Hello there,

The first computer game was created by a computer programmer and it likely didnt demand much artistic skills. As games get more and more complicated and with audience wanting more and more is the balance tilting in favour of the artists? Are programmers now slaves implementing ideas of the game designers and the artists? Can a programmer ever be a good game designer too? Do be a good designer do you need to know art skills like drawing/painting?

This is a funny topic to me. I've frequented gamedev.net for at least 3-4 years now. It's amazing to see the artists / designers come on there and say, "I have a sweet game and I need an experienced C++ programmer to make it". These people are usually laughed out of town and told that they are lucky if a programmer will "allow" them to be part of the game they are creating.

In the last 6 months or so I’ve been frequenting another message board that is devoted to pixel art. There are some very talented pixel artists there and the number of programmers posting there has been increasing. Programmers typically post "I’m making such and such a game and I need someone to make me 5 characters with animations in 8 directions and all my background tiles", oddly enough these programmers get laughed out of town. The artists tell them that they better have a good track record of finishing games, or a near completed game that needs an art update before they will consider working on it.

I then look at my own experience with Rainfall Studios. It started with me trying to make the game I envisioned, me doing programming, art, design etc. I approached a friend of mine about helping out with the art and to have someone to bounce design ideas off of. Eventually he found another friend to take over the art and moved onto a full designer roll (as well as maintaining the website). It was very difficult for me to release my control of areas of the game. It was no longer just me and my vision I had to share other peoples visions as well. There were some rough times where I was still trying to control other peoples areas but eventually we got it all worked out, and the project is a lot better because of it.

It's natural for most programmers to think they are the be-all and end-all of the game development spectrum. Who needs designers when you are perfectly capable of coming up with game play design, and artists... well you can just pay for art.. no big deal. After going to this years IGC and meeting with game designers and artists who have industry experience, let me be the first to say that they have a whole skill set that I know next to nothing about. It's true your probably better off without the wanna-be designer from gamedev.net but If you can find a real designer with experience and the dedication to do the research and spend the time thinking through the design your project will be the better for it. You can pay for art sure, but it's not going to be as good as art from an artist who works with you week to week through the entire project.

Personally I've gone from thinking that me the programmer/artist/designer creating the games I want to make is not as viable as I thought it would be and I’m not as talented as I gave myself credit for. To create a well-rounded game you need multiple perspectives and multiple skill sets. I think you can go-it-alone but it's not going to be as good as doing it with a team and sacrificing your own ego a little along the way.

In the retail industry, designers and arists are rarely if ever in "control" of the project. Typically the person really in control is the producer. In some really good cases, the producer and designer work very closely together, or the designer and the lead programmer.

I started off as a programmer (not in games), and moved to design -- first UI and interactivity design, then game design. To me, these two skill sets are in many ways antithetical: to be an effective programmer I need to think very clearly about both the overall architecture (class structure, etc.) and about the interactions of individual variables, routines, algorithms, member functions, etc. This is extremely linear and analytic.

As a designer, I need to be much more synthetic -- synthesizing a whole out of seemingly unconnected parts. The technical solution for how something actually gets done is crucial, but it must take a backseat to doing the right thing for the game. If you focus too heavily on the technology first, your gameplay will inevitably feel more like working a spreadsheet than like a game.

What amazes me is that most people readily accept that writing C++ code requires a great deal of skill, as does effective pixel or 3D art creation, and the producer's job of herding cats isn't an easy one -- but many people (and I'm talking big industry execs here) think that pretty much anyone can be a game designer. After all, what's so hard about it? IMO, this is one of the biggest causes of the amazing amounts of crap games that are spewed on to the market today.

After having tried lots and lots of different configurations, my preferred way of working is to have a designer-producer in one person, with a programmer working with/for him or her. Or a designer as the senior person with the producer reporting directly to him or her, and the technical and art leads reporting to the producer. Alternatively, a triumvirate of highly experienced design lead, technical lead, and art lead, with the producer in the background just making sure things don't fly out of control.

