Art defines genre

Like most visual media, the art work contained both within and without can boost or cost you sales. Like most gamers I, as well as you, the friendly reader, have entertained the notion, or endeavored to create a game yourself either a loose adaptation of a game staple, be it d20, or its ilk, or conversely, perhaps a game unlike no other, a game unto itself.

I think some games achieved a success and or audience in their release largely because of the art was new, cartoony, or what have you. My biggest concern in my attempt would be of course, start up capital, but besides the obvious, of a small game in an ocean of games flooding the market, I would focus on solid artwork that would define my game, its genre, and gameplay.

Marketing the game as an "old school" throwback would be a technique to capture a section of gamers, already familar with old school games, and bring back some of the original artists famous to the genre. However, I would go another route if I had fat money cash.

I would go with Walt. Yes that's right. Walt Simonson. No other man does it better. If are not as believer start on Thor #337, and read the rest of his run, or the star slammers issues he did for Dark Horse or the graphic novel of the same name.

No one does it any better, and he writes most of the books he is an artist on. His unique take on the brainy Reed Richards, and his manner of eggheaded speak, rivaling a nonsensical stream of blathering consciousness is one not to miss. I think he adjusts the "positronic existentialators" on the Rosebud to no avail. He could help with the visual side of the game, as well as helping to shape its stage and players. IF he made a game I would buy it regardless of content. I wouldnt care if starting characters were insurance salesmen at a seminar.