How can you deliver consistent feedback across a game development team?

If the final goal is for the game to become a lasting IP, it is a huge problem when feedback is subjective ("I think this is cool!", "But I don't!"). The main way around this is to develop an IP vision as early in the process as possible. We work with this every day, and we see the same problem again and again. Simply put, there's no pre-production on the IP or brand vision. Without this, many studios spend 3-5 years on development and then go into a 3-month IP & brand panic with their publisher. IPs need a clear vision as early as possible (story, character, relatable core, emotional journey, etc) - without it, feedback is just personal preferences.

Feedback is one of the most important aspects of any team to succeed in its endeavors. Because the feedback act as the main thing to close any loops or to take timely corrective actions to get back on the track. Therefore, it is very critical to have a robust system to have the feedback which will not only encourage the team to provide their feedback, but it should be conveyed to the right person in the right time so that timely actions can be taken to meet the team/ organizational goals. The person who had given should be motivated enough to provide the same level of contribution in feedback next time also

In particular - it is important that the team vision is official and is announced/available for everybody. Foster a culture of "every member impacts the team", and combined with the announced team vision - the members will provide feedback to each other. The best leaders - deal with Macro (defining the goals and the approach), not with Micro (personally pointing out every small mistake). Let your team do the Micro. Only you can do Macro.

Precise & constructive feedback is preferred when I receive a feedback/review, as against just rant. To make the feedback stand out, it’s always valuable to (almost always) suggest a couple solutions/improvements, for every problem/issue reported, together with any justification. It helps the feedback recipient understand the complete context of the feedback, and comprehend the expectation better.

With all the tools being effective - do not forget that some feedback is better addressed in person, to protect the person's authority and self-esteem. Audio calls are best for it. Learned something from the call? document it in a neutral way, as a instruction/tip for everybody else :]

Once you've chosen a tool the next step is to stick with it (for the entirety of the development). Learning how to use a new tool in the middle of development will cost time and resource.

People on your team have different backgrounds and influences, so, many times images, videos, sounds examples accompaning feedback are essential to get your message across. A good tool for communication should allow easy hyperlinking and embedded content.

It's essential to seek and consider feedback from those who have expertise in the area you wish to improve. Clear feedback is invaluable, but understanding the source of the feedback adds a deeper layer of richness to the experience. Remember, not everyone has the same level of expertise or insight. Listen, learn, and apply what resonates with you.

Beware of the XY Problem when providing feedback: it is extremely valuable that you first of all state your feelings, your experience and your expectations, before trying to give any solution or state what you think is wrong. You might think that that Level 3 is too difficult because you often found yourself low on bullets, thinking that giving players more ammo will solve the issue - in reality, precisely stating that you "found yourself low on bullets, feeling like you were supposed to have more to defeat all the enemies" could reveal that the problem is in the strength of your weapon, requiring too many bullets to defeat a single enemy.

Point them into the right direction. Do not try to teleport their mind into the conclusion, you can't effectively do it! Let the person "earn" this conclusion, only then they will value it, and accept it as their own, rather than a forced rule that they should follow. They might follow the rule, but without an aligned vision - you'll have the same problem again - on the first loophole.

Going back to the concept of Game Pillars. When the one giving feedback knows and agrees with the pillars then the resulting feedback will become more specific and actionable.

You should start by acknowledging 2-3 positive aspects of the project, emphasizing its potential. Then, transition to discussing areas for improvement, but instead of just criticizing decisions, propose new ideas and encourage open communication.

If that person is not worth investing in - why are they even on the team then? :] You invest your time in feedback - to have easier communication with that person later on. Foster that relationship, be friendly. You also made mistakes. (It does not mean that you shouldn't be harsh when the situation is harsh)

When providing feedback on areas that feel out of place or that are not synced well with the overall pace of a project, one thing you could do first is ask what the original vision for the feature was. Asking what was initially intended, or the reason the team felt it should be included in the first place, could provide help narrowing down possible solutions, or better perspective on the original end goal that may have been lost in translation. This, in turn, could shed light on simpler solutions such as fine tuning or better chronological placement that may have otherwise been missed. On the other side, it could allow the team to rethink the feature entirely, and begin brainstorming on a more positive note.

I'm not a fan of the "crap" sandwich model, where you talk to someone about what's good, slip in the REAL negative feedback, then finish up with something else positive. Once established, everyone ignores the positives and it wastes a bunch of time, OR the negative feedback gets missed or not prioritized. So, for leaders giving feedback, here's how you don't burn people out: 1. When good things happen, give feedback about it. Encourage positive behavior on its own and as a normal part of your day. Don't save it for padding around negative feedback. 2. Give critical feedback when it comes up. Give it directly and honestly, and be curious and humble about how you might be wrong. But be direct. These will create comfort with feedback.

Be articulate and add context. You can be constructive but then you find out you are the only one who understands your feedback. Make sure feedback is articulate enough and within context to be understood.

Beware of the state of development you are when providing feedback: it's ok for a proof of concept prototype to be ugly and unpolished visually, so focus on the moment-to-moment gameplay instead; likewise, telling the Dev Team that the Combat System could be improved by creating a new flying system when the game is in a Beta state, won't be of any use.

If you're waiting a long time to give feedback, stop. You want to give feedback about what happened or the action taken, not the person, and you want to do it close to the event. People have faulty memories, so you don't want a lot of time to elapse, it makes it harder to act on whatever feedback is given. I struggle with this, because I'm always worried my feedback is 'wrong', but if trust is present even if it is wrong I'm better off stating the feedback and being corrected than holding it in and letting a problem go unresolved for a much longer time period. Timeliness matters with feedback.

There's this process called agile feedback loops built into the agile development framework which are scheduled feedback sessions/meetings and is inline with being timely and consistent.

I've had experienced when i rushed to decide that the employee was wrong, just to discover that i missed an importand detail. Even when it seems very obvious - i am now always hearing the employee's side first thing.

Feedback is often talked about through the lens of "how to give it" but we fail to talk about what underpins feedback working. Three elements need to be in place for a healthy feedback culture to emerge. If they aren't there, perfectly worded feedback is irrelevant. 1. Trust. Without trust your feedback will be seen as an attack or just ignored as irrelevant. 2. Respect. If there isn't respect between the parties, even if I trust you I'm not going to pay attention. 3. Humility. If I can't acknowledge that I could be doing things better, it doesn't matter what you say. Try to give and receive feedback in a healthy way, but also recognize that in toxic environments, the right words still won't work. Create healthy culture first.

Ladder feedback to the agreed narrative and experience. It can be really useful to zoom out when feedback gets into the weeds a bit. Ladder it back to an agreed key experience that section or story arc should be creating. Discuss how each piece contributes to the sequence, story arc or narrative. Adding this context: 1. Helps keep the feedback relevant and goal oriented. 2. Keeps the whole team aligned behind the shared narrative and gamer experience. 3. Stops the feedback feeling personal.

Works well to deliver feedback "live": you play the game / level / proto with the controller in hands and the devs who will use your feedback are sitting right next behind you, taking the notes by themselves in their own terms. This way, they see the context of the problem, they can ask questions, you can precisely show what you meant etc... 10 times better than playing on your PC and sending back a list of notes.