How much do you pay for graphics?

[dxgame]

I recently had a discussion with a 2D artist about doing some graphics for a few retro style projects. I was shocked at the prices I was being quoted. He then said "graphics are more important than the programming". At first I was a little po'd then I realized he was probably right..... :eek:

So without naming the project (unless you want to ofcourse) how much did you spend for graphics on a project?

Do you agree graphics are more important than the programming and therefore good graphics are worth the high prices?

Do you think your last game would have sold more if it had better graphics?

Thanks for your feedback.

[Deux]

Do you agree graphics are more important than the programming and therefore good graphics are worth the high prices?

Do you think your last game would have sold more if it had better graphics?

Thanks for your feedback.

I would also like to know about prices, as some people have also quoted me heavily. I have however bought model packs online, which werent that expensive, depending on what you class as expensive :)

WRT graphics making a game. Graphics are what represents your programming, so I guess it plays a very important role in grabbing the user/potential customer. A lot of people judge books by its cover. "Hell, those screenshots look awsome, check the graphics, it must be good".

Obviously I tend to buy games which have a nice polished look, and sadly, yes, it is the graphics/assets/media which portray this. On the other side of the coin, I have played/bought games where the models and or sprites are not of the highest quality, or not even remotely so, and I have thoroughly enjoyed them.

Playing a game is an experience at the end of the day, I am sure that better graphics will punt your work further.

Sadly I have not sold any games yet, so I am not sure of the effect of the standard of graphics on game sales.

At the end of the day, I would think that good looking graphics play an important role. Again, depending on the type of game.

What type of game are you considering ?

[Robert Cummings]

How much were you quoted for what work?

Your insecurity about graphics are correct: in this day and age you need stunning graphics. I happen to know a few good artists I can put your way. I am one of them but fully booked on my own project at the moment :)

I don't like seeing anyone getting ripped off though, so how much were you quoted for what jobs and how was the quality of work?

[ManuelFLara]

Well, art is like everything in this world. If you want to get quality stuff and on time, prepare to pay a lot. If you just can't spend that much, you'll have to use lower quality art.

The only exception is that you have a skilled artist as a friend who can help you, maybe in exchange of royalties instead of a big upfront payment, but the chances of this happening are few.

[dxgame]

Thanks for the replies. I've put out a few feelers for prices on updated versions of retro classics like Pacman, Robotron, etc. And when the price gets in the 4 digit range for Pacman, you have to wonder how much is realistic for a full blown original effort! LOL..

Upon further research, it does seem that 2D sprite graphics seem to cost more than 3D objects, textures. I realize this kind of artwork can be tedious, but it's also frustrating to think of all the cool things waiting to be coded if only the graphics were affordable! :)

But if this is the price of creating a game in today's market then perhaps it's correct to assume 50-60% of your net should go to graphics?

[Deux]

But if this is the price of creating a game in today's market then perhaps it's correct to assume 50-60% of your net should go to graphics?

It seems so, if it is gonna make your game sell better or get more exposure then I guess it is time to haul out the wallet.

I have friends who can do some game art, but tend to get all pissy when you tell them something does not look right, or they just go ahead and ignore requests and model and draw all weird and wonderful things.

Time to pull out the big guns I guess.

[Anthony Flack]

I think graphics are more important than programming, especially these days when the graphics are much harder and the programming is much easier. It is no longer impressive that you can make the screen scroll smoothly.

But I also think game design is vastly more important than graphics. And that is something that is more closely aligned to programming than to graphics.


I have friends who can do some game art, but tend to get all pissy when you tell them something does not look right, or they just go ahead and ignore requests and model and draw all weird and wonderful things.

Well, maybe a full partnership is the way to go - accept that they're the artist and you're the programmer, and allow them to create something that follows their own vision. If visuals really are important (and I think they are), then perhaps it's not appropriate for the programmer to necessarily be the boss.

[Deux]

Well, maybe a full partnership is the way to go - accept that they're the artist and you're the programmer, and allow them to create something that follows their own vision. If visuals really are important (and I think they are), then perhaps it's not appropriate for the programmer to necessarily be the boss.

Agreed :) in my case I am just feeling the waters and gonna see how things pan out. I tried working with em before, I am sure it can be done, but it seems they have ventured on the greener pastures anyway :)

[svero]

I think graphics are more important than programming, especially these days when the graphics are much harder and the programming is much easier. It is no longer impressive that you can make the screen scroll smoothly.

Actually good programmers are more or less like good game artists.. few and far between and worth a lot. A lot of games are bad because the people lack the technical ability to make their designs come to life.

I agree that good design outweighs graphics. You might sell quite a few copies of a really fun ugly game, but you generally won't sell many copies of a really nice looking game that had no play value. And if the technical expertise isn't there.. then often the play value isn't there either. All the parts have to come together.

Anyone can make a screen scroll smoothly, but can anyone make a screen scroll with a nice exponential decaying curve and high quality graphics that fit in a 9mb file? Nope. A lot of people just can't.

[svero]

Id also say this.. if you have a game you want to make it's harder to find a good developer to bring your idea to life as a contract than it is to find a really good artist and get some nice pictures out of them. The art feels a little more like a problem you can throw money at to solve.

[digriz]

Pixel pushers, especially good ones are few and far between.

You won't necessarily have to pay a lot. Four figure amounts for a simple pacman game, if that's what it is, seems a little excessive.

Some artists charge by the hour and base their overall pricing on this. If you mess them around or don't have a clear idea of what you want, they will adjust their prices, upwards, accordingly.

Plus, sometimes they might just price themselves out of the race, if they don't particulary want to do it.

When i've approached some pixel artists; the quotes have been expensive but very fair and realistic.

Sometimes an artist is more receptive if you let them be more creative. I'm a programmer and i can't draw, Who am i to tell an artist how to draw something?

I use this guy a lot Ric Nicholls (http://forums.indiegamer.com/showthread.php?t=3267) ... fast, reliable and his prices are very reasonable. He's always happy to look at fresh work.

[joe]

Do you agree graphics are more important than the programming and therefore good graphics are worth the high prices?

I think it's a wrong statement that the graphics are more important than coding. Without some nice lines of code you can't do anything with those graphics except of showing it to the world. :D

I also know some graphic artist/designers who believed that. It helped a lot when they watched me a few minutes while I was typing in some confused numbers.

I also think it depends highly on the project you're working on. Some things are very easy to code but you need ALOT of content to make it work. At this time the graphic is probably not more important, but it will take more time to get this work done.

On the other side it's possible that you have a game where you have to code a lot of hard things while the gamplay doesn't need much content. In this situation coding isn't more important, but it will take more time to do, you see?

I think it's also the same with the music or other aspects of the game. Most people will say, the music and sound effects are the most unimportant part of a game, but some games really get a great atmosphere only because of music and sound. And it also takes a lot of time to produce an high quality game soundtrack.

I think when it comes to game development there are many different aspects but all of them are similar important if you want to produce high quality stuff.

[Anthony Flack]

Id also say this.. if you have a game you want to make it's harder to find a good developer to bring your idea to life as a contract than it is to find a really good artist and get some nice pictures out of them. The art feels a little more like a problem you can throw money at to solve.

I'm not quite sure why this might be. Is it because artists are more accustomed to working as contractors? I guess artists always need money. But there is certainly no shortage of programmers around. I do admit I found it impossible to form a working partnership with anyone when I was getting started, which is why I started doing my own coding.

We've seen plenty of examples of programmer-art, but my work reveals the true horror of artist-programming. It's ugly as hell and dumb as a brick, but what the heck - it still works. And the end-user need never know. Besides, there's almost nothing in my games that requires anything the least bit fancy, programming-wise.

[svero]

I'm not quite sure why this might be. Is it because artists are more accustomed to working as contractors?

With an artist I can look at portfolios and see what a guy can produce. I can look at rod smiths page, or some of your art and know with some clarity that if one of you was available I could get some really great game art for my next title.

However if I had a game design I wanted implemented, it would be very hard to judge a developers ability to pull it off based on them being a developer. Being able to code some utility or work out some web database doesn't make you a competant game developer. The devil is really in the details. (as you know full well being a great game designer yourself)

So you don't need anyone with the skill of programing. You need someone with programming ability and game ability.

Now you might say.. well yeah but if it's your design maybe you have all the details worked out and then its just a question of getting the guy to implement them. To that I'd say.. the process of game development and software development are quite tightly couple, and it's iterative and evolves as the project comes together. As a designer trying to use a contract programmer you'd have to be involved in every detail which in a way confounds your ability to really delegate the work.

IMHO The only situation where you wouldn't run into that problem is when you hire someone that you know is already a good game developer and give them some freedom to implement something good for you. But then it's not really your game anymore. So it's debateable whether you're really doing anything to the project in that case but funding the tab. And most of those people already have their own ideas they want to implement and don't typically work on a contract basis.

[Anthony Flack]

the process of game development and software development are quite tightly couple, and it's iterative and evolves as the project comes together. As a designer trying to use a contract programmer you'd have to be involved in every detail which in a way confounds your ability to really delegate the work.


Yeah, that's true. If I got someone else to do my coding, I'd still want to get in there and tweak every single variable.

[Davaris]

Id also say this.. if you have a game you want to make it's harder to find a good developer to bring your idea to life as a contract than it is to find a really good artist and get some nice pictures out of them. The art feels a little more like a problem you can throw money at to solve.

I'm a programmer and I'd be willing to partner up with a game designer if they had these things:

1) A clear design document.
2) Research on why their game idea will sell.
3) Some kind of a track record.
4) Were willing and able to pay for the art assets themselves (the art would have to be good if they expected the game to sell).

So I wouldn't be motivated to do anything unless I was convinced I was working on a sure fire winner.

[ManuelFLara]

So I wouldn't be motivated to do anything unless I was convinced I was working on a sure fire winner.
And who can assure a game will be a winner? Even PopCap have had failures, you never know. So taking this as a "requirement" seems like too much to ask.

[Ratboy]

Pixel pushers, especially good ones are few and far between.

You won't necessarily have to pay a lot. Four figure amounts for a simple pacman game, if that's what it is, seems a little excessive.Not really. If that art includes all the animated characters, background tiles, splash screen & logo design, fonts, and all the other little things that make a good game look great, it can easily run to two or three weeks of solid work. Even longer, if it takes a few tries to zero in on what the client really wants.

