Hi and welcome!
As a rather impatient person I can't imagine I'd be engaged by a walking game (name you mentioned does not ring a bell), then again if you say it's a lot about storytelling, then I guess I'd like it, if the story's good.
As for your questions, seems to me that you're asking about two things basically (oh - and you weren't unnecessarily long...
but I might be :p)
1. Is Blender the way to go for 3D?YES.There is some alternative software, but in essence, it's all the same.
The reason it feels brutally overwhelming is because yes, you can create anything, which means, there is a tool for everything (with even more specialized tools being added as the years go by). And those are
all just two clicks away.
You actually need just 4 or 5 of them. And then you can work really fast really easy really soon.
But how are you supposed to know which tools and where they are? When all "proper" tutorials seem to have 50+ hours.
Therefore really not easy to jump into Blender. To be a beginner in Blender alone is like a visit to Purgatory.
(Best way is having someone who can personally explain where the basics are - because everything you need as a game dev can actually be explained in 3-4 hours, not 50 or 100. You can search for a tutorial like that, but it will take a while to find one that's so...
effective)
It
is a headscratcher, but if you really want to make your own 3D, this
is the way to go.
Whether you want low poly or high poly or whatever poly, whether you want to make photorealism or instead just make something super-fast, the answer remains the same.
2. Is there a shading method or stylization that can make creating 3D models easier?Materials. Textures. Shading algorithms. And last but not least,
shaders.
I will most probably disappoint you here.
These things are actually unrelated to the Blender question.By which I mean,
no matter what you choose, you will still be making models in Blender. (Actually "meshes" is what they are called (the "wireframes" filled with "faces" but no "textures or otherwise" on 'em).)
Even if you decide that you won't be preparing materials in Blender. Because you can, but don't have to. For example, when I work with Godot, I actually prefer setting up everything inside engine's editor, where I can see objects under the actual game-lighting, unless I need to set up UVs manually and perfectly (=so simple offset is not enough).
That being said, some styling decisions about your game
can make things easier. For example, if you want your game to look medium-high poly,
but the game's camera works in a way that it never fully zooms on things (for example it's isometric and the player can't zoom the camera at all), you will soon find out that you can actually use low poly models and
noone will be able to tell the difference. (Low poly models
are a little bit easier to make, which seems obvious, but high poly is not that much harder nowadays actually, just btw.)
Otherwise the stylization does not change much. No matter how you set up your basic materials, no matter what textures (if any) you use on them, and no matter which shading method and additional shaders you use - in most cases, you will need the same quality of meshes.
Obviously going for photorealism needs the best meshes. And you can't "simplify" anything like you would when making a game that's actually meant to have a "strong low-poly feel". But the main reason
not to go for photorealism is not to have less work with meshes, but with the materials which suddenly need to be set up perfectly. And textures, which must be high def, and of course the UV mapping on the mesh has to be perfect for 'em. The shading, which is about how light gets calculated, has to be carefully chosen, and because you're making a game, it will be highly engine-dependent. Even placing the lights around the level correctly is a quest of itself.
Meanwhile going for "comics-like"/"cartoonish" means you may not need textures (at least in most cases), which means you dont need to map UVs, the materials can be all default except for the few you want to look like "metal", "glass" or "mirror" (or all three at once). The actual stylization is there so it does not look like shit, and putting meshes (proportions etc) aside, it comes from shading ("somewhat real" (the best by Disney, not kidding) vs "everything looks FLAT like Borderlands" (= only cel-shading and Toon shading are worth mentioning i think)) and shaders (outlines, pixelization, ...or none)
TLDR: The recommendation is: don't go photorealism. If you make good enough models(meshes), you can "upgrade" them to photorealism in the future. Because the biggest amount of work will be with the materials and textures anyway, not with the meshes themselves. (as long as they're "cleanly made")
(EDIT: Totally dodged animating the models, but it's the same thing - realistic models
need realistic animations, low-poly models... don't.)
As you are only starting, it would be too much to learn at once anyway - start a bit lower and work your way to it.
Which style you choose for now does not matter as long as
you like it.
And obviously, the less time you spend on game's visuals, the more time you can spend on it's gameplay.
One tip: If you have not done so yet, start up your favourite "best looking" game (presumably AAA) and go study the models. Especially the environment. Buildings, items, and trees and grass. You'd be surprised how low poly can a game that cost 400mil$$$ be.
If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.
Cheers.
Developer
