Few artists, big impact

If you examine the credits for your favourite games, you'll notice that the bulk of people contributing are related to graphics and programming. Is this because those parts of game development are inherently large tasks to solve? Contrast this with the musician, a one-man army where no task seems insurmountable.

My questions are:

Is graphics and programming inherently a large team effort considering todays standards?

Do you know of a select few artists working in small teams who defied these apparent obstacles?

Depends on your standards I would suppose. Many indies only have a few (if that) artists. Some games can be very successful with only a few artists.

Dungeons of Dredmore had only a few I believe. One before David and I'm not sure if he had any other help on the project. If so it can't be many.

Jay's Frayed knights has had some licensed work, some done by him and some commissioned by freelance artists.

IIRC I asked Vic Davis who did his art and I believe he told me that his sister or brother did the art for Armageddon Empires. I'm not 100% on that though.

So to answer your question I think it's yes. David being the prime example of that.

If you want both artist and programming then Jay's your best example. He managed to program the game while getting the art any way he could.

I saw the review of a book regarding "making games" in a computing magazine this weekend.

As far s I saw it, it contained *nothing* about artists.

It's as if people would believe that programming a shooter with no story (like Unreal PvP or so) is all one needs (to do).

I might be biased, but I get the impression that artists who are working on games don't quite get the credits they deserve. And if, then they are most likely graphics artists. No story needed !
The emphasis is clearly on programmers etc. nowadays.

Outside of making software, graphics artists are almost like pop stars in computing nowadays. Not the stars nerds like to see, but stars the (more or less) masses like to see.

At the Games Com I saw a small exhition of "art of games" or how it was called. It was an exhibition of paintings of gam graphics artists.

I thought : "why doesn't there exist such an exhibition for word artists ?"

And - there doesn't exist a thing like "Deviant Art" for word artists either.

There are imho biases of several kinds - sorry that I'm hijacking this thread again.

skavenhorde said:

Depends on your standards I would suppose. Many indies only have a few (if that) artists. Some games can be very successful with only a few artists.

Click to expand...

Just to clarify, I didn't necessarily mean jack of all trades, but small groups of artists (of 5-10 people in total) who can compete with medium-large productions in terms of output/quality, where the lower end of a medium-large production might be akin to Piranha Bytes or Runic Games (25-50 people).

Same quality as PB with 5 - 10 people? Guess it could be possible if they stopped having lives and started living at work. Other than that I would say no, but I know as much about the actual creation of art assets as any other armchair developer.

I'll shut up now and let a real artist answer this question.

For a modern 3d game. You need a small army of artists. I'd say you need more artists than programmers.

The reason for this is, you need to create a high-poly 3d model, a low poly 3d model, normal maps, specular maps, alpha-maps, textures, LOD, and so on. For skeletal assets you also need to create the realistic animations, bounds and so on. The more powerful hardware gets the more time it takes.

An artist is also needed to design the lighting and so on for every in game level.

GothicGothicness said:

For a modern 3d game. You need a small army of artists. I'd say you need more artists than programmers.

The reason for this is, you need to create a high-poly 3d model, a low poly 3d model, normal maps, specular maps, alpha-maps, textures, LOD, and so on. For skeletal assets you also need to create the realistic animations, bounds and so on. The more powerful hardware gets the more time it takes.

An artist is also needed to design the lighting and so on for every in game level.

Click to expand...

Very true. Most of the people I know of in the gaming industry these days are artists, and you only need to look at the constant demand for graphic wonderness as the most important feature to see why. Of course, my university had a good computer graphics department, so that skews things slightly.

Well, since the AAA industry has become primarily about "experience-driven" games, the art workload has increased to ridiculous levels.

Personally, I think it's a huge waste of time and effort, but it seems most people are happy with games that mostly play themselves whilst showering you with the spectacle.

The teams get much bigger, which means less creative integrity as a consistent and unified vision is all but impossible to maintain - and the budgets are so bloated that you can't take chances with the design.

To me, it's nothing but bad.

DArtagnan said:

Well, since the AAA industry has become primarily about "experience-driven" games, the art workload has increased to ridiculous levels.

Personally, I think it's a huge waste of time and effort, but it seems most people are happy with games that mostly play themselves whilst showering you with the spectacle.

The teams get much bigger, which means less creative integrity as a consistent and unified vision is all but impossible to maintain - and the budgets are so bloated that you can't take chances with the design.

To me, it's nothing but bad.

Click to expand...

Well, that's what happens when you put marketing teams who don't understand games in charge of game design. They ignore those who do understand games and try to turn them into other forms of media they do understand (ie, films). And that's (possibly) going to drive the mainstream industry into ruin, which will probably be a good thing. The big boys will go away, leaving room for smaller developers to emerge from their little niches and rebuild.

