The Devine Works of Art & Design

Given there should be some synergy between the art style and the gameplay experience, an early consideration of the art seems reasonable to me....even if the development of the game takes you in an unexpected direction and you change your mind later.

I know the rule of thumb is to work on game mechanics and making your game as solid as it can be before doing any of the art, but I know the video game industry does this completely opposite most of the time. Usually, they start with concept art and build their games around the art direction. Perhaps this is because they oftentimes have large teams or resources to dedicate to this approach as opposed to board games where a designer is not necessarily the artist etc.

Maybe starting with the art first is okay for an artist designer since they have the ability to quickly change directions, and the loss of the art isn't financially damaging as opposed to the designer that has to outsource the art? I know I did graphic design by trade and do art myself, so my first inclination was to do the art and make the game fit around the art.

Making the game to fit the art has worked for me so far, but yes I have had to throw away art, assets, or go in new directions because of the game mechanics, but for me, this loss isn't that great because I am able to whip up new icons, card faces, and component designs. For a non-artist designer, this cost would be counter intuitive.

Having some art early on lets you sit with things longer, and lets you be critical of its presentation over a longer period of time. This helps with removing the rose-colored glasses of your work and gives you more opportunity to improve things. Much easier to kill your baby if you've allowed it to grow into a cocky teenager. I know for me personally, the card faces for my game have undergone several iterations just for aesthetic reasons, and I may have not seen the need for those changes if it was one of the last things I did for the game. I have seen plenty of Kickstarters that would have done right by themselves by sitting with the presentation of their game longer.

Another argument for doing some of the art first is some things will be static. If your game is called X and its theme is Y, and you know it will always be called X with Y theme, there is no reason you can't do the logo or font treatment for the box etc. That's one less thing to think about at the end of the project, and it gives your playtesters something pretty to look at. Ultimately, having some visual stuff completed in your game, just makes it more fun to play (function still matters), and it will get you more excited to see your world grow over time. Also, as the amount of assets grow, you can use those to build the website, or the Kickstarter page, or the Facebook group etc.

From what I have seen coming out of the community, the bar has been raised substantially, so anything you can do to make the game look and play as polished as possible, you need to do it. So if you start with art, the rest of that dedicated effort needs to be put into the game design, playtesting, and development. Maybe for an artist it doesn't matter what comes first as long as it all gets done?