Any of these will work really well. Having the programmer or artist in charge can work, but it makes for a bloody mess at one point or another in most cases. And having the producer in charge typically results in having the producer morph into the designer. Which isn't good.

Mike, that's a great explanation of the almost schizophrenic nature of being a designer/programmer in one.

Well for starters, A programmer can certainly be a good game designer. A submarine technition could be a good game designer. There is rule that makes these abilities mutually exclusive.

The programmer doesn't have to be the designer though. There does need to be a high degree of communication between Programmer and designer though. Computers are not nearly powerful enough for people to design any old thing. A game designer has to be aware of what is possible.

Another issue is that people who think that they are good game designers are a dime a dozen. Some of them actually are, but I see a lot of people tell me their ideas for games that are awful. A lot of people come up with feature lists from the point of view of 'This can be a bullet point on the box.', Rather than how this would enrich the playing experience.

Then there is the thing of how long it takes to make a game. It takes longer to make a game than it takes to come up with an idea. This means there is always a surplus of game ideas.

As Dan mentioned game designers on gamedev and programmers on pixel art boards, There are a surplus of desingers who want a huge commitment from programmers and there are a suplus of game programmers who want artwork. Game programmers who finish games, however are a minor rarity compared to those who start games.

The only really important thjis is that there should be someone at the helm. It doesn't matter what other roles they perform on top of game design, and it doesn't matter (in fact it usualy helps) if they take others idears on board. As long as one person makes the final descision as to what the game will be and how it will play. Lack of a single vision has damaged countless games in the past.

For the record, I'm a programmer and I think I'm a good designer (I might be one of the deluded ones), Of all of the game ideas I have been pelted with there are only two that have made me think were really good new ideas. Interestingly, I'll never make those games because those ideas came from two other programmers (although one of those programmers is the artist for Fitznik). A also know one person who is an exellent game desinger who wants to explore his ideas so is teaching himself programming.

Originally posted by Lerc
That which does not kill us has made it's last mistake

Lerc, I love that quote, I find myself repeating it out loud every now and then and chuckling to myself.

I thought I'd describe how we work things at Rainfall Studios. It works this way because it's the only way we could make it work without getting too emotional and stepping on each others toes all the time. We have three members, the code monkey (me), the designer (Morgan), and the artist (Josh).

It was a big mess when we started working together, we are all local so we have weekly face to face meetings which is perhaps the only reason we worked everything out. It's much easier to argue about stuff face to face and not "quit the team" because you don’t like how you’re being treated, there's also more impetus to find common ground when your talking in someone's living room.

When it comes to technical implementation I have complete control, I say how things will be implemented and how long it will take me to implement them.

Same goes for design, Morgan and I will get into a long debate on how to implement the "save" feature in the game, but when it comes down to it, even if he doesn't convince me of seeing it his way I’m still going to implement it the way he specifies.

Josh has the last word on all things art. When he came on the project we told him basically what we wanted, bright colors, cartoony style and that was about it. After that he makes the call on all things art. We all contribute tiles and sprites and we have been working hard on standardizing the look and feel for the art so that it looks as if one person has done all the artwork.

So while we have three people in control it works on a number of levels. First it takes a lot of weight off my shoulders. If was in control of all the areas I would be responsible if Morgan told me my save scheme was idiotic and I implemented it anyway and we got bad feedback from our customers (yes that's why we are going to play test). The same thing goes for art, when we distribute the responsibility everyone feels like they "Own" their area and they are responsible for it. We all share the risk in spending time developing what may or may not be a commercially successful game.

There are some caveats though, this system only works if you can really trust the other individuals. If I had pulled some 13 year old game designer off gamedev.net and gave him that responsibility it wouldn't work. I have to be able to trust my designer to a point where I will implement something that I don’t really agree with because I trust his judgment. Same goes for art. I don't know that that level of trust can be achieved in a virtual team unless people have known each other in real life prior to working as a virtual team.

