Lots of new stuff to reply to! I'll probably forget half of what I want to say. Anyway, here goes...




Yeah, I'm aware of that, though I haven't seen the show, nor have I read any of the comics. So for me, the game is the entire experience. And it still worked for me!
Because, well, it may be true that the comic was there first, but that doesn't undermine my point, does it? You're still able to feel attachment to the characters, despite the graphics being far from being technically impressive.




You, uh, did you do that? You go on to talk about your game - also interesting, but, err, it's not an explanation.
Anyhow, here's my question to that:

What does quality graphics mean?

Rating graphics on a singular scale seems to be a bad idea. Game magazines like to do it, to reduce the elements of a game to single numbers (you know those ratings, right? "Sound: 82%, Graphics: 91%, Final Score: 88%"), but we should be aware that there's more to that. And graphics are, of course, influenced by story, setting, athmosphere, level design, model design, and so much more! Depending on the game, even sound (which usually feels more disjointed from graphics than other aspects) can be a huge influence - and that's disregarding how music can inspire.

So, I'm rambling. The point is, Game development isn't a science, it's an art. There's no hard rules - there's things that usually tend to work, but some games may require you to ignore them and do the opposite (those games tend to be more interesting to people like us! ... or maybe it's just me)



But what criteria are there to rate "Graphics" on? Animation, Art style (can that even be "rated"?), Technical prowess?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there's no point to arguing. There is a lot to learn here. I'm just saying that, err, it's complicated!


~ ~ ~ ~ ~

So, let's talk your game idea, then.


Contrary to Superku, I don't think it's that crazy outlandish impossible to create. I'm thinking with the right compromises made, it's a good project to work on, because it scales really well. Start small (smaller than what you said you want to start with - how about making space combat wirk for a start?), then go from there.

The thing though is - if you don't bother about story, and in extension characters - then of course it doesn't matter how you achieve the player feeling attachement, as there is nothing for the player to feel attached to (unless you count their progress and spaceship, but I'd argue that's a different kind of attachment).
But isn't that a missed opportunity?

On your HQ-spaceship, you'll likely want to provide some exposition, and a way to do that is to have characters tell you about the world (though there are more elegant ways to achieve this - show, don't tell). But sure, okay, there's value in that, a place that is constant and provides a safe haven to return back to. It serves little gameplay purpose (a menu would be more efficient if it was about upgrading and buying stuff), some would say, but I disagree. Building the world, creating an athmosphere, that is part of the game, and it's, possibly, what seperates good mechanics from great experiences.
And, likely for similar reasons (even if not articulated that way), you probably want to avoid loading screens (they threw the player out of the game, they stop him/her dead in their tracks, they make the player realize it's not real - it shatters the illusion you built!). However, as this is more of a technical detail, I wouldn't worry so much about it NOW - a cleverly disguised loading screen (perhaps the ship's displays need to switch when entering the athmosphere?) could work well for a while.

Perhaps this is motivating to you:
The Evochron series is a space game series that features what you're trying to achieve - freeform landing on planets, for instance. And they're all developed (mainly) by a single person.


But, and here Superku's right, you need to figure out a way to do this. You may have to scale down your expectations on the visuals. This must not mean a compromise in the "feel" your game will ultimately have - only that it must be something you can achieve in a realistic timeframe.



Also, yeah, you will get other ideas during development. That's normal, though, happens to everybody, and you'll probably wish to start work on a new idea sometime during development. Also normal.
. . . . . Right, guys?



Yeah, there is. From AI to movement, to physics, to interface design, to sound and music to everything. The key rule is, you'll always forget stuff that you'll find yourself having to create at some point. There's no avoiding that, but how much stuff you forget, that you can control (up to a point), by carefully planning. Sit down and imagine playing your game. Then, for every aspect of whats on the screen, think about how to achieve this. How do you code something like that happening? What do you need? This is a part where experience really helps.
But how are you gonna get experience? At some point, you'll have to start, and at some point, you'll have to make mistakes, or else you're never gonna learn.

What I'm saying is, if this is a project that motivates you, then who am I to judge if that's how you learn about game development? Yeah, if you make a Pong-game, the chances are infinitely higher for you to finish it, but you're doing this for fun, aren't you? So do whatever makes you the happiest. If you need help, we're here - you seem patient & humble (... as humble as possible with game-developer-typical game-creation wishes ;)) and that's a very good combination.





Yes. It's not even difficult - it's just lots of ifs





No problem, you're welcome. It's a good discussion, too.
And, err... sorry for the typos and mistakes in my other reply. ... Guess it was a bit late when I posted.