Thursday, April 5, 2012

The Artist and the Developer, differing approaches to making a game

So I have been busy doing some major layout overhaul for the next release of Neoclassical Geek Revival,   also working on "Scenic Dunnsmouth" some more, and if its suitable it may even be published by an impressive brand,  but I try not to count chickens before hatched.

I was thinking about different approaches to releasing games.  I am very much in the habit of doing iterative releases and don't believe there will ever be a time when I say "There, I am done".  I am a tinkerer and I always see room for improvement.

But I do notice many people want to get things "right" and produce one work that stands for a good long period of time.  If something gets fixed its because they legitimately didn't notice it before release,  not that they just didn't have a better option at the time.

I also work in software development,  I began noticing other people who release in similar methods to me also work in development.  I noticed through my super scientific sampling of a few people who don't release this way that they tend to be artists or writers.

So I am genuinely curious if this is just anecdotal crap,  or if this is a real pattern.


  1. Well, developers are generally called upon to fix bugs with a thing that can be easily replaced, whereas artists and writers who are trying to produce a thing of their own volition either fiddle with it forever or release it to a harder-to-copy version and move on. The idea of 'art' and 'writing' emerged pre-mechanical reproduction, so the value of each object (and the associated iteration) was higher.

  2. I don't know about that, Developers must first develop something new (out of nothing) before bugs with it can be fixed.