An ancient article: Who Killed Our Game?

My dear players, I hear your mournful cries from behind, but the capital always smiles flirtatiously in front of me.

Quote

Failure! On to the next failure!

At this moment, a large number of game development teams are heading towards failure. Close your eyes and imagine this scene, then open your eyes and look around. Is it happening right beside you?

In 2006, there were over 60 independently developed online games released in China, but in the end, no more than 15 survived and were profitable. There is no doubt about it: over 75% of the projects either failed directly or fell far short of expectations! In the increasingly competitive Chinese online gaming market, this proportion is still rising. Newly released games, still steaming hot, are quietly thrown into the garbage during various levels of internal testing before they can even receive large-scale promotion. What's left? You try to recall the name of the domestic blockbuster that was loudly announced for open beta testing with thousands of players on 17173 last month, but you just can't remember. "A flash in the pan" is not an exaggeration to describe most new online games today.

What went wrong?

Who killed our games?

Why, when we look around, do we only see bloody finished products?

Has the "golden industry of making money while sleeping" disappeared four years ago?

How did the lovely players suddenly become so chaotic and monstrous?

This article is not about analyzing the external environment, market competition, cultural accumulation, user psychology, game content, or various personal issues, but rather about looking at the reasons for the failure of independently developed games from the perspective of a game planner, which is the small aspect within the game developer. This article is not a guide on how to be a good planner, but rather an emotional expression of the author's personal views, along with practical lessons related to it, hoping to serve as a warning to those projects that have not completely failed.

Stillborn

Carrying for ten months, only for the fetus to die in the womb.

This statement may sound cruel, but if you have ever been in a game project team that had to end in dissolution, you should understand that this metaphor is quite appropriate. Many games exhibit this astonishing similarity: about a year of development, and then they quickly die off before most players even see them. This may be related to the impatience of investors, or it could be related to decision-making errors, chaotic management, changing market tastes, lack of team experience, or even the Indonesian tsunami, but we cannot determine the fundamental reason: is it because the sperm's vitality is weak? Is the gestation period not long enough? Is the nutrition inadequate? Is it because the doctor responsible for the cesarean section is incompetent? Why can't we successfully produce healthy babies (products)?

One often overlooked aspect of successful games is that they survive not because they consume more resources or take longer than the majority of their deceased counterparts. People tend to unconsciously exaggerate the "elitism," "diligence," and "procrastination" in the game (or other product) development process, citing examples such as "programmers discussing improvements to the physics engine all night," "artists repeatedly experimenting with a 256-color palette to finally create realistic flames," "planners rejecting nearly 30 different boss designs," "managers desperately persuading the board to postpone the release for another year," and so on to prove these points.

Is this really the case?

Undeniably, work attitude and the external environment play a crucial role in the final success, but if everyone's attention is focused on the few great works that take a long time and effort to develop, it will lead to a kind of evasion, a refusal to conduct a comprehensive self-examination. The result of this approach is the emergence of a "grand theory" on how to make a good game, treating game development as a proposition, and all discussions within the company about how to do it well have evolved into seminars on how to approach this "grand theory." In my opinion, this single interpretation of successful games is insidious, as it to some extent offsets the questioning of the fundamental qualities of game developers themselves, and without questioning, there will be no reflection and improvement.

In reality, look at those games in the market that are making a lot of money. They are often produced by copying a unified template. "Street Basketball" is a good example. This game was created within a year, completed by an inexperienced team (their first work even failed), and later became the most popular sports online game in the market. This serves as a reminder for us to look for something different from "outstanding leaders + elite gathering + years of hard work," something related to the game developers themselves.

Well, let's recall what the planners did before the extremely tragic stillbirth occurred.

Cursed Team

I always wonder if some failed projects were doomed from the start. If we focus this question on a single point in game planning, it is not difficult to find that something, from the very beginning of a game's conception, has been germinating in the minds of certain people, which can be described as a growing and intense psychological suggestion—

"I have such a deep insight into its inherent flaws that I have already foreseen its inevitable failure."

Once your planners start thinking like this, unfortunately, the team is cursed by this invincible prophecy.

Open your memory again, this time the scene includes many screens—yes, the colorful displays of your colleagues during leisure time. You should quickly be able to visualize some scenes in your mind: overlapping chat windows, R-rated images, new TV shows, Blizzard or Valve's old works…

Have you seen the game the project team is testing? No.

Next time, pay attention. If this is indeed the case, it is the most typical manifestation of being cursed.

Why don't you play your own game?

"Why don't you play our own game?"

Ask this question to your colleagues one by one. Most people may laugh at you and disdain to answer, or someone might honestly tell you, "What's there to play? We work on it every day, isn't that enough?" If this response comes from programmers and artists, you can ignore it, as they can still do their job well even if they don't love playing their own game, they just may not be outstanding. But if similar responses come from the project planners, creative directors, or planning supervisors, then unfortunately, the worst-case scenario may have occurred:

If the project planners, especially the lead planner, are not enthusiastic about playing their own game, it is an extremely dangerous sign in game development.

This statement may sound like a cliché, much like "if you don't like the game you make, don't expect others to," but for planners, I believe this experience is worth mentioning frequently. Because the more common situation is that everyone has long turned a blind eye to it.

The company I used to work for developed an interesting small-scale elimination game. Almost everyone, not just the developers, became loyal players of this game during the testing phase. After work, we enthusiastically formed teams to compete, proud of our victories and new level titles in the game. I was in charge of its sound effects at the time, and I created three sets of different sound effects to experience, including a set in a black rap style, just for fun. After this game was officially launched, its online player count quickly exceeded our expectations.

——yocar

Remember two things:

First, enthusiasm is not the same as liking. No one can force you to like something, and there are always some people who don't like their ideas becoming reality. The problem is, if a planner lacks the patience to invest a significant amount of spare time in their own game (this is called enthusiasm), how can they discover the true playability of the game? How can they understand those players who are tirelessly enjoying the game? How can they know what to do next to satisfy the users?

Second, a good game is worth playing at any time. If a planner uses "playing too much" as an excuse, they are essentially saying, "I've given up, I can't see anything exciting about it anymore (even though I haven't played it much), my goodness! Don't make me continue to experience this rubbish, I've been racking my brain every day, don't I know better than you? It can't be improved, not at all!"

Think about it seriously, doesn't it feel like a breakdown? When the most core members of the project team, those "prophets" who are responsible for thinking about the gameplay, constantly discovering new fun in the game, and setting the future development direction of the game, seem to have received a divine revelation of the bleak ending of their own work before the project has even failed, and then feel irretrievably frustrated about it, deciding not to touch their own game anymore, not only not touching it, but even starting to hate it for bringing them so much frustration. This is like the commanders secretly preparing to surrender when the soldiers still have hope for the future of the war. Is there anything worse than this?

In an observation of the team members playing their own game, I noticed that the average level of the planners' characters was not higher than that of the programmers and artists. The planner with the highest score had character experience, kill count, and game rounds that were less than one-fifth of the highest-scoring client programmer. And the person with the highest score in the art department had a game score approximately equal to the sum of all the planners' scores.

——yocar

Another terrifying fact is that most planners believe that this attitude will not be noticed—yes, it seems like they are always working overtime, meticulously following up on every task, actively communicating in various ways, and making humorless jokes with others. But the truth is often so simple and embarrassing:

They really, really play their own game very little.

So there's no need to cover it up anymore. When planners show pessimism about the game project they are involved in, this attitude will seep into everyone's hearts like spring rain and quickly spread throughout the entire team. Even the most obtuse members will soon be infected by this emotion, and then you will see the situation mentioned earlier: fewer and fewer colleagues are playing the game.

The destructive power of negative planners on the team is so enormous, and the despair they bring to the team is so profound. They should have been the most motivated, enthusiastic, and proactive people, but now the most proactive work has become passive behavior forced by the environment. They should have been leaders driving change, but they have lost the most basic courage. They are no longer willing to explore what is still enjoyable about this game, they fear any major changes. They have no ambition, no confidence, let alone planning for the future and drawing blueprints for "our baby." They will attribute the failure of each stage to various "correct reasons," but will never mention how they destroyed the spiritual foundation of a game development team—we are making fun games.

If you pay attention to their eyes, you may understand all of this. It's like a stagnant pool, where you can't see the burning flames of idealism at all.

Getting Closer to Planning, Farther from Players

Should players be treated like livestock?

Don't be scared, in the (online game) planning circle in China, discussions on similar themes are commonplace, without exaggeration. If we want to put it more mildly, we can describe it as: the damn online game industry has given birth to a bunch of scumbags like me, who think about the following five propositions every day:

How to keep players addicted
How to make players spend more money
How to make players form groups
How to make players resent each other
How to implement hidden cash gambling and coin trading

Believe me, almost all companies developing online games require planners to design a large number of functional modules to achieve the above 5 points. The standard for measuring a planner, especially a numerical planner, is whether the above points are thoroughly implemented in the actual operation of the game. Of course, different types of games will have different emphases.

