Discussion in 'I wanna be a Game Programmer' started by kettiby, Mar 26, 2008.
For the sake of anonymity and identity protection, I recommend removing your name!
I figured it didn't really matter, but I took it out any way.
"We're too lazy to get you in for a face to face interview and don't want to deal with the awkwardness of those times when we get people who can't pass the programming test and have to tell them in person that there's no point in continuing. Plus it's a lot easier to work out who will put up with our bad work practices, so we understand if you don't want to submit, you probably wouldn't have enjoyed when we asked you to do crunch either."
"not able to perform the basics" < programming test maybe?
And on a less sarcastic note you're not always going to hire the right person. Some times you take a chance on someone and it doesn't pay off, or someone manages to talk their way into a job they can't perform. But that's what probation is for. It's not fun telling someone they haven't passed, and it's a drain on having tried to train them and given them feedback and it still not have worked out, but sometimes it's necessary.
Leads need to be taught how to deal with probation including when someone doesn't pass and get the support from their managers.
No need for programming tests - a simple math test will get rid of 90% of your worst applicants... People suck at math nowadays.
To me it reads like they are saying that previously they got fooled by some candidates (could talk/cheat their way through the recruitment process only to be terrible when they start working), so if everyone does the same test they can look at actual code and compare apples to apples (everyone did the same task within the same constraints). They don't want people who are good at talking/networking, they want people who are good at programming.
You could argue that the interview should be able to sort that out, but they have probably been burned badly in the past. It sucks, but it doesn't sound completely crazy to me.
Their reasoning may make sense to them, but they will most likely never end up with anyone experienced having this attitude. Unless they get lucky.
But...they're asking someone to make a prototype of the product they are hiring for. Asking someone to do a small test is one thing, asking someone to invest time, potentially a lot of time prototyping is another. Especially if they do look at the code to 'even the playing field'. At that point it's not a prototype because they're scrutinizing for up to production quality work.
You are going to get a bunch of people that prototype a game and in the spirit of prototyping don't worry too much about the code or implementation as a sample of their work. They'll fail, despite delivering what was asked and spending a lot of time on it. Then you'll get people who spend even more time prototyping but putting a better production style code together to review. They may be asked for interview...but they spent way too much time on it.
To me it's daft to ask someone to deliver a prototype and then worry about the quality of implementation from any standpoint, but certainly from a code one.
Really this is a company asking you to spend lots of time on something and downplaying the up front time investment, justifying what they know is an unreasonable ask by calling it a prototype. Then reviewing it as an example of the candidates production quality code.
Run a fucking mile I would. That tells me all I need to know. Anyone saying 'no' to this kind of behavior is doing themselves a favour.
Two words: dot product.
Do you still not know what one is?