... One thing that you shows us all, is that we are all finally coming to the age where artists can create a game without a programmer. ...
		
		
	 
That's an interesting proposition! And I think there is some truth to it given
all the tools available. However. Just because an artist can push the buttons 
of a tool doesn't mean (s)he will make a good game, likewise with pushing the 
buttons on a digicam won't make you a photographer all of a sudden. I expect
that many games will come from such artists over the years, yet they will face
difficulty to stood out of the masses of all the artists now making games with
likewise tools, since, despite different in art style, they will likely use
similar predefined mechanics, etc. offered by the tool and as such these games 
might be similar within this regard. This might be sufficient, yet I think to 
differentiate from the pack you have to come up with something more 
interesting than all the other artists do, i.e. going beyond the predefined 
stuff the tool has to offer, which may likely push the artist into programming 
practice to make his game distinguish from many others. So to build sort of a 
unique game the artist might become a programmer as well, or (s)he may work 
together with a good programmer. But if you look at it, this isn't much 
different from today's or yesterday's practice. What's different is the vector 
of approach in making games. In the end the artist will need sort of some 
programming skills and the programmer some sort of artist skills do build 
something that distinguishes from the pack. So having an artist who 
understands a little about programming and a programmer who understands a 
little about art might perhaps be a very good combination. And I can't see how 
this differs from today's practice across all major studios building 
successful games.