What's the hardest part of making a videogame?

Having the drive to complete it.
Art can be hard if you aren't an artfag, but you can get someone else to do that for you if you want. Same goes for music and modelling
Programming can be hard if you aren't a programmer, but new engines come with drag-and-drop programming features.
Level design depends on the engine too. It's easy in something like Unreal 4.

As for actually doing a good job level design is the hardest. A good game has fun, interesting levels which feel like they belong in a world. The levels should also be functional as levels, and guide the player. The Half Life games do this pretty well.
Good programming is needed if you want to optimize, or do something interesting. I remember seeing examples of Yanderedev's code and it was horrible. Good code matters if you're making your own engine, or if you're doing something unprecedented.
Good art is hard too, and isn't cheap. Modelling and drawing takes time, and getting something just right takes skill. If you don't have it, fork out cash for someone who does. If you do, keep practising.

Business, if you want to make games and not live in a cardboard box. You're in a saturated industry that requires all five and then the business knowledge to handle legal matters and profit so you can keep making games and eventually move out of that cardboard box. Also, no one wants to do the business and gritty work.

Programming takes a lot of time no matter how good you are at it. Some artists, on the other hand, have speed drawings.

It all comes down to what are you trying to do. Using a premade engine is easy modo when you get accustomed to it, but making the engine yourself always is nightmare mode.

For indies it's art. You can make a game without knowing how to program nowadays, but there's no utility that makes art for you so no shortcuts there

Level design.
I say that solely because there are many good programmers and many good artists, but very few games don't have shit tier maps and map makers
Also bad programmers are normally bad because they don't know or understand what they're doing

PROGRAMMING DOESN'T SEEM SO HARD
IT'S ALL THE SAME
WHY DON'T WE JUST GET SOME INDIANS TO DO IT
THEY CAN DO IT TWICE AS FAST FOR HALF THE COST

programming is pretty fun and easy

you can choose to have art be completely unnecessary (basic shapes), or the bane of your game (actual fucking art)

This. Debugging is hell.
It feels pretty good when you manage to fix bugs though.

It feels pretty good to lay all the Christmas lights out straight.

Nothing is harder than making those aspects work together.
Look at Drakengard games for example, if you take any single aspect of it out and judge the game according to that one aspect separately, you'd probably 9 out of 10 times conclude that the game is a piece of shit.

and that gentlemen is why almost all game stories are complete shit.

Honestly though, this thread is completely fucking useless if you arent going to specify what kind of game youre talking about.

programming takes a fuckton of time. its like writing a book that cant be read if you made gramar or spelling mistakes or even worse of there is a plothole.

Blessed are you user for not having to develop programs

Marketing.

Take a wild guess sherlock.
Admittedly it might be easier with a different languarge

Level design is one of the most nuanced skills you can actively partake in, you can disagree; but I guarantee its a subject you're completely ignorant of.

I can name games with incredible level design on my hands, though naming any game with good programming present anywhere is fairly easy, laughably so with art assets, or art style.

You can't buy good level design, because the amount of people who can do it are rare as fuck. There's a shortage of level designers in the games industry as is, does it not stand to reason that good level designers would be just as, or even more difficult to find?

More like;
Programming>Art>Level design

Most level designers are in the business of dragging and dropping. Incorporating strong design philosophy into one's work is far past the point of rare.

Fixed;
Level Design>Programming>Art

Your post was stupid, inflammatory dogshit. If you decide to respond, name 5 games with EXCEPTIONAL Level design.

For every fifty monkeys who are facile with coding there's maybe one or two who can devise a solution to a problem. The rest just bang together existing solutions like inventory items in a 90's point and click until they get something that gives the surface appearance of functioning.

This. Thing is, artstyle and programming are two things people have a good grasp on already, while game design is something that hardly anyone really knows how to do, much less create something unique out of. Mostly because game theory is seen as a joke to most people if they even acknoledge it at all, and has been rather stagnant since the mid 2000's. It doesn't help that that faggot Matpat stole the name for his retarded channel of fanfiction. It's infuriating as fuck seeing artists and programmers trying to design a game, thinking that's all there is to a game's development, and end up making trite shit that we've already seen millions of times because they have bad game philosophy.