As a result, in a considerable number of game development teams, the focus of planners' work is not on researching how to make the game more fun and rich, but on researching how to make players addicted, get them used to factionalism, abuse and kill, and engage in safer online cash activities (gambling, virtual item trading, etc.).

Naturally, online games have produced many unique things: first, there are constantly new maps/monsters/levels/equipment, then there's rebirth, ascension; then there's double experience, family systems, small horns, PK rankings, kicking rights, anti-kick rights; there are also lottery cards, gold coin areas, 10x gold coin areas, 50x gold coin areas… Compared to the outdated, traditional single-player elements, these new things have achieved significant, even unprecedented success in terms of economic benefits.

So we celebrate, applauding our own creativity, and dancing for having discovered a prosperous path for the online game industry with Chinese characteristics.

This is the most peculiar phenomenon in the world of online game development: we have become mathematicians constantly analyzing whether a certain series is reasonable, and continuously solving differential equations for curve integrals; we have become professional doctors studying how to increase patients' dependence on drugs and constantly improving the purification process of ***; we have become agitators and arms suppliers who encourage people to ignore the rules of reality, vent their personal emotions, and intensify various conflicts; we have become the housekeepers of underground casinos and intermediaries for various black market transactions.

We have become experienced game planners.

The lead planner of my previous project was someone extremely persistent about numerical values. He excelled at reworking all the numerical aspects related to the game, including game scores, power parameters, and event reward ratios. He was always keen to discover every flaw and then rework these flaws with completely new magical formulas, spending a lot of time testing and perfecting them. But whenever he was engrossed in these so-called "balance" and "reasonableness," players quietly drifted away due to the lack of game content and monotonous gameplay.

——yocar

Interlude: Starting with Anti-Addiction

China is going to implement the "Online Game Anti-Addiction System," which is not something new. But why doesn't Japan have it, or South Korea, or Europe, or even the United States, which has the highest internet penetration rate, only using a game rating system instead of mandatory time limits to control the audience?

Why is it only in China that such regulations, which seem to seriously harm the emerging market, are introduced?

Someone is bound to jump out and say, "China's policy-making has always been so crude."

I can only say, you're too naive, too simple, too young!

It's because the national conditions determine everything. Only in China is there such a large "disappointed population," and when it is no longer possible to make correct adjustments relying on the market itself, it is necessary for the country to use administrative means to set things right.

What is the "disappointed population"? My definition is a group of people who cannot obtain enough sense of achievement in reality, are at a loss under the current education system, and feel uneasy and lost in intense social competition. The characteristics of the disappointed population determine that they are the best users of the internet by nature. In a country with an extremely surplus population and in the midst of a social transformation, the sheer number of this group directly led China to become the world's largest internet user and online gaming country in just a few years. Recall how internet cafes blossomed overnight, and internet addiction became a well-known social problem, and it's not difficult to understand this point.

What does it mean that the market itself cannot be properly regulated? An economist from the UK once said something we are all familiar with:

"Capital is afraid of no profit or too little profit, just like nature is afraid of a vacuum. Once there is an appropriate profit, capital becomes bold. If there is 10% profit, it will ensure that it is used everywhere; with 20% profit, it becomes active; with 50% profit, it takes risks; with 100% profit, it dares to trample on all human laws; with 300% profit, it dares to commit any crime, even risking hanging. If turmoil and strife can bring profit, it dares to encourage turmoil and war."

What is behind online game operators? It's capital.

What is the essence of online games? It's virtual presence and a sense of achievement.

What is the huge disappointed population in the eyes of capital in China? It's the best and most delicious flock of sheep to be slaughtered; it's a super gold mine that cannot be found anywhere else in the world; it's a perfect, untapped, and most fertile virgin land.

Now we can slightly modify the classic quote:

"Online game operators are afraid of no profit or too little profit, just like their servers are afraid of power outages. Once there is an appropriate profit, online game operators forget the original sin of games. If there is 10% profit, they ensure that they are promoted everywhere; with 20% profit, they start falsely claiming their own goodness and the many benefits of playing online games; with 50% profit, they take risks, manipulating the weaknesses of human nature just to make users addicted to their products; with 100% profit, they dare to produce any illegal content, trample on all the rules of reality, even if there is public outrage; with 300% profit, they dare to incite players to do the most insane and crazy things, even risking being banned."

