Collab Idea

Kezarus

Endless Game Maker
Hi good people!

I am thinking about a Colaboration Idea. It's like this:

I make the entire game rules and implement them in a "sprite-less" game. Sounds and particles will be added after, but menus, levels and gameplay will be on point.

Next, I will ask for an artist to team up with me and actually do the game's theme and sprites. Even choose the fonts and some layout changes. The name will be a mix of ideas, but we both have to agree.

But, here's the catch, after the general idea and plan layed out by the artist, we will agree on a price and I will pay for the art and publish the game on my own in Steam. I will develop the sound and particles while the artist comes up with the art. All the Steam revenue, if any, will be on my part. I get all the risk and the artist will be paid and credited.

Question: is it a good model? Could it be better? What do you feel about it?
 
Last edited:

Toque

Member
The artist will love it. You have a list of all the sprites and sizes. Pick a design and style and off they go.

I would probably have a few samples made to decide on a art style first.

I have done what your thinking a few times.
Artists love it. But If there are any changes I pay extra for them. Or I usually change it myself.

for the developing side I like to have some art done while I’m making it.......

Edit: I’m making simple mobile games.
 
Last edited:

curato

Member
yeah I am paying for my art in phases. I did work up some basic game logic and then I came up with a a cut list of the assests I needed and farmed most of the pixel art out for the initial part of the game. Then once I got it that far working and polished. I moved on to my next part of the game and got another art dump. I probally got one more for the end game stuff once I have all the regular levels done. I just found breaking it up into what I could reasonably work on at one time made sense to me especially since I didn't have to pay for it all at once.
 

Kezarus

Endless Game Maker
Thanks for the replies, guys!

@Toque, part of the idea is that the artist love it and feel that he is making something for himself too. I think it's motivating and could bring the best side of the art.

I am just making the mechanics and programming them. I am terrible with art and I would like to an artist to pick the game, play it a good amount, and put his vision into the game.

No mechanics will be changed, except for some that require graphics (like stoping and starting an animation at the right time). I've never seen anyone making that kind of approach, good thing it's not that strange. =]
 

curato

Member
It really isn't that strange at all. A lot of bigger project work that way where you are working on thihgs independent of each other. In game maker the art and sound are easiest to farm out as you can take them and import them as you get them without worrying about source control too much. I pretty much did that with my game I had some general requirements for my art dimensions and style and let the artist roll with it as it isn't a defined IP as long as it looks good and goes together it really doesn't matter too much. You may find they hit you for details you never would have thought or stuff may come back in a way that doesn't work for you. I had that with some of my stuff. I redid most of my skill buttons, I had one character that the oddly went of spec on the dimensions and i had to fix it and I had one that was supposed to spit a fire ball but he was looking down in that frame I had to redraw the head part. I do have some ability in that area just not the patience lol. But I think you are on the right track.
 

Toque

Member
Having an artist do all the art at once makes really it coherent. It just looks good. Have the artist make a colour shade tab to give you.

if the artist can play the game that would be good. I found a video of the game play was enough.



I always had a game document to give. Art I like and don’t like. Give a little direction. But I also gave the artist freedom to try something new or unique. I would pay for them to experiment.

I always (promised) gave positive reviews even if I didn’t like the art. Want the artist to get excited and have fun with it. Paid up front. No risk for the artist.

but that’s just how I roll. It’s not for everyone.
 

Kezarus

Endless Game Maker
I was very strict with art once and I'm planning to change it because I think it will be good.

On the game I'm not even making the theme. I plan to have a finished game with only placeholder art and send it to the artist.

For example, I am making a tower defense with only primary colors and no theme at all. If the artist want to make a plant-themed art, I have all the sizes, I will just substitute the placeholder. If he want to make it about zombies, fine by me. I will just make the mechanics work as best as I can.

My Framework allows me to make multi-sized "mutant" buttons too (9-slices +some random). To make changes to the GUI is easy enough. =]
 

Toque

Member
I was very strict with art once and I'm planning to change it because I think it will be good.

On the game I'm not even making the theme. I plan to have a finished game with only placeholder art and send it to the artist.

For example, I am making a tower defense with only primary colors and no theme at all. If the artist want to make a plant-themed art, I have all the sizes, I will just substitute the placeholder. If he want to make it about zombies, fine by me. I will just make the mechanics work as best as I can.

My Framework allows me to make multi-sized "mutant" buttons too (9-slices +some random). To make changes to the GUI is easy enough. =]

that makes a lot of sense
 

Yal

🐧 *penguin noises*
GMC Elder
I'd say something like this wouldn't work for every project:
  • Bosses might suffer, since it's hard to tell if their attack tells are readable or not when you don't have the proper graphics. And since you'd do the entire game first (presumably, including balancing) this might slip through the cracks. (Applies to any and all minor enemies with telegraphed attacks too, of course)
  • Games where worldbuilding is important would suffer since you build the world before you know anything about it, and you'd either have to write flavor text blind (before the artist is involved) or have to write it all in one go at the end (which increases the risk of making mistakes), and in both cases you risk having discrepancies between flavor text and how the world actually is
  • Levels will be easier to read when they're 100% made from placeholders than they will be when full of assets, so the added detail might make trivial navigation become more confusing. (This is a well-known problem in big 3D games in particular, where grayboxed levels has no pretty distractions to obscure your view, but it probably applies to 2D as well)
If neither of those will be a problem in your game, you probably can go for it. But if any of them might be a problem, make sure to plan accordingly to mitigate it.
 

Joh

Member
This feels very weird.
Now don't get me wrong, that's how I would like to do things too. It seems very fair and effective but I'm not sure it will add up quite well in a generalised way.

First as Yal mentionned, it's hard to make a game with no idea of its world and what it's really about. And in reverse, the world itself can totally inspire gameplay and design approaches. Also "abstractly" designing all sprites based on templates given by you, will theoretically work well, but in practice, it will probably need to be adjusted a lot.

Furthermore, designing is work. Are you sure the artist wants to be that involved? (and are you paying for that part, before knowing if it will workout?) As a creative, I often think that of course an associated artist should be invested in my project, love it too and want it to be theirs. But, perhaps this is me being cynical, few people will be as invested in your idea as yourself. This is more to point out that maybe all that creative freedom & involvement you are giving, is not that useful of a benefit for the artist. Its actually more work.

It feels like a best of both world, commissioned artist and team member artist.
The investment and contribution of a team member, at the cost, delivery and royalty of a commission.

If at the end of the day you are the full owner of the game and get all the revenue, own up that it is your game and design its world & aesthetics and hire/commision an artist to deliver that art. As Torque mentioned, they should still have some freedom and input, it is their art, they will have a vision for it and you should collaborate with them to maximise the result, but you should know what you want.
*it's only right now that I've realized what was off: You are in a way giving the artist a design job, within their artist job without it being explicit.

That being I think it could work on rather simple game, such as mobile games, where the art is a "flavor" and distinct from the game itself. Anything with a story, world, characters, level design it might be a bit more of a challenge but could still work.
 
If at the end of the day you are the full owner of the game and get all the revenue
Yeah, that's the part that stuck out to me as well. While I love worldbuilding and thinking of designs for things in my game, it's definitely a huge time-sink. Sometimes a much bigger timesink than the actual coding. If I were to just code a "template" with no thought towards worldbuilding or graphical design, I would not consider myself an owner of the finished product, in fact, I'd feel like the reverse. I was just a coder that did the bare minimum for a viable product. In that scenario, the artist would be the "owner" of the product, (not to mention, they'd actually own the IP for real if the agreement did not state otherwise).

Rev-share might interest more people for the way you want to design your games. A lot of people think it's impossible to find rev-share artists, but it's not that hard really. Just troll through art forums and private message people whose art you think is good and would fit your game. The problem is really that people might drop out. You could probably sweeten the deal by paying minor fixed sums for work and having an unbalanced rev-share agreement (for instance, maybe something like $500 for total commissioned artwork and then a 75/25% rev-share split, as some random numbers pulled from the top of my head). Also, make sure the agreement means that payment only comes if the artwork is used in the final product.

Doing it that way gives the artist a reason to invest in the time needed for the design of the game, while still allowing you to take a large portions of total profits home.
 

Kezarus

Endless Game Maker
@Joh and @RefresherTowel, thanks a lot for your thoughts about this! I see that some things really needs clarification.

The plan here is to give the artist total freedom to make what he feels like it. If it seems that I am pushing the design part for them, well, that have to change as this is not my intention. I will talk a little more of what I have in mind.

The game in question is a Tower Defense with a slight different building mechanic. Levels will be random gen by params (this is ready) and enemies and towers have parameters set (this is also ready) and will be balanced(this needs to be done). Besides that... if the towers throws arrows and magic or bullets and rays it doesn't matter. Or the enemies beign medieval monsters or robots... it will not matter to the mechanics. The flavor text could be easily changed. Animations are incorporated into the design also (anim speed is set by calculations), just have to import them as needed. Do you think this could be a problem?

I understand that a game with an elaborate Story or "Set in Stone" level design is just impossible to make the way I am thinking. That's common ground.

@RefresherTowel, your mention about rev share was very interesting. I usually saw that as a scam, not as a good thing. Nonetheless, I think rev share have some legal issues. I'm not sure how that works internationally, but in my country, if a rev share needs to be pulled of the interested people have to constitute an enterprise together. Not to mention taxes between countries. As it is right now, I am taxed both on US by Steam and in my country when the money "arrives". The Net Value I receive is about 50% of what I sell, and Steam puts everything in a bag and deliver it to me, I'm not even sure what amount is for what game. If you have more information/experience on revenue share let's have a conversation about it, mate. As I see, it's a lot of paperwork, but I am probably misguided and misinformed.

Thanks a lot pelople!
Kezarus
 
Top