“The story is so much more complex. If we can see [a] more equitable and inclusive medieval world through fantasy, I think that can really affect the way the period is interpreted today.”
I think history should be up for interpretation in about the same way as something like the laws of physics are, ie only if there's strong evidence that our current understanding is incorrect. I don't think a black Gandalf should be that evidence.
As good writers expand their audience, they slowly narrow the things they consider self-explanatory, because the wider your audience, the fewer shared understandings they all have.
The art of explanation, and communication, is finding enlightening ways to make sure your audience understands your frame, even if some will find it repetitive, while others to stretch to grasp it.
I don't think examples would be repetitive, I think they'd be counterproductive because the tastes of the audience are varied and that would confound the point of the categorization. To the extent that the examples have explanatory power, they'd be explaining the author's taste in art, which isn't relevant.
> Being successful is not about being smart or competent.
An interesting perspective, but I suspect that you're using "likeability" as a cynical proxy for how well a person works in a team.
A person with an exceptional personality that motivates their entire team to work harder is likely infinitely more valuable to the employer than a more individualistic employee that might be exceptional when compared to any individual employee but still severely underperforms compared to a motivated team. Should the employer be compelled to pick the later just because they are smarter and more competent?
Not necessarily. It can be I guess, but my last position the lead dev was very likable but totally incompetent. He wasn't a motivator or anything either. He actually hurt morale because of his inconpetence. He just had a likable personality. The project itself was millions of dollars and several years behind. But the business people with the purse strings liked the guy and he knew enough to bullshit them.
I've seen this pattern repeated alot throughout my many years. Most jobs aren't really that hard so the real way to keep the job and thrive is to just be likable.
The pay is usually indicative of employer's ability to find a person with the necessary skillset to do the job and not some abstract "importance to society" value that the job has.
Wouldn't it be nice if pay was correlated with value to society? There are a lot of software engineers getting paid bank to make products that are worse for users and society but make their bosses fat stacks. The school janitor is providing more benefit to society.
As a software dev I agree, and I've worked on some products I'd deem as a net positive to society. But there is just so much shit software out there.
As a German I wonder what the people where thinking programming VWs TDI system to activate emission controls only during testing, was it worth it? Polluting the environment and peoples lungs for a bit of money? It's not like dev jobs are a rarity in Germany. And yes I'm judgemental about this. And don't get me started on the things that are legal and still a detriment to society.
What were the execs that put a bunch of monkeys in an exhaust gas chamber to prove it was “clean diesel” thinking? Or the ones who signed off on the “Green Police” ad?
>If anyone has a good solution, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts.
Unfortunately the solution I've found is to only commit to making a game you're at least 90% sure you can complete without learning any new tools/engine functionality/design practices, etc. The "write what you know" advice for writers is directly applicable to commercial indie game development (maybe to an even greater degree).
Additionally: I think it's quite unreasonable to expect that you won't get demotivated over the course of a year(s) long project when even the most basic features require hours of research before they can be brought to a functional stage, not to mention the stage where they begin to coalesce into something fun.
I think history should be up for interpretation in about the same way as something like the laws of physics are, ie only if there's strong evidence that our current understanding is incorrect. I don't think a black Gandalf should be that evidence.