|
baby puzzle posted:Can you believe that SEQUENCE STORM is on sale now? https://store.steampowered.com/app/630640/SEQUENCE_STORM/ Sold. 
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 02:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:41 |
|
|
A+ page snipe
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 02:25
|
|
|
baby puzzle posted:I have this hair up my rear end about making my game completely playable by the blind. I think it should actually be totally possible! I just played through the first and second tutorial missions, and one of the regular levels. Before I knew it, I was a full hour in. I plan to play more because I like it. The game's cute as poo poo so far. The cutscenes and the mood all match. And so on. The mood and aesthetics are top notch. I'm also not blind or anything, and I do have two hands and ten fingers, but I've got some thoughts. Take it from someone who knows what rhythm games are but has close to zero experience with them. Also I'm on the lowest difficulty because I don't know what the hell I'm doing but that's okay. Difficulty thoughts
Interface thoughts
"Hey can you make your game easier thanks" isn't relevant feedback for a lot of games ("hey NamcoBandai please put an easy mode in Dark Souls thanks"), but if accessibility is what you're after it might be worth having an even lower difficulty mode for fuckin casuals like myself; maybe only with access to the first x levels or making fun of people who use baby mode or disabling achievements or something. Take it for what it's worth, really. v  vtldr this feedback: an even lower difficulty setting would be pretty neat and might open the whole experience up to more people blinking beacon nose fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Jun 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 03:12
|
|
Suggestions like mine would have to be balanced with not adding clutter.
|
Wait, you've got almost all of those things already in the plethora of accessibility options you provide. Almost all of them. So forget a lot of the stuff I said and congrats. Instead -- it appeared to me at first that LOOSE was the (only) difficulty setting, but there are so many more difficulty tweaks that you've thought of. Maybe it'd be worth grouping them together somehow. I think one more layer under the OPTIONS menu wouldn't hurt, then again there's probably a fine line between what's "accessibility" and what's "difficulty". eta: yeah I knocked it down to needing fewer buttons and I'm having a good time blinking beacon nose fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Jun 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 03:20
|
|
|
Omi no Kami posted:Oh hey that'll do perfectly, thank you! I assume that at each step, I should be determining which vertex to jump to by drawing a vector from the last vertex to the new candidate, measuring its angle of rotation, and always prioritizing the vertex with the greatest positive change in angle from the last edge? That sounds perfect. A particular case to keep in mind is that we do need to consider the edge we arrived along, since if a vertex has only one neighbor (i.e. it's a dead end) then we need to go back the way we came; both "sides" of that street lie on the same face. However, that edge should be given an angle of zero so that it's only picked in that specific case. e: Oh, and one other thing; this process will consider "the outside" to be a face. You may want to detect it so you can mark or discard it. megane fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Jun 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 04:28
|
|
|
blinking beacon nose posted:Instead -- it appeared to me at first that LOOSE was the (only) difficulty setting, but there are so many more difficulty tweaks that you've thought of. Maybe it'd be worth grouping them together somehow. I think one more layer under the OPTIONS menu wouldn't hurt, then again there's probably a fine line between what's "accessibility" and what's "difficulty". I'll expand on the stuff I said because I thought about it. Maybe LOOSE/TIGHT could be an option just like most any other option you've got under accessibility. And there could be difficulty settings that some of them on and off, but also you can go in and customize piece by piece. Easy mode could make it Loose AND reduce the number of instruments, for example, while Hard cranks all that poo poo up to 11. Precanned difficulty settings might not be strictly necessary but it might help users. Someone like me might think --"Yeah I want a cool casual experience, let me set this low difficulty. Oh, it seems like it makes it loose and also it looks like I don't have to keep track of one million keys, but hey if I get good later on I could try tightening it up and enabling more keys or God forbid maybe even try it on NORMAL difficulty or even higher." I get what you're after as far as accessibility being a mantra, a clear goal. And that's cool. Really cool. And I think it's all there. But you might think about reframing your suite of options. . There's got to be a way to do it, with or without precanned difficulty settings. Seems that someone with color blindness would know to take a look at some Graphics Options menu, and a one-fingered man would know to look at Control Options, for example, and those wouldn't need it to necessarily be called out as