A good artist will make anything look good, pixel art, card games, all the way to photo-real 3d (of course depending on the artist). What happens is that in general the first thing to be cut due to budget is probably the art since without function you have no game. Imho, indie games would do better if they "sliced" their game releases differently, such that art was never takes a back-seat as it is probably tempting to do. Many people think you only need good gameplay but in reality the art, aesthetics, music, etc. of any game is the invisible factor that people are influenced and only notice when it's broken.
> A good artist will make anything look good, pixel art, card games, all the way to photo-real 3d (of course depending on the artist).
That's so true. It made me also realize something else, that a good artist can also works with monetary constraint.
He bought graphics, like a product. The thing is, he isn't an artist. It's the artist that should have the liberty to decide whether details is worth it or not.
I think this hold more true to the types of games I play, but a little less so to the types of games this developer makes. It sounds like he is targeting the D&D and retro gaming crowd.
This also holds more true to the generation being targeted. People that grew up on XBox/PlayStation will have a hard time with lesser graphics. People that grew up with Atari will be more open to lesser graphics.