We need to pay the bills just like everyone else.

[Jim Buck]

I can understand the list, though. How many GameDev-style RFP (request for programmer) postings have people seen like "meke me a l33t RTS that is St4r W4rs meets Lord of the Rings - I'm a gen1u5! i offer s0me royal1e5!". (Yeah, my leet-speak leaves a lot to be desired. :) ) I, too, wouldn't want to partner up someone that hasn't actually done the *thinking* needed to make a game. Everyone thinks they are a game designer, because they have a good idea, but there's way more work to be done after getting the idea.

[digriz]

Not really. If that art includes all the animated characters, background tiles, splash screen & logo design, fonts, and all the other little things that make a good game look great, it can easily run to two or three weeks of solid work. Even longer, if it takes a few tries to zero in on what the client really wants.

We need to pay the bills just like everyone else.

Of course an artist should be paid for their time. I'm not saying they shouldn't.

If I got someone else to do my coding, I'd still want to get in there and tweak every single variable.

And then you'd hand it back saying it's broken :D

I always make anything like that available via an editor of some kind. I've always found tweakable values are easier to test on the fly rather than the 'change, save,test, repeat cycle.

[Sysiphus]

The fact is often the programmer doesn't consider how much man hours is behind a graphic...

I made the count one day on the hours that had took me do certain model , and then just give it away to the customer for free: didn't finish it. I was simply working way cheaper the hour than a kid's pay to wash the car.

It usually is a not very good choice for make money for an artist. Art-related, I have plenty some better ways...

The main reason why a freelance artist asks for what you may think are big quantities -but aren't for the effort and time- is that is not so frequent to grab a paid work. yep, lots asks for models and want a player model also textured , and rigged, plus animations for 15- 40$. By no means is the cost in man hours, in the lowest payment possible. But also is not what shouldbe paid for other reasons.

I can speak about both worlds in GFX. I have worked at companies (and freelancing) for 3d realtime, and for hi res 2d drawn and/or edited. Also sprite art and 3d (my actual duty, together with low res 3d(expensive mobile phone games)) No matter wether is 2d tile/sprite art, or 3d low/mid pol, is a load of work. And rushed, it can end up not as it should be. (highend poly stuff, normal maps, etc, is something imho crazy to do freelancing for usual quantity and time)

Is true that of the portfolio, but that not ensures you that he/she's gonna get the style and idea you had in your paid graphics. Besides, you really don't know how he did that graphics, and mostly, the most important in a company, in what time.

Also is very easy to throw away a gfx, even for programmers...is visual, isinmediate, and everybody think can actually say a graphic is bad. None use to know why. And that's the key. Often a coder will ask changes, often just ego decissions, and the artists, ends up loosing the main design line.As a result, the gfx end up not as good as they should. I learnt to deal with this quite soon; you can save the boat one way or the other, even with terrible external destruction, but by no means the thing ends up being a good business for the gfx maker.

I'm considered quick at the 4 companies I have been (one 3d pc real time, one 2d drawn hi res for games, one for prerendered 3d hi res game, now fo rmobile pixel art and low pol 3d (~quake1 specs))....And even so, I can't do business in usual indy payment for gfx. With business I only mean that I don't earn more than that kid washing a car, not that I'd think of making actual money out of it...

I have lately only done stuff with some coders that happily didn't have these "errors" in the hour of working with artists, and done it by percentage: the usual quantity paid up-front just wouldn't worth it. The way i did was a high risk, but done with friends is something quite enjoyable and in the worst case, some portfolio JPGs.At least the money you can end winning so has a chance or actually worth those many hours.

Don't take me wrong, but i have read here many comments that...well, may not be much aware of the time and hard work needed to do things that may look simple for some one with no experience in making graphics.

Other than that, hello all, I was registered here, made one post, but so many time passed that have lost my registration data.

BTW, I work every day with excellent coders, and they have some of these problems. I have worked in the percentage stuff witha pair of great guys, and had zero problems with them. True that in that case I did things really spaced in time, but is the rythm of both parts, so , never a problem.

I do earn quite more money -and much more pleasantly- painting an oil picture than modelling, texturing and animating a player model. Not to say the whole game thing....

These days I can do a cell phone game GFX(together with some sounds editing, and betatesting, as no testers here) in 2 - 6 days , but the PC 2d games are way huger. In cell phones yet we're usually limited to 64ks to 200ks of total memory, depending on ports, type of phone, deal, etc.

But I do that as I'm quite well paid a salary per month and gives me a security I actually need as sadly as I said one can't pay rent with the hope of grab some decent paid work from time to time....

I know that to you all the money asked surely is a lot of quantity, but take note on the work that it means, that for the gfx maker is not "his game" , and that you are doing it for earn quite several quantities every month with that game(besides being the orchestra director and usually doing the game you like). The artists, if have several other skills (my case of painting) can get similar deals with other stuff not being games.Then is also the matter that making artwork is not like making some ugly duty. We started doing it for vocational reasons. I do now production work, but i have a pain when gotta do something in the criteria of a coder with no knowledge on color harmony, or composition. Is a pain to leave that gfx changed even by him and my name bellow... because it often ends really bad, that case is when one asks the name to be removed...

there are many corners in both sides, I know. I have programmed a little in Visual Basic, and some other stuff, and consider it a really difficult task...But not harder than the other... ;)

Hello everyone, and keep doing games...which you like, is a luxury :)

[Sysiphus]

BTW, Hola Colson2 ;)

[Olivier]

Some artists charge by the hour and base their overall pricing on this. If you mess them around or don't have a clear idea of what you want, they will adjust their prices, upwards, accordingly.

Yes that's what I'm doing. And it's the only way I'm able to give an accurate price, by man hours.
I've read someone advicing on Indiegamer not to work with artists giving prices based on hours. I personaly think it's the best, most fair and accurate way to give prices.
In fact it's very common practice in the independent graphic designer's world. :)

Of course a detailed listing of what the customer wants is absolutely essential to avoid possible disagreements. (Of course an artist should always offer some revisions.)

[Farmergnome]

Do you agree graphics are more important than the programming and therefore good graphics are worth the high prices?

I think its been covered already, but im from the perspective that without one of the major game elements that make up your project, you dont have a game. Saying graphics is more important, or code is more important, or even design, is straight bias.

Good graphics, like anything else takes alot more time, skill and knoledge to make, just like any craft. The best way I could describe it is when your programming, theres several quality levels of code you can choose to write, you can settle with passing of buggy barely functional code, or you could spend time optimising it until you see no possible way to make it better, each progressive quality leap you take stacks a fair amount of time onto the total, and directly converts into $.

So realy art is only as expensive as you want it polished, higher the polish, better the artist and cash stack you will need.

Paul Greasley
www.farmergnome.com

[robleong]

If Sysiphus is who I think he is, he's one great graphic artist! You'll see his work in an indie game coming up soon!

[Sysiphus]

Hehe, yes Robleong... It's me! ;)

I must say it's been quite a pleasure to work with Robleong, and much probably will work in the future if some project fits again our time and possibilities :)

Not only a good coder, he's also very kind person. :)

[robleong]

LOL! Some art is worth paying for, and believe me, Sysiphus' is one of those.

Sometimes if there is trust, there can also be some give and take when you're negotiating with each other. It will be worth it, because after all, if both parties are happy, it allows for the possibility of more fruitful collaboration in the future.

[Nexic]

Because I generally make space shooters without much animation, I can simply buy stock,static, textured 3D models and render them. So it only costs me $300 ish per game.

However, I don't think $1000 (if that is what you mean by breaking into 4 figures) is all that much for good quality 2D art. Even if it is a simple Pac-Man clone. When you think Pac Man clone you are probably thinking a handful of 64x64 tiles. The artist is probably thinking about even more of those kind of graphics, with backdrops, menu graphics and maybe storyline cartoons etc.
And he is right to budget for such things, even a straight clone will need those added extras. Also the game designer may ask the artist to change things, which they also need to budget for.

[Sysiphus]

Actually, a clone indeed only saves you from some thinking...But...the actual making of the art, is same work in quantity. That unless one use same gfx and do a paint over(or "model over") .But this is not allowed.(besides I wouldn't like it)

Besides, there are too many problems in legal stuff... You actually need to make it so different from the design, that usually clones(well, unless house holding the copyright allows you for it!) are not done -at least in my company- but very distantly inspired full new games...And is usually more problems than it worth it. Even doing a different game, you must previously care that it doesn't exist, or something similar already. And the thing of the patents makes it more complex.

The only case I save work and time, is when doing a second version of a game I already made.

A game, full game, all means UI work, icons, models/sprites, tiles/scenery-meshes, splash screens,large etc -and some concept art if it's a somewhat more expensive game(concept art is expensive, I know as I do it ;) )- it's usually a load of work. I prefer not to think how much it is in a shareware Pc game, at least in mobile games it's very restricted for memory available.

Curious...64x64...in mobile is usually 32x32, 16x16 or less in some rare cases.
And 3d, like 500- 1000 triangles maximum in scene(depends on the phone), small textures. Ye good ol times, lol, hehe. Is like go back in the past, in both 3d and 2d.

But whenever you speak on more res in both type of graphics, is also more work. So in PC this is all much more effort. And is a work, like anyother...so the need to be paid ;)
Indeed, for hi res stuff, and much more frames than in mobile, imho is better to go for the 3d pre-rendered aproach.

[sllohcin]

Well, as a 2D illustrator, I see the point of saying "graphics are more important" but I don't really agree with it. Graphics DO make a game for a lot of people but Farmergnome hit the nail on the head when he said it's only one slice of the pie.

As for all the hourly wage/too much/too low stuff... take it for what it is and shop around. Unless you are completely sold on that artists style, keep looking.

I do this for a living (not as a hobby) and I love it. What really helps me is that I'm a Marketing Major and am quite aggressive in finding work. It's all part of the game. After a little while, I've realized what I can charge to make it worth my while. I set a weekly goal and charge according to that in respect to time. I do have a set hourly wage I work with but I use it as a gauge for smaller contracts.

