Programmning vs Artist in the Game Industry
polycounter lvl 18
I'm sure 95% of the people on this forum are artists, but I thought it would be interesting to get the perspective from any programmers / technical artists out there that do visit this forum.
I started out in the industry as an intern as an artist but I decided it was probably the smart thing to do and I went back to school to be a computer science major. I made this decision for many reasons, first off I thought I would enjoy my job more if I were coding, and secondly the pay was much higher (at least at my company I was at).
- Generally, is the need for programmers and anything else that requires a BS in Computer Science greater than that for an artist? There seemed to be less Coders on my team than artists, but it always seemed like the Coders were hard to come by.
- Is the pay normally higher for programmers than than artists / designers?
- For those of you who are programmers, did your courses in college that you got your degree from help set you up with the right tools to start programming for games, or did you teach these things to yourself?
If anyone could answer any of those it would be great...its interesting to compare the two jobs.
Thanks..
I started out in the industry as an intern as an artist but I decided it was probably the smart thing to do and I went back to school to be a computer science major. I made this decision for many reasons, first off I thought I would enjoy my job more if I were coding, and secondly the pay was much higher (at least at my company I was at).
- Generally, is the need for programmers and anything else that requires a BS in Computer Science greater than that for an artist? There seemed to be less Coders on my team than artists, but it always seemed like the Coders were hard to come by.
- Is the pay normally higher for programmers than than artists / designers?
- For those of you who are programmers, did your courses in college that you got your degree from help set you up with the right tools to start programming for games, or did you teach these things to yourself?
If anyone could answer any of those it would be great...its interesting to compare the two jobs.
Thanks..
Replies
I started off learning how to do game art. I did some freelance work and I had a lot of fun. I picked up programming as a hobby, did some freelance work, and enjoyed it so much that I decided to major in it.
It's certainly not for everyone. Even I am getting burned out on it quickly. I still enjoy doing art a lot, but if I sit in front of a screen debugging for several hours I feel like gouging my eyes out with a spork. Make sure you really love programming before making the switch.
Now, for some answers to your questions:
-I've found that it is a lot easier to get work as a programmer. I don't know if it's because most programmers suck (they don't teach you much practical programming as a comp science major!) and I have experience, but I hardly ever got turned down for what I wanted.
There is also a larger market for comp sci majors in general. If you are a comp science major and you get sick of games, you can easily be a network administrator at a corporate office, an IT manager at a big company, a programming for company applications, etc etc etc. Art, however, is one of those things that many people have a natural talent for and you will have to work very hard if you don't have it. If you do have it, embrace it and have fun with it.
-Yes, the pay is higher. The pay is higher in many industries. If you wanted to move onto server/network admin for Blizzard's WoW servers one day, for example, you can make much more doing that. That is just one example, but you have several high paying jobs to choose from.
-Hell no. I even went to a college for a while that focused fairly strongly on game programming and they were full of shit or outdated knowledge a lot of the time. Take the general concepts you are taught and apply it to little projects or mods - just like artists. I can guarantee you that 10 times out of 10 if you have a degree from a worse school than someone else but you have experience doing something on a good mod or a nice home project, you will get the job.
Like I said, only do Comp Sci if you really enjoy programming. There is a lot of theoretical bullshit that you will hate. Sitting in front of a computer looking at lines of text can drive you mad after a while!
If you are interested in programming and business and sick of art, you may want to check out CIS or BCIS. It is about 2/3 practical computer programming and 1/3 business classes. You can get a great job doing something IT/server/network related in the game industry doing that, but you usually won't get a job working directly on games (unless it's on the tools).
I am planning on returning to get my degree since I can't seem to find work, even locally. I'm one of those that suck on interviews and because of my muscular dystrophy (affects my face muscles) a lot of people think I am a bit of an asshole when they first meet me face to face for the first time if the don't know about my MD. And I keep being stupid and not informing people about my disability because of not wanting to be discriminated against.
