[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Gaming projects
"Adam D. Moss" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> 1. Cost of equipment to create music is quite expensive. I don't
>> know how this works for graphics artists: is The Gimp good enough?
> Probably a better question is 'Is Blender good enough?'.
Short answer: Good enough, yes. Maya or Photoshop 'Killer', for sure
not. Still for all free games I have seen so far they should be more
>> 2. A musician has little to gain from others 'improving' their
>> music. The same goes for graphic artists.
Not sure about music, but for for 3d models teamwork seems to work
quite well, ie. one modeling the things, somebody else, texturing
them, etc. Same is true for pretty much every other part of a game,
ie. one paints the tileset, the other builds the levels with them and
such. Sure having two people drawing onto the same image will seldomly
be usefull, but two programmers writing the same line of code isn't
much usefull either.
>> 3. Programmers often involve themselves in the music/graphics part
>> of the game by setting restrictions on what it should be like. Word
>> of advice: don't!
Yup, I second that, nothing is worse then some clueless person making
the rules, can be a major stopper for motivation.
>> 4. There are a lot more programmers than artists around. If you look at the
>> credits of a professional game however, you see that these groups are usually
>> of equal size (programmers, musicians, graphic artists).
I wouldn't be so sure that there are a lot more programmers around
then artists, in most projects there seem to be a lack of both. The
advantage with programming however is that it seems to be easier to
switch over to another person and let him continue the work, seems to
be much harder with artists, since style can be quite different.