So, under such national conditions, how can we expect this "invisible hand" to effectively regulate? If the country does not intervene, how far will it go mad? Please remember, in the eyes of capital, it will never see the crying parents and the players who die suddenly. The bodies are its delicacies, the tears are its condiments, it lives on this and enjoys it endlessly.

So, don't believe it when you hear that a few major online game companies in Beijing have come up with a "Beijing Declaration" saying they firmly support anti-addiction and it won't affect the revenue of online games, it's a typical Chinese-style farce of "the government sets the stage, and the companies perform." Once the "Online Game Anti-Addiction System" is implemented tomorrow, I guarantee that a few CEOs will be in tears like they've lost their souls at midnight :)

The Dark Side of the Force

In "Star Wars," the Force is the most powerful energy that life can harness in the universe. It is divided into two sides, the light side and the dark side, just like light and shadow. The light side gave birth to the Jedi, while the dark side created the Sith. The Jedi use their power to defend justice and the equal rights of all life, while the Sith only seek to satisfy their desires by any means necessary.

If we liken the Force to today's online games, the light side of the Force can be seen as the healthy enjoyment that players get from the game, while the dark side of the Force can be understood as the boundless greed of the capital behind the game operators. Therefore, our game planners are like the young Anakin Skywalker, their Force is so powerful—if their faith is strong, the Force in the world can remain balanced and stable; if they fall, the entire galaxy will be plunged into chaos.

To understand if the planners in your project team have fallen into the dark side of the Force, go and ask them this question right away: "Of all the work you have done, how much has truly improved the gameplay, and how much has been solely focused on making money without regard for the fun of the game?"

A cunning planner might turn it around and educate you, saying that any work seemingly unrelated to gameplay actually increases the players' enjoyment to some extent.

Unfortunately, they have been too deeply corrupted by the dark side of the Force. Never believe such lies, just as online game operators will never admit, "The more you play, the more useless you become, and the happier I am."

Returning to the previous topic, through a simple critique of the entire industry, we should be able to explain why planners are getting farther and farther away from the players. The fundamental reason is that capital has alienated the original intention of making online games, positioning them primarily as a service business that can continuously make money. All work is required to revolve around "sustained profitability" and "keeping users in the game for hundreds or thousands of hours." The original intention was simply to "create something fun."

This is not to absolve the planners. The deeper reason why online games have become a target of criticism is indeed the dark power of capital. I just want to remind everyone of another danger: under the influence of such a powerful dark force, the planners, who are weak and isolated, are beginning to show a trend of overall corruption. We are gradually forming a new guiding ideology for game planning, the core of which is not about how to create "fun and enjoyable" games for players, but has evolved into how to design a successful internet trap. Even more seriously, a considerable number of excellent planners in China have already stood on this dark side, fueling it. They tirelessly supplement a large amount of experiential knowledge and use their knowledge of psychology and statistics to elevate it into various laws and theories.

What characteristics can show this trend of corruption? Please compare it with your project team to see if it fits the following eight points:

Innovation in the original game model is compressed to almost zero.
Planners rarely engage in forward-thinking; they are more focused on analogy, modification, and plagiarism.
The completion requirements for elements of online games as single-player games, such as character emotions, worldviews, mission plots, music, and sound effects, are significantly reduced.
Players are treated as mathematical models, and in all decisions, the feelings of individual players can be completely ignored.
Planners generally have a mentality that places them above the players, showing no reverence for the "God" who loves their game.
Unless required by work, planners are generally unwilling to have proactive, direct, and frequent communication with players, and they are even less willing to let them interfere with their personal time.
The measure of a senior (numerical) planner's success is designing systems that can be highly addictive, and they take pride in this.
The leaders often say, "I only care about whether it can make money for me."

Please take this prediction seriously. Not only because of the greedy nature of capital, but also because our country happens to be in such a distorted ecosystem where there is a lack of a cultural foundation for single-player games and online games dominate the market. In such a large environment, any spark of seeking quick success and instant benefits is easier to ignite than at other times!

Perhaps one day—

At that time, online games will no longer be games; they will be conspiracies composed of gorgeous visuals and meticulously crafted numerical systems.

At that time, online game players will no longer be traditional players in the true sense; they will be no different from drug addicts.