There's also the fact that art is considerably more subjective than programming. And programming is much easier to quantify. (measure) A great artist can spend months on a masterpiece, but that work's quantifiable contribution to the game it is put in could be quite negligible.
In short, it will always be easier to find and keep work as a programmer, as opposed to being an artist. Everyone always seems to need programmers, while not everyone understands the value of artists.
As to training, it is hard to say. I'm kind of in the gray area between programming and artistry. (web design, with an emphasis on the technical aspects) I actually went to college for graphic design, but after experimenting with programming, I think I might have missed my calling.
Programming isn't about book learning. It's about problem solving. It's a puzzle you have to solve with pieces that you have to create before you use them. The actual syntax of a programming language only accounts for maybe 10% of the learning process. The other 90% is learning to apply the syntax practically. A logical mind and patience are the key to learning and excelling at programming. And as with most things, actual experience is key. The more you use programming, the more you will learn. No one comes out of school knowing all the programming they will need.
That's only partially true. There is a LOT of learning if you are going into game development programming. It's hard shit. You will learn a lot of theoretical shit going Comp Sci and you will be able to adapt to most languages, but each language, framework, etc will have its quirks you have to study.
Trust me, if you're not totally excited by the idea of programming, you shouldn't get into Comp Sci. Discreet math will make you shit blood if you're not into that kind of thing.
- Generally, is the need for programmers and anything else that requires a BS in Computer Science greater than that for an artist? There seemed to be less Coders on my team than artists, but it always seemed like the Coders were hard to come by.
Yes, the demand for coders is greater, partially because code is not outsourced as much as content (I think this will change, and every discipline will be outsourced to some degree). I would not allow this alone to determine your focus. Do what you love and what you are good at, forget about the money. money and job stability are yours if you are good at what you do.
- Is the pay normally higher for programmers than than artists / designers?
Yes
- For those of you who are programmers, did your courses in college that you got your degree from help set you up with the right tools to start programming for games, or did you teach these things to yourself?
Across the board you will find those who've gone to great coding schools, like Digipen and Guildhall, and then there are bullshit programs like AI or the like that train up coders who know just enough to be dangerous but still useless. It's not the program so much as the individual. Don't expect a school to teach you skills, Goto school to learn howto learn. The hard skills you learn in college will be obsolete within a few product cycles anyways...its the fundamentals that last a lifetime.
I think you aren't asking the right questions...I know that sounds presumptious, and I'm not trying to be a dick. What I'm getting at is...uhhh....i think you're not in the right headspace yet. Too many young would-be developers are more interested in being in the industry than they are 'doing' the job they'd be doing if they were in the industry. First be passionate, then you'll either not care about the questions you're asking or you'll already have the answers.
does that count?
not in my experience. Coders have to be *so on the ball, so minutely tuned in, single mistakes can really fuck things up for the whole project. I've seen many many coders who don't gel precisely with the rest of the code team get axed, whether they've made destructive mistakes or not, and that includes seniors. Art tends to be more forgiving, it's harder to grind entire projects to a halt or worry producers cos a single artist isn't quite with it ...
I am with Pak however, invest more time in things you enjoy, try to find out what you like / good at. Eventhough it's not a "must" that you will do this for the "end of your life" your job will likely be several years in near future. Take your time about getting to know what you want.
Cause basically one could "argue" for any job in this world, and find pros and cons. What matters is that you enjoy it and have the inner motivation to push yourself forward in it. External motivation (money/force) will never be able to get the best out of people.
A general statement however I think is true, and that is that "knowledge" is powerful, however that comes from dedicated will to learn stuff, building up experience...
so I would use the classic "the path is the goal" metaphor for "life"
ie if you enjoy the path on becoming X, it's likely that X is the right thing for you, if you dont like the "path" but only dream of the goal, then uhm you will probably not get over the hurdle, or get burnt after you achieved it quickly... cause there is no real "goal" there is just new challenges, new "paths" to come.
btw guys, use "inverted" colorschemes for less pain in the eyes, there are reasons why good old dos edit was grey on blue, or why air traffic control monitors are green on black... black on white just isnt brilliant for lots of text work on pc.
programmer - spends evenings and weekends in the office
have fun earning more.