Accessibility per se. I personally would not have thought to look under Accessibility for some options, but I clicked that menu because I was curious because for some stupid reason I like exploring options menus. There are some things that are clearly accessibility-driven, but some things that are both difficulty setting AND accessibility. You know what I mean? Like, fewer instruments makes it accessible to people with claw hands but also makes it easier for anybody; while note colors are just accessibility/options. Force feedback is a tossup on whether I'd call it Accessibility or an Option or a Difficulty setting. And maybe just to hit all of your points home, you could call the menu item on the main menu "Options and Accessibility." (iirc it's called 'options' right now) Front and center, right there, folks would see that Accessibility is a feature/mindset/emphasis behind the game. Basically to reiterate, I'd say put Loose/Tight as an option at the same level as some of your other settings and then play around with how that "feels" as far as user experience is concerned. When I'm not phoneposting I may just take another look. And also post something more legible. (Also I think force feedback should be on by default, if it isn't already I can't remember, because it makes the experience more immersive right out of the gate.) blinking beacon nose fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Jun 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 07:04
|
|
|
Dewgy posted:Can’t really say I know much about the quality of the library itself since I doubt I’ll use it, but the workflow is... not friendly, IMO. I agree with this feedback, I'd be way more interested in this framework if it were available as a LUA API since the reason I'd want to use LOVE over other engines is to take advantage of what LUA offers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 15:23
|
|
|
A Lua option for ECS is tiny-ecs. It's probably not laser-optimized or whatever, but it works fine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
Nothing in lua is laser optimized so its all good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
blinking beacon nose posted:
[/quote] I appreciate the feedback. In my time of devoting this game, I have found that the difficulty vs accessibility thing is a bit more nuanced. Apparently, for rhythm games, some people are natural savants, while others are hopeless. The range of ability is so wide that it isn’t possible to find named difficulty options to fit all players. I added the Ultra mission difficulty because some people far exceed my expectations! Try Ultra difficultly without any a accessibility options... Some people can do this instantly! And in fact, these players are SO BORED that they REFUND THE loving GAME otherwise! I believe that the timing difficulty option that is first presented to the user is applicable to a majority of players. The intended play style involves ALL of the inputs. However, players using just keyboard might have a tougher time. I think this is the nook that you currently fit into. Trust me, when I say that I’ve seen all of you types of players. In fact, the guy who created the storyline wanted to see the game in context, but he was unable to progress until I added the accessibility options. I personally play with the keyboard and I prefer it to gampad, so it is a totally valid way to play. Anyway, the point is that I appreciate the feedback, but I feel that the options are actually balanced pretty well. Edit in an actual bar: I think the fact that you had to dig into accessibility options doesn’t bother me much. baby puzzle fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Jun 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 02:54
|
|
|
I can now drive my boat around, using super-janky input handling, just calling Input.GetKeyDown to set the throttle to one of 4 speeds, and Input.GetKey to change orientation. And I managed to fix the turrets so they continue to track the target even though the boat is moving and rocking underneath them. Unfortunately I had to break the "turret cannot rotate more than this amount" logic (which keeps the turret from spinning in a full circle) in the process, but oh well. Short video. I feel like this is kind of like implementing my own simplified kinematics / animation constraints -- there's a thing, you want to point at the thing, figure out the angle and rotate to it. There's probably an easier way to accomplish this. Oh well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 05:27
|
|
|
megane posted:A Lua option for ECS is tiny-ecs. It's probably not laser-optimized or whatever, but it works fine. Well hot drat, this looks pretty solid. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 05:34
|
|
|
Anyone other Steam-published Unity devs here constantly running into problems with cloud saves? For the life of us, we cannot seem to completely clamp down on lost save data for our players. We just pushed a new update and suddenly got lots of people coming at us with lost saves, and we're just continuously baffled by it. We've done everything from save multiple automatic backups, to checking for specific steam ids to ensure saves don't get messed up when multiple users use the same machine, to many little checks when saving to ENSURE we aren't saving default values if the load fails for whatever reason. Never did I think saves were going to be such a pain, but I never hear anybody talk about it so I'm curious if this is just normal or or what?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 06:01
