19 hours ago, Stryder1234 said:

I agree, the graphics should not be the main source as the gameplay and story is what will drive players getting more into the game as the graphics are more just icing  on the cake.

 

 

But graphics catches peoples eyes

For a really good game you need a bit of everything. Good graphics, good game play, and a great story. Like Skyrim for example. The story is nice and fun to play through for those who want to follow it, but the side quests seem endless. Every time you pick a different class or race the world react differently to you. That's what I love in a game, and want to create some day. Something that keep pulling you back and giving you new experiences. You can follow the story, or make your own path. It's up to you. 

However I do not like Pay to play games. I do not however mind games that have store where you can buy visual upgrades or things for entertainment sake. However, because you or your parents make more money and you can toss a lot of many at a game should not determine how good you become. The player should determine that factor. That's one reason I like the current MMO I'm playing, Black Desert Online. There is a cash store, but nothing you buy can really help you excel in the game. It still depends on you. So someone who has never payed a dime can be just as strong as someone who spends a thousand dollars a year playing. It doesn't matter. 

On 11/24/2017 at 10:46 PM, Awoken said:

I've never worked in a gaming studio before bringing a title to release, but I've always estimated that about 80% of the man-hours put into a game are graphic related, whether it be textures, models or level design.

I have worked in studios and shipped games, and on the whole I think - in my experience - the percentage is more like 40%. And most of that is the time spent by artists. Level design isn't graphic-related; you're thinking of environmental art. Anyway, some games are more content heavy and have more art and graphical requirements, and some have less.

To the original poster; the fine details of your idea are, unfortunately, not going to make a difference here. If you want to see them implemented, you will probably have to make it yourself. Until then, this is a good place to discuss the pros and cons of each idea.

On November 26, 2017 at 8:33 AM, zizulot said:

But graphics catches peoples eyes

Yes that is true, but the dynamics of the game on how it plays and the setting is still the fundamental aspect I believe that will make it shine most.

22 hours ago, Stryder1234 said:

Yes that is true, but the dynamics of the game on how it plays and the setting is still the fundamental aspect I believe that will make it shine most.

The best thing in my eyes is to make gameplay addicting, and then make graphics as best as you can, yeah it will take some time, but people will be more interesting and more willingfull to try it

8 hours ago, zizulot said:

The best thing in my eyes is to make gameplay addicting, and then make graphics as best as you can, yeah it will take some time, but people will be more interesting and more willingfull to try it

Well said. Would be the best way to truly make the game great. 

On 27-11-2017 at 12:57 AM, Vegermy said:

However I do not like Pay to play games. I do not however mind games that have store where you can buy visual upgrades or things for entertainment sake. However, because you or your parents make more money and you can toss a lot of many at a game should not determine how good you become. The player should determine that factor. That's one reason I like the current MMO I'm playing, Black Desert Online. There is a cash store, but nothing you buy can really help you excel in the game. It still depends on you. So someone who has never payed a dime can be just as strong as someone who spends a thousand dollars a year playing. It doesn't matter. 

I agree P2win is a very cheap(scammish) way of (re)funding developmentscost while buying skins doesn't upset game-balance,

after reading this thread there is also this "business"-solution for indies coming to mind;

have the initial artists help out with the - initial - graphics which should be functional , while skins with more detail and craftmanship don't have to be created until the game is pretty much launched;

generally if an artist wants to get paid the game needs to sell, this gives the artist the option of bailing-out while business/team-wise the rest of the team has the right to allow-in other artists (after a period of time after "release")                 to allow-in other artists to "sell" their skin(for a fixed percentage i presume)

Since this seems to be a players-give-their-opinion-thread:

@Vegermy :

What is your opinion on games where a (rich) player can buy/hire  a server* to play with his friends ?

What if a game asked non-paying players  to perform a dumb mission?

(from the develeopers perspective, this would mean less then a simple captcha)

*server = (in this case)gameworld of any size

The important thing is to make a game that you would want to play, but also think that others would enjoy. Graphics and gameplay style preferences vary from person to person. You need to find the balance that suits you, then go forward with it.

19 hours ago, BlackMagicWolf said:

The important thing is to make a game that you would want to play, but also think that others would enjoy. Graphics and gameplay style preferences vary from person to person. You need to find the balance that suits you, then go forward with it.

Well nowadays you need to focus on gamers itself, you will never get 100% rated game, there is always small group of snobs who think it sucks, and I agree with you completely.