Welcome to NHK!

In the first half of 2006, I took on a project aimed at diversifying the pursuits of players in the game. For this, I examined several single-player games and analyzed how they increased replayability. During the examination, I made extensive records of settings such as special honors and additional rewards. In the end, I wrote a complex and lengthy special medal list for our game. One consequence of this work was that my perspective on single-player games unconsciously changed. Every time I encountered a new game, I could keenly identify what they did to allow players to continue playing for a longer time after completing the game. But I must have forgotten that these things were just embellishments and Easter eggs, not the reasons for their popularity.

From the origin of capital to the collusion of planners, it is only at this point that an online game can be said to have completely gone bad. It is no longer an ice cream made to bring joy to players; it is a precisely guided sugar-coated bomb, with a pure and cruel mission—to drain them of all their money, even if it destroys their will and body.

Although this article focuses on exploring the responsibility of planners for the failure of games, I have to pessimistically point out here: although most profit-oriented online games have been quickly exposed and criticized, and mature players with critical thinking and responsible media have keenly sensed the danger, the possibility of survival for games that do not consider players as human beings in the current market is very slim.

However.

Those who consider themselves clever, experienced, and evil game planners have not awakened to this. They are still quietly brewing more conspiracies. They are a group of Sith who truly believe in "online games can only make money through addiction" and "making online games is like making electronic opium." They are the industry elites highly praised by capital, they are battle-hardened and strong-willed, and they make up the majority. Even I myself am just one of the younger generation who has not yet been completely consumed by the darkness.

In early 2006, when "Conquer Online" was just emerging, someone in the company started an internal discussion group, and planners debated fiercely whether the game's paid equipment, power leveling puppets, and a series of "unscrupulous" practices were really making Shi Yuzhu a lot of money. There were various voices at the beginning, but in the end, the main topic of the discussion became, "Shouldn't we also be as unscrupulous as Conquer Online?"

My dear players, I hear your desperate cries behind you, but capital always smiles seductively at me from the front.

The Embarrassment of Operation Planning

"Are you planners all idiots? Only idiots would participate in such a stupid event!"

When you hear such words, you might feel wronged, as the official website's event calendar is always full, right? Today is a siege, tomorrow is a lucky draw, the weekend is double experience, and next week is the start of the voting for the "XX Angel" selection finals. But those ungrateful people on the forum never give any face, endlessly complaining that the current events are all the same and lack creativity.

"Online Game Development" pointed out incisively that half of online games are a service. This service, when applied to planning, is essentially the work of operation planning. Do not underestimate their influence on the success or failure of the game. If the early game planning determines who will come to play, then the later operation planning determines how many players will stay.

Browsing the recruitment advertisements of various online game companies, it is not difficult to see that the requirements for operation planners are significantly lower than those for other planners. The requirements for operation planners usually include "excellent writing, ability to withstand pressure, hardworking, and experience with more than one online game," while the requirements for game planners include "familiarity with history; proficiency in fantasy literature, AD&D system; deep understanding of similar products in the market; and skilled in writing and expression."

It's essentially physical labor versus mental labor!

The initial reason for this difference may come from some kind of inherent inferiority in the human subconscious—we stubbornly believe that the original thinkers and creators are superior to the producers and operators who continue to develop on this basis. In the era of single-player games, there was no concept of operation planning in the team, and from that time on, we slowly developed a habit of believing that the success of a game owes much to the great game planners, but never mentioning the excellent operation planners.

Can we really understand this new phenomenon of online games in such a simple way?

When I first entered the game company, I was an operation planner for an MMORPG that was already in operation. My first task was to "write an event within three months." Later, this requirement gradually turned into "small events should not be interrupted, and there should be one big event per month." So I had to create some templates to meet such a high demand. I never asked why I had to write so many events. And no one ever asked me, "What are your thoughts on the next version of the game?"

At least from what I understand, the task of operation planning can be simply described as "don't let the players idle" most of the time. In most cases, the head of operation planning does not require the subordinates to predict and analyze factors such as the sensitive groups involved in each activity proposal, input-output ratio, potential risks, and long-term impact. They also do not conduct post-event evaluations, record the gains and losses, or make horizontal comparisons. Over time, due to the lack of effective references and systematic standards, the success or failure of any activity ultimately depends on the decision-maker's subjective judgment of feasibility.

