Problem is that different studios have different meanings behind various titles.
Game Director and Project Leader, and I've seen titles like Project Director as well, so I'm going to lean towards them being the same type of role and position, the one that manages the overall grand vision of what the game is like.
Producers tend to be types that manage the schedule and work, making sure people are producing. Taking cues from the project director, feature A needs to be worked on, thus schedule employees B, C and F to work on it, etc. Not to be confused with the movie producer role, who like sets up funds and budgets and such (I think).
Game designers are the types that set up the actual gameplay elements, how the combat and magic system works, leveling up, and such. Might also do technical design where they implement said gameplay elements into the game itself, placing enemies, puzzles, triggers for events, etc. They might also be level designers who arrange the level itself for said gameplay elements, as opposed to level artists who make the scenery.
And yes, like I said in another thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.398450-Do-long-running-game-franchises-inevitably-go-downhill-sooner-or-later], it might be an idea to start tracking who works on what games, as you WILL see common trends in games, as developers have preferences in gameplay styles (i.e. Will Wright for sim games).
For Example, Game Studio is making Games A and B2 (sequel to B):
Game A has these people on the design team:
- Lead Designer 1 <- allows #2's QTE into the gameplay
- Designer 1
- Designer 2 <- likes QTE, adds it to the game
- Designer 3
Game B2:
- Lead Designer 2 <- allows #2's QTE into the gameplay too, when previous iterations of B did not have QTEs.
- Designer 4
- Designer 2 <- rolled off project A after completion, still likes QTE, adds it to the game
- Designer 6
First glance you might say both leads like QTEs, but if you kept the tracking going, over time, you might start seeing that every game that Designer #2 has worked on incorporates QTEs when they haven't previously - and is thus Yahtzee's nemesis.
As someone who tends to work behind the behind the scenes (writing tools and supporting art creation, so I'm used to being even more obscure), I find it interesting how people don't pay attention to the non-figure heads, with claims that no one really notices programmer #4 was replaced with #7.
But then you see things like the recent Jennifer Hepler fiasco where she was to blame for all the downhill, streamlined, simpler gameplay elements of late, even on games she a) never worked on, b) where there is team collaboration and c) she's a writer, not a designer and d) was merely asking for more support for Japanese visual novel style gameplay. So instead of allowing players the ability to skip conversations and cutscenes, add a feature to do the opposite - not taking away from existing gameplay but adding extra for those not into action games. Like seriously, not just for people with bad reflexes, I also have a friend who has tendonitis and can't play action games for long periods but loves the Mass Effect games for the character interactions and conversations.
And of course, no one actually checking her contributions, nor that the various quotes and screenshots where some were blatantly edited and faked to garner a witchhunt response. Which they got, because people are gullible.
So yes, it would be nice for better tracking of who's who in games.
That said, you're probably safe to guess that anyone of senior or having a title in a credit list would be responsible for what elements make it in, as they tend to make the ultimate decision, but again, tracking would be better.
