Before reading this post, I'd like you to keep in mind that this is my personal opinion and that I am not presenting it as absolute truth, but rather putting it out there and asking for opinions on the matter.

There seems to be a lot of hate directed towards the 'idea guy' in the gaming community.

He adds little to the project in terms of both work and end result. The quality of a game comes down to execution, iteration and polish.

That is at least, if you'll believe the popular opinion on the matter.

I tend to disagree though, and I'd like to explain my views by tying this question into another one: "Can video games be art?"

At first glance, there seems to be very little preventing video games from being an art form. Much like film, it mixes several media to create a new one. Many of the processes required to make a game a reality are considered an art form.
An argument you encounter often is that interactivity, exactly what makes a medium a game, is what keeps it from being a piece of art. People have done a better job than I possibly could explaining why this argument is faulty, so I won't go into that. Where they tend to go wrong though, in my opinion, is when they try to identify the real reason why some people have troubles recognizing games as an art form. Apparently, they are too new as a medium. For one thing, this means that they have a bit of growing to do. Additionally, people who didn't grow up with it, don't fully understand the medium. I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I'd like to point out a very real problem that I think is hindering games.

The lack of appreciation and even depreciation of the 'idea guy'.

What I think is absolutely essential for art, is that the creator has something they want to share with the world. They have a vision for what they want their piece do art to become and make decisions when creating it based on that vision. Not based on what the money thinks it should be, not based on what will go down well with the audience and not even (primarily) based on what will make for the 'better' piece of art.

It's true that everyone in the gaming business, including the janitor, has ideas for games, but let me ask you this question: Does everyone have good game ideas?

Now, I'm not saying that the 'idea guy' should be held on a pedestal and that his contribution to the game, the initial idea, is the only thing that counts. It is still very true that, if the only thing he has to add is the initial idea, he is of not much worth. After all, what worth is a great idea for a painting if you can't paint? And that's what makes an artist, the essential skill set necessary to create his art and the initial idea.

This just leaves one more question, when it comes to making games, who is the painter? Well, that would be the game designer. Because as people have argued before me, game designing is a skill set and I will say more even, it is the only one truly essential to the quality of games.

So where do the other people involved in making a game fit into this metaphor? If the game designer is the painter, the 3d modeler, animator or 2d artist might be the manufacturer of the paint. And the programmers can be the one who made the canvas the painter is using. They are all admirable professions, without them, no painting could be made, and it is pretty awesome if the painter does some of these things himself, but that's not what makes a great artist, it's the technical skill and knowledge as a painter and more importantly, the initial idea and vision.

The "games as art" discussion is stupid. IMO if you're arguing "can X be art" with any "X", then you're just a wanker. You should be instead be asking people "what does X mean to you", and you know, listening to people's feelings, because that's what art's about. Of course "X" can be art to some specific beholder of "X". Put down the red wine!

Anyway, the art debate doesn't really have much to do with why people hate on "the idea guy".

People hate on the idea guy, because an initial idea is nothing by itself. A game designer doesn't write down an initial idea, put it in an envelope and wait for it to be made. Designing a game is a collaboration between everyone involved. The designer, the programmers, the artists, the animators, the audio staff and the business managers all work together as a multi-disciplined team. As with all art, you often have to work within constraints. The programmers and businessmen are often the ones that will be dictating constraints to the designers and artists, who then have to work within that space. Also, programmers may unexpectedly defeat constrains, and open up new avenues to design within. Actually, every department is dictating contraints/requirements/limitations/possibilities to every other department, and reacting to the options they're given.

The people that do this kind of design work are real world game designers.

The guys that write up their poorly thought out mash-ups of other games, or their clichéd storylines with no information on actual game mechanics, and then complain that they can't get their games made -- these are the guys that people call "idea guys", and make fun of.

This just leaves one more question, when it comes to making games, who is the painter? Well, that would be the game designer. Because as people have argued before me, game designing is a skill set and I will say more even, it is the only one truly essential to the quality of games.

It totally depends on the level of detail in the initial design, and the ongoing involvement of the designer to reshape his initial design during it's implementation as issues and opportunities arise. This is a creative process that involves input from both the designer and the implementors. Both of them are just as important in creating a wonderful bit of art as a result. If you've got a great designer and bad implementors, you're probably going to put out worse art that a team with a bad designer but great implementors.

Saying the designer is the painter (and thus, the "real artist") is like saying that the guy who said "Hey Rembrandt, you should paint Jesus calming a storm!" is actually the real artist and Rembrandt is just the technical implementor, not worthy of mention.

Yes, design is a real skill set, which is why most games companies will have a few on their payroll. However, it's not their initial ideas that make them valuable, it's their skill at being a guiding hand throughout the entire development of the game that makes them valuable.

Your stereotypical idea guy does not possess this skill set, or any skill set really. The stereotypical idea guy actually has bad ideas that he thinks are good which is why it's such a fun stereotype to make fun of.