Operation planners, who should be the group of planners most in tune with player needs, are unfortunately distant from the "core planners" who can truly improve gameplay. They have indeed managed to create activities that players applaud under adverse conditions, but due to long-term neglect of their opinions and the multitude of tedious demands, more activities have become excessively standardized, hasty, and irresponsible.

They are meticulous about the damage values of a certain skill in the game, but turn a blind eye to obvious inaccuracies and unfairness in certain activities. This mindset of prioritizing design over operation in planning, and the "non-planner-level" requirements for operation planning, undoubtedly pose a potential threat to online games, especially for an online game that already has a certain number of players.

Inevitably, I still tried to come up with some immature, subjective operation planning experiences for reference.

Which activities have caused players to complain afterwards?

Activities that require players to constantly spend money
Activities that are prone to cheating and score manipulation
Activities where the final allocation of prizes is decided through opaque operations
Activities that are difficult to sign up for and have a cumbersome process
Activities that involve overly simple and rough giveaways
Monotonous, repetitive, and unchanging activities
Activities that do not treat all players fairly
Activities that easily cause conflicts among players

Which activities are likely to be welcomed by players?

Free, convenient, and easy-to-participate activities
Activities that demonstrate the technical content of the game
Activities that promote player teamwork
Activities that offer super special rewards
Activities that provide new game content
Activities that encourage player interaction
Activities with automatically refreshed results
Activities that involve players in building the game world
Activities that align with real-world holiday themes
Rich and diverse tasks
Activities closely tied to the game's new versions
Activities targeting player hot topics
Activities that declare war on malicious behavior in the game
Activities that are completely different from the game's main objectives (such as mini-games, quizzes, etc.)
Activities with gender-related themes

Which activities should be carefully organized?

Large-scale offline competition events
Various unrelated sponsorship activities
Activities that require a large amount of manpower for supervision
Research activities that are not given enough attention
Charter activities with insufficient preparation
Charity activities combined with social welfare
Talent show activities for selecting player stars

Why bother with planning

After saying so many negative things about planning, I want to speak up for planners in the end, with no intention of seeking a retrial.

First, let's point out a fact: even in the supposedly creativity-focused West, the income of programmers/programming managers is still nearly 30% higher than that of planners/lead planners, and artists have about 5% to 10% more income. This may be different from the advertising industry. In the game industry, a product must go through programming to truly come to life.

The reason is simple:

Programming requires creativity and professional skills.

Art requires creativity and professional skills.

Planning requires creativity, then sharp intuition, rich experience, and good communication skills, but no one considers these as professional skills.

If there is no programming, the product equals 0.

If there is no art, the product will undoubtedly be unbearable.

If there is no planning, the product can still be successfully created.

The understanding of user-friendliness by programmers is not necessarily worse than that of planners.

The expression of excitement by artists is not necessarily worse than that of planners.

Planners say, "I have a deep understanding of gameplay," and then programmers and artists both laugh.

I admit that great games always come from great ideas, and great ideas usually come from great game designers. But the era when technology determines the game has not completely passed. The endless first-person shooters and new hardware technologies at the E3 Expo every year can illustrate this point. Even after accumulating a thick set of basic rules for gameplay, the level of technology still remains a decisive factor in whether a game will sell well.

Moreover, no one believes that you can design a "great game."

So in fact, the difference in importance between programming, art, and planning is so obvious and ubiquitous. Perhaps only the "game producers" in Japan are an exception, but people like Shigeru Miyamoto have over 20 years of game production experience and are the pioneers of the entire game industry. It is only through this accumulation that they have achieved a higher existence beyond the general division of labor.

Having said that, let's return to the title of this section—if you are always actively writing documents and designing numerical values, others will consider you competent and respect you, but they will never think that you can receive the same or even higher salary as them because of this. If you can create a prototype in 7 days, propose a more efficient algorithm to solve current difficulties, and directly design and produce a UI effect diagram, others will respect and admire you.

In my short work experience, I can basically prove that the above statements are true.

Don't forget, we are planners, and the boss hopes that we will surpass others in creativity, experience, copywriting, insight, interest, communication, foreign languages, and so on.

In this light, although many people think planning is easy, it is indeed not suitable as a career for many people in terms of future development.

Suddenly, I remembered a line from the first season of CSI, where the boss Gil says, "Your tragedy is that you treat it as a job."

The road is still long, the wind is still evil, and the demonic energy is soaring.

Yocar

February 8, 2007, in Shenzhen

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。