Don't be afraid to tell your "chosen" artist your graphics budget. You sought them out, remember? We'll give you a straight up answer. Negotiating is great and everything but if you want to do it right, tell us what you "can" pay (as well as a detailed list of what you need) and see what we say. The worst thing you'll get is an honest "no"... and don't forget... when you hear "no", ask the reason if you're unsure. It may bridge into negotiating ;)

You see, my rates are quite low as I have reduced them specifically for indie work. I know you guys don't have all the cash in the world and I'd rather have the work and make a bit of money than to not have the work and make nothing. I have my standards but I do bend my rules... especially when I like the concept, etc.

Overall, remember one thing, no matter how much money you pay or don't pay, rarely does a project go off without a hitch. Expect it. I've been blessed with working with very professional people and so I have nothing bad to say about anybody. Even the projects that came to a close because of a hiccup or two have still been pleasant.

Soooo... graphics are definitely important as is the right artist but play the game according to your needs. Just pretend you're buying a DVD movie... shop around and find the best price for the "same" movie. If you only have one store to shop at... c'est la vie :)

EDIT - I should learn to spell eh? Just wanted to correct a few mispellings.

[vidalsasoon]

Graphics more important than the programming is a load of BS.

For the programming aspect, the knowledge range required for a modern game is so broad... even with todays graphics, shaders are putting even more responsibility on the programmer.

Sure graphics are important... but not that much.

[luggage]

Don't be afraid to tell your "chosen" artist your graphics budget. You sought them out, remember? We'll give you a straight up answer. That's not always the best solution if you're looking to pay someone for work though. If I have a budget of £1000 and I tell the artist\musician this then I'll get a quote in line with that - even if (s)he'd have been willing to do the work for £500.

Of course being up front about your budget helps if you know you're going to be paying on the low side. ie. If your budget for a full game of artwork is £100 - then you may as well say that up front.

[Savant]

For the programming aspect, the knowledge range required for a modern game is so broad... even with todays graphics, shaders are putting even more responsibility on the programmer.
And who is responsible for making all that shader/normal mapping code look good in the end product? Artists. Artists who have to constantly evolve their skill sets with every generation of video card as well.

One does not exist without the other.

[luggage]

And who is responsible for making all that shader/normal mapping code look good in the end product? Artists. Artists who have to constantly evolve their skill sets with every generation of video card as well.

One does not exist without the other.Actually, if there were no artists there'd still be games - they'd just look crap. With no programmers there'd be absolutely nothing.

[mooktown]

Actually, if there were no artists there'd still be games - they'd just look crap. With no programmers there'd be absolutely nothing.
.........................................
:)

[sllohcin]

That's not always the best solution if you're looking to pay someone for work though. If I have a budget of £1000 and I tell the artist\musician this then I'll get a quote in line with that - even if (s)he'd have been willing to do the work for £500.

Of course being up front about your budget helps if you know you're going to be paying on the low side. ie. If your budget for a full game of artwork is £100 - then you may as well say that up front.
Well, I was defintely referring to restricted budgets as this "concept" would not fit into every situation. It's a good rule of thumb nonetheless.

Make a list of what you need, place a price that your willing to pay beside each piece, and tally it up. You'll have your budget. You see, when I refer to a budget, I'm referring to what you're willing to pay. My point is that you should not be afraid to make an offer.

[Savant]

Actually, if there were no artists there'd still be games - they'd just look crap. With no programmers there'd be absolutely nothing.
That doesn't de-value the contribution of an artist to a game. Seriously, wrong attitude. Big time.

[Omega]

Actually, if there were no artists there'd still be games - they'd just look crap. With no programmers there'd be absolutely nothing.

luggage does have a point. Look at Snood or anything else made about 5 years ago (other than PopCap's games) that looked like programmer art and sold well on RealArcade. Then PopCap introduced pretty graphics and that took the sales away from the other games. Now, all games need to strive towards pretty graphics to be competitive. Before PopCap's pretty graphics, it was all about what game was programmed to be the most fun. You might download a lot of games just to see which one was the most fun. (Same as in 1995 when all the retail games had about similar graphics.) All of a sudden, people who were new to shareware games saw popcap's games and thought that those must be the best of the best, and bought them. That caused them to be on top in realarcade's sales charts, causing those people who previously didn't care for graphics to believe that hey, bejeweled is #1, it must be the #1 fun game that exists on realarcade, etc. All of a sudden, people who were strictly about fun games just started trusting the sales charts.

Maybe, every year, new people discover realarcade, yahoo! games, etc. They obviously download and buy the best looking games. They don't know any better. As they get bored, they eventually start looking at the entire library for fun games (many years later.) Though, more likely, they look for clones of that game to buy! (Luxor, Zuma, etc.) And this pushes the other graphical games further to the top----since newcomers will buy games already in the #1-#5 spots, and when they decide to buy their clones, the clones will have awesome graphics as well, thus Luxor becoming #3, and people buying Luxor, then buying TumbleBugs, (or Zuma again if they hadn't bought it yet.) This keeps the customers busy and none of them have to actually look through all of the available games for the fun ones.

Graphics matter because Portals obviously advertise those games that make them the most money. Whether it's because the game sells often, or because they got a 95% royalty rate on that game, so they advertise it nonstop. That's what a business does. However, if they ranked games by REVIEWS, graphics would almost not matter anymore. If the #1 game was the #1 rated new game, and #2 was the #2 rated new game, people would buy those #1 and #2 games whether they had bad graphics or not.

In other words, buyers assume that #1 in Yahoo and RealArcade means the #1 best game, so they buy it, when it really means the #1 game that makes the portal the most money. But if the portals advertised the games by the reviews of fun and originality, then graphics would not matter.

Finally, the Portals are the ones who decide to advertise those games that have good graphics than those games that are fun but have bad ones.

And that's why graphics are important--because the marketing people at those portals will advertise those games that look the best, causing those games to have the most sales, causing them to be #1, causing them to have even more sales, causing the portals to say to themselves, it's good to advertise those games with nice graphics.

So, if there were no marketing people, or artists, there would still be fun games to play, is correct.

[Sysiphus]

Ehm, imho, not only because of advertising... So many people I ask making my own social experiments on the games we produce (relative, friends, etc) as well as others (also big AAA games, etc), and well, ppl do want nice graphics ingame, they wanna enjoy that, enjoy an inmersive experience. And imho it truely helps selling the game many times better if graphics are good and effective. Like sound and music. And in the case that applies, story.

I am also an illustrator/oil painter/comic designer, beside game artist -been drawing crazily since 6 year old (am too old now ;))- , do 3d, 2d, sprites, everything in graphics. Well, the only very profitable think I did in freelancing way, has been oil painting, humor strips, and (oil, pastel, acrylic, etc)portraits. Probably I am not as good marketer as you, sllohcin. ;) No. Sure.

I never was stating GFX are more important than code...but Imho GFX and/or sound, depending on the game, do the 50%, and the other 50% usually is the coding... Well, speaking very generally...

One think to take notice: an artist, if has other profiles than game art, has a bunch of other ways of earning money other than making games, and in my experience, quite more profitable. Just like a programmer can do many stuff, not depending in a need of single graphic. So, I don't see all this story of dependency, maybe both depend on each other for making a good game...again, imho.

[Sysiphus]

"So, if there were no marketing people, or artists, there would still be fun games to play, is correct."


lol, artists shouldn't exist...A bit too late, since prehistory, we're here, painting all the time ;)

And perhaps marketting ppl are even older... ;) ...Without them there would be no money... or we all would have the same quantity of it, hehe... (I'd prefer that, lol )


Sorry, a bit of sense of humour ;)

[sparkyboy]

Actually, if there were no artists there'd still be games - they'd just look crap. With no programmers there'd be absolutely nothing.

I'm with you 100% on that Chris.It's a simple fact that in the arena of video gaming,it's the programmer that enables the player to interact with the game,without the programmer you no longer have a game.

And here's the thing,for anyone in any doubt.For people to hear the music on a computer,or see pretty pictures and/or sprites etc on a computer requires let me see now............a programmer!! :eek:

Therefore here's my algorithm in the arena of video gaming:-

Programmer+musician+artist=maybe a kick ass video game!!

Musician+artist=Bytes on the hard drive!!

Programmer=A game of some sort!!

Now no-one is de-valueing the roles of graphics artists nor musicians in the production of video games.It's just that without programming there is nothing for the user to see on a computer!

And just to appease any graphics artist or musician that may take offence to any of this,we could equally say that without computers and therefore video games,a programmer has no medium through which to display his talents.
Not so for musicians and graphics artists! ;)


Just my 2 cents worth

All the best


Mark.

[soniCron]

It's a simple fact that in the arena of video gaming,it's the programmer that enables the player to interact with the game,without the programmer you no longer have a game. That's a crock of shit. If you have programmer and no artist or musician, you still have the programmer making graphics for the game. In your examples, you assume that no artist or musician could make a game. May I present to you: Anthony Flack. Show some respect for the people that make the code worth checking out and strongly influence the outcome of enjoyment of the game far beyond a couple z-sorting algorithms and collision detection could ever provide. A programmer is nothing more than a grunt. The designers (both game, graphic, and sound) are what make a game a game.

[Sysiphus]

:D
lol...

[Savant]

A programmer is nothing more than a grunt. The designers (both game, graphic, and sound) are what make a game a game.
And now the loony boat has tipped over to the other side.

A good games programmer is hardly a grunt.

[soniCron]

A good games programmer is hardly a grunt. In what way is a programmer more than a grunt?

[Savant]

In what way is a programmer more than a grunt?
The fact that you would even ask that question shows your complete lack of experience. Ship a game, then we'll talk.

Sorry to be so short, but that statement is just plain insulting.

[Bluecat]

In what way is a programmer more than a grunt?

I grunt sometimes when I'm programming. I mumble and talk to myself too. ;)

[luggage]

That's a crock of shit. If you have programmer and no artist or musician, you still have the programmer making graphics for the game. In your examples, you assume that no artist or musician could make a game. May I present to you: Anthony Flack. Show some respect for the people that make the code worth checking out and strongly influence the outcome of enjoyment of the game far beyond a couple z-sorting algorithms and collision detection could ever provide. A programmer is nothing more than a grunt. The designers (both game, graphic, and sound) are what make a game a game.You're right - it does assume that no artist or musician could make a game - which is the correct assumption to make. Otherwise you're talking about people who are both artist and programmers.

All programmers have some degree of art skills. I bet there's not one single coder out there who couldn't physically draw something no matter how poor it is.