Menigal said:

Well, that's what happens when you put marketing teams who don't understand games in charge of game design. They ignore those who do understand games and try to turn them into other forms of media they do understand (ie, films). And that's (possibly) going to drive the mainstream industry into ruin, which will probably be a good thing. The big boys will go away, leaving room for smaller developers to emerge from their little niches and rebuild.

Click to expand...

Well, the problem isn't just the people making and marketing the games - but the audience who wants to play them.

I don't think we can really blame anyone, and I don't feel entitled to games that work differently.

Obviously, the businessmen have taken over - and the audience accepts it.

All I can do is feel sad that I'm no longer the target audience.

Thankfully, the middle-market is opening up - and on top we have games like Deus Ex - Human Revolution showing us that AAA games don't have to be all about the spectacle.

But it's going to be some years until the mainstream audience starts to expect more depth and complexity. For now, it seems, they're happy with the spectacle.

Also, it seems that while we have to accept casual difficulty levels and simplified features - some of the big boys still want to hold true to some of the genre staples. Games like Skyrim and Kingdoms of Amalur seem to have enough "good stuff" for gamers like me.

Oh, I won't get the gameplay I want - but at least I'll get huge open worlds full of stuff to explore. That kind of thing was always very rare, and I'm glad that SOME things are improved from the past.

Today, we get games that actually work and that still retain a very ambitious scope - even if we don't have to be awake to actually play them.

It's not quite so bad as I made it sound

It doesn't always have to be an army. L. of Grimrock shows that a small team of pro artists can create a - by modern standards- appealing looking game by limiting themselves on the environments and environmental interaction (- although we will see how good a game it is until released). Games with stylized graphics, like Winter voices, world of Goo, or Limbo also show that strong art direction can still carry a game, even without technically frontline graphics enginges.

Finally, the easily available engines, tools, art repositories etc. get better and better, allowing faster creation of assets - at least if you can make do without the latest and greatest, shader and mapping bling.

But if you want to compete in the "best Gfx" department, then yes, you need those huge teams.

I don't mind things being a bit simplified, as long as there's enough fun left in the game. Like you, I think Skyrim's going to have enough good bits to balance out the "streamlining", and the modders will work their magic to fix any glaring issues.

As for the audience being part of the problem, how many of them simply don't know any better? Let's face it, most people who call themselves gamers now probably wouldn't have, say, 10 years ago. They were eased into it by games that a lot of us older gamers already thought felt outdated, overly consolised, and relied far too heavily on graphics (generalising massively here, of course, so don't take this as an attack on younger gamers), but were normal to them. That's what they're used to, and, as you say, that's the market the big developers cater to.

Anyway, getting slightly off topic here. Yes, graphics/animation take up a huge percentage of the development budget that would probably be better spent on gameplay.

Menigal said:

As for the audience being part of the problem, how many of them simply don't know any better? Let's face it, most people who call themselves gamers now probably wouldn't have, say, 10 years ago. They were eased into it by games that a lot of us older gamers already thought felt outdated, overly consolised, and relied far too heavily on graphics (generalising massively here, of course, so don't take this as an attack on younger gamers), but were normal to them. That's what they're used to, and, as you say, that's the market the big developers cater to.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's true.

But it's like everything else you can spend your time with.

You know, like I enjoy a good glass of wine - but I don't really give a shit about the "finer" points of where it was made or what the history of it is.

A wine "conneseur" would bash me over the head, because I drink cheap crappy wine.

Then he could spend several hours educating me about the grapes and the "flavor" or whatever, and he'd probably be right. But it's an acquired taste - and a lot of people will never care about such things.

That's how I tend to look at gaming. We can't expect the "uneducated" to ever care, and there's no "right" way to play or make games.

I can but hope that there is such a thing as an objective quantification of quality in games, and that more and more people will eventually agree with that.

If so, then the mainstream audience should, some day, make sure that game designs actually evolve - rather than constantly orbit the ancient formulas that we're still seeing after all these years. It seems to me that we stopped evolving the actual designs - and instead started refining and polishing them up until only the bare bones of them is left. Then we added a shit-ton of "spectacle" - and that's what most AAA games are today.

Hey, you'll never catch me bashing cheap wine!

This makes me think about Spore, and what could have happened if it had been a success. Regardless of how shallow, bad, and just mistaken the game itself was (make anything you can imagine… and play through this dull, linear campaign with bizarre "balance" restrictions in the final, real sandbox stage!), you have to admit it showed off what can be done with procedural animation.

Menigal said:

Hey, you'll never catch me bashing cheap wine!

