Everyone on the Forums say to start small, with games that only take about 3 months or so to complete. However, the artist in me wants to build realistic graphics like battlefield 4, planetside 2, etc. I am an artist at heart, but got into programming because I wanted to make games and put my artwork in it.
For instance, one of the games I’m building is a tank multiplayer game. However, I have so much fun building the tanks I forget about building the crumy code for the game.
When people refer to building small games, they usually refer to games with little graphics at all and lots of emphasis on game play. Which only requires a programmer. But I dont want to spend most of the development process just programming.
I dont have enough money to hire a programmer.
So I’m wondering if anyone has heard of games that go the other way, with little game play and mostly graphics, from a indie developer. Are they very successful? Any suggestions that you can give me?
It seems like most of the people who struggle to finish games and thus end up making small ones, are more programmers in their focus? Might not be true, certainly not for everyone, but small then means cutting back largely because it’s difficult and time consuming to create the art, and using other programming techniques to try to build more of a game. I think if you’re more of an artist, you know your art takes x amount of time to make and not a lot you can do to optimize that beyond cutting down how much art there is?
You can take a simple gameplay mechanism and add some really cool graphics to make a fun game. For example, you mentioned tanks. There are several tank games like this, http://www.shellshocklive.com, that are really fun. A single player version would be relatively simple to code. Instead of shooting at another tank you could have the player aim for stationary objects like buildings. bunkers, etc.
I started my indie game career as mostly an artist. But I learned to code so I would have the freedom to do my own thing.
@imaginaryhuman - I’m just the sort of programmer you’re describing. The problem I’ve found with art is that there’s something of a false dilemma with it. Let me explain.
On the one hand, you’ve ‘got’ to have quality. The art has to do what is needed in the context of the part of the game it is used in, and be spectacular.
On the other hand, you need to be able to create a piece within a given amount of time to keep up your development tempo. If you blow two days on a single asset, you’ll have to make that time up or blow a deadline (something I’m familiar with from my last project a bit.) This can lead to a sort of ‘siege’ mentality with your game, where you’re slogging through building content because you got behind earlier in the process. This can be mitigated by delegating duties to other people, but A) that’s got problems of its own, and B) that falls outside the purview of this topic.
So, why do I call this dilemma ‘false’? It’s because really, quality is a false qualifier for what makes game art work - it’s consistency. If all of the game’s art looks the same, it reinforces the cognitive package we’re trying to sell our player.
In theory, you could get a six-year-old to draw all your game’s assets with his/her crayons, somehow get them in the game, and you’d likely have a work that is noted briefly for having a childish style.
Of course, because most of us here have some degree of artistic standards - even non-dedicated ‘artists’ like me - we wouldn’t actually do that unless it really contributed to the project we are making.
TL;DR - Good game art suits the project, is created quickly, and is consistent. It’s harder than it sounds, partially because of what our audience may want, but far more so because of what we think of as ‘good’ at any given time.
Listen to your inner voice! Don’t limit yourself. Dont avoid, but make all the mistakes and learn from experience. Only you can reach and learn from your own limits, no one can find them for you!
I would enjoy building a spaceship battle game with super detailed ships and amazing textures. There would only be one level. Fun to build, but probably wont sell.
If people complain your game is too short you are on to a winner!
Loads of indie games have great graphics. There is a difference between not worrying about graphics and keeping the scope manageable.
For you it sounds like you have to keep the coding part of scope your small so you can put more effort into graphics. Another option is to buy a game kit, tweak it and reskin it to make it your own.
Perhaps try getting as much mileage out of art assets as possible? Keep the number of assets low and just rerecycle and repurpose. Quality over quantity. Good game graphics == good communication.
There are definitely some types of games where the gameplay is simple to code, but great graphics are what its all about.
For example, the old games from when CD-ROMS where first invented: Myst, 7th guest, Return to Zork. The novelty at that time was pre-rendered video played back off a CD-ROM, but nowadays you could do it all with real-time rendering in Unity. All it takes is a lot of great art.
There are definitely small games that do not focus on mechanics. One that comes to mind is Dear Ester. The graphics is a key part of delivering the ambience that this game is famous for.
You could start with the kind of graphics you want to create, the feeling it should evoke in the player. Then add a simple story that presents the world you have created.
And why not team up with a programmer in the reverse situation?
I haven’t played it, but I think “The Room” is an example of the kind of game you’re talking about. It is in the Unity gallery, and I think it was quite successful on iOS (at least successful enough to make a sequel).
It is a puzzle game where it’s just a beautifully rendered safe and you have to figure out how to open it. Obviously they had to design interesting puzzles, but a big part of the appeal is the graphics. With that kind of limited scope, you can really polish all the details and make it a very compelling visual experience.