in the first place, and as Dan said himself, Ubisoft didn't have to agree to do another SH game. This statement by one of the team leads alone demonstrates that the devs had at least some autonomy over the design and content.

Now, autonomy means control. With control comes responsibility. With responsibility comes accountability.

So all it would take for the devs to be part of the "blamestorming" would be one autonomous, heck even semi-autonomous, decision made by the PM, the team leads or even the team. Essentially ANY decision THEY made that affected the final product.

Or are you maintaining that the devs were mere Lemmings that sat there making no decisions at all and simply typed only what Ubisoft France told them to? If so, then I think that's more offensive to their intelligence than simply saying they suxxors. At least in the latter case their creative input is being acknowledged, even if not favourably. You're simply failing to acknowledge it at all. In fact, by not attributing any blame to the devs, you are essentially saying that all the GOOD parts of the game are the handiwork of Ubisoft France as well. I mean, you're not trying to say that the bad stuff is the fault of "the suits"TM yet the good stuff is the result of the devs, are you? Because it doesn't work that way.

I'm maintaining that the responsibilty for success or failure of a product lies squarely on the shoulders of whomever signs the paychecks.

Originally Posted by JScones

Anyway, it's all moot. I don't care who's to blame.

Well, that was quite a dissertation then, considering you don't care and it's all moot.

Originally Posted by JScones

As long as Ubisoft (collective) fixes it, that's all that really matters. Let the blamestorming happen behind the Ubisoft boardroom doors, if they even feel it necessary, is what I say.

Amen.

Originally Posted by JScones

What we do know for sure though is that after reviews like PC Gamer's, mud will stick to everyone involved in SH5.

Perhaps, but mud washes off fairly easily.

Originally Posted by JScones

BTW Flopper, I'm a program director. Started life as a software engineer and worked up. I've been in the shoes of both the devs and the suits. After 12 years or project managing I think I have a bit of an idea how projects work.

Congrats!