artists

Although I'm pretty sure you mention it with the primary goal of self-promotion, I think the relative dearth of artists on GameDev.net is an interesting topic that could use some discussion. I think it's a few things:

- the layout/features do not appeal to noob artists; there is no built-in gallery system or easy way to upload pictures. To handle files and images well here requires some experience with at least html to write out how you want things to look rather than using a simple GUI. (But then maybe people want artists who can look at some scripting without being terrified, yeah?)
- the aesthetic/design of GameDev.net is not especially friendly to noob artists; It's all cold gray/blue, white backgrounds, looks technical, very light on graphic-design wankery that makes artists feel special. The page is obviously coder-ground, made by and for coders.
- the community is made up mainly of coders, not artists. It's kind of a catch 22; there just isn't that critical mass of artists to maintain a really active artistic forum here, just a handful of individuals who stick around for whatever other reasons.

(Personally, I'm rather technically-minded for an artist; code is fun, and I like the intellectual rigor that good coders value. Plus, if I'm a freelance artist looking to make money, do I hang out with the other artists or do I hang out with the coders desperate to find an artist? Simple logic ;)


So two answers:
1: If you really want something to get done, and even get done well, you'll have to pay for it.
2: Otherwise, you'll not find so many artists here, especially those working for free, and those that are here tend to get involved in projects pretty quickly considering the ratio of coders to artists. If you like, go to a site with many artists and ask around -- I can't attest to the quality, but you'll probably find someone.

I'm not self promoting anymore, I just haven't changed my signature yet. I've already done self promoting and it seems pretty much useless. I'm going to get an easel and some pencils and try to teach myself the basics. I don't think I have to be Michaelangelo. I think mostly I have to work on making the game fun and then the art can be "C" quality.

For me personally, during the times that I have volunteered my services as an artist, the single most inspirational thing that would motivate me to join a team is seeing a game that looks like it will actually get done. Making a nearly complete game with programmer art (even if it is "D" level art) means that the programmer or team of programmers has their act together enough that any I work I put in will not go to waste. I can't tell you how many times I have watched the "which engine should we use" discussion go on for months while I wait to start working on art. This is the main reason why I only rarely consider dedicating my team to a single team -- these days I prefer to make utility models and give them away for free to as many people as possible. That way I know my art will be put to some good use, if nothing else as placeholders or deconstructed for educational purposes.

I think your plan of producing your own art to make a workable game is a great plan. If you end up not liking the art, you will have at least produced something that will inspire an artist to contribute AND you will be able to give them a solid design and solid technical specs.

Scott

Quote:

Original post by scotths For me personally, during the times that I have volunteered my services as an artist, the single most inspirational thing that would motivate me to join a team is seeing a game that looks like it will actually get done. Making a nearly complete game with programmer art (even if it is "D" level art) means that the programmer or team of programmers has their act together enough that any I work I put in will not go to waste. I can't tell you how many times I have watched the "which engine should we use" discussion go on for months while I wait to start working on art. This is the main reason why I only rarely consider dedicating my team to a single team -- these days I prefer to make utility models and give them away for free to as many people as possible. That way I know my art will be put to some good use, if nothing else as placeholders or deconstructed for educational purposes. I think your plan of producing your own art to make a workable game is a great plan. If you end up not liking the art, you will have at least produced something that will inspire an artist to contribute AND you will be able to give them a solid design and solid technical specs. Scott

Yes! Give this man a cookie, he knows what he's talking about.

I'm not using anyone else's engine, I programmed mine from scratch. I guess that's easier when it's 2D. You're probably talking about complex games that are like Doom3 or something, right? If I used somebody else's engine I'd be done already.

I got inspired by reading about Battle for Wesnoth and the KISS principle so I made all my goals doable. ...even if I have to do the art.

I agree with the idea of using your own art assets while making your game until it's at least playable before looking for artists. That's the route I've taken on my game (and you can see the results). The game may not be pretty, but by the time I'm ready for an artist, I will just be able to say to him/her, "here's the game, here's the list of assets I need, have at it!"

To be honest, it's not actually that difficult to learn your way around Blender/Photoshop/whatever... the hard part is using that knowledge to make something that looks good. But I don't care about that at this stage!

Man, an RTS with 3D terrain? That's impressive. I think importing 3D models is something I could figure out but a 3D world is something where I have pretty much zero idea of how it works. For the game I want to make it would be superfluous. My worlds are all flat 2D like old school Zelda except instead of tiles I want to draw them all free hand and scan them. Then I'll doctor them up a little in Gimp.