Yea, this is pretty much how it goes in our office a good deal of the time.
Also, Programmers: try to set up epic nerf ambush of art department (fail because of snitch providing forewarning)
Artists: set up epic trap for programmers failure (artists are winrars)
Conclusion: brotherhood in art department = no backstabbing during nerf wars.
Programing, costs money to make money. starts out low, but has the potential to give a person the power to hold a company hostage and really rake in the cash. Most programmers are lazy and never actually get around to writing that "give me financial freedom, or so help me I'll put 'hot coffee' on the gold master!" email. It pays to clarify exactly what kind of nonsense they are talking about before dismissing it as burn out gibberish.
Art, costs very little money to make very little money. Starts out low doesn't go very high because they think they can replace you with a wet sack of tuna at a moments notice, and indeed the schools churn out wet sacks of tuna hourly. Art CAN take you pretty far if you're willing to claw your way to AD or into some other position that starts to have less and less to do with actual art.
Never underestimate your AD's cage fighting skills. Theres an unmarked grave in the Nevada desert and your last AD is still missing. You're an artist but still, you can do the math.
But great artists can make quite a lot of money -- either as an AD, which is still all about art, even if you aren't painting as many brush strokes yourself, or just as a very valued sr artist. And truly learning to be incredible at art is going to take years and thousands of dollars on materials (hardware if you're a digital artist) and training.
It sounds like it's more
-- good artist or programmer, costs money(/time) to make money
-- Bad artist or programmer, costs very little money to make very little money.
But I named all my variables pissmyshits45 and douchemytomatoes29 so that they could never fire me. If anyone tried to debug my code, their head would explode.
Ok, I only told part of the truth, but the point is that I think programmers have more job security because it is often a pain in the ASS to get someone to come into a new environment with other people's code and pick up in the middle of a project.
But I think the distinction of how much and where the cash comes from is important.
Artists can labor at their own pace with low tech tools (paint, paper, dirt/twig) for years. Then jump to digital fairly quickly with little training (often self taught) in a few months maybe a year and they don't need much other then a mid level PC. Refinement and polish often come at the expense of the employer.
Programming is not so easy to get your hands on samples and teach yourself. If you want to break into the console market I'd imagine you'll need access to dev kits at some point? I'm not sure too many self taught programmers actually get a serious look until they have some kind of degree or hard core examples?
The chances that an OK programmer will get in, hold onto a job and it will be come profitable are a tiny bit higher then an OK artist trying to struggle into a senior slot. It's all survival of the fittest just on programmer island there are less chances you'll be eaten... But the ticket to get on that island might cost you more up front.
I consider most programmers artists who choose a different medium. what they make can and should be considered art, so the idea that programmers will replace artists is kinda silly. But I understand if it stretches the definition of artist, too much for some people.
Coder:want to order any food?
Me:Hunh,why? you guys crunching?
Coder:Yeah something fucked up real bad.
Me:No sorry im on my way home.
Theres tradeoffs,coders may earn more sure,but i dont have to be in countless meetings to discuss this or that. I speak to my AD once a day and the rest i work on my own with music or comedy in the background.
Thanks for that extremely insightful contribution to this discussion. Do you actually have any idea what you're talking about?
Don't worry, artists can fuck things up real bad too, and then have to stay late to fix them. I speak on behalf of other people who went home early while I fixed their broken models. I hope you're not one of those artists
And Slum, regarding all of ViPr's posts he's ever made: no, he has no idea what he's talking about. Probably best to ignore, I think he's a troll or a 10-year-old.