I see the time and effort Morgan pours into studying puzzle games, buying countless books on Japan, refining the object system. He honestly puts in about as many hours as I do programming. When i see that I can trust his insight enough to actually out weight my own reasoning.

I guess this harkens back to lerc's point. Someone has to be in control. I would add that I think they don’t need to control everything just their own area. I suppose the market will prove me wrong or right when the time comes ;)

The trick is how do you find someone who you are confident will design a good game? In addition to that they have to be willing to work with you. I personally don't know anyone who could do this. I have more confidense in myself as far as design goes, even if it means a lot more work for me. Though I definitely agree, doing the work of a producer, designer, and programmer is exhausting. I did a little of that at one point. If you're working with 2 or more other people, and you want to be a programmer and designer, you definitely need someone to fill the role of the producer.

[Edit] About virtual teams: whether or not they work depends on many factors. I for instance have been working very successfully with a programmer (both of us are programmers) I never met, for years now. Though I do know him for 4-5 years now, but only through AIM.

Originally posted by jaggu
Who is in the driving seat? Artist or Programmer?
Are programmers now slaves implementing ideas of the game designers and the artists? Can a programmer ever be a good game designer too? To be a good designer do you need to know art skills like drawing/painting?

Considering all the factors, there are many correct answers to your questions. Anyone could be a good game designer. However, to be an artist, programmer, level designer etc. that is also the main designer of a team project, you need to be the one that has the clearest vision of the game, you have to have excellent communication skills so your teamates can see it, be able to listen, and among other things, you have to make important design decisions that keep the game on track and in focus.

Being the designer is the most coveted position in gaming, so the more talent you can provide, the better off you are. To be a good designer it certainly helps if you have some skills from any of the other disciplines. It can really help to inspire your team.

For our first project I was originally asked to just be the composer. Eventually I became the lead level designer, composer, did sound effects and made some good judgement calls that got us where we are today. Now my teamates really trust me. For our next game release I wrote a comprehensive document detailing an entirely new game and they liked it, but when I sent them a concept screenshot and "end of level" jingle for the game they believed in it even more. One way to get where you want to go is to push yourself and stretch out into every area you possibly can.

Thanks Dan, your explanation cleared up a lot of confusion that had been floating around my head for a while now. I'm in the same boat you started in; it's just me at this point, trying to do all of it.

I guess that because I have a strong interest in design and storytelling, I would be hesitant to hand off all of the design duties to someone else. But I look at the number of hours that I spend coding, and if someone were willing to put in that kind of effort on the design, that it would probably be better than what I could do. At the very least, it would be faster.

To answer the original question: a fun game with crappy art is still a fun game. A boring game with beautiful art is still a boring game. Good art adds nearly incalculable value to a game, but at the end, it's still a game.

On the relative positions of programming, design, and art in a game, I once asked a producer who was trying to get me to say which was least important: "Look, design is the skeleton; it provides structure. programming is the muscles; it puts the skeleton in motion. Art is the skin; it keeps all the rest together and from being a bloody mess. Which one of those would you want to go without?"

I think the problem with a lot of game designers is that they don't really have the skills to back up their ideas. They attach too much importance to an idea and not enough to hard work. I acknoledge that good design is a skill, but how many people are good pure designers? A good programmer can spend 10-20 years developing his skill. The designer has to match that with some muscle of his own to be taken seriously, otherwise the programmer is inclined to just work on his own idea.

I pretty much agree with that. My very first attempt at a real game was with a guy who wanted to do all the design. He offered to do some programming, but I would have had to teach him, which sort of defeated the purpose. I would work for hours on a piece of the game (it was a side scroller, back in the day) and he'd jot down a plot idea or monster description in his notebook, in about five minutes of work, and think that it was Holy Writ from the Sacred Mountain. It was such a lame arrangement that I finally had to boot him out. Which is too bad, because I lost a friend.

I have never put that much stock in a stand-alone game designer. I know that position is out there, and I know that there are people doing good work at it. But I've always thought that a designer either had to do something in addition to design, or he'd have to generate an amount of "design" work equal to the amount of time that I put in.