Now look at it from an artist's point of view. If they know how to code then they can consider themselves also a programmer - so the point still stands. However, there are lots of artists who wouldn't have a clue how to make a game. And I suspect they outnumber the ones who can program by a huge amount.

Don't misunderstand me here though. It's not like I don't value artists - they're as important as the coders are.

As for the comments about a coder being nothing more than a grunt. Well, that's just stupid. Give me a design document that explains exactly what values I have to plug into the physics system. Or a design doc that determines the exact amount of friction to apply to an object.

[Savant]

If the grunt comment was even close to true, then you should be able to grab a random person off the street, have them read a book covering the language you want to use, and then they could just bang the code into the machine ... that's what a grunt job is. Unskilled labor.

Are we seriously arguing that programming games is unskilled labor?

[soniCron]

The fact that you would even ask that question shows your complete lack of experience. Ship a game, then we'll talk. I suppose bringing that up in a forum full of programmers was a poor decision since there's an obvious bias, but I certainly don't retract my statement. However, a lone programmer (as per your example) would wear the hats of more than just a programmer; he'd also be the game designer. In that respect, of course he's more than a grunt.

I suppose if I were wrong, there wouldn't be so many programming jobs being outsourced to other countries. Same as cartoon animation, and even "fine" art replicas. That's not to say all programming is grunt work, but as we remove ourselves more and more from the depths of the computer and use higher and higher methods of creating what we want, the work of a programmer is becoming more and more grunt work.

[soniCron]

If the grunt comment was even close to true, then you should be able to grab a random person off the street, have them read a book covering the language you want to use, and then they could just bang the code into the machine ... that's what a grunt job is. Unskilled labor. Perhaps, then, I am using the wrong term! My sincerest appologies! :)

[sllohcin]

You guys are not discussing the topic at hand (other than the pricing shiznit.) It's not who's more important if the other did not exist... it's who's more important in the team to make a game. I definitely see and value the importance of programming but let's restate the question from how I understand it...

Would a game with crappy to mediocre programming and amazing graphics be better than amazing programming with crappy to mediocre graphics?

Honestly, maybe it's because I'm an artist, but I see graphics as 'more' important in today's world based on the above question.

Oh, and I'm a grunt... well, more a monkey. I even fling poo.

[Rod Hyde]

Would a game with crappy to mediocre programming and amazing graphics be better than amazing programming with crappy to mediocre graphics?Surely that depends on who is buying?

For me, NetHack (http://www.nethack.org) is a good game, yet its "art" consists of a few letters and line-draw characters. Certainly crappy graphics apply here. I don't know if it is well programmed or not - in fact, I really don't care. In this case it is the game that matters, because for me the experience of playing this game far outweighs the lack of graphics. I know this doesn't apply to everyone - there are people who can't stand NetHack in the same way that I find myself yawning when a game is described on its technical merits alone.

What is a book? A collection of strings composed of arrangements of 52 letters, some whitespace and a few punctuation marks. And yet, a good book can be a most enjoyable experience despite the lack of pictures. But there are books out there which wouldn't be the same without pictures. Would my daughter ever have read The Very Hungry Caterpillar (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0399226907/002-4928128-9411250?v=glance) without the pictures? Of course not!

As I said, it depends on who is buying.

--- Rod

[sllohcin]

Surely that depends on who is buying?

... ... ...

As I said, it depends on who is buying.

--- Rod
Of course, that's why we're posting our opinions. The "depends on who's buying" is the theme of this thread and the question(s) at hand are asking us what we 'personally' feel is more important. You've simply stated what we all already know.

[luggage]

In the casual space at the moment graphics are important - more important than they should be. I just don't think the casual user really cares that much about the graphics.

Trouble is, as there's more competition from developers now, the graphics are one area where the bar has been raised quite high. This affects things in a few areas.

1) Are the portals going to accept your game if it looks inferior but plays similar to another game that's submitted?

2) The cost of developing the game goes up quite a lot. Programmer art just doesn't really cut it now. This increases the risk in developing a graphic heavy game.

3) It's also led to games like Diner Dash which is a glorified whack-a-mole game. It's hard to compete with these type of games unless you can at least match the graphical quality - as that's where the game gets most of it's playability from.

4) Download size has gone up, therefore bandwidth costs have risen and the number of completed downloads have dropped.

Has this increase in graphical qualithy been good for us developers? I don't think so - it's certainly let us make some pretty games - but is it neccessary?

[Nikster]

edit.........

[Nexic]

I'm pretty certain *how the game looks* is one of the most, if not the most important factor these days. However that doesn't mean the artist is more important, simply because the programmers are very much involved in making the art look good and nice...

For example, I bought ship graphics from an artist for my game, and they look really nice. But the game wouldn't look anywhere near as pretty without all the little effects I had drawn using my poor programmer art skills, and then programmed their behaviour. When a ship gets low on health the ship sets on fire... but even if the artist had drawn the fire particle (which isnt hard) he wouldn't have been very much involved in that particular process.

Then there are things like menus. Although an artist could have drawn my menu graphics (which they didn't, I did those), they don't actually handle all the little fading and colour effects that make the menu look nice.

You have to remember that the programmer is actually very highly involved in the presentation of the game, perhaps more so than the artist... and therefore, in my opinion makes him more important, as he makes the game function AND does a let of visual presentation work. Though I still regard artists as very important :)

[Jack Norton]

You seems to miss a lot of things, first, an artist really can't BREAK a game.
A programmer CAN.
A memory leak crashes your game, a wrong art not (unless you do your best).
So, if you're a good artist but you a bad programmer, you'll encounter problem once you release a game. You have no clue how many problems/bugs/system incompatibilities/etc etc you can encounter.
If you think you just hit compile and voilÃ* your game will work on 100% computers out there you're very wrong... anyone who finished a game knows that.

N.B. graphics are important. I am more an artist than a good programmer. actually I might say that I am a mediocre artist/programmer but that gets the job done :)

[luggage]

Actually. If you've ever worked in the retail industry you'll know from painful experience that an artist can break the game.

I've always worked with systems where the artist can add things to the game as it's data driven. Trust me, nothing can prepare you for an artists mind. :D

[Rod Hyde]

Of course, that's why we're posting our opinions. The "depends on who's buying" is the theme of this thread and the question(s) at hand are asking us what we 'personally' feel is more important. You've simply stated what we all already know.Uh-oh, it seems that English is such a strange language! First of all, I didn't realise that the question I answered was rhetorical. Secondly, it seems that prefixing what I say with "For me" and using the word "I" a lot is not a good device for showing that I'm stating my opinion.

I try to keep my posts succinct and on-topic, so I apologise for the misunderstanding.

--- Rod

[Anthony Flack]

Any fan of Nethack is probably admiring the game design, rather than the programming, surely?

My perspective is, that learning the techniques necessary to bang out a halfway-competent working game was far quicker and easier than learning the techniques needed to make it look pretty. And that a poorly programmed game can still be a fun game. And that the techniques needed to make a really fun game are the most important, most difficult, and something I still have a lot to learn about.

[sllohcin]

Uh-oh, it seems that English is such a strange language! First of all, I didn't realise that the question I answered was rhetorical. Secondly, it seems that prefixing what I say with "For me" and using the word "I" a lot is not a good device for showing that I'm stating my opinion.

I try to keep my posts succinct and on-topic, so I apologise for the misunderstanding.

--- Rod
I appreciate your playful sarcasm. It actually made me laugh and enticed me to reread your post. It's all cool. I never meant to insult you in any way, shape or form. You are entitled to post how you see fit and I will respect it.

Sorry Rod, no harm intended.

[Sysiphus]

If you've ever worked in the retail industry you'll know from painful experience that an artist can break the game

true. I did. And somewhat, I do , work in that.(I mean, I work in that, nbot that I broke any game, lol)

And yep, is easy to spot many games wrekced by strangled joints -bad weighting- terrible textures, or even bad plain proportions!

Imho, it's all more bout each ego's, who's more important. Sadly, both game programmers and artists (i include myself) have the hugest ego's I have been able to know in my life... Seen it in every company and team effort.

I consider a game as a more complex thing. I good film is not only good story, neither only good photography, neither if the director was rocking but the actors really were bad -they'lll sink the film as much as a bad director, terrible music, or horrible photography.

So...Imho, an "average" programming but outstanding graphics can do a quite good game imho (as I see it as a total, again, part of the inmersion is the universe where you get into, Linage, an example, yep, there's great programming and sound, etc, all) a great programming and average graphics, will for sure do a great game...But...my point is...rarely i find any programmer doing average quality graphics...Why? same reason my vb coding is horrible. I dedicated a life for drawing , and starting later, graphics. I haven't do the same with code (lol, just sme months of c, java and VB code, and I understood almost nothing)

I have playing certain game that...reallly, made me adicted for just...the sound and music! yes, not "only" the game was fun, but without that special touch of great sound and some average graphics, I am completely sure I wouldn't have felt the same, wouldn't have played even once more.

Watching something beautiful is another pleasure for human being, don't forget it. Or seing somthing graphically funny...also , an image can convince really quicly and globally, is why TV adds keep being succesful, there are loads of psicologic studies behind each add...No image is random there.

After all, it makes several important functions for what is your business: bring attention, generate another added pleasure (to the game fun: besides, a really funny and well animated cartoon, trust me, in many cases brings MUCH more fun than a programmer's art red box... You laugh and have fun with the concept of game itself, but with all the added stuff, too...How much this adds to your sell...*a lot*, imho. Sorry, for me it's too clear. )
Good graphics also helps explaining better your concept, and the scenery, what is happening.

Even ye olde graphics where made by very tallented gfx people...Lemmings...i love that game as a game, and while lemmings are just some few pixels each, are extremely well though, and very well animated, Imho you rarely could do better with those pixels.

Street fighter 2....here zillions of people played it when I was a teen... And I bet how much of its success Capcom owns to his gfx guy...

I had much fun with text only games in the very old past, as I had fun with graphic adventures that barely were more than just verry nice graphics. And is not as I am a gfx person: my sisters DO love a game for graphics, they have allways told me. If't "looks ugly" they don't care to open it, unless they're really bored at work (ie: Windows cards games at work, etc)


Funny thing is I never thought programming is less important. (though inside a company for today Pcs, I can tell you how much they stress the importance on that...lol...i'd love if hey'd think it's less important...)

