game-editor.com

Hello... I was just wondering, What is best?

Having a huge game with top-notch graphics?

Having a game with a sustainable sized game for slower sized games with top-notch graphics?

Having an even bigger game with lesser graphics?

Or something else?

Thanks for your opininons.

completly using canvas actor (that would reduce that size A LOT MORE, because only the ged, file is not big and canvas dosnt use graphics )

That depends on what you want to do. If you want to WOW your players into playing your game, than you should have a shorter game with better graphics. But if you want your game to have replay value and great story and playability you should go for longer game with lesser graphic.

I personaly like the other option better, I mean look at games like Alpha Centauri and Transport Tycoon, they are pretty old and dont have the best graphics but i still like to play them.
If your going for the first option, that is going to be hard becase this is 2D and you can't have fancy effects like shadows and glows or high poly models, so it's pretty hard to WOW anybody, and finding a good artist to do a bunch of top-notch graphics (or doing them yourself) won't be easy or cheap. I'm not saying that there aren't any great looking 2D games, just that a lot more effort goes into making them look great.

Just my opinion

Well, I myself am hardly an artist and the game is just something I do in my spare time.

I personally like option 2 and 3, since I feel as if most games are like that. If I picked option 1, it would seem pointless. It would make it seem like your average RPG game, I dislike that. Is it better to have graphics or game play, you could get evidence that graphics arent everything from Final fantasy 7.

Yet I used to play guildwars, that finely maintains the balance between length and graphics. Yet I see runescape which is rubbish because it has lesser graphics but lots of content.

I guess contradicting myself like this isn't going to help is it?

duracel92 wrote:Well, I myself am hardly an artist and the game is just something I do in my spare time.

I personally like option 2 and 3, since I feel as if most games are like that. If I picked option 1, it would seem pointless. It would make it seem like your average RPG game, I dislike that. Is it better to have graphics or game play, you could get evidence that graphics arent everything from Final fantasy 7.

Yet I used to play guildwars, that finely maintains the balance between length and graphics. Yet I see runescape which is rubbish because it has lesser graphics but lots of content.

I guess contradicting myself like this isn't going to help is it?

apart from 2D graphics, runescape only use face color, it dont use any graphics except for the land(useally wood and tree's. but its for be more compatiple to slower speed like 56kps.

You have to find the right balance betwen the two, nobody said that it's going to be easy. Why, do you think, so many games fail and aren't remembered?