So many people make that mistake. Who gives a shit if you make slightly less money? No amount of money can buy your happiness, and I swear to you that you will learn that lesson if you take the wrong job.
I was offered a sweet job at a big corporate office. I ended up having to be there at exactly 8 am every morning, and it was an hour and fifteen minute drive because of traffic. Everyone in the office was so fake and douchey, I spent a ton of time in meetings, and I did a lot of shit that I didn't want to do. I absolutely hated it and I quit after 3 months.
Most programming jobs aren't like that, but I am giving you an example as to how you can pick the wrong job for the wrong reasons (money being the most important wrong reason).
Network a lot and try to get on some indy projects or mods. I taught myself and then went to IGC in Eugene and got on a small project. We never got it released but it was really good experience.
For me since I was doing indy projects I was doing my own art as well and eventually found this to be the direction I wanted to go.
Follow your passion , interests and drive not the $$$.
my 2cents
His post history actually makes a hilarious and awesome read, he doesn't actually seem to have any personality or identity outside of just always being wrong.
What would you coders recommend I teach myself during my college education? I have already taken two years of Java (which is what they teach in the University of California system of schools) and I am ready to take on another language. Obviously C++ is should be the next one I would think as from the job descriptions I look at all either state to know Java or C++.
After C++ what would you recommend? I see a lot of job postings that state you should know OpenGL if you want to be a graphics programmer or other programs depending on if you want to be a psychics or AI programmer.
What exactly is a "Gameplay Programmer". I see a lot of those types of job postings but none of them seem to have a solid description of what the job entails.
Once again, thanks so much for the invaluable information guys!
regarding the artist vs coder thing, I've noticed that 10 out of 10 times coder make money, get more respect, and have an easier path to management.
Think about this:
each code advance that allows for better art is like removing a layer from an onion. The onion started out very big ( lots of technical limitations ) , and now it's getting smaller, thereby approaching the core (where art is unrestrained).
Programmers are credited with these "advances", but in reality, all that's happening is that they're removing the barriers that real-time puts on art . So, artists were always "AMAZING" (just look at history). To say that coders are pushing the threshold of visual medium is a ridiculous lie.
I have yet to see one gallery dedicated to spectacular code, but the Louvre sure is an amazing display of art. The politics of the game's industry are not special, they follow the laws of supply and demand. Less coders, with essential skills, means more money and more power.
Academia is cranking out 5th rate artists, and managers who don't know any better (Or frighteningly enough , do know better) are hiring them.
I got my degree in computer science, and I code when I need or want to. I decided to do art because it's an act of creation. A frustrating, imaginative, fiery act of creation.
I believe I can shed some light on that comment.
Spore.
Yeah, I said it. Granted, its obvious from fiddling around with the demo of the Creature Creator that there was an artists hand in it. But the whole thing is very focused on what can be done with procedural art. And a lot of companies are starting to tweak to the fact that "programmed" art costs a lot less and is much more reusable. Let's face it, reusability has always been the real advantage of programming. It is the key to dynamic interaction. The next logical step is dynamically interactive art assets.
Color schemes that shift and balance themselves based on player input. Visual patterns in textures generated from feedback collated throughout a play session. Dynamically generated lightmaps that are tailored to appeal to the player's personality. As programmers learn how to more effectively craft experiences for the user, they are going to want to bend the game's art to their whims. And the better the tools get, the more likely that scenario becomes.
Hmmm... C++ is always a solid choice, just because it is one of the most useful low-level languages out there. A lot of popular API's are fully compatible with C++. Basically, pretty much anything that can be done with programming can be done with C++. At the same time, C++ is considerably more annoying to learn than Java. (since it wasn't designed to be object oriented entirely, but was instead a way of extending object orientation to C)
It's actually a good thing that you learned Java. Java is a solid first language, mainly because it is easier to get a grasp on. It is also a good way to learn proper object oriented design. And perhaps best of all, it is very similar in structure to most of the .NET languages. If you know how to use Java, it is only a very small syntactical step to learning VB.NET, C#, J#, etc...