Sorry for the rant, no offense intended for you game designer only types. :)

Too many would be designers, heck would be game developers, succumb to the follies of "Noob Ambition". Now these individuals really do mean well, what they lack in experience and discipline they more then try to compensate for with ambition. "I don't care if it takes us 10 years to build this thing, we are going to build the ultimate MMORPGRTSFPS-Adventure-Fantasy-SciFI-game with puzzle based PvP and prove you all wrong!"

Sadly many would be game designers/developers fall by the wayside and give up, or frivolously chip away at title after title with feature sets that far out weight their abilities. They never actually acquire new skills and so they finally give up trying or spend the rest of their days upping their post counts on message boards talking about the games the "almost" made.

It doesn't have to be this way however. If people would just pick achievable projects to begin with and go from there. They would gain the skills and experience necessary to complete future projects as well as a good solid code base to leverage in those projects. There only so much you can learn designing a game that's never built. Until play testing or the market proves right or wrong a designer will never know if his ideas were valid.

A designer who’s contributed to a successful shipping title is a valuable thing indeed. Unfortunately they are also in short supply. The next best thing is someone who has a good BS filter and is able to throw out ambitions that are out of reach and keep a solid set of achievable elements that will make a good game. They should also be someone who is as committed as the programmer to learning their field. Just sitting there pretending to be an oracle spouting ideas without backing them up is a joke as Siebharinn attests, and you are best to avoid such designers.

I think the best arrangement is to have a designer/producer combo in one person. That way the rest of the team won't feel that the person isn't doing enough work. :)

Design is easy. Good design -- solid, implementable, potentially valuable design -- is extremely difficult work. Like programming, design is a skill that can be learned; but also like programming (or art), it's one for which there are aptitudes -- not everyone makes a strong designer. And FWIW, design on large games is difficult in different ways from design on small games (something I'm learning now).

I've reluctantly come around to the view of having the producer and designer be the same person, but only because the game's vision, priorities, and advocacy should be found in one person (or two who always represent a united front to the rest of the team). Not because design is "easy" and so the designer should also be the producer to pull his or her weight.

If you have a designer whom you don't think is providing enough value, who can keep the programmer(s) busy with a coherent flow of well-considered content, you should get a different designer -- and probably toss out the design. But don't make the mistake of thinking that valuable design itself is easy.

Full-time designers come into their own on huge projects. For the kind of small, casual games we do, they're not as necessary.

-- alchemist --
If you have a designer whom you don't think is providing enough value, who can keep the programmer(s) busy with a coherent flow of well-considered content, you should get a different designer -- and probably toss out the design. But don't make the mistake of thinking that valuable design itself is easy.


I think you're right on both counts.

I am the main designer on my team plus I am one of those crazy artist types :)

I use to do a lot of community and volunteer work before starting on my first game which probably helped me with my communication skills (maybe). And I am returning to do some community film project next year.

I have a good clear one page design plan which lists the main features and goals of the game. I have dropped features as well so as to finish the game in a good time frame too. I then have a 60 page document explaining the game in finer detail.

Most designers I have seen like to load up on features (like the ability to back flip off a 3D wall with the main character).

This is how it works for me as a designer. The first thing I say “Is this extra feature going to enhance the game experience and how much resources is it going to take (time, effort, money etc...).

I have a list of core features (what the game needs to play well)
And then I have a list of extra features (Cut scenes, level editor, certain animations, multiplayer features etc...)
A lot of the extras have been put on the back burner and left for the second version :).

More features = more work.

Also if the programmer comes up with a better idea then me I go with it. Also one of the programmers is like the co-designer.

Also on such small teams I feel that the designer can be a dual roll like lead designer/ lead programmer etc...

Our team works real well because we accept each others work load. Some weeks I do little artwork and some weeks I am flat out. The main reason we have little or no augments over the workloads is because we all love the areas were working in. The programmer love coding and I love making art.