Game Development Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional and independent game developers. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm a programmer and would like to get some perspective on the art / content creation part of game development.

Comparing a 2D platformer like Super Meat Boy and a high-end game like Crysis 2, what do you think:

  • What is harder to do / more likely to cause the project to fail: Art or programming?

  • Which will consume more time and take more people to work on?

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by Kylotan, Tetrad Jul 12 '11 at 18:38

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

I'm voting to close this question as "not constructive", I'm afraid. It's very subjective, it's very project-dependent, and I don't think the answers will do anybody much good. You can't really compare the two. Art is subjective, code is not. The number of artists and coders you require for a project depends on how much code and art you began the project with and how much of each you need at the end. – Kylotan Jul 12 '11 at 17:19
To give a very general answer: art is usually cited as taking more time/resources than programming, but as Kylotan said, it's very project dependent. – thedaian Jul 12 '11 at 17:31
Poor project management is going to cause a project to fail more so than art or programming. Either way I agree, this question isn't very constructive. Look at the faq. – Tetrad Jul 12 '11 at 18:40

I think you're attacking the question from the wrong angle. What will cause a project to fail is a poor understanding of the field, lack of funding, loss of interest/morale in a team. In other words, given an infinite supply of labor, time, and money, any project of any size can theoretically succeed. If you want to know more about what causes of failures for projects are, then search explicitly for that.

To narrowly define a game as "Art + Code" and ask which is more important is kind of like asking in the food service industry, "Which is more important in the success of a restaurant, food or spices?" I think you would be better off understanding all of the parts that go into a successful game development + launch and then trying to find points of failure in there.

share|improve this answer
Great restaurant analogy, although I probably would have gone with something more specific than "food". – jhocking Jul 12 '11 at 20:43

Have you seen post mortem discussions? Any answer will depend on the type of game and you're not going to get any good answer to the "what is harder" question, that's so very subjective. Plus "fail" is a s

I don't think that these are answerable questions, all projects carry risk across both those axes and the two examples given are so wildly different any comparison will be manufactured and not a valid observation in my opinion.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.