If you intend to be doing a lot of low-level coding, such as using OpenGL, physics, and really math-intensive applications, you will probably want to learn C++. If you want to go into more gameplay programming, Java and the rest of the .NET languages should be enough. Gameplay programming is mainly finite state machines, and the manipulations thereof. This will require a hefty dose of logic, and a keen grasp of state changes (layered upon each other) but generally doesn't involve as much high-order math. (and isn't nearly as performance intensive)
I think you forgot the part where any game with procedural art, ESPECIALLY Spore, is ugly as my fuckin ballsack. I'd take Half Life 2's visuals 10 days out of the week over Spore's.
Richard Kain had some good advice. Java is a good place to start, but you will definitely need to learn at least some C++. It is such a piece of shit language, but that is what makes it so powerful. There are things that make so much sense in Java that are completely backwards in C++. You will have to do a lot of things by hand that Java does automatically. A lot of games are moving to C# (XBLA is a great example), but that is really easy to learn if you know Java.
There was a book I had way back in the day called C++ for Beginners that taught by using video game examples. It made it really easy and fun to learn when I was younger and even tought some great 3D beginner examples.
After that, read up on DirectX, then maybe OpenGL. I'd just get good at DirectX, though, and put that you are "familiar" with OpenGL. It's probably better at this point to focus on one and just stick with it.
Gameplay programmers typically do a lot of scripting and basic work. They don't do the hardcore engine shit usually.
Hohoho!
I'm usually very cool on such issues but since we are happily jumping in comedyworld, let me join!
Vip and RK : That's exactly the kind of speech very likely to impress an ignorant executive, but do you really believe what you said?
Of course Spore is code-driven! Just like, huh, any other game. And obviously, the core mechanics behind the creature creation happens thanks to very clever coding.
But do you really believe that the creatures would be as funny to watch walking around and as rewarding to create if the whole thing had been put together by programmers only? There is an extremely strong *art direction* behind this title. And the hilarious animations generated by the engine don't come out of nowhere : I can bet that someone very aware of the way real animals and toon characters behave has been supervising all that. It might actually have been one of the very rewarding time of such person's *artistic* career.
For sure, automation speeds things up! And if it can remove the burden on artists shoulder, that's for the better. (ask anyone doing props if it is fun to begin the week doing yet another variation on a crate or a floor texture). The cool thing about the ideas you mention at the end of your post (dynamic color shifting aso) is that, it will not make artists less necessary : on the contrary, it will hopefully make the artist job more rewarding (ie more powerful tools to shape a world with), and make the artists' time used more efficiently! (better define the mood and lighting of a room than paint crate#328!)
Also, about colors : cycling color palettes is something, knowing color theory and how to apply it is something else...
http://gophur.playnet.com/albums/screenshots/SShot6_002.jpg
VS
http://www.ffxii.net/images/screens/game/27.jpg
Sorry if I sound like a bitter ass. I am not expressing any bitterness from the artist point of view at all. It's just that I find a bit dumb to think that art can go without code or vice versa in game production.
Do I think procedural programming can replace good art design? Hell No!
No matter how fond I may be of programming, I know good art when I see it. (that's why I like to frequent these boards!) And at the end of the day, a computer can't create a compelling composition, no matter how well you program it. Good art has is as layered and complex as the human mind that it is created to appeal to. Without a human element, you aren't going to get the really quality material. And that is definitely why Spore has such appeal. There is art direction to the game, and they did have actual quality artists working on the elements that the creatures are based off of. And of course, the end user adds their own artistic flair to their creations.
However, I do believe that clever coding will in the future allow for levels and layers of interactive artistic expression that have not yet been explored. Most of game art at the moment is focused on presenting a static presentation to the end-user. You paint a texture, you put it over a sculpted model, and you put it in front of the character. But the dynamic elements of game design are what really set it apart from other artistic mediums.