Story should be the least of your concern when making a game.

AI and level design.
Games at least used to have good level design, now? Horrible.

While I agree that game design and philosophy should be considered much more, I disagree with this. It's a bit too much to explain, but for a sorta, general grasp, read this thread. Specifically the last post.
8ch.net/telvanni/res/48.html

Funny, when devs tryhard to make a good story it ends up being even worse vast majority of time.
source- mgs

The two most difficult aspects of game development are the business/legal aspects, and the design aspect.
Without a solid foundation in finances and protecting yourself legally as a developer you're liable to get asspounded in every direction from hostile consumers to satan-wannabe corporate suits.
Design is the cohesive foundation that ties all of the elements together, chiefly to gameplay, and forms the basis for the more advanced, specific developments like mechanics, art, and narrative elements; without those having a unified philosophy and intent behind them that is well documented and fleshed out, your project's quality and success is left to chance.
Project Management is the second most important part. Know when to kill your babies.

Time management has to be the worst part by far, and in that vein, programming, 3D modelling and animation are probably the worst offenders. Have you seem how much work is involved in the simplest games?

If you're comparing difficulties and ignoring time, I'd say programming without a base engine is by far the hardest thing to be done.

I could murder everyone here reeeee

Not to derail, but Metal Gear doesn't know if it wants to be a serious military sci-fi series or a silly meta commentary on action heroes. If it would commit to one it would be much better.

The obsession with non-linear progression and optional powers has set game design back 30 years.

Have you tried any of these things?

Music takes a LOT of time if you want it to be memorable. Music is one of the major differences between a great and memorable series like Castlevania and generic shit like Assassins Creed. The reason you tgink its easy is exactly why western games suffer from lifelessness.

Convincing retards to buy the trash.

...

...

but you are wrong, level design is the easy part. Programming the engine takes skill and experience, art takes skill and experience. While anyone can do level design.

Spoken like a true ignoramus.

Some tileset dropping is not the same as producing a coherent design philosophy which takes advantage of human psychology, understanding of player agency, knowledge of geometry and use of composition in order to elicit reaction based around a desired result.

Being a good level designer is manipulating a player to gain a desired reaction, it's one of the most difficult things a human being can do.

Making a "level" about pressing x at the right time is fucking base and pathetic, anyone can do that. Super Mario Maker is meant as a FIRST stepping stone to develop careers, and just so happens to cross-section with basic loop.

There's games where you can use basic principles of code, if I do that; does that mean I'm a master coder?
Does that mean that programming can be done by anyone?

Maybe you should lurk these threads for a few months, pal. Stop posting.

An autist will be with you shortly to talk about reddit spacing.

wow you sure sm4shed his argument chum

Then why are levels in modern games so shit and tiny?

Because people think environmental art = level design.

I didn't even read what he wrote.

lel, no

In all the indie garbage I willingly consumed before it really got rolling when most indie shit you played was free, the absolute hardest and/or most time consuming parts for everyone was story, music, and art. Music was "easy" because you'd just rip some music and nobody actually made music or hired someone on commission if they didn't shamelessly pirate it. For the music you need talent, and a certain kind of patience when you fuck up that most didn't have. For the story, the problem that everyone ignores is that all the programming you do also involves putting the story in the actual fucking game, and depending on how story heavy the game is the amount of coding and programming you have to do exponentially increases especially when you're debugging or otherwise having to fix shit when you fuck up. Programming and coding is time consuming, but at the same time it is not the hardest part unless you're doing an entirely new engine from scratch. The dullness is a test of patience if you hate it but once you got the mechanics down it's just a matter of hammering out the kinks.

Devs who don't do some marketing will never get more then a couple people buy their games. Hatred of advertising is merely something you have to accept as being a catch-22.

Ordering the hair dye

t. level designer

the hardest part is getting everyone to work together instead of devolving into a pissing match of who's more important resulting in teams breaking up and yet another game dead in development

Making it have good gameplay tbh. You don't need marketing if you already have a solid series. Tons of games go by word of mouth then get popular because there is a interest and the devs talk to the fans just enough to keep them interested.

Look at yandere sim, zero money spent on marketing but only time wasted. What he is doing is really talking to his fans too much when the game is gonna come out 2030 earliest. He doesn't even have the right concept for the game, we went from steathy to beat em up to steathy again.

nobody cares about music in video games. video games are not art.

egoraptor pls

every time someone uses that word on an imageboard i'm never sure if it's someone using uncommon slang or a masterchanner

e3632e is a hotpocket FYI. He banned me for making fun of his reddit spacing.

kek
hotpockets are at it again

No faggot they are not art but a compilation of several arts, of which music is one, fuck your primitive intelligence nigger

Go do your job and ban actual redditors instead of people who hurt your feelings

Fucking hot pockets are the worst. Someone should kill all these janitors.

Agreed, too bad that the art (as in aesthetic designs of characters and levels, music, etc., etc.) Is the hardest part to making a game, in fact creativity when making the game mechanics is also why making the game fun is hard.

Not a mod. If only. Just someone passionate about level design. I did report that post though for off topic shitposting.

Don't ban me for announcing report pls

Why was this post of yours delete them? You admitted you banned him with this reply.

Because I thought people were getting banned for reddit spacing. I commented I'd been posting like that since 2006.

Tbf though, this is all shitposting. I urge you to stop.

Time. Anyone who says otherwise is completely clueless.

I swear to fuck the upside of all the rulecuckery and a fat jew for a board owner is autists like this feeling like this place is alright for their faggotry

I think we clearly know who's the most important here

you are not essentially wrong, yet you are wrong. I will explain. Chess is a game, chess has no story, chess has no music. Therefore games do not need story or music. Chess peaces do not need to be aesthetically pleasing as long as they communicate their function as a game piece, therefore a game does not require to be good looking. Chess is merely one example of a game where the art is superfluous to the quality of the game. To summarize, all these elements, while they may enhance a video game are not necessary to creating a good game, therefore you are not essentially wrong, yet you are wrong. You opinion is objective and shit as demonstrated by the chess example.
pic related :^)

and

Chess is not a videogame.
also chess is art

Nice effortpost but he can just use the fact that unlike on reddit nobody will know it's him on the next thread to double down on acting like a retard

you are worng
define art, because I have a very strict definition of art and it is not a product. One might call it a "work of art" but to call it art within itself is meaningless.

not an effort post. I have actually thought about this topic in the past and actually have a philosophy.

a videogame is chess but chess is not a videogame.

yes, but it is a game. Video games are in the subset of the over all category of games. Therefore that which is true of the proper subset is also true of the subset.

past effort is still effort

Cost breakdown is not the same as time breakdown. Programmers do more than just write the game engine code, they also tend to be behind writing the scripts that make the levels work worth a shit.

You ever notice how most UDK games are trash? Those are games that can be made without a programmer. Notice how all the GOOD games had programmers working on them?

You don't hire that many programmers because of how it's a bad thing to have too many conflicting code styles in a single project. So the sweet spot tends to be 1 programmer for every 5 people in a low budget company, 1 for every 15 people in a medium sized company, and 1 for every 37 people in a AAA company.

but by your logic, then you are implying shitposting is the only valid posting. In which case, welcome my Christmas break summer friend.

Do not reply to this post unless you want to derail the thread.

The art in video games makes it unique because it brings a whole new level of immersion that 'traditional games' like dnd left only to imagination. To pigeonhole video games as simply a subset of games is to completely toss out the nuance and ART that makes video games a wholly unique medium of expression.

the tread is about game design and resource management. Hearing a artist, while a non essential, is a valuable component of producing a game that will sell well because aesthetics is important to sell a product. A game asset is often created by an Artist, weather it be music or sprite work. These works of art can be valuable and integral to creating a holistically successful product, but the product in it of itself is not "art". Are you a fucking Nihilist?

But the op is asking which aspect is the hardest to develop, not what aspect is more expensive/scarce. Also checked those satanic double trips.

IMO the hardest thing to make in a videogame is the programming/debuging. It takes a lot of time because its a underrated thing. Not much people are good programmers and you have to get a specific programmer for every task for making the game playable unless you choosed a simple engine to make it.
The Art its subjetive and Level Desing can be made for anyone who got some spatial reasoning and a little knowlegde about the game.

hiring*
the thread could also be about how I'm dyslexic is you really want to crash the train

Level and mechanical design are the hardest parts because the only way most people get it even half right is to copycat other games.
Not many teams actually have the talent to make these systems on their own.

I'd go with you on mechanical design.
Level design would seem more time costly than difficult.

You're correct. People seem to forget that video games are VIDEO GAMES. Video and Game together, a visual representation of what is going on. Of course,this varies too, as there are some games with nothing beyond text for representation.

I would say art is the hardest.

Anyone, and I mean anyone can learn programming given enough time to brute-force it. Programming is a lot like math: there's a right way and a wrong way, a proper way and a shitty way.

Artwork, on the other hand, is subjective. It's entirely possible for someone to practice art for years and never really improve, because they can't see what they are doing wrong. They think it looks fine, but it actually looks like shit.

Oh, and music is more important than OP seems to think. I challenge someone to name a good game, and I mean a REALLY good game, that has so-awful-I-muted-it music.

Dude, I play tabletop games I have not and never will feel that playing video games and playing tabletop games is the same kind of experience. Nobody else I know that plays both thinks spo either, yes they are similar but you're too caught up on the similarities and not the differences.

Not a single good street racing game had a good soundtrack.
You name a single need for speed song that you listen on your free time instead

No he asked "hardest part of making a video game". Which is time. It takes a LOT of time to make a video game. For a company that translates into a huge investment with little to no payoff until you have a finished product. It's the main reason why early access and paid alphas are a thing.

Didn't play need for speed

I've been a one man army for a while now, definitely programming. All my development hell cycles have been wrapping my head around syntax or figuring out how to make something less tedious.
3d modelling/uv mapping takes a lot of effort, too.

I think he was going more for the most challenging part of development excluding the time and money required for development..

Level design is inherently tied to mechanical design. There's a trend in some games that I attribute to nintendo to introduce mechanics in a really well done manner, teaching you how to use the mechanic in a number of ways and testing you on it before dropping it for 95% of the rest of the game.
If your level design is good you can make a relatively small amount of assets go a very long way, saving budget, but if it's ass studios tend to just add more stuff to try to spice up their bland gameplay.

Yeah, it's hard to like programming if you aren't really into computers.

It's not whether you like 'computers' (whatever that means), it's whether you like to creatively solve problems using defined rules that you can't really deviate too far from. Of course, the more indepth your knowledge, the more often you can cross lines to produce a working AND optimal solution.

Liking computers as in having fun by getting some obscure japanese computer from the 80s and doing stupid shit with the software in it or making your own
Being a computer enthusiast, a hacker

both are subsets of the proper set games. D&d is not like base ball but both are games. What is true of the proper set must be true of all it's parts. Apples are not Oranges but they are both round fruit. Round fruit is a subset of the proper set fruit.

lol. That must be why there are so many more CS grads than art grads right? Oh wait. There arent. It must also be why bullshit games like Anton and Coolpecker/Broquest got all that art and ended up being good games since the programming was so easy huh?

Insufferable liberals, god damn. You guys are a dime a dozen, you aren't rare or unique. I can go and find an artist easily with the right amount of money. As Holla Forums projects have shown, you cant always find good programmers.

no user, the reason there are less art grads is because their is no money or future in art. It's literally a worthless degree and you should be ashamed of yourself for wasting your money on a worthless education.

t.art grad

Wew lad

decent post

no one cares about your autistic set theory, we're talking about video game development not what constitutes a game

...

user, you are being a retard and arguing semantics. So what if they're games, again you're too caught up on the similarities and ignoring the differences.

Most of the programming and coding issues I've seen is directly involved with problems when trying to put in the art or story the budding dev wanted and they needed help cause they were trying to do something like a cutscene or they fucked up a choice branch and was hoping against hope that they didn't have to redo everything from scratch past that point again. Story is easy if you shove it all in a .pdf file and art is easy if you don't even bother trying to program in anything more then just some simple square poses with the most basic interaction between them.

Go back to reddit you filthy nigger.

Making music is not easy.

What is true of the whole is true of all the subsets.

Dude, face the facts you are wrong and I am right. Your subjective opinion does not trump reality.

Art. Particularly the design. It takes a lot of thought and trial and error about what looks the best.

Wrong about what exactly? You said to me video games are not art and I agree with you
then you turn around and start talking about tabletop games as if that was the same experience as playing a videogame to sell your point to someone else who disagreres with you, then you proceeded to doubledown on that example with math because technically they're both games even though nobody that plays both would consider them to be the same for your example to hold water.

No amount of venetian shingle design will make assassin's creed great again

I would say programming is the hardest.
Anyone, and I mean anyone can learn art given enough time to brute-force it. Art is a lot like math: there's a right way and a wrong way, a proper way and a shitty way.
Code, on the other hand, is subjective. It's entirely possible for someone to practice art for years and never really improve, because they can't see what they are doing wrong. They think it works fine, but it actually runs like shit.

Chess is a game, Football is a game. Both do not require art assets or stories to be games. What makes Chess a game and what makes Football a game is independent of these qualities. Thereof the art and story are not necessary for the proper set "game". Video games being digital games is also apart of the proper set "game", therefore if it is true of the proper set it logically fallows that it is also true of the subset. Apples are not oranges, but they are both fruit. I am making the point that an orange is not a fruit on account of its color being that color is not an important universal quality that distinguishes itself as a member of the super-set "fruit".

Why there so many asshurt programming faggots here?
Games can go bad without it being art, that doesn't mean that art isn't the hardest part of making a game. And I don't mean tedious or time-consuming, I mean actually difficult. There's so much experimentation that comes with it even along with the basics. AC might not be shit because of the art, but I'd argue it's more shit because of the writing. Is writing the hardest thing? Of course not.

That sounds like it came from a person who's never done any kind of art since they were five years old.

That sounds like it came from a person who has never done any programming since they were ten years old

The hardest part is taking every aspect of game development and combining them so that it creates a coherent product where every part builds on and improves every other apsect.

you have to get out

So yes, you are just arguing semantics and concentrating too much on the similarities. Video games do require art assets because without art assets you can't see the fucking game (the shit on the screen), and yes the electronic chess game you shown uses art assets to depict the board and chess pieces.

Oh, I see: making it all mesh together so that the whole game is greater than the sum of its parts.

no

Yes; if taking something out of a game makes it better or the same then that part, and in turn the game, wasn't well designed. This is something I don't think any game has ever accomplished, and game designers seem to pick an aspect to focus on (be it gameplay, story, or what have you) and forgo or suppress all others.

Try not shitposting so much next time. Calling "reddit spacing" is just an attempt at derail.

MANAGEMENT

Assuming we're talking about the hardest part to do well, that would be keeping every other element in line with each other, the director's job.
Bad directors put out games that are all over the place, like skyrim or WashHogs.
Smaller teams are easier to keep a leash on, but you can still end up like the starbound chucklefucks or yanderedev.

There's definitely a faggot arguing semantics here, but it's not the user you're replying to.

great use of that meme

no I am not. You still don't understand. I am saying art and story are inherently superfluous. I am not saying that because art and story are superfluous they are not valuable.
I never said that, yet you are assusing me of being pedantic and arguing semantics? Something more analogues to what I actually said would be, Games do not require being digital to be games. Would it help you also understand if I where to show you a venn diagram? For example Visual Novels unaccompanied are not video games, in fact they do not necessarily need to be digital to technically be a "Visual Novel" on account that one would not be incorrect in calling Watchmen by Alan Moore a "Visual Novel" being that its a illustrated novel (comic book). But that latter point would be pedantic because clearly when people say "Visual Novel" they are talking about shitty "Japaneses" dating sims like Katawa Shoujo.

If someone wants to do a cost benefit analysis of where to invest their resources we must first establish what their goals in the project. If the goal is to create a fun game. Then clearly fagotry like art and story would be auxiliary concerns. However humanity are visual creatures and clearly most would prefer a aesthetically pleasing game over something less attractive. In terms of video games, art and music are largely superfluous to what are necessary in creating a "good" game. That does not mean you completely ignore these elements. In fact aesthetics are very important when it comes to marketing, and if you ultimately want to be successful when marketing is a consideration even if you are a lowbrow pleb on a korean image board.

I am an artist, who wasted money at school studying art, telling game would-be designers that art is not inherently important. You really think, its as black an white as "buttt mmmmuh false equivocatioooooon" "but muh apples are not oranges!"? I am not the one being pedantic mate.

was meant for

accusing *

TOP KEK

You are being pedantic, I agree with you that video games are not art but video games are a visual medium and requires art assets to convey information to you visually, all that shit like the very moment you glance at an enemy telling you everything from what type it is to what it does all the way to even telling you if something is a trap with clear visual que to guiding a player along by strategically hiding and showing certain objects and pathways is primarily a matter of art or would you prefer if I said "drawings" and "visuals" instead.

Those are art assets, you think that just because it doesn't look fancy it's not an art asset? If you have a better word that will immediately bring to mind the visuals of the game I'd love to hear it.

Hard as in time consuming? Or hard as in skill required? Or hard as in prevalence of those who can produce it to an acceptable extent?

Why do you mean by hard?

Your case is based entirely on the idea that video games and non-video games were materially different based on the incorrect idea that only video games require art assets.
Unless you can convince everyone that existing in a digital space instead of a material space warrants completely different standards, you're at a dead end, because the space in which vidya and non-vidya games are played in is the only remotely material difference I can see.

I never said otherwise. What about the words "𝓪𝓻𝓽 𝓪𝓷𝓭 𝓼𝓽𝓸𝓻𝔂 𝓪𝓻𝓮 𝓲𝓷𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓷𝓮𝓽𝓵𝔂 𝓼𝓾𝓹𝓮𝓻𝓯𝓵𝓾𝓸𝓾𝓼 𝓽𝓸 𝓰𝓪𝓶𝓮𝓼" is untrue?

Then let's go play some DnD, no art assets in a chatroom right now. No artwork is required at all under any circumstances I can convey everything important to you through words alone, I'd go to you in person and play a physical game like football but I'd rather not waste my holiday.

The art part, since you need artwork to visually convey information and meaning for the purposes of gameplay.

actually you make a good point. because forum games and MUDs don't really require art assets. Holla Forums loves to play Hunger Games and what ever this is

Zork could also"losely be considered a "game", but I don't like that analogy because its closer to a chose your own adventure narrative. Dwarf Fortress also comes to mind.

Programming can take a fuckton of time, since most of your problems usually stem from things not working as you expect them to.

Take Unity, lots of different subsystems that work in that… Almost all only in one specific context. I wanted a text renderer so I could render plaintext in some boxes over time, in different colours, only to realize it didn't have any of the functionality for rendering on the fly unless I programmed it. Then the colours didn't work so I had to design my own parser to do pre-assembly on written text before it gets rendered.

Design quirks like this pop up all over the place, it's why there's usually a billion different standards all to solve one problem, but in one specific use case.

I find art difficult, because I don't have any of the tools for it. I'm not an artist in any sense (though I can paint miniatures which means I have a basic understanding of colour theory at best). I'm also not musically talented in the slightest, so music would take me years to learn.

you clearly do not know what art is and have no standard whatsoever if you consider anything visual = "art".

Both takes shitloads of time, but you can split an art burden a lot easier than a programming burden.

I consider anything visual for the context of making a video game artwork, if you don't like it then find a better word to use and make a some actual use out of your art degree for once in your life.

Hardest?

Balancing > Making a FUN game > Getting your programmer(s) and artist(s) to work together smoothly and get along (that's why we have tech artists now) > Finding a good business plan and marketing strategy, that will not infuriate your audience AND your investors AND journalists. There will always be one of them shitting on your game and fucking you up, if not all of them > Not getting intentionally fucked over by other more successful companies > Making good and optimized assets > Making good and optimized code > Making good music > Animating and rigging meshes > Making shitty code > Making shitty unoptimized assets > Making shitty music > Writing a story

Programming is hardest, but design is more important. A poorly programmed, buggy game that had good designers may be a hassle to play but at least it'll be fun when it does work (see: EYE on release). But if a game has no good game design, then no matter how technically smooth and impressive, it won't be fun to play (see: Elite Dangerous).

b.b.b.but user I thought I was the one being pedantic and arguing semantics.

Nice strawmanning, you've admitted it yourself that you have a strict definition of art. The arguments between us ties directly to a different definition and meaning.

Depends on the tools one has at their disposal, and of course their expertise.
With shitty tools and all the skills in the world it's extremely difficult.
With great tools and no skills it's extremely difficult.

So, find or develop the right tools (latter requires programming, however), and git gud.
Also, they all require a lot of time depending on the scope, and how fine tuned you want each part to be; although difficulty is relative to the above.

yes art is the process of creation/mastery of a craft, a "work of art" is the product created by an artisan. You are arguing about my strict definition but you never bothered to define art. You are resorting to subjective terms to be pedantic because their are examples of games that do not require an artist to create. A programmer can write a video game in QBasic using Ascii or Text as representations of the elements. Take for example the classic artillery game like Gorillas, that is often a starting programmers first game. The programmer does not need to master the craft of illustration to make a video game. Moreover, it is still true that art and music are superfluous to games in general.

Art is anything that conveys clear meaning and information visually, even if it looks like shit. Of course if it doesn't convey any meaning it isn't art this includes gibberish you'd slap on a wall with paint buckets.So yes, Ascii is art according to me.

shitlibs actually believe this. Did you also white knight for Depression Quest?

Nah, that shit is garbage. Like I told you before art is required for a video game to convey meaning but video games are not art.

Did I ever say that, faggot? No.
But programming is a skill that can be learned whereas a great deal of art is talent. No matter how much you try, you can't get good at art in a matter of days.

Holding a team of people together with vastly different disciplines where everyone thinks their piece of the pie is most important and not everyone works at the same pace or even really gives a shit.

My ex works at a video game studio and I hear about it all the time. It's pretty funny.

You're a fucking idiot.

Art is a skill that takes years to develop, much like learning the ins and outs of a programming language.

There's no such thing as talent u faggot.
It's all a matter of refining one's skills.

Same with programming, and anyone who mentions otherwise is on .jpg's peak.

this

I hate to be that goy, but art is a mastery of a craft. The art of dance, the art of war, the art of _(fill in the blank). It is only liberal nonsense in recent years that the term art has become synonymous with something as base and crass and meaningless as a visual package of information. By your definition then text is art and so is a road sign or a picture on a bathroom denoting if its for men or women. I am not saying art is not valuable in the creation of a successful video game. I am merely saying art is not necessary in game design.

I've known people who have gotten good at illustration with the right dedication and teacher.

t.failed artist

Based on my experience working on a fangame for the past 3 years, I'd say it's cooperating with everybody else on the team.

It doesn't matter how competent you or anybody else is at your job if you all can't agree on what direction to take something.

Finding a graphics library that doesn't suck. As far as I know, there aren't any.