Even more, for me, even if I had never ever touched game gfx making profession, it'd have been better for me, I was a happy comic maker(and painter) before all this , but comics , imho, almost totally died due to the invassion of new forms of entertainment: TV, video and games, but much very specially, and fo rthe type of content and public, Games. So I really don't have any "wish" of desire of be teaming for making games...today is more a need for having food in the plate, only that.

I dunno, I liked a lot graphics of games like Best friends or Anthony's very original style, Bejewelled (if that's the name) and others...maybe in code and game design the game were really good without the help of graphics, but with them, imho are really much better. This only happens with *good* graphics, which aren't easy to make for a seasoned gfx person, let alone with someone that has little to no idea on how to make just standard graphics.

I think anyway if a game poor in graphics, but not terrible (I remember some very dramatic cases of games...that simply, in that way, can't do, no marketting guy will help there.Unless there's some kind of Gandalf among them) but outstanding as a game, it will have success one way or the other.

Little to none artists that i know -included myself- pretend to be the opera director or something, is not where many of us have our ambitions, at least which I have known. While many game programmers do. Reason why usually what appears and how is demanded by the coder, even when is doing incrusions in fields that he/she does not know well...

[soniCron]

There is one single most important aspect of any game that rules all else: emotion. Without emotion, the game is bunk. Each member of the team brings their own food to the table, feeding the player's emotion. But some members have more of an effect on the player than others.

The game designer needs to structure the game's interactivity in such a manner that it strikes the players' emotion in a positive way. Without a solid game design that is fun for the player, we may as well be traversing pixel-shaded hallways of "Power Point."*
The artist is responsible for creating both the initial attraction and sustaining visual immersiveness, thus creating a positive gaming experience in which the player can focus on the most important aspect (gameplay). Without quality graphics, often the player can lose his connection with the character he controls or the game world.
The musician/sound guy is responsible for twisting the emotional cues through the game into a positive way. By manipulating emotions in the player at their core level, he can accent or even completely change the visual cues given to the player, thus creating a richer, more enjoyable experience.
The programmer, on the other hand, has absolutely no emotional impact on the player whatsoever. (Provided, of course, the game works as it should, doesn't crash, etc.) However, it's the programmer's sole responsibility to allow each of the creative entities to communicate with the player simultaneously and to the best of their abilities. Without the programmer, we'd merely be playing "Risk," watching a movie, or listening to an album.

As you can see, in their own way, each component of the video game creation process is the single most imporant aspect. If one is left out, we've killed off a huge portion of our emotional impact upon the player. We've already lost to someone else who will come back later with that emotional serving provided.

A game can be played without the game designer. But, lost is 1/3rd of the emotional impact.
A game can be played without the artist. But, lost is 1/3rd of the emotional impact.
A game can be played without the musician. But, lost is 1/3rd of the emotional impact.
A game can't be played without the programmer. There is no platform.

That doesn't mean, however, the programmer is the most imporant part because there is no game without him. By losing 1/3rd of our entire emotional display, we've given up to another team who will provide their players with that missing portion. We will have lost. 1/3rd lost emotion is fatal to the overwhelming success of a game. The game may sell, but it certainly won't top the charts. You've already spelled its death.

Nexic, you talked about how your role as the programmer was important for the visual presentation of the GUI because you had to program all the cool effects. However, that is certainly not the fault of the artist. That is your fault. The artist couldn't work with the GUI because of your obfuscation. While it may not have been worthwhile for a project of that size, you nonetheless failed to provide the artist with a way to affect the in-game visual experience beyond that of his art assets.

Just as a programmer can't claim he's the most important spoke in the wheel because his programming leaves him nothing but an empty framework, the artist can't claim his job is more important because he wouldn't otherwise have a platform in which to display his beautiful sprites.

*Ironically, "Myst" was created in presentation software!

[sparkyboy]

That's a crock of shit. If you have programmer and no artist or musician, you still have the programmer making graphics for the game. In your examples, you assume that no artist or musician could make a game. May I present to you: Anthony Flack. Show some respect for the people that make the code worth checking out and strongly influence the outcome of enjoyment of the game far beyond a couple z-sorting algorithms and collision detection could ever provide. A programmer is nothing more than a grunt. The designers (both game, graphic, and sound) are what make a game a game.


Daniel,once again you put your foot in your mouth!!I'd suggest you put your brain in gear before engaging your mouth!! ;) How many times have you come across as either abusive and/or ignorant.........quite a few times and you've come back after realising it with your tail between your legs basically. :(

I'm sure that luggage and other pro/ex-pro programmers do not appreciate you calling them GRUNTS!!!!!

Just to clarify my recent post(as you seem to be unable or just unwilling to accept my argument as is):-

Take a graphics artist with no programming skills whatsoever,a musician with no programming skill whatsoever and a programmer who does not have a graphical or musical bone in his/her body..............

Now out of the three above,who is more likely to create a finished GAME!!!!!

My money's on the PROGRAMMER,wouldn't you say!!! :rolleyes:

Now if you can't assimilate this obvious premise then I'd seriously suggest that you find some other avenue for your talents.

Oh yeah just so you know,this business is not just about who can make the best looking and/or playing game,but also people skills.
That is,how you conduct yourself and project yourself to the people that can make your product sell and how the customer perceives you.....

From what I've seen about you,you seriously need to change your attitude,because as most people know:-

It's not WHAT you know but WHO you know!!!!!

That'll do for now!!

All the best


Mark.

[Sysiphus]

erm...Capicci ?

hehe...c'mon...


well, I instead agree totally with that definition of Sonicrom.
A game is in an important portion, emotion. Is an important part for people that look for entertainment.

Now out of the three above,who is more likely to create a finished GAME!!!!!

My money's on the PROGRAMMER,wouldn't you say!!!

yep, but what game...of course it'll be incredible good as a game, as its logic and all, but certainly will bring much fewer people. Don't forget that some of the fantastic games of the eighties and 90's could have low res pixel art, but man, how good was it. I tell you as I am doing right now works of that res for mobiles, and I can tell you that was really efficient, good and atractive art, to be made with so little resources and resolution.

BTW, I suppose there's right to disagree...

About that thing of the grunt, well, I'm truly being used as a grunt usually in game companies(I'd love to be an indy instead): I can't decide, while I do *know* a graphic would be certainly better in other way, I do often quite repetitive work, and all at an speed that is merely to save the boat... I have it so admited I rarely would consider it as an insult if somebody called me...

[soniCron]

How many times have you come across as either abusive and/or ignorant.........quite a few times and you've come back after realising it with your tail between your legs basically. :( I can't think of a single time I've come back with my tail between my legs on these forums. When I'm wrong about something, I very courageously stand up and admit it. Admiting and accepting when you're wrong is one of the most important attributes a person can have. I'm highly opinionated and don't have a problem in the world sharing my thoughts which, at times, may be more verbose than others. ;) As far as being ignorant, I can't think of a soul that ever existed that wasn't ignorant in some form or fashion. Either way, I'm far from afraid or ashamed to admit when I'm wrong.


I'm sure that luggage and other pro/ex-pro programmers do not appreciate you calling them GRUNTS!!!!! I'm sure Sysiphus and other pro/ex-pro artists do not appreciate you calling them worthless.


Now out of the three above,who is more likely to create a finished GAME!!!!! My money's on the PROGRAMMER,wouldn't you say!!! :rolleyes: Certainly. I think that's far from debatable. But the likelyhood of that game being successful is on par with any of the other designers creating the game themselves.


That is,how you conduct yourself and project yourself to the people that can make your product sell and how the customer perceives you..... I can respect that, because you're absolutely right. Judging from the post I'm responding to, however, I'd suggest you take some of your own advice.


It's not WHAT you know but WHO you know!!!!! Well, if those people are unwilling to tolerate argument against their ideas, then I wouldn't want to be exposed to them in the first place.

[luggage]

I've been called far worse than a grunt in the past :). Quite often I find myself just doing the same old stuff over and over again. That's more like a code monkey though.

Street fighter 2....here zillions of people played it when I was a teen... And I bet how much of its success Capcom owns to his gfx guy...I'm sorry but I can't agree with that. SF2 was a success because it played sooo much better than the competition. The graphics at the time were on par with what was being done but nothing more.

DId you ever play Rise Of The Robots? There was an absolutely stunning looking game that played very poorly. How does that fit in with your theory?

I think artists and programmers are important. How important they are in relation to each other would all depend on the game.

[Nikster]

yep, but what game...of course it'll be incredible good as a game, as its logic and all, but certainly will bring much fewer people. Don't forget that some of the fantastic games of the eighties and 90's could have low res pixel art, but man, how good was it. I tell you as I am doing right now works of that res for mobiles, and I can tell you that was really efficient, good and atractive art, to be made with so little resources and resolution.

BTW, I suppose there's right to disagree...



I think you miss sparkyboys point, in that how can the musician, graphician make their creation come to life ? was the OS it's being run on created by graphicians or musicians ? That's the context I read it in, but with todays RAD tools and the like it's hardly a concern anymore, everyone should pull together as a team to get the best possible results. Also in this day in age most people can confidently apply there hands to at least two areas, I know a really good graphician who codes just for a hobby and it's some of the cleanest looking code I have seen, maybe that's the graphical side of things. I know lots of musicians who became full time programmers, I know some awesome artists who can't grasp the concept of "power of two", I see it as an industry that totally rellies on programmers therefore are the most important, but as I said earlier, with people focusing on RAD development and all sorts of funky tools and content creation packages it can't be to far in the distant future where you will only need a handful of programmers to maintain the tools so a role reversal so to speak, that's how I see it anyway, hopefully this will happen after I retire ;) btw, you only have to visit the blitzbasic forums to see how many graphicians are coding away..

[Nexic]

Nexic, you talked about how your role as the programmer was important for the visual presentation of the GUI because you had to program all the cool effects. However, that is certainly not the fault of the artist. That is your fault. The artist couldn't work with the GUI because of your obfuscation. While it may not have been worthwhile for a project of that size, you nonetheless failed to provide the artist with a way to affect the in-game visual experience beyond that of his art assets.

Well the reason the artist couldn't work on those effects is because I didn't have one for the menus...