In the future, I envision the use of complex programming to allow more dynamic artistic expression in games. Color schemes that will dynamically shift during gameplay. Texture elements that will adjust based on player input. Entire levels that will shift based on the path that the player attempts to take. The possibilities are endless, and developers have only begun to scratch the surface. Not every game can, or should be like Rez. But I would definitely like to see more of them try.
But I think there is a weird belief sometimes - as if game artists were happy and content just doing models and textures? It's a huge part of the job for sure but not all of it in my opinion. It only becomes rewarding if it moves well, integrates nicele with gameplay mechanics, and even sometimes, have some kind affective meaning or strong impact. There is a huge room for artistic input in the real "deep" of the word input - but sadly, not often put in practice I guess...
Oh no ive had the unfortunate pleasure of working with an artist who didnt know his arse from the end of a cylindar and man i would not like to be that guy. Artists can fuck something up real bad that part is true but you can look out for those sort of inexperience from the beginning. It all boils down to hiring artist who can do the job and management dealing with a bad artist once it becomes a detriment to a team. But in that same coin its also down to the attitude of the artist. How much they care about fixing their own mistakes and owning up to them when they occur speaks volumes about that person.
Good programmer:
Writes solid, simple & fast code - lots of error checks for debug runtime (assert every parameter pased in) The BEST programmers have at least 1 years experience writing & optimising Assembler. yep - assembler. It is used these days a bit, but the main benefit is you learn how a computer works at the very lowest level possibl - the lessons you get from code & optimising even simple functions carry through to high level languages in many ways. Its so painfully simple its both easy & hard to do, but invaluable when it comes to debugging (especially on consoles with dubious compilers). being able to trace through the disassembly to track down obscure memory bugs is a skill that will help you reach the ranks of senior programmer. java - ditch it ASAP. Seriously. The garbage collection & lack of pointers is 'nice' for a newbie, but seriously cripples your skills as a C++ programmer (& personally I think C++ is the greatest programming language ever invented.) All commercial console games are C++/Assembler, and Java coders coming into it make schoolboy errors with memory overwrites & leaks that Java covers up for you.
Flavours of programmer are:
low level engine code - Assembler/microcode & optimisation skills
AI/gameplay - high level data structures, data flow management, logic, state machines
Lead - A bit of everything, mostly you get to do the dogsbody tying stuff together & the tedious stuff noone else wants to do.
Artist:
Artists come in 2 flavours - the great games artist, and the other type.
The 'Other type' does some MAX/MAYA, makes high poly subdivided models, portfolio is usually a space marine, a generic monster with a gaping mouth and outstretched arms, and a sports car. All have 10k+ polys, several megs of texturing and take an hour to render.
A great games artist knows how to make low-poly models & get the most out of textures. Simply put, the fewer polys a model has, the more models you can draw per scene & the richer the game world will look. the best games artists can model & texture in a defined & robust style (extremely hard to do well, particularly if its not YOUR style but your lead artists).
The very best artists are good at maths, and have some coding experience (so understand the vaguaries of powers-of-two textures, logical organisation of material/textures etc). It is all about the best visual effect for the minimum computing cost. The best artists I have ever worked with knew how to code - maybe not to the level of an engine programmer but they knew enough to (and this is the important bit) - understand what the hell the programmers are talking about when it comes to limits/requirements & exactly how this impacts their own workflow & designs.
Games are (and always will be) very much about speed still - faster consoles just mean you get to shove more things in & up the draw distance - you still end up hitting the frame limit & having to juggle things. A good engine coder can double your poly throughput. A good artist can double the number of objects again. Combine the two and you have a winning combination
1+1 = 3, right?
Being good at math or engineering has absolutely nothing to do with artistic skill. Knowing both will make you a more versatile and possibly more valuable artist, but it doesn't correspond to how "good" they are.
