Hacker News Reader

Comment by dan_mctree | Hacker News Reader

>It wouldn't have. Make your game as a sketch with whatever sketching tools you have...but don't expect technology to rescue you from needing other humans to make it good. AND DON'T UNDER-RATE OR UNDERPAY THOSE PEOPLE.

>Because trust me, if you're disappointed that AI isn't giving you good enough art, you're no visionary. You haven't even tried people.

That's all well and good if you have a spare few million lying around and expect to make even more, but that's not the experience of the vast majority of indie game developers. They need to make the art themselves or find someone to make it for free

View on HN

I find that artists and musicians are thrilled to put in time on projects for fair wages. You don't need to be a millionaire. Sweetening it with some share of future revenue is okay if you have a really good idea and (1) are genuinely willing to accept their input, and (2) happy to cut them in on the profit it there is any. I'd never ask anyone to work for free, but I have done a joint project with an artist where we had no budget whatsoever and split the profit 50/50 for code and art. Sometimes those can be the best.

Point being, never consider your idea or even your code more important to the game than artists or their input. You're also paying for their criticism about everything from backgrounds and colors to gameplay issues, which an AI can't give you.

it only takes 1-2 years of study to draw at (what a layman would consider to be) a competent level. most single person indie games also exercise some level of compromise in their scope and art direction, very few have anywhere near the number of assets op seems to think they need to make a game, many adventure games made by professional studios would fall well below the 2500 image mark.

You can't exactly generate a game and the fame from just your little inclination that to be considered a successful indie game developer would be nice. That's too easy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com