I think everyone is a bit too obsessive over graphics where many might believe that a great game could not be made without stunning graphics. This is the main reason at the beginning of my quest I got to the root of games first, and then went to explore how video games were different.

Heard of "Thomas was Alone?"

Not sure what your point was. those are GREAT graphics. They are not super advanced but they fit the mood and style of the game. They also are very clean and focus on shape+color choice. There is certainly a difference between complex and simple art, and both can be amazing if done correctly.

This could be made to look significantly better with a little effort. Mostly by using stronger black outlines on the characters (such as in comics), not using plain white for the characters' bodies (some simple shading would go a long way), and most of all not using those green criscrossing lines in the background.

Use flat colours for the earth, sky and grass instead of low-res textures, make the blades of grass different heights and thicknesses, make the yellow lightbeam transparent, add blob shadows to characters, and redesign the UFO which is the shittiest looking thing in the image.

Also develop a 16 colour palette for the game and stick to it. The yellow and the blue are really clashing here.

I like the cow image a LOT better than the stars one, because the cow idea is less generic. In short, the cow game would probably be better, but might require some basic art practice on your part. Just study how comics are outlined and shaded, use some transparency, don't use plain white, and use a well defined palette instead of random colours.

Edit; also try working on the proportions of things (cows shouldn't be bigger than UFOs, characters shouldn't be half the screen height in a sidescroller (which this looks like). And try to avoid 90 degree angles on anything except maybe buildings.

I don't care what it looks like. I just want see a game you have completed, Shane C.

After the engine, gameplay, levels etc are made, visual assets can be changed easily.

If when the game is playable and you don't get good feedback for your images, just call them placeholders during the testing process and replace them later.

Then you can focus on if the game is fun

...which is what really matters.

I don't care what it looks like. I just want see a game you have completed, Shane C.

Technically you can. That outer space game, I have posted working copies of in the Announcements forum and my journal awhile back. I can even PM you the link if you like,

You should always deliver quality.

Sure, for now, you could just work from placeholder, but ultimately, you need to have a plan to deliver quality.

I've axed a few of my personal projects solely because they were unsustainable in terms of content over the long run. Forced me to reconsider scope.

I think everyone is a bit too obsessive over graphics where many might believe that a great game could not be made without stunning graphics. This is the main reason at the beginning of my quest I got to the root of games first, and then went to explore how video games were different.

Heard of "Thomas was Alone?"

Simple graphics and Crappy graphics is not the same thing.

Thomas was alone is well thought through and was obviously designed by someone with a good sense for color and composition, and is far from "programmers graphics".

Designing such a game is not necessarily easier to get to look good, if you do it badly it will just look like you forgot to add graphics and noone will even understand what is happening on the screen.

Good point Olof. I guess what I meant is that the op doesn't have to be able to draw well, to make a good game. Though graphics are what most initially judge a game by these days.