If the game designer is the painter, the 3d modeler, animator or 2d artist might be the manufacturer of the paint. And the programmers can be the one who made the canvas the painter is using.

No, that metaphor completely misses the point that the interaction between designers, programmers and artists are all two-way interactions. The artists and programmers, the artists and designers, and the designers and programmers, all supply work to each other and feed off each other. All those relationships are reactive and dependent on each other.

For this metaphor, you'd need the painter to require some specific kind of paint and canvas that don't yet exist, and his art to be an iterative process that requires a search for both the final painted image that he's after, and a search to develop the kinds of paints/canvasses that will allow this image to be created. This journey would likely change directions at different points as certain limitations in the search for paint/canvas are decided upon. All of this R&D is also costing money, so all the artisans involved must balance the amount of time they spend on each area with the value that it will bring to the artistic vision, which is where project management comes in (which is often another skill that good game designers are expected to be trained in, but the stereotypical idea guy lacks).

People hate on the idea guy, because an initial idea is nothing by itself. A game designer doesn't write down an initial idea, put it in an envelope and wait for it to be made. Designing a game is a collaboration between everyone involved. The designer, the programmers, the artists, the animators, the audio staff and the business managers all work together as a multi-disciplined team. As with all art, you often have to work within constraints. The programmers and businessmen are often the ones that will be dictating constraints to the designers and artists, who then have to work within that space. Also, programmers may unexpectedly defeat constrains, and open up new avenues to design within. Actually, every department is dictating contraints/requirements/limitations/possibilities to every other department, and reacting to the options they're given.

The people that do this kind of design work are real world game designers.

I think this sums it all up very well. On hobbyist projects, idea aren't usually wanted because everyone has ideas. If it's just a hobby, why just sit and take orders? If I do that; it's not a hobby anymore. It's a job. There's so much work involved in making a game; if all someone does is talk about their great idea, there will be resentment.

I do agree with your views on the stereotypical idea guy. An idea on its own isn't worth much and an idea guy without a skill set definitely isn't worth anything. Especially if his ideas aren't even good.

But i still hold my view that possessing a skill set does not make an artist, it is necessary, but not essential.

I'll try to clarify what I meant using your strawman argument concerning Rembrandt and the guy who had the idea to paint Jesus calming a storm.

I said the designer is the painter and that he needs to have a great initial idea and a vision to be a great artist. In this case, the initial idea came from someone else. Does this mean that the other guy is the real artist and Rembrandt merely the technical implementor? Maybe. It all depends on why he thought his idea was a good one. Does he understand how it will translate into a painting and what message it can convey to the consumer? Then yes, he can be considered an artist. And if he somehow translated that to Rembrandt and Rembrandt merely tweeked it a bit using his technical knowledge about painting, then Rembrandt should not be considered the artist. However, if that guy just thought it would look cool and Rembrandt saw how it could work out and be a great piece of art. Then Rembrandt is the artist and the other person simply sparked some great idea in his mind.

There are many people with great technical skill, not very many of them can be considered great artists though.

Bad design and great implementation leads to good entertainment, good design and bad entertainment leads to bad art.

I'll take good entertainment over bad art any day, but that doesn't change that striving for art in stead of entertainment has some value to it.

//EDIT: Damn, took too long typing and had a couple of additional replies sneak in before I posted...

There's a real difference between a game designer and an "idea guy".

A game designer has real value; they provide vision and guidance, and are often the driving force behind indie projects. A real designer is able to work within constraints, is able to "find the fun" and build a complementary experience around that, is able to measure and adjust for the impact of various elements within a design, and can often be the difference between an interesting tech-demo and a masterpiece of game design that can become a smash hit. There are very few people who question this, but unfortunately most people who think they're designers are actually just "idea guys".

An "idea guy" is exactly as useless as common wisdom tells you it is, and isn't the person who fills the role you're describing. They have an idea which may or may not be good, and offer little if any additional value to a project. Projects with an "idea guy" on board are completed despite the idea guy, and are only better than "programmer only" projects out of luck if at all.

Essentially -- if we put aside the subjective and realistically meaningless point about games as art -- you're correct about a real designer, but the thing you've missed is that "the idea guy" is a very poor substitute for the real thing. You'll find very few people who dispute the value of a real designer, but they're absolutely right to devalue the idea guy, and it's a real shame that particular scorn isn't universal enough to prevent hordes of projects that are doomed before they even begin.

Hodgman summed it up very well when he said:

design is a real skill set, which is why most games companies will have a few on their payroll. However, it's not their initial ideas that make them valuable, it's their skill at being a guiding hand throughout the entire development of the game that makes them valuable.
Your stereotypical idea guy does not possess this skill set, or any skill set really.

See also some of the discussion from the topic "what programmers want from a designer", in which several people touch on the value of real designers.

