Destination: Neptune - Illustrations vs Photos?

Since the game is based on real world implications of space exploration. The more realistic the better. Plus its another great way to teach young to old about space and science.

I think starting with NASA images is a great idea, but for me just a regular picture in a game looks somewhat cheap. Two things I'd consider:
1. Look at NASA concept art
2. Use art software to convert photos towards looking more like illustrations, at the least you can derive lines from the art and adjust contrasts and color levels. There are even procedural effects that can make a picture look like a painting.

Art. It will look like you put some money into your game.

I say start with illustrations. If this is the first game you're designing, then DEFINITELY start with illustrations.

I only say that because the most important thing here is gameplay. This is what will bring people to keep playing your game. If the game is not fun, then who cares if the pictures are real?

It's like this. 38 Studios is a video game company that just folded. It was started by Curt Schilling, a former MLB star that wanted to get in the game industry. He spent the money to get one of the best comic book artists around: Todd McFarlane and got a top rated storyteller to join his team (in addition to many other things). And, while his game looked good, he had to shut down his studios shortly after launch (they were creating a sequel) because his game didn't sell very well (also because the studio ran out of money).

Now, I'm not saying this is your situation, but I think if you spent more time creating a game engine that will make people want to play the game and less resources on how "real" the look is going to be, then it will be a stronger game.

It's the question that floats around the net amongst game players: Do graphics make the game?

I say no. Gameplay is far more important. What good is the frosting on the cake if the cake itself is awful?

I still go back to illustrations. If you're sponsored by NASA and can get the images for free, do it. But if you're doing it for the sake of "being realistic", then passing the fee you paid for the photos onto the customer is kind of lame...especially when you haven't proven yourselves as designers.

Theoretically, if you spent the money to get the photos and your game doesn't do very well, then getting the photos was just a waste of time and money.

If it DOES do well, you can still put out the real photos in a second printing...after you've proven yourselves to be profitable. Then you can justifiably bump up the price because the gameplay was good and people like the game.

TONS of games have done this. Cosmic Encounter, Kill Doctor Lucky, Betrayal on House on the Hill, are games that have improved in quality and gameplay with each major version change.

If you want to teach something using the game, let the gameplay teach it.

I'd go with the photos, if they really truly are free, they would provide a cool immersive feel and save boatloads of cash.

Last Night on Earth and other games by Zombie Frog use photos to great effect. I say use photos!

the OP flat out said that NASA photos were free, paying ( I assume they have done thier research) is not the issue there