Curious - what are your thoughts on the level of art quality needed for an early access game?
Typically, when in development, I prefer to wait til much later to finalize the art and focus on gameplay prototyping first. The challenge is that in Steam early access, games need to be showcased and most people don't get that an early alpha game is gonna look like ass for the most part. Thus forcing a dev to lock down art early. That presents two issues. It reallocates resources that should be focused on core gameplay elements, and it also makes it harder to update later because you get attached to art that looks more finalized.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("UTT + wrong section" - Orkel))[/highlight]
Art quality means shit if the game plays for shit. Optimization and actual content are more important than art quality. You can carry low budget art with good gameplay and story, only morons will buy something based on how it looks alone.
Basically, make a good game, worry about art later. If people aren't buying it because it doesn't look like it is 100% finished, then fuck em, they're the very fucking morons you don't need giving you feedback anyway.
Early Access doesn't have to be Alpha versions. It could be Beta or a release candidate.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.