What I decided in the end was, I'll do a bit of each. Be well rounded (as I try to be in all things).[/quote]
The important thing is that you are sure about this with your whole understanding and passion. Stay with this if it is what you want.

That's probably the best route for an aspiring leader/designer (with a degree of independence), right? And what would be a good way to mix all that together without overloading myself? (herein lies Questions 1 & 2)[/quote]

Writing "a degree of independence" implies that you want to avoid pure indy style and yet work for yourself, is this correct? In this case you are aspiring to be a leader, which has the potential to free you from many things, but will bring its own set of challenges. Contrary to myth, you don't have to be popular or an extrovert to be a leader. There are some nice leaders who are introverted or introspective and make an effective leader. I mention this because the more complex your system of game development, then the more you will have to choose between doing things yourself or having others do it. By contrast, it is much easier for a person to simply make a game - content and programming, then it is to create an organizational system for game development while you develop games at the same time. Your choices in game development must follow your abilities.

Mixing all these together without overloading requires these: You will need to be absolutely reliable, resposible for general planning, and able to delegate tasks correctly to qualified people. Perhaps you can easily find hobbyists to help you in the learning stages, but the more skillful the art then the more likely that paid artists will be needed for professional quality work. A beautiful exception to this is the game which appeals to the user because the gameplay is the real attraction and not the art. Generally, the highest selling games in gross sales are the ones with "Wow!" art and gripping gameplay, but not always. For example, there are games with simple gameplay that are popular for the visuals and the opposite is sometimes true.

The point this is: Managing your game development career will combine the demands of the game you visualize, your ability, and your decisions. What you will not be able to do must be handed to others if you want it done, at any stage of your career.

I can tell you, as an artist who has worked for almost two years under a game designer who in turn worked under the game developer/owner, that being both a skillful artist and learning to create art which will actually attract people to a game demands much effort by its own.

If people take a fair look at the most popular games, something must appeal to the player. Great visual content, gripping gameplay situations, or both must be there for it to be popular and sell big. I put this here because you seem to have it set on a game dev career with intentions of publishing your games. These last issues will heavily influence everything about your choices and your success in other's eyes. Some may scoff at being concerned about what others think ( I know a burn-out who feels that way ) , but careers sail or sink based on it.

Some people seem to approach things for their own pleasure. I know of a couple guys who are developing a game for market but making it the way they want is top priority because they are set for life financially, so here is an exception and a possibility for you once you are financially independent.

Finally, the more that you do youself then the more you will have to learn. Since you want to be a leader according to your opening post, then you will need to know enough about the technical that you can oversee others work while having enough of a sense of art that you can know what adds appeal to your game.

It might seem like a lot to chew at the start, but once it is digested then these things empower a person.



3Ddreamer

Why?

Because C is a simpler language, and because one has to know the fundamentals in order to build something of even modest complexity in C; You can write OO C++, relying heavily on the STL, without ever really knowing what a pointer is, or knowing that memory is byte-ordered.

Really?

By what definition of simple?

Why don't you start with assembler? After all, you can use C pointers without ever really knowing what a memory register is.