There is no person who just walks up to a painter and says I want to paint a picture of the Golden Gate Bridge and then the painter just paints it. Its usually the painter himself who decides what to paint. The most common "designer" of a song is a singer songwriter. Or one guy who does lyrics and then another who plays or w/e.

People who can ONLY think up ideas and have no technical skills are worthless. You know the only case where someone tells the singer what to sing? Industrialized pop music. You know who decides? The suits. The same for painting. A rich person commissions a portrait. You can design any damn game you want if you FINANCE it, too.

So to clarify, things an idea guy needs to be valuable:

Money

or

Programming

or

Art

In which case he is a suit or a programmer or an artist, too. And generally unless you are a suit, the artists and programmers get to make decisions, too.

There is no where in the art world a case where people sit around dreaming up ideas and then get someone with skill or talent to make that complicated art piece for free. Not one fucking place.

f the game designer is the painter, the 3d modeler, animator or 2d artist might be the manufacturer of the paint. And the programmers can be the one who made the canvas the painter is using.

No, that metaphor completely misses the point that the interaction between designers, programmers and artists are all two-way interactions. The artists and programmers, the artists and designers, and the designers and programmers, all supply work to each other and feed off each other. All those relationships are reactive and dependent on each other.

For this metaphor, you'd need the painter to require some specific kind of paint and canvas that don't yet exist, and his art to be an iterative process that requires a search for both the final painted image that he's after, and a search to develop the kinds of paints/canvasses that will allow this image to be created. This journey would likely change directions at different points as certain limitations in the search for paint/canvas are decided upon. All of this R&D is also costing money, so all the artisans involved must balance the amount of time they spend on each area with the value that it will bring to the artistic vision, which is where project management comes in (which is often another skill that good game designers are expected to be trained in, but the stereotypical idea guy lacks).

I must say that I was fully aware of my metaphor being lacking in that aspect and knew that that would cause some backlash. It's clear that programmers, 2d artists etc. play a much larger and more interactive role in the creation of a game. But the fact remains that they usually don't touch the heart of the game and merely provide the framework and tools the game designer can work with. And if the game designer is REALLY good at his job, they shouldn't meddle with his process besides telling him what limitations he's working with.

f the game designer is the painter, the 3d modeler, animator or 2d artist might be the manufacturer of the paint. And the programmers can be the one who made the canvas the painter is using.

No, that metaphor completely misses the point that the interaction between designers, programmers and artists are all two-way interactions. The artists and programmers, the artists and designers, and the designers and programmers, all supply work to each other and feed off each other. All those relationships are reactive and dependent on each other.

For this metaphor, you'd need the painter to require some specific kind of paint and canvas that don't yet exist, and his art to be an iterative process that requires a search for both the final painted image that he's after, and a search to develop the kinds of paints/canvasses that will allow this image to be created. This journey would likely change directions at different points as certain limitations in the search for paint/canvas are decided upon. All of this R&D is also costing money, so all the artisans involved must balance the amount of time they spend on each area with the value that it will bring to the artistic vision, which is where project management comes in (which is often another skill that good game designers are expected to be trained in, but the stereotypical idea guy lacks).

I must say that I was fully aware of my metaphor being lacking in that aspect and knew that that would cause some backlash. It's clear that programmers, 2d artists etc. play a much larger and more interactive role in the creation of a game. But the fact remains that they usually don't touch the heart of the game and merely provide the framework and tools the game designer can work with. And if the game designer is REALLY good at his job, they shouldn't meddle with his process besides telling him what limitations he's working with.

This is nonsense. If the game designer has a dumb idea they should tell him it won't be fun or it won't work the way he is thinking.. And btw, whenever someone types "REALLY" in all caps, I prepare for a No True Scotsman Fallacy.

This is nonsense. If the game designer has a dumb idea they should tell him it won't be fun or it won't work the way he is thinking.. And btw, whenever someone types "REALLY" in all caps, I prepare for a No True Scotsman Fallacy.

This is exactly why I said he needs to be really good. If his idea is dumb, he isn't a particularly good designer in my book.

If a hobbyist painter goes to the paint shop and tells the guy who made the paint what he's going to paint. He might very well adjust a few things based on what the person tells him to adjust to improve his paintings. But do you really believe that this is going to result in a masterpiece?

If a modern day Rembrandt goes to the same paint shop though, he likely won't need to ask the guy working there for any advice. If he did, he wouldn't be worth calling a modern day Rembrandt.

I'd like to add that I realize there are practical problems preventing things from working this way, A game is not a painting after all, not by a long stretch. But that doesn't mean it can't be an ideal to strive towards.

The idea guy really needs to look at "I couldn't steal your idea if I wanted to posts". Your idea and vision isn't very communicatiable, and even if it was perfectly so the team will have to change enough to make it not your idea anymore(if you can't contribute after an idea).

http://www.gameproducer.net/2011/12/17/heres-why-i-cannot-steal-your-game-idea-even-if-you-want-me-to/