One interesting challenge in explaining Scrum and the iron triangle to game
builders is confusion about quality vs. scope. To a software engineer,
“quality” means maintainability, scalability, reliability, etcerability.
But “quality” to a game designer might mean landscapes are highly detailed,
objects move realistically, guns jam just like in real life, and other
things that we’d consider robustness or scope. As I’ve discussed with Vic
and David, I think the word “quality” is too subjective and submit we use a
specific measurable term such as “maintainability.”
A second challenge is that the specialization in game building is more
diverse than in software engineering. For example, there’s a bigger
difference between a graphic artist and an audio designer than there is
between a J2EE programmer and an Oracle DBA. This drives the team size up,
reducing cohesion and accountability.
Another interesting discussion they had was whether “fun” (another
subjective attribute) should be part of the definition of done.
Sometimes they will build things as specified, but people will play with
them and report they’re not “fun.” They’re starting to get that some kind
of UAT should be built into the Sprint cycle. The jury is still out on to
what extent making things “fun” is a Product Owner responsibility (in what
features he selects) vs. a team responsibility in the definition of done.