Abstract
Problem: Most people in game development (and in general) believe they are above average at what they do — but statistically and practically, that can't be true for everyone. How should developers honestly assess their own abilities?
Approach: Tim Cain draws on the well-known "illusory superiority" driving statistic, his own experience at Troika Games with flat pay structures, and years of managing developers to illustrate why honest self-assessment matters.
Findings: People tend to overrate themselves because they focus on their strengths while ignoring their weaknesses. True skill assessment requires breaking abilities down into specific tasks. Managers inevitably face uncomfortable conversations about performance gaps, and some negative company reviews stem from employees who couldn't accept their own shortcomings.
Key insight: Accept that you will be above average at some things, average at most, and below average at others — and your career and life will be much easier once you honestly acknowledge this.
The Illusory Superiority Problem
Tim opens with the well-known statistic that 80–90% of American drivers believe they are above-average drivers. Mathematically, this is only possible if a tiny percentage of terrible drivers drag the average down — which simply isn't the case. Most people are average drivers. The same illusion applies to game developers: a large number of people Tim has worked with genuinely believe they're better than most other developers.
The problem is that people tend to focus on what they're good at while ignoring or dismissing what they're bad at. They think "I'm average everywhere else, but really above average at this thing" — without honestly reckoning with their weak areas.
The Troika Flat Pay Experiment
When Troika Games started in 1998, everyone was paid the same salary — from owners down to new hires, across all disciplines (art, programming, design). Tim describes this as a "huge, huge mistake."
It quickly became painfully clear that not everyone contributed equally. Among programmers alone, there were significant differences in code efficiency, bug rates, speed, and breadth of capability. Some were strong generalists; others were narrow. The same disparities appeared in art and design. Continuing to pay everyone the same was unfair to high contributors and, in a sense, even unfair to low contributors who weren't being given honest feedback about their performance.
The Uncomfortable Truth About Management
Nobody likes being told they're not as good as someone else — even when presented with objective, irrefutable evidence. Tim acknowledges this is one of the hardest parts of management but considers it unavoidable.
If you're ever in a management position, you will have to have uncomfortable conversations: telling someone their work isn't fast enough, isn't good enough, or doesn't match what their peers are producing. You can't kick this responsibility upstairs. It comes with the role.
Generalists Aren't Above Average at Everything
Some people retreat to calling themselves "generalists" as a way of claiming above-average status. Tim pushes back: a generalist is someone who is good at many things, not great at everything. For any specific task, a specialist will likely outperform a generalist. And depending on the project — particularly multiplayer or MMO games requiring network specialists — you genuinely need specialists, not generalists.
Negative Company Reviews and Bias
Tim draws a parallel to Yelp reviews: some negative company reviews (like Glassdoor) come from employees who were genuinely mistreated, but others come from people who simply weren't good at their jobs and couldn't accept it. Just as some Yelp reviews are clearly left by unreasonable customers, some company reviews reflect one-sided grievances rather than systemic problems.
He notes there's no good way to filter these — requiring proof of employment might help, but people don't want their names attached for fear of retaliation. The takeaway: remember that reviews represent one side of the story, just as Tim's own videos represent his perspective.
Tim's Own Weaknesses
Tim practices what he preaches by openly naming his own weak areas: business development and character/dialogue writing. Despite this, people still ask him for advice on these topics, which he gives with heavy caveats. He uses his own example to encourage honest self-reflection.
The Recommendation
Accept that you will be really good at some things, average at most things, and bad at a few things. This is true for almost everyone. The rare person who is great at everything or bad at everything is the exception.
Being honest with yourself — at minimum — makes everything easier. Whether it means hiring a plumber instead of doing it yourself, or recognizing a job isn't a good fit, self-awareness is the foundation. If enough people tell you you're not good at something, they're probably right. You can try to improve, but some things won't improve even after decades of effort. Know yourself, and your life gets a lot easier.
References
- Tim Cain. YouTube video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldftFZACpbI