How blue should the box be?

#1 Great plan Phil.

Being a contract artist, Id have no problem working and reworking iterations on any project provided I was compensated. Keep in mind, though, im not speaking in purely financial terms. One of my professors in college had a saying from when he was working in the graphic design industry in regards to deciding to take on a client. There are three parts to any job; Money, the project, and the people you're working with. In order for you to take on a job, you need to have at least 2 of those things sitting in a positive space. So if a job doesn't pay that well, but you jive with the people you're working with and you're excited about the project, then take it on. If the money is good and the people are good, but you dont have that much faith in the project, take it on. So on and so forth. You get the idea.

So this comes back to how you mention contract artists needing complete asset lists and the whole nine. No one can deny that that makes a job go faster, and usually that leads to savings for whoever is shelling out the cash. I love having that kind of clarity. But the other side of the coin is that this isn't games we're talking about, it's indie games. If I wanted everything to be that cut and dry, Id move up to montreal and work for EA or something like that. The whole point of an indie movement is creative freedom. With creative freedom comes the responsibility to act on your ideas. I guess the bottom line of my response to all of this is that if an artist doesn't want to get their hands dirty, they probably would be happier catering to a different group of people. Yes, anyone doing this professionally needs to make money, but Id like to think that a lot of people are similar to me in that as long as I have enough to make rent and bills, Im happy (and even excited), to be "paid" with the option of having a greater creative stake in a project.

And sorry for this being longer than I expected. :)

#2 I don't quite agree with you. You seem to almost suggest that all designers are programmers. (I know you don't really believe that, but you could easily get that impression from your text). You should have been more clear about the problem with iteration being contractors in general, and not really artists specifically.

I'm fine (and I'm sure many other contractors are too) taking on a job that would require iteration and prototyping, the problem is how to charge for the work. Obviously charging for completed pieces won't do. If you pay me per hour or per "milestone" or whatever, fine with me.

edit: Adam beat me to it and pretty much said what I wanted to get said... so.. there you go. =)

#3 Good read as always Phil. I like your questions about art asset iterative development compared with iterative programming development. As far as excitement for dev shots of the day, the masses will always be impressed with eye candy and great artwork, and they should; it's human nature. For those professionals who have the job of scouting for the next money maker, they can usually see past the flash, and have at least some insight into the game dynamics, and possibility.

I personally think artwork as an industry can fill the requests of developers, abet at a price, but I believe game programming is still in its infancy, and looking at recent commercial releases, would have to say there is much more room for growth and improvement in program code when compared to art assets, which I think has achieved a reasonable peek considering current technology and art development tools.

#4 Man, ain't that the truth.

I do have some question as to how far the "production quality" bar can really go on casual games before you hit the law of diminishing returns. Particularly because, with art at least, there's often a direct relationship between that and download size. Not that I'm confusing quality with quantity - but it often comes down to better animation, more animation, more variety of imagery, higher-quality art and sound formats, etc.

But one of the biggest challenges for programmers is that with most kinds of games, there are just very few ways to program your way to making your game look better. I get incredibly jealous about how quickly an artist can totally improve the perceived quality of the game compared to what I have to do.

I found a rather... unusual... solution to get access to quality artists myself. But it's a real problem, and I can't think of a more complete solution.

In a perfect world, the jobs of code-creation and content-creation would be fairly equitable and a programmer could write some modular code on spec (part of the mostly-unrealized dream of Object Oriented Programming), an artist could create content on spec, and you could just have a pool of talent on both sides trading equal services to build all of their games. You spend a day working on a model for me, I spend a day creating code for you. We could horse-trade our way to getting both our games done.

Unfortunately, programming usually doesn't work like that. It's rarely so nice and "modular." It usually needs to be tightly integrated with the rest of your system. Like adding a Half-Life 2 style gravity gun. That has some serious integration issues with the rest of your game, and will probably require a fundamental architectural overhaul of the system. For an artist, the gun and special effects can be done in isolation so long as he can duplicate the overall style of the game. It requires an entire physics system working just so. Only in an extremely well-designed game architecture would it be possible to just "plug in" that sort of module.

Another (perceived) problem is that it seems there's a lot more coding-types in the indie games community than artist-types. I don't know if it's a case where there's just less interest to the artists, or if it's a case of the barriers to entry being too high for the arists (programmers can make something, albeit something UGLY, without an artist, but an artist can do very little without a programmer).

#5 Magnus, I'm in no way suggesting that all designers are programmers. Or that artists do not indeed take part in design. I'm speaking of the case in particular where you are a programmer based team and need artwork, only artists are generally not interested in taking part in the project itself, they just want to grind through some list of assets.

I know its very much a generalisation and isnt the case for everyone. But thats my perception based on recent experience.

Now thats not to say I havent had the opposite experience too (eh Magnus). But if you look at the potential artists in the scene, most of the ones posting resume's are looking for freelance contract work, not to join a team.

As I said, it really doesnt matter much to me, as I can pay for the artwork. But it does push the cost of development up initially.

I guess its the price we pay for working in a primarily visual medium.

#6 First off, let me say that this sort of discussion is of great interest to me. Workflow and Production Pipelines are my strength and my obsession, and in my opinion the key to successfully moving forward for every single company or indie working today.

I love discussing it, so I had to dive in.

As an artist, my tongue in cheek response is that I'd have to say that your network of artists may be a little small if all you can find are artists interested in the finished production work. =) Seriously, there are some great points from everyone in here and what I see reading through it is a common thread that what an independent developer needs is more a network of partners / associates / conspirators than just contractors.

I say that because there are many perceptions about skillsets that can complicate planning and executing a project. Let me throw a few out that I wrestle with.

Art is subjective, just about everyone can decide if it's well executed, if they like it and they (usually) have a vocabulary to express that. Deciding if you like it or not, if it's well done, if it's pleasing, etc. can be a matter of a few seconds or minutes of looking at a picture on the web, a print or even just a sketch.

Gameplay and by extension Design, is also subjective, but I would argue it's a little more... refined or specific if you will, in the sense that the experience is tied to doing something. As Phil said, you can't look at it and know if it's what you like, you have to try it and spend some time with it. Often, when people have that chance they still have a hard time putting words to their evaluation. The vocabulary of game design is non-standard and non-evolved in many ways.

Programming. Well, it's more... can I say nebulous and not offend anyone? You have to posess a more specific knowledge about the subject and about game design to properly evaluate it. For example, if an AI seems "bad" or "dumb" is it the programmed code or is it the way it was designed? The two are often separate processes though the end result is a single experience.

With each sucessive example above we begin to see what I consider an inescapable element of crossover between the disiplines. (I didn't begin to cover all of them, I know.) Furthermore, within each one is another level of breakdown that you can - and should - use to more accurately express yourself and to focus in on your game's development.

As an example of that next level of crossover I would offer one balancing between Art and Design. If someone says an interface is "cumbersome" are they expressing a trouble with the flow of selecting / accessing information, the screen layout of items, the artistic appearance or the response time of things? Perhaps all of the above? Who was responsible for each of those things? In your process, who should be? Who offers inuput, and who's the final say?

The answers to these and many questions are more often than not team and situation specific. Working separately and remotely, and with each person watching out for their own livelihood, the questions get harder and people want more specific answers than we may be able to give. The separate and remote part of the equation only serves to make it a little more difficult to do.

For myself, it often comes down to trust and understanding between myself and the people I collaborate with. Trust and understanding of what? Life, the Universe and Everything of course. Seriously though, I can't even speculate on that part of the dynamic at this point - it's different for everyone. For me, I prioritize around family, health, church, work and everything else falls somewhere below that. Fortunately, my partner in crime has similar values and we do what we can when we can. If it were only about our indie game we'd be long since finished. But that's not how life should go. In my opinion anyway - because it's all subjective. ;)

And lastly, since this is quite long already, I'll end here skip my thoughts on how far is too far for art these days. Unless someone wants to hear it, then I might write an actual blog. O_o

Oh, and what sort of art are you after, Phil? If you promise to finish Air Aces so I don't have to buy Blazing Angels I might be able to help you out. Awww, I'm just kidding about that part, but if you really can't find anyone, drop me a line and we can see if it's something I could do a decent job of.

Thanks to everyone for a great discussion!

#7 As I hinted at in my last post Phil, I did understand what you meant. Just that it came off as slightly odd in your text.

I'm not entirely sure I understand exactly what you mean with "don't want to join a team" though. You mean they won't work for free? Would YOU "join a team" (for free)? I'm thinking not. =)

My point is in either case; I hate the "we and them" mentality between "programmers and artists". We are game developers, nothing more, nothing less.

#8 Magnus: yes, I would join a team for free.. you think I'm getting paid?

But thats not the point. The point is that from my own point of view, the world is pretty well catered for with freelance artists (i.e. artists who are not "on the team"), compared to artists who are actively involved in the design and development of a title (and yes, takes on the risk of the title like everyone else involved).

It seems far far easier to find someone to do art under contract and pay them for it, than find guys who will see a project through as a speculative thing (which is what I'm doing and I'm sure a lot of others are too). I guess I'm just griping at the idea that its always the artists who say "yes I'll do that if you pay me XX" and not the programmers. But yes, I agree, its not really a "them and us" kind of thing.

I guess maybe some of this is a throwback to artists training in some way. That artists are indoctrinated into the concept of doing art as work for hire rather than as a team member. Nothing wrong with asking to get paid, but if nobody is, why is an artist special?

But your not what I'm talking about magnus, I'm talking in general terms. There seems to be a bit of a strange disjoint between artist led teams (I'm thinking something like Alien Homenid where obviously the art is the key differentiation) and programmer led teams. I guess programmers tend to go for games which involve a lot of programming and not much actual artwork (well, if theyre bright they will).

I dont mind so much doing it, I just find it a bit strange. For instance we're buying in the artwork for Air Ace when we'd much prefer to have a good artist as part of our team, so we can have a long term relationship and they can lead the visual aspects of it. But thats not happening, so we pay up and thats it. I can imagine things would be very strange if it were the other way round (artist wants to make a game, programmers say "ok, pay up"). It could happen very shortly for us, so I'm interested to see if the reverse holds true too.

#9 Don: I'm always interested to read about people's notion of thier production pipeline, at the very least to affirm my own methods, but if not, it can inform new ideas.

I love reading Joe's blog entries because I know that he thinks about this kind of thing and has a lot to say (which luckily is usually pretty solid stuff too :))

I'm definitely getting far more mature in these terms since I started working with Thomas, because I've been able to step back and realize that our development is more about enjoying the process than it is about sweating the failures or imagining some shiny goals. We do care about those things, but I think we've both gained a very clear view of the possibilities and challenges we face.

I think as it happens, this year has gone pretty well for us. Perhaps things are moving along as quickly as we like and we've had our fair share of ups and downs, but you know what? it doesnt matter anymore. The goal is now to simply complete on what we start, enjoy the process and hopefully learn for next time, not worry about marketing or the end point.

Of course, the other thing we've learnt is to do some 2D stuff and not require artists for most of it either :)

But hey, you cant make an omlette :)

#10 Jay: Well, I think Wik will show you how high the bar can go.. That had a massive budget. But I think to be honest the money wasnt the best spent. The actual play mechanic was ok, but not compelling enough to really convert me to pay it.

I seriously doubt they've made a profit on that title. But I've no stats to prove it.

We're definitely moving in a certain direction with casual titles though and I'm willing to bet that the bar is going to keep going for a while yet.

I imagine it will come down to a time when casual games are looking like the RTS games of today (Age of whateveritis). Perhaps vista will see that happen (requiring a certain level of shader compliance).

I'm not so bothered though, this game I've got in mind doesnt require a lot of art, it requires a small amount in a specific style.

#11 (sorry for arguing with you by the way Phil, but I'm sure you're fine with it. You posted this for a reason I'm assuming....)

Quote:yes, I would join a team for free.. you think I'm getting paid?

well... you do work on YOUR project(s) after all... would you give that up and start working on someone elses thing? But anyway, as you said yourself, these things probably weren't meant to be about neither you nor me. =)

Of course it's easier to find someone (someone who know what they're doing that is) if you pay them, that's just basic logic... I'm probably just simply failing to see your point. (alternatively; You're not explaining it well enough). It goes for both programmers and artists and anything in between. I can't at all agree with the "indoctrination" part either, if anything we're thought to be "starving artists" =). I like to eat... so I made this my job. I don't have a cushy teaching job to fall back on you know... hehe.

The reverse is just as true as your situation in my experience anyway. There are a ton of contract programmers around. I've worked for several clients who themselves knew next to nothing about making games but had some cash and could afford to hire more or less a whole team of contractors for example... Artists as well as programmers.

#12 I'm going to rant a little bit. =)

@Phil: I think you're getting a little hung up on the money aspect - you keep coming back to it at any rate. I stand by one of my first comments: Your network may be a little small if every artist you know insists on being paid.

For game development in the current manner we're talking about the number one thing is finding like minded people. Then you can begin to sort out money - if you need to at all.

In my experience, Programmers *do* have an edge in the process. Unless I'm a better programmer, I can't argue with you when you say soemthing can't be done. On the other side of it, though, you can beat me up all day long about the art because it's a visual medium. To be crass - you have an 'out' and I don't.

I'll also take a paragraph to disagree with the notion that game programming is only starting to mature. Hogwash. It's the oldest element of the game development process! It's what everything else is built on! Frankly, the current amazing achievements in programming are what's driving the currnet insane standard of art. (That and marketing / design / other numbskulls insisting that million polygon characters, bloom lighting, real time shadowing, abnormal whoosie-fats texturing are must have features.)

You also have the benefit of being able to implement your ideas - bad art still works, but bad code doesn't. If I don't have a ready made tool at my disposal or have the spare cash and inclination to buy one, I'm stopped dead in my tracks. Also, the programmer is the one who implements the gameplay elements that have been designed, not to mention any special art features. AND, because the programmer is the one doing it - remember unless I'm a better programmer I can't argue - it will get done their way should they decide to behave in that manner. (I've experienced that in a AAA studio before, so it's not speculation.)

Your "lesson learned" really backs up my point, too - you couldn't get what you wanted out of an artist so instead of looking further afield or collaborating, you just figured out how to cut them out of the picture. Hey, thanks man, I'll be happy to work on a team for free now that I've got food stamps and the plasma clinic knows me by name. X_x

All of this comes from making games at major studios and pursuing independent projects - the indie ones having failed because the programmers always wound up deciding the rest of the team was 1) not working as hard as they were or 2) Not as serious as they were or 3) both 1 and 2.

So, end of rant and the unhealthy attitude.

But does that help you to see things from a different angle?

I have very real programming needs for TGB but no idea of how to get them done. What does that tell me? I need to expand my network of people. What method am I likely to take when talking to programmers? Work for trade.

#13 Magnus: Well, see, I think thats where I'm differing with you. I would *definitely* work on someone else's project. Because when I work with someone, I want them to buy into what theyre doing the same way as me. So its not about "my" project, or "your" project, its about "our" project.

I guess I'm being biased a lot here, because I'm talking about this from a programmers perspective. But I think its a reasonbly common perspective anyway (just ask Thomas and by the sound of it Jay B too).

What I suppose I'm trying to say, is that I'm sad that I dont see the team aspect of many projects coming through much. Maybe its just because I'm exposed to more of the artist-as-contractor people, or maybe, just maybe, its actually like that.

I did and do love working with other people and to have a real team, I think it requires an artist too.

Don: To be fair, I kinda like having that ultimate programming power to do stuff the way we like. But not in a sort of power-hungry way. Just to throw light on why, one time at Team17 during the development of Worms 3D, we were working on the worm control. Our designers had given us a design and amongst the team most of us disagreed with it (I mean most of the artists and programmers who were dealing with the characters). So after lots of arguing, one of the guys on the team stayed in over a weekend and just did what WE had envisioned. Long story short, it ended up that way in the game because the designers couldnt defend the other lesser way of moving.

Having the power to just try something and prove it by actually seeing it in action is a very powerful position. But thats kind of a different discussion :)

As for being stuck on money, I was really just trying to point out that for many people, the basis to work on a project is the money, which for indies is a bit of a bad starting point, because the likelyhood of actually making enough to cover costs is a big risk, what youre doing is asking one party to accept all of the risk, which is why I have a team mentality, in that we all put in equal risk and reward.

Don: Youre stuck for TGB programmers? I'm surprised, there seem to be plenty around here. I'm always up for interesting projects, but right now we're desperate to ship Air Ace and have more ideas bouncing around than either of us knows what to do with. But I'd love to hear your idea if you care to share.

Anyway, I dont think we disagree amongst us, so much as have different views of the same situation. I do have to wonder how placeholder graphics are allowed to be.

#14 @Phil

Quote:Don: Youre stuck for TGB programmers? I'm surprised, there seem to be plenty around here.

Where are the TGB programmers around here that are available? I think it would be nice to know who they are. Maybe you could list some of them that you know about here? I know I'd like to know.

I'm curious... is it just me or does it seem like coders have a lot more unknowns than artists when making games. I mean, I know that art is a give and take process, but the skills to make game art content aren't exactly something being invented while the content is being developed. Whereas coders seem to have to spend huge chunks of the development inventing how to get what they want. Look at Torque and TGB and TSE for example. I don't see any coders using Torque the way it is. Development with TGB and TSE have been with alpha or beta versions for the last year. Everyone is always trying to get the engines to do something different or more. Maybe that's the nature of being a game coder... I think it probably is. No answers here, just curious thoughts.

#15 You know what this conversation really needs? Comfy chairs and drinks! I keep wandering in from my house chores to see if anyone has responded yet - great, great conversation(s)!

Anton: That's a very interesting obsevation. Even in a game engine that's been used several times there seems to always be work at the core level still to be done. It doesn't surprise me so much from the GG engines, as I've always condiered them solid foundations and not 'all things to all people' solutions. (Although there are so many resources for TGE now it's getting real close to 'all things'.)

For myself, it's always come down to wanting different or better tools for the art pipeline over wanting new features, but my philosophy has always been about getting the job done efficiently first rather than making the job bigger before it's even under control to start with. That sort of starts in on personal preference though, and I've had many a discussion with other artists about it.

Phil: I agree that we're all coming down to some of the same issues, and it's always great to get to discuss those different perspectives.

I've wondered the same thing as well - if all the art is placeholder and it's all consistent, is it still placeholder or has it become the game's style? Hmmmm... =)

#16 This is great stuff...what I think this conversation *really* needs is a couple of hours in a bar somewhere in Eugene on one of the nights during IGC'06.

#17 Well, I'm happy to sit and chat with anyone during IGC, we dont usually get enough chance to actually sit and chat about development in general.

I'll likely be in town for a few days either side of the event though, so if anyone is wanting to have a real chat in a quiet place, then I'm sure Thomas and I wouldnt mind joining in (dunno how long Thomas is going to take there).

I doubt I'll be showing off my little game idea by IGC time, I'm just too busy with some legal work for it to happen, but you never know. It woudnt take much to prototype it in TGB at least enough to show Jeff/Joe.

I dont know, I'm a bit skeptical about showing this idea off in public, until its 100% complete. Maybe just paranoia on my part, but I'm not trusting those portal guys.

Need to get a little character running around a mockup level though, that should be fun to do.

#18 Wow so much text, these are probably the longest posts on GG

#19 I think it would be great to have an informal meeting to discuss topics of interest. I haven't been to IGC before, so I don't know if GG usually plans any official meetings or events during the evening hours, but perhaps it could be posted as an informal get-together at a particular establishment of interest.

I'm really interested in this topic as well, as I have been addressing similar issues with my project. I'm not sure why, but I just find it fascinating as I try to build a team. In my brief experience doing this I've seen both sides of this discussion.

#20 Sure. why not. I'll probably be around Eugene a couple of days after IGC if anyone want to discuss things over a brew. =)