Who should get credit on games?

everybody

programmers,designers,story writers, developers, etc.

i think Fable even put the babies born while the game was being made.......not necessary

Personally, I'd establish some threshold.  I'm all for "additional thanks" to certain people but under headings like:

Engine developers and the like, I would probably have some threshold of how much they added to the project to get into one of the "primo" title.

In the industry, there's a big difference between being "Lead Engine Developer" and say "Additional programming".  If you're a lead on a game and leave a year before the game's done, I'd probably be inclined to move that person's credit to "additional programming" unless their contribution to the project was truly substantial.

I don't know who should or shouldn't (not being in the game industry myself, I can't really say) but one thing I thought was cool was on a certain game I and a couple others that moderated the game's forums were mentioned as a special thanks in the end game credits. I thought that was cool.

I think Firaxis have made a habit of even crediting beta testers (not in-house testers, I mean). That is probably taking it too far. But at least everyone in house workig on the project, and probably a mention of engine developers too, if they were involved in the project to any degree.

Oh yeah, and when browsing the credits, I sometimes wonder why more space is devoted to crediting the people from the publisher as opposed to people from the developer. I know the publisher plays a big role in getting the game out, but please. I really don't care who is licensing director for the publisher

Morten 

Personally I think mostly other developers look at credits. They're a kind of "I was there and I did it" to put on your CV. If that is true, I'd say it is important to have everyone who felt they were a part of the development in the credits, who were on the payroll within the company. Outsourced material has to be negotiated. But mostly I think credits that show some kind of role in the development are important. Some games just flash you a list of 50 names. What we want to know is who did what, who lead what team and so on. I know it's not as black and white as that, but it should give a rough nudge.

It should probably be a case of everyone at the company at the time of launch gets a mention under their appropriate title and everyone who worked on it (in-house testers, programmers, designers) who left before it launched gets put under a catch all title (Additional Programming/Testing/Designing).

It just sounds like bad practice to not credit someone who worked on the game just because they aren't at the company when it launched.

I think my view on externals may be just a tad biased. *coughs*

But on the "inside" of the developer/publisher teams, it seems if the "lead" title is causing issues, get rid of it? I mean, there shouldn't be that many leads. Sure, there's a project lead, marketing lead, the "main" guy responsible for the oversight of the entire game. But on the smaller level, what's the difference between "lead" engine developer and a regular engine developer? Or "lead" designer and regular designer, "lead" artist, etc?

Why not just mention the entire team on equal footing? All your designers, artists, engine developers, balancers, etc listed under one header. Keep the few "lead"s that actually have the job of overseeing various aspects of the entire project, but on the nitty gritty I don't think that's necessary.

I'd tend to say that if somebody is not present at release, and didn't contribute for a significant portion of the project's length, then they can go into an "Additional Contributors" section. But to remove anyone who has left or moved off the project completely (regardless of the magnitude of contributions) as some companies are doing, that's just insulting.

If someone caused trouble I wouldn't put them on the credits.
I kind of feel bad for contractors not getting on the credits though. I know a lot of freelancers that are contracted, they're just a single person, or small group, who work really hard like anyone else for a short period of time but they don't get any credit AT ALL.

And you have concept artists that can't show their signatures on their paintings, and sometimes never get permission to be able to put it up on their website even after a game is released, I find that really sad.

I think anyone who's worked on a game for more than 6 months and didn't get fired over something they did, or quit leaving things unorganized and such, should be on the credits. :/

I hope this was duly noted...this is a very nice touch to those "little" people of the world who in some small way contributed to tweaks and bug squashes.

If you have your staff and contractors log hours worked to the project, you could build some formulae to do the main credits based on role and time worked as a portion of the total project time. That would automatically handle things like someone working hard for a year, but leaving a year before the job finished. You could also throw in a variable to weight a contributor's work quality.

It can be a serious disruption to have an employee leave before project completion, but I feel they still deserve mention if they left on good terms.

Regarding titles, this is something we tried to avoid in the credits. In a smaller studio we all wear many hats - it would feel forced or even humerous to slap titles on everyone. 

You could slap humorous titles on for kicks and giggles

Chief Multi-Hat Donner

Well, in IC's case, Blair would likely end up "Lead Monkey's Uncle", for example. Nobody but the old testers would know what the hell that means, but hey

I more or less agree that anyone who contributed from the staff should get a mention.


That's to do with flak targeting strikecraft, right?

more important question: does anyone who pays for the game actually read the credits?

Some do



It was a number of things, mostly around strike craft and flaks. Sometimes bombers would chase fighters instead of attacking structures, or fighters/flak would chase sieges (at that time, they were useless against them), so on so forth. If you want to read up on it, check in the Dev Journals from the Sins site, for Blair's Targeting Woes diary, from which I leave a quote:

I glance over them to see how many people it is and what sort of titles the had.
I rarely recognize or try and memorize names or anything, just see if it is anyone familiar.
Sometimes i see people with my same last name and stuff, yaknow.

I think it should be up to the games Lead Designer really, within reason.

I do when I get a printed manual, but not usually if they're just onscreen. Well, did is probably the better verb. I don't buy nearly as many games as I used to, mostly because the credits have turned out to be more like branding than, say, learning a director or author whose work you'd like to follow.

Both Sid Meier and Will Wright seem totally snared in mega-corp crap. The last couple of games I tried with their names on or behind the title were, well, rather disappointing. Brian Reynolds seems to have wandered off into RTS and consoles, so I haven't seen his name on a title I play in quite a while either.

The best credits I saw I think were for Portal. If I am remembering this correctly the credits were snaps of the various bodies knocking around the office and the credits just pointed out who they were and their title.

 

Makes the credits watchable when you get that sort of personal touch, a bunch of faces you can connect with, espacially when you see them in the enviroment in which they spend hundreds of hours making the game you love.

 

Then if your not around enough for someone to take a snap of you, you can go into the additional thanks bit at the end.

 

I also remember that the characters in the game I'm thinking of were all much beardier and plumper than the average joe. I would also like to know if game designers in general have a penchant for candy and facial hair.

Facial hair during crunch time for sure Can't say anyone falls in the other category here though.