This makes me think about Spore, and what could have happened if it had been a success. Regardless of how shallow, bad, and just mistaken the game itself was (make anything you can imagine… and play through this dull, linear campaign with bizarre "balance" restrictions in the final, real sandbox stage!), you have to admit it showed off what can be done with procedural animation.

Click to expand...

Spore was an interesting experiment, but like most Maxis games - it wasn't really a "game".

I feel the same way about what Molyneux tries to do. They're making toys that do interesting stuff, but they're not making cohesive games.

I'm all for interesting experiments, but I knew that Spore wouldn't be for me way before release.

From my point of view, we already have a very good understanding of what gameplay is - and what is required for entertainment. Certainly, that's what I tell myself.

I'd much rather we evolved what we know than try to desperately come up with "new" stuff.

Much like movies and books, there are only so many stories at the core - and it's much more about trying to tell the same story in new ways, than trying to come up with something unique. For games, I think it's about taking established game design paradigms - and then taking them further. That's what I would do, if I was in a position to do so.

When I think about "peak" designs like, say, System Shock, X-Com, or Master of Magic - I have wonder why developers haven't tried to evolve them.

Oh, we've seen a zillion clones or inspirations - but nothing to actually bring those designs forward.

Even the most popular genres, like shooters or MMOs - seem to revolve around taking established stuff from other genres and implementing it in otherwise archaic designs.

It's as if high profile developers are oblivious to what game design is and how to go beyond what was before.

Maybe they just don't care.

DArtagnan said:

Maybe they just don't care.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think that's a big part of it. Oh, not at the individual level, but with the project team as a whole, with all of the various restrictions, deadlines, demands from executives who've never played a game in their lives, etc. From what you hear from the people in the industry, it sounds like it just sucks the soul out of everything.

There's also the problem of "updating" gameplay in sequels/remakes/spiritual successors in ways it doesn't need. Someone decides that the old game, despite still being played and loved, needs to be "fixed" for modern gamers. Done right, this could improve things, but more often you get the addition of weird minigames or more "gamey" elements in general.

Dungeons comes to mind here. They could have just taken Dungeon Keeper, modernised the graphics, thrown in a few little tweaks, and had a game that old fans would have loved. Instead of making it a simulation game, with creatures to take care of, etc., it's a strange sort of… amusement park in a dungeon game? This one probably wouldn't have been so jarring if they hadn't gone for such a clear "look at this, it's like DK!" approach. A lot of that's the media, of course.

I had a couple more examples when I started writing this, but I've forgotten them now.

Any thoughts on Frictional Games' Amnesia which is upward 15 people (and even fewer for Penumbra)?

DArtagnan said:

Well, the problem isn't just the people making and marketing the games - but the audience who wants to play them.

Click to expand...

Well I don't think it's the audience per say as much as it's the companies. Years ago software companies were happy to cater to niche or genre audiences and many became known for doing a particular genre especially well.

Companies aren't happy with that anymore. They have to cast the widest possible net in terms of audience and so everything gets watered down to the lowest common denominator as games try to be all things to all people. The huge budgets necessitate this, but the problem is that companies don't get that bigger does not always mean better and that you can make a profit on a niche game with a much smaller budget and team if done well.

On the other hand, indie's are experiencing a resurgence thanks to digital downloads. These are games that you wouldn't see in the brick and mortar stores next to the big titles but now you do see on the front page of the digital download stores. Just pray that EA doesn't get their way and fragment the digital download market forcing everyone to buy straight from the publisher.

There's also the casual and mobile gaming trend that even if it isn't your thing is definite proof that you don't need to throw a ton of money and have 100 people working on a project for it to sell.

I definitely think we're in a big transition period for gaming. Hopefully there is some good to come out of it. I'd like to see more successful smaller companies and groups that are happy with their size and don't need to be swallowed up by the likes of EA.

Please don't forget adventure games !

Those need - in the current state - only a relatively small team - are sometimes even in 2D (Full Pipe, for example) and can thus be made by a relatively small team.

But on the other hand, they need - as far as I can see it - *very* good writers, because that'd be their (the games) strength, then.

It's part of the genre : It doesn't need great graphics to succeed. It needs a good story.

And that makes me wonder why exactly adventure games are so few internationally ? doesn't the public want good stories - or the "industry" ? Or both ?

Even LucasArts is doing rather shooters and remakes instead of good, story-based games nowadays - and that says a lot (imho) !

And that makes me wonder why exactly adventure games are so few internationally ? doesn't the public want good stories - or the "industry" ? Or both ?

Click to expand...

Basically, the audience willing to invest the mental resources required to succeed in an adventure game - is too small for the AAA market.