Read on Twitter
Come on, really?
I mean, I was with 2K for almost 6 years and we barely squeaked out 2 AAA games.
The math here doesn't add up to the reality of game dev.
I mean, I was with 2K for almost 6 years and we barely squeaked out 2 AAA games.
The math here doesn't add up to the reality of game dev.
This is another one of those things that just makes people feel like they’re never going to live up to ridiculous and unrealistic expectations. It discourages people from feeling like their own personal efforts and realities are never enough to progress to the next level.
And it narrows a recruiters focus too sharply. These “requirements” only make the candidate pool needlessly shallow and extends the length of the search.
Having been on both ends of recruitment (certainly more than I would have liked over the years) I’ve been a perpetrator and victim of out-dated and unrealistic job requirements. There’s got to be a better way of expressing the needs of the position without such limiting factors.
Since this seems to have gotten a lot of attention, I will point that this was for a lead/supervisor role. My point still stands tho. If this is the criteria, there are 10, maybe 20 people who truly qualify.
But language like this in job recs should absolutely NOT stop you from applying if YOU feel it’s a position you are qualified for!
Another thing to keep in mind is that the higher up the position, it’s more likely that the req was written by some who is not in that same field, which can lead to some wonky language or expectations.