For game dev you need to work as part of the overall dev team, which (certainly for lead artists & anyone aspiring to be a lead) requires dealing with programmers, who themselves will add arbitrary & unusual limits to everything from vertex counts to texture sizes.
Examples include calculating 'vertex costs' - it is not enough to say 'this model uses x tris and a y by z texture' - hard edges add 2 extra vertices to a mesh, overlapping geometry adds fill rate, non-uniform texel densities 'waste' texture space (the ideal is to have 1 texel to one rendered pixel given the average size of the rendered model).
These are all technical aspects that do not naturally occur in the creation of art, but are what seperates the good GAME artists from the good 3D artists.
Most importantly, its about being able to talk to & understand the technical & numerical aspects of game asset creation & management, which will vary tremedously by platform/graphics engine/game design .
I think "best" or "good" isn't the best term to use here, i would say the most efficient artists understand a little math, a little scripting, not necessary know how to program but know enough technically to be able to have intelligible conversations with a programmer. Best and efficient are definately *NOT* the same thing, and are highly subjective to start with. I would say most of the BEST artists i've seen are Concept artists, adn they need to know less math and programming than most involved.
Do you need to know how to write compression algorithms or AI to be able make proper art assets? Fuck no you dont, but you do need to understand the limits, restrictions and strengths of your particular project technically to be proficient.
Programing requires a person to think about the world in a certain way.
While art requires a person to see the world in certain way.
Both departments need people who can do both but have strengths in one or the other. Not everyone in the department needs a duel wielding brain, just a few people to translate will work. It's been my experience that those are the people that move up and out of the trenches.
I wouldn't go that far, but they need to know when and who to ask to help translate. It's never good if a person sits on their can and assumes they are doing it the best way without testing and talking to the people who are going to be using it.
I know some great code monkeys who can't grip a pen to save their life but they at least know how and who to ask so they can do their job. They understand art but that doesn't mean they have to focus on it and perfect it, its nice if they do but not really a requirement for them to understand art and be great at their job.
But other than that the non-C++ stuff is growing, too (that said it remains a must "know") and there are other areas involved in a game than the hardcore technical parts (although that is probably what many coders strive for hehe).
C# is growing for web stuff, but as long as consoles remain the focus for mainstream games companies, C++ will be king (C# is Microsoft specific so maybe xBox, Java runtime is highly unlikely to appear on consoles, and certainly not within the first few years of the lifecycle of any console). Either way, unless you get a nice backhander from the hardware manufacturer, games will be developed with cross platform in mind, which makes anything higher level than C++ a no-no for a project.
Scripting-wise, lua is gaining good ground, and with good reason - its ace, open source, and the libraries are C++ so compilable on any platform. Syntax is kind of C-like.
Like Vig says, you dont need to master both aspects, but team members who have working knowledge of multiple sides of development are often the ones who help bind the art/code sides together - a good thing for any project.
And yes, I am biased to low level code/low poly art because in either case there are some fundamental 'tricks' and lessons that will apply to the higher level/higher poly stuff. Learn these by experience and you will be a better artist/coder/designer because of it.
now i really want to go back for art and music classes.....just can't find the money :P
Let me start by saying that the bulk of your post was well writtena nd you make a brilliant onion analogy.
But this statement quoted above is pure fuckin' ignorance. engineers and artists are both responsible for the look of the game, and you can't say that because the user makes the art that the engineer doesn't push the visual medium threshold. So many procedurally generated art assets are 100% code driven.
Well, shaders are written by coders, and so are the algorithms that generate the light that exposes your art. Writting that kind of code is an artform, you have to have an artistic eye.
I am now a programmer, but i started off as an artist, and I 'know' that I couldnt do my job if I started out with coding chops only
artists are best cos we get to go home earlier, look cooler, have a better selection of hats and always blame the tools
suck on that.