But, even if I had one, how on earth could he handle all the various effects? Maybe I should teach him how to program, then sit him down and say "Right, you program all the visual aspects of the game."?

The only other option would be for me to build a fully interactive, "generic effect builder" which doesn't use any kind of programming? I'm sorry but that would be a huge waste of time.

Hey, maybe what you are saying is, all us programmers should spend our time making our own "Drag and Drop Game Creator Software" and then go to sleep whilst we let the rest of the team build the game? Because according to you thats all we do anyway?

[Savant]

The graphics at the time were on par with what was being done but nothing more.
One of the main reasons I loved Street Fighter 2 so much was the art work.

[soniCron]

The only other option would be for me to build a fully interactive, "generic effect builder" which doesn't use any kind of programming? I'm sorry but that would be a huge waste of time. Please read the post more carefully. I clearly stated that it wasn't reasonable for you to impliment something of that nature. Allow me to reiterate: "...it may not have been worthwhile for a project of that size..." I assure you, it was certainly not an attack on you or your development! ;)


Hey, maybe what you are saying is, all us programmers should spend our time making our own "Drag and Drop Game Creator Software" and then go to sleep whilst we let the rest of the team build the game? Because according to you thats all we do anyway? I don't know where you got the idea that I thought, "that's all [you] all do anyway." But if you think that game development needs to be left to highly trained programmers and will continue to remain in their sole domain forever, then may I introduce you to the refrigerator or automobile? (Killed the ice and horse-drawn carriage markets, respectively.)

[Nexic]

Sorry if my post came off as angry, I really wasn't. Probably should have dropped in a smiley or two ^.^

I'm not saying development as a whole should be left to programmers, certainly not! (at least not in projects where a full time developer/producer can be afforded).

I'm just saying that, no matter what a programmer will most likely be involved in a the game on a visual level in several ways, other than the content artists could create. I'm sure that for big games, it is reasonable to make easy to use, content driven systems for a large number of aspects in the game, and so allowing artists to design and script the implementation of their art themselves. But all that is way beyond the scope of indie games (most of them). And as the original comment was made by an artist refering to shareware games, I was trying to do in from the perspective of small projects.

So, in a small project, where having a complex, artist friendly visual scipting system is unrealistic, programmers will likely be very much involved in the visuals of the game.

So this is my overall opinion: Programmers are probably most important, in small indie projects, as they will often end up wearing the most hats. Whilst in larger scale projects, each member is probably of equal value.

[soniCron]

So, in a small project, where having a complex, artist friendly visual scipting system is unrealistic, programmers will likely be very much involved in the visuals of the game. And I couldn't agree with you more! Buddies? ;)

[Nexic]

NEVER, I HATE YOU!!!!!!!!

Kidding :P

[Sysiphus]

I think artists and programmers are important. How important they are in relation to each other would all depend on the game.

I very much do agree with that.

Anyway, I put an example, I am making mobile gfx for games, both 3d, 2d, in a company right now. I did for pc, in some other companies. They simply can't do anything without graphics, and distributors, and all kind of "powers" do demand extreme graphics quality, not really doable for two or 3 men, though we often work much more hours than says our salary contract. Which usually ends up extreme quality for the time given which is extreme average ;) But a pair of hundreds times than if our coders would go and do the gfx, hehe.
If I went away from the company ,right now, man would it be really bad for them, almost a sink(small company in staff, not so small in money). I wont, of course, is just an example. The same with PC ones I was at before.

On the inet, I find loads of coders asking for graphics, and near to no artist asking for code, or to team with a coder; well, better said, one of those I consider experienced at graphics.Not someone starting...

BTW, :) it doesn't really matter, reality is quite above all these things, is generally much simpler, what is needed and demanded is what has the final word.And as someone said, depends on the game, that balance.

One of the main reasons I loved Street Fighter 2 so much was the art work.

Actually. Created a kind of school/style , and so many games were inspired on that one...I heard so too much comments at those years while playing in machines, like "hey, look how he breathes", see fanatism with Ryu character (loads of freaks sharing that image years later(right now) = *pure marketting*) or, "wow... that blood" The expressions of those characters, the iddle animations, made a lot, and still, many people look at them as inspiration.

When I want to build an universe, and tell a story, I don't have to think in games, I usually would do it as a comic, where I'm the graphics maker, photography director, story writter, all... And many of us don't need interactivity, as what we want is build a universe, tell a story...inmerssion is indeed what attracts us about games. In my case, only as all the economic activity related to character drawing was sliping to get concentrated in games. That speaking of doing something just for the love of it...if it's for money, lol, the market tells you clearly what is needed.

[soniCron]

For all those who are on the "programmer" side of this argument, I'd suggest you watch Tim Sweeney's GDC lecture on GDCTV. You can watch it here (http://www.pqhp.com/cmp/gdctv/).

[Davaris]

I have a question for those on the artist side of the argument.

Where are all the artist developers at Indie Gamer? I've seen one or two but the vast majority are programmers. If artists are so vital to making games why aren't they making and selling games on their own? Perhaps they don’t have the programming skills? :)

[JoeMaru]

Perhaps they don’t have the programming skills?

or perhaps they are too busy making money and don't see the point in getting into pointless arguments.

are artists or programmers more important? I work with a bunch of people. We are game developers. Some foucs on art, some on code, some on design, some on marketing. All are important to what we do.

[Davaris]

If the art guys learned a bit of programming and the programmers learned a bit of art, we'd all learn to love each other more. ;)

[soniCron]

Where are all the artist developers at Indie Gamer? I've seen one or two but the vast majority are programmers. If artists are so vital to making games why aren't they making and selling games on their own? Perhaps they don’t have the programming skills? :) That scenario is precicely why the programmers typically outsource their art needs. However, the need for programmers is not infinite. As game development becomes more streamlined and tools become more visual, the need for programmers in this arena will drastically shrink. That's not to say we won't need programmers at all; after all, someone has to create the tools the artists use to create the games. But the need for a programmer in the creation of individual games will eventually shrink to almost nil, if not entirely cease to exist.

And you want to know why arists aren't making and selling games on their own? Why don't you check out some of the Flash entertainment out there. Right now it's a largely immature field, so you're not seeing a lot of salable games out there, but the doors are open... It's just a matter of time, my friend.

[Davaris]

And you want to know why arists aren't making and selling games on their own? Why don't you check out some of the Flash entertainment out there. Right now it's a largely immature field, so you're not seeing a lot of salable games out there, but the doors are open... .

Yeah I've seen that stuff. All they're doing is giving away free games. What's the point of that?

It's just a matter of time, my friend.

Yeah I've been hearing that one for years. All you'll be able to do with those things is make games that play like everyone elses. Originality is what sells games buddy boy. ;)

P.S.
Did a programmer break your heart? Is that what this anti-programmer rant is all about? :)

[soniCron]

Yeah I've been hearing that one for years. All you'll be able to do with those things is make games that play like everyone elses. Originality is what sells games buddy boy. ;) That argument makes no sense. What does originality have to do with the platform used to make the game? Nothing. On top of that, originality is not what sells games, buddy boy. You may want to pay a little more attention to the top hits sometime. You may learn something.


Did a programmer break your heart? Is that what this anti-programmer rant is all about? :) Uhm. No. In fact, there's not a single anti-programmer bone in my body. No. You see, I've got a pretty good idea where the future of programming is heading. Question: What is a programmer's job? Answer: To tell a computer what to do. I'll bet you can guess what happens to all the game programmers when we can just tell the computer what to do in a natural way. No more BSP trees. No more z-sorting. No more pixel shaders. At least, not in the mind of the designer.

[Nikster]

I'll bet you can guess what happens to all the game programmers when we can just tell the computer what to do in a natural way.

Indeed, they will say "Draw me a tree", "draw me a house" ;)

[ERoberts]

He he, it's SO funny when clueless people go on about "how things are" :D

And all I have to say is: of COURSE programmers are worth more than artists, that's why they're being paid twice as much.

Why do you think some companies keep a core set of programmers as full employees, while just using contract artists?

But please, go on, I'm having much fun reading :D

[Nikster]

He he, it's SO funny when clueless people go on about "how things are" :D

And all I have to say is: of COURSE programmers are worth more than artists, that's why they're being paid twice as much.

Why do you think some companies keep a core set of programmers as full employees, while just using contract artists?

But please, go on, I'm having much fun reading :D

Programmers get paid twice as much as artists ? That's news to me, unless you compare a senior programmer with a junior artist of course, but that would be the same as being compared with a junior programmer too.

[soniCron]

He he, it's SO funny when clueless people go on about "how things are" :D Either you've got absolutely no foresight, or you're just provoking me. ;)


And all I have to say is: of COURSE programmers are worth more than artists, that's why they're being paid twice as much. According to what, exactly?


Why do you think some companies keep a core set of programmers as full employees, while just using contract artists? Last I checked, companies typically contract work that would be too expensive to keep fulltime. I could be wrong. But I'm not.

[Cygnus]

I havent read all the posts above, just about half.

A few years ago when I worked in Qbasic, I did all my graphics for Den Bros 3. It was a simple 2d platformer in the style of Super Mario (but had more graphics). I spent literally a year designing the graphics alone, and im quite fast, even if i cant really draw to any sort of decent standard. So, while I agree artists can be expensive, They have to be to make their living.

I'm lucky enough to be working with one hell of a 3D artist at the moment. I was "okay" with 8-bit like sprites. I cant do crap for 3D. Cept a few things useless for games :)

[Jim Buck]

I'm not joining the argument since it just leads to nowhere, but I did want to dispell a few incorrect statements.

Programmers *do* get paid more in the retail game industry.. at least where I had worked.. though I had never seen a 2x difference in salary. To get numbers, check out Gamasutra's yearly surveys (http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20040211/olsen_01.shtml).

I, too, had heard for years about programmers going away, but it won't ever happen. Ever. Why? For the same reasons there is no silver bullet (http://www.lips.utexas.edu/ee382c-15005/Readings/Readings1/05-Broo87.pdf). Any programmer worth his salt will know the same thing.. only non-programmers will believe such snake oil claims. (Sure, there are some platforms that enable non-programmers, but they are aren't platforms that will get 100% of the game industry in developing on.)

[sparkyboy]

Man,this thread has degraded into an 'US AND THEM' scenario. :(

Will programmers please move to left side of the room and Graphics Artists move to the right of the room.Now..........Start flinging them custard pies!! :D

We all have our roles in the production of a game,and in order to compete in the market place,one is really no more important than the other in real terms.

I mean if we carry on like this,we'll have artists creating games with MMF and the like (without using any of the in-built programming language)....NICE? and programmers creating graphics for their games (which a monkey strategically shaved could do) NICE? again!!!! ;) :rolleyes:

Now this post is mean't as a tongue in cheek response so please no flames,as no malice is intended.However if you do feel the need to flame just make sure you supply the bleedin' BURGERS!!!!!!!!!!! (runs out of smileys Oh well LOL).


All the best

Mark.

[soniCron]

Programmers *do* get paid more in the retail game industry.. at least where I had worked.. though I had never seen a 2x difference in salary. To get numbers, check out Gamasutra's yearly surveys (http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20040211/olsen_01.shtml). Thank you for clarifying that. However, I can't seem to find any information how money is being distributed. If there was one programmer working for $200,000 and 20 artists working for $40,000, the art is clearly more valuable. Thoughts?


Any programmer worth his salt will know the same thing.. only non-programmers will believe such snake oil claims. Did someone say programmers would completely cease to exist? I don't remember saying that... I remember stating that programmers would cease to exist, or very sparsely, in the world of game development. That does not include the toolset used for said game development, however.


(Sure, there are some platforms that enable non-programmers, but they are aren't platforms that will get 100% of the game industry in developing on.) This seems like an unreasonable assumption. Unless you're talking about platforms available today. In that case, I'd obviously agree with you. Computing power is just not at the point to make that feasible right now. There will be a day and age where we have power processing power than we need in gaming.

[soniCron]

Actually, let me back up and retract some of my remarks. Jim, I think you may be absolutely right. Will programmers disapper? No. Will artists someday have the ability to create moderately complex games without the help of a programmer? Yes. Will the big guys do this? Probably not. But as long as there exists "games" in the traditional sense of the word, there will be a method of creating them without the help of a programmer.

[Sysiphus]

I have a question for those on the artist side of the argument.

Where are all the artist developers at Indie Gamer? I've seen one or two but the vast majority are programmers. If artists are so vital to making games why aren't they making and selling games on their own? Perhaps they don’t have the programming skills?

Why do you think some companies keep a core set of programmers as full employees, while just using contract artists?

Several reasons. There's a main one in my 4 companies experience as part of staffs : as I said before, in terms of making games, I see artists like myself less ambitious in the term of organizing the company and being the boss. So, many times, the guy just bellow the money guy is a coder. Not surprisingly -if you read this thread ;) - he thinks a programmer is of much more value. Not only his previsions are of much fewer artists than needed, but he treats worse the artist, and care less if he gets upset and go. then comes the drama, who makes the gfx...and ...they go look for new gfx ppl...ouch, they don't find any knowing *all* needed...2d, 3d, pixel art, concept, animation...result...gotta contract fast 3 guys fo rdo the same, none being game artist but just designers as is an area where there wasn't any good available at the moment...Is not an random example, is a true case.

But that is happily not what allways happens. Often, the project needs much more code than graphics, and somehow, seems companies prefer to contract art for a game, than contract code. usually code is understood mainly fo rhis author, and also they like him to keep loyal and inhouse...Or that I perceived.

third, there's an strong wish of most artists of feel themselves free as a bird. They usually stand less a probalematic boss, and besides, as I said, many have game art -like my case- as just anothe field, and somehow tend to prefer to do freelancing like making design logos, websites, or like in my case, paint oil pictures by custom projects or portraits, do small statues paid projects, etc.

Also, as many companies do already have a gfx guy really exploited doing the work of at least two guys (happened to me allways)...in the last company previous to this one, I only had to see the coders could smoke their cigarretes outside and chat often among themselves.I couldn't but it'd be an error to generalize: coders and gfx artists are really exploited everywhere, specially game companies.

I admire deeply coders, they're genious, great minds. I think what we do is neither a think most people can do, and also the results tend to be impresive: I never made categories in my mind my self. Among othe reasons, as I studied like half a course of maths college, and studied a bit of VB6 code, and made some dirty and bad games in Basic, back in 1982-1986, if I remember well, I used to love that coding language. Later only a bit of vb6 code, and html . Enough to know I'd have to spend a full life to pretend to aproach to the level I have in graphics, but in code. And nor even so, I'm too disordered.

I mean, not only I dont have "categories" in my mind: I'd love to be able to do code.

I see this every day at work in the...four companies I have been, see the coder-artists fight. Everyday. It's even heavy. I don't chat about this, but I know life would be easier if terms could be spoken...But you cant give reasons to a coder boss, in many cases.
Basicly, there are many fields of friction, and also, theworlds, and the aspect to empower in a game, are very different. And when there are differences, these things are more tending to happen.

And all I have to say is: of COURSE programmers are worth more than artists, that's why they're being paid twice as much.


Haha. Well, I don't agree in how this is put. First I have several friends that paint with oils that earn way more than any game programmer I know (I know quite some) So that of "being worth" .But mostly, in the places I have been, we all got paid the same, one exception, where I negociated to earn less -yet a REALLY good salary for my area, with the condition of "i don't do extra hours" ...and...I still think I made better business than them. Not a single weekend working at night in that freaking cold industrial room...

Usually I have seen we earn just the same: often is quite bad in small/middle sizes companies to do so much differences in payment: not late people envy others, and fights or escapes from the company occur.

In the way I have been seen it for quite some time, the coder and artist work must be quite syncronized, and in my experience, both we, work like crazy, insane hours.

Imho, that's reality , but I keep seeing several coder egos everywhere needing to feel a different reality in their minds...Well, that is not a problem, as much as it doesn't affect the work environment. Sadly, sometimes it affects it, but one learns to deal it.

Where are all the artist developers at Indie Gamer?

Easy to answer, too. Please , i don't mean I am The Owner Of The Truth, is just an opinion based in my personal experiences, and what I have seen and suffered or enjoied in my life. I think many artists as said before don't have a wish of making a game, as much as doing they'r master piece intro video, or their master piece uber hi res millions of polygons 3d model, with several 2048x2038 textures, and hiper realistic look. They may have interest in games mostly to see some of their creations in an interactive environment or their favourite type of game...or ...just as *another* source of money. probably they'r main business is selling model collections, together with making logos for companies.


That said, I have been in companies where I could not stand the coder, (but i had to for the money) , that's a minority. Others (well, maybe I thinking also in others in web design, where there were also the two teams, I was web designer before this) where I just connected inmediately, and are now among my best friends, for ever. And like now, that well, some little friction is easy to deal. you learn to know each person.

All that is said in a very peaceful tone, and in conclussion, I think both worth the same, as I have been saying since beguining...They're just very different, even to make a comparison.

EDIT: BTW, seen many artists-programmers doing quite good games, with some basic like language, and rad environments, there are some quite good out there, after all were made by programmers. They will never reach what a coder does, I think that's out of uestion. Still, they can sell, and even have more luck than some programmers, you how is the market, specially, if being the gfx such a marketting jewell...

edit2: the ppl making small flash games do earn money with them, and some of them nice money. And several of them, almost only do code , that actionscript or however is called, not touching the Macromedia Flash Interface. (majority use Flash, anyway, point and click stuff mixed with coding)

[Olivier]

Where are all the artist developers at Indie Gamer?
I am here! :p

[Farmergnome]

Reading all the posts, some people seem to get a little bit heated under the collar about this topic, when realy, the whole arguement is pathetic. What it comes down to is this, there is no better "side", do you realy think you can sell a game without code? Art? Music?

Gamedev is a team sport people, and getting more-so as the public demand higher quality in games. So just like any team sport, its not about whos best at a single position, but the functionality of a team as a whole, so maybe the arguement should be how the various positions can co-operate better?

So if you think the other "Side" want to work in a team with biased morons who have a habbit of declaring how good there choosen profession is, then you are sadly mistaken.

[monco]

Four pages and not one single example of what someone was actually quoted for game art? How sad... :confused:

[jankoM]

Yes, you will find much better info/*** ration here: How much do you pay for graphics? (2. try) (http://forums.indiegamer.com/showthread.php?t=3950).

[lowpoly]

Sorry to jump offtopic again, but

Reading all the posts, some people seem to get a little bit heated under the collar about this topic, when realy, the whole arguement is pathetic. What it comes down to is this, there is no better "side", do you realy think you can sell a game without code? Art? Music?

I think you are right on here, this argument has been done to death and it really comes solely down to understanding of process. My experience in this matter grows on a daily basis, as I'm one of many artist-developers plodding their way through the programming aspect of the game. Hell, I haven't even added graphics to my project yet (gameplay is king!).

My point here is that the general disconnect between artists and programmers stems mostly from ego. You hand your typical programmer and artist a blank sheet of paper and a pencil and they can both give you 'art' (beauty is in the eye of the beholder). Sit those same two down in front of a screen with a blank document and ask them to code and you're going to get a lot of head scratching from the artist.

This is why egos kick in. I'm speaking in generics here of course, but often a programmer will not understand how much truly goes into any piece of art, be it 16x16 tile or16 million poly model, the process is what counts. The attitude that anyone can make art will almost always be taken as an insult thus igniting the ego war. Artists know they couldn't program to save their lives, so they overplay the significance of their contribution and we all end up arguing to no end.

Ultimately, you have to find a balance in both. Great graphics + shitty gameplay turns into the equivalent of a formulaic summer blockbuster. If you are in this to become rich and famous then you probably shouldn't be developing an indie title. There are plenty of AAA studios out there looking to capitalize on the next big trend.

Conversely, pedestrian graphics but amazing gameplay might work in the long haul, but it's hard to push onto the masses out of the gate. Buying a game is like purchasing a car, you find the one you think looks nice and then you test drive it to see if it's actually worthwhile. The majority of people won't look twice at a car that looks like scrap but gets 200mpg.

[soniCron]

My point here is that the general disconnect between artists and programmers stems mostly from ego. You hand your typical programmer and artist a blank sheet of paper and a pencil and they can both give you 'art' (beauty is in the eye of the beholder). Sit those same two down in front of a screen with a blank document and ask them to code and you're going to get a lot of head scratching from the artist. Consider, instead, you give the programmer thousands of yards of thread and asked him to weave a beautiful tapestry. He wouldn't even know where to begin. You see, it's experience with, and accessibility to, the tool that makes these things available for experimentation. We're brought up taught to write and expertly handle the tools for writing. Because of this, anyone can pick up a pencil and at least draw something.

But if the user had never seen a pencil before and never been required to do anything more with his/her hands other than throw a spear, it's doubtful he'd even be able to eek out a smiley face with anything less than a "Hello World!" tutorial. Of course, this scenario is unrealistic, because, at the very least, the user could well have experienced drawing by scribbling in the sand with his/her finger. This is an issue of accessibility.

[milo]

Consider, instead, you give the programmer thousands of yards of thread and asked him to weave a beautiful tapestry. He wouldn't even know where to begin.
A more relevant example would have been 3DS MAX and Adobe Photoshop. It took me years to get really proficient at doing textures in Photoshop, and 3DStudio was so unachievable that I wrote my own modeling program from scratch instead of attempting to learn MAX.

In the end though, it's the results that count, not the difficulty of achieving them. Consider voice talent. A good actor can make a huge difference in the perceived quality of game, and he might do nothing more complex than stepping into a vocal booth and reading out load for a couple of hours.

--milo
http://www.starshatter.com

[lowpoly]

In the end though, it's the results that count, not the difficulty of achieving them. Consider voice talent. A good actor can make a huge difference in the perceived quality of game, and he might do nothing more complex than stepping into a vocal booth and reading out load for a couple of hours.


Good point, which puts us right back on topic again in terms of what do you pay for good art? For jobs I've freelanced (non-games) I prefer to charge a set project rate, but I find most people would rather do the hourly thing. I don't know if it's placebo, as if they believe they are getting maximum value for their money if time is quantified and accounted for, but clients seem to have less reservations that way.

I just get the feeling that for non-art types, there is a general misunderstanding about what goes into any art piece. If it takes me 45 minutes to do something, I would argue it doesn't necessarily mean it's only worth exactly 3/4 of my hourly rate. I guess the problem is how do you relate to someone they are not just paying for the completion of the task but also the skill of the artist?

It's not always as cut and dry as, 'make X amount of spaceship sprites and I will pay you $Y each'. Or at least, it shouldn't be...

[milo]

I just get the feeling that for non-art types, there is a general misunderstanding about what goes into any art piece. If it takes me 45 minutes to do something, I would argue it doesn't necessarily mean it's only worth exactly 3/4 of my hourly rate.
That is equally true of programmers, writers, lawyers, and a lot of other people who sometimes charge by the hour. Perfect markets only exist in economics theory textbooks. In the real world, we approximate value as best we can, and charge what the market will bear.

--milo
http://www.starshatter.com

[luggage]

I just get the feeling that for non-art types, there is a general misunderstanding about what goes into any art piece. If it takes me 45 minutes to do something, I would argue it doesn't necessarily mean it's only worth exactly 3/4 of my hourly rate. I guess the problem is how do you relate to someone they are not just paying for the completion of the task but also the skill of the artist?Surely it does mean it's worth exactly 3/4 of your hourly rate? In fact you could only charge less! If you've dragged your feet otherwise what's the point of an hourly rate?

When you pay someone to do a task for you (no matter what it is) you're paying for the skill of that person - the skill is taken into account when deciding a price. An artist is no different. If an artists skill is worth more then they have a higher hourly rate or charge more for the piece. I would expect to pay more to an artist than someone who flipped burgers.

[soniCron]

Danc has some words about this off-topic discussion:

http://lostgarden.com/2005/11/myth-of-programmer-designer-greatness.html

[Huge]

I've been programming for over 20 years, one way or another, and just decided to write a game about 3 months ago (part time). For me the programming side was very easy, and I've spent way more time on art. Mind you, most of that time was trying to lift myself slightly above "programmer art". So, as a programmer, I would say art is more important.


Here is another intereresting way at looking at the components of programming. 1) the "game content" and the other bit 2) the actual code. One way to look at the code bit is to see how long it would take to port to another language. This bit is probably only about 1 week, the "game content" bit is actually the hard bit. If an artist could define the "game content" bit, he could outsource the programming quite easily.

My main reason for doing the art myself is for the learning/expanding my mind. From a purely fincancial positions, for a single game, I'm sure a $1000 would be a good business decision. But maybe I will do more than 1 game (maybe I'll even finish 1 game).

If I were to partner with an artist, I would think 50/50 split be benefit BOTH parties. Thus is the power of comparitive advantage.

[steve bisson]

i agree the art content is very important ( imagine a new graphic engine demoed with poor graphics ) it would probably not have a good response from the public until someone does something that looks good with it. But only good programming could make it look good.

Its a ying-yang thing for me , the demos scene is a great exemple for that.

as far as prices goes man ! 4 digits for a pacman game hehe , unless its a revolutionary pac man game with really fresh up to date graphics, i dont see how is price could be realistic.

http://www.dakurv.com/lumixed/shot01.jpg
http://www.dakurv.com/lumixed/shot02.jpg
http://www.dakurv.com/lumixed/shot03.jpg

i do complete level designs like those for a lot less than 4 digits ( those have fully animated multi-layer backgrounds with gameplay animations in the foreground ) I can handle the music and sounds too , it prevent employers from the problems related to dealing with a third or fourth person...

But i only use freeware software like the gimp and audacity , maybe those guys have to pay for a whole bunch of softwares they bougth and for office space... i guess its heavily influenced by the artist's expenses and reputation.

If hes a "star" in the business , it can probably justify is price.

I say shop around.

[gpetersz]

"You hand your typical programmer and artist a blank sheet of paper and a pencil and they can both give you 'art' (beauty is in the eye of the beholder)"

Errrrr...... or eeeeekk ? ;)

That's the programmer point of view. Art has its basics like colors, lights, forms, line-weights, composition what you have to LEARN. No programmer without any practice will produce anything acceptable. The programmer will give you exactly the same result as the artist with the PRINT "HELLO" GOTO 10... That programmer's-art will bring the same "complexity".

I am a programmer AND an artist, so I guess I see both sides. (graduated as a programmer, and self-made artist...)

In my opinion the 2 fields should work tightly together to produce the best outcome. There are royalty free model/texture/sprite packs but that won't give you that unique outcome as an artist. There might be softwares like GameMaker or other "4GL" game producing tools, but naturally they won't give you much freedom or that much freedom as a programmer. You can have acceptable result with "programmer-art" or "tool-sourced-code", but the best if a team works on the game in harmony.

About the topic:
What to charge? For example, I got $396 for the art I produced for
two cellphone game. I worked a week on them. Some 100+ sprites, backgrounds and splashscreens. I got $80 for around 60 sprites, I made for a shareware game (main character all animations). I made logos for around $50-$100. Card art for $35-$50 (not to detailed).

Now, if I would price for example Manic Miner : main character, limited animation, left-right run, jump, death, some extra between levels or while not moving (around 30 frames), monsters (30 monsters, 4-8 frames all, around 200 frames), tileset(s) around 100 tiles. Keys, and other elements (20-30 frames, smaller). Additional art (menu, hi-score, splash). I think it would take 2-3 weeks, I would price around $800-1000, maybe less.

Note: I am not after work. :) Nowadays, I don't freelance, it simply doesn't worth it. You can make a living of it, but (contrary to some opinions here) I would like to have heavier influence on the projects with ideas and so.

I hope that helped. :)

[Omega]

A drawer is the same value as a programmer.

But a Creative Director is the same value as a Producer/User Interface Design Engineer (whatever that is.)

In other words, somebody who knows how to mix and match colors and and replicate WHATEVER they want on a canvas, be it a car, or a snowmobile or a bust of a president, is the same as a programmer who understands how to make classes and functions work together and design a system that can support whatever thing they want to. They are equivalent.

But a Creative Director that not only can transform things into art but actually know and direct what the whole game experience should feel like, why you might want to make a zebra have red stripes in your candyland type game instead of black ones, but why not green ones, and how all of the things fit together, even if some thing are not perfectly realistic, to give a cohesive experience to the user that they SEE and HEAR...

............is the equivalent of a Producer of a game who can not only make object 1 go from point A to point B on a screen at 250 fps, but can make it seem to happen with a purpose and give the user the best user interface possible, with the best key-response that the game needs, with the best game mechanics, with explosions that are not too long or too short, with allowing the user to go to the options screen inside the game and change the resolution without having to restart the whole game, saving high scores and having multiple user profiles, all that stuff that makes the game easy to INTERACT with...

then yes, both of those are also the same.

But don't compare an artist to a producer nor a Creative Director to a programmer.

[luggage]

That's the programmer point of view. Art has its basics like colors, lights, forms, line-weights, composition what you have to LEARN. No programmer without any practice will produce anything acceptable. The programmer will give you exactly the same result as the artist with the PRINT "HELLO" GOTO 10... That programmer's-art will bring the same "complexity".Thing is with the programmer's art there will be a game to play. It will, more than likely, look crap but there'll be something to play. Printing "HELLO" all over the screen isn't a game and there's a very very long way to go to get a game from there.

Likewise with music and sfx, anyone can bash something out - it'll be crap but it will be there. But if you have NO knowledge of coding you can't even make a bad game.

Obviously we aren't talking about making a 'quality' game here - for that you'll want people who are excellent at their jobs.

[gpetersz]

Oh man... please!

Declaration: "Yes, a programmer worths twice as much as an artist because he can make crappy looking games." (but what for???)
And the debate is over. ;) (from my side)

[luggage]

Put it this way. If I had to pick one person to make a game all on their own and the choices were...

a) a programmer
b) an artist
c) a musician

I'd pick a programmer.

[gpetersz]

Yes, I'd pick too. ;) May we move on now?

[soniCron]

Put it this way. If I had to pick one person to make a game all on their own and the choices were... I think the fact that you don't need to be a programmer to make a board game speaks volumes about the issue...

[Evak]

I have found that experience is the key to how much you make. The Range of salary depends greatly. I found an artist with 2 years experience will typicaly earn more than a programmer with the same ammount. But as the experience levels and expertise go up the programmers will climb higher faster.

If you get the chance, best to get your foot in both doors and become a game designer that does both art and coding :)

When I do look for work on commercial games, I usualy look for smaller developers that have a clos