|
|
|
Oh yeah definitely. For example, people who are familiar with the genre might have different expectations or conventions or things they take for granted. Sort of like how fighters just do have button strings you have to memorize to pull off special moves, and how bullet hell games are going to be, well, hell. If the game's built around the assumption and premise that you're going to be using a lot of buttons, like quote:The intended play style involves ALL of the inputs. then accessibility options aren't necessarily about difficilty, but more about making that premise available to as many people as possible. Would make sense then to call them accessibility. It comes down to what a game's mission or premise is. In my top-down puzzler, it's strictly about thinking things through. So. you can take the game turn by turn (which is default), but you can also make turns progress "automatically" at different speeds. You can change the speed in-game easily if there's a part toy want to watch the steady movement of or something, or even press a FAST FORWARD button. I and several others I know usually play it turn by turn and use fast forward to either get an understanding the patterns of moving objects or to hurry them the hell up if they're in your way. The ability to play the entire game turn-by-turn is a fundamental piece of the game's mission, which means there should be no required timing or action elements. (Think Chip's Challenge where stuff happens all the time vs DROD where you take the whole thing turn by turn.) I know for a fact that some folks want to play the game at the highest speed all the way through, which is their prerogative. If they like it that way, cool. It's doable that way but isn't really an intention. blinking beacon nose fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Jun 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2019 20:59
|
|
|
As my non game related day job increasingly shows signs that it's not long for this world, I'm starting to think about how badly I'd like to make a living from my own game instead of going through the hell that is job searching again. So here's Blockchain, a Character Action Shooter (think Vanquish) with elements of idle games.   How close do you think this is to something that I could conceivably ask people to give me actual dollars in exchange for it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 03:51
|
|
|
If it's not too much trouble, I'd like my game to be able to load 3D models from an external-to-Unity location, to make modding easier. Basically have a directory or set of directories that contain 3D models in [some format] and data files that describe the models, like, this model is a ship named "Japanese Destroyer I", it has a loadout cap of 500, base 200 hull strength, 4x16 squares on its deck, when deployed as an AI ship it has these structures and guns, etc. From googling around, Unity does support loading .obj or .fbx files at runtime, so that's an option. But I'm also reading things like "manually loading resources has horrible performance." What's the best practice here? Of course I can just add all of the models I need directly into my Assets folder and have a data file to describe them, but unless I'm missing something, that'd mean that if anyone wanted to add new stuff to the game, they'd need access to my Unity project. Is that accurate? I suppose I could put my models into Assets and let modders add their own that get discovered and loaded at runtime (with corresponding performance cost), but that means maintaining two parallel methods for adding things to the game. I'm probably overcomplicating this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 04:51
|
|
|
Heres a bunch of gifs from my adventures in machine learning:     
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 05:59
|
|
|
ME AND THE BOYS
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 06:02
|
|
|
They're definitely going to the store
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 06:06
|
|
|
My brain broke and I started fantasizing today about "what if I purchased/got the actual film license for the Killer Tomatoes franchise and made a Dead By Daylight meets Katamari game with it?" and these were the result along with a 3-page pitch document. This is what I did instead of actual work for a better part of the day. Halp.    EDIT: Link to the pitch doc in case anyone dares peruse: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ik4xptk1mmy57b6/KillerTomatoes.pdf?dl=0 Bert of the Forest fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Jun 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 06:18
|
|
|
I've been learning programming for years, at this point. I get so far with what I plan on doing, then lose willpower realising I've bitten off more than I can chew, so I go back to writing stories. These past few days I've been looking at Ink (from Inkle.) Interactive Fiction seems like a nice combination of what I know I can do (write) tied to something I want to learn how to do (create a piece of software/an actual game.) Of course, straight off, I started into something far too vast for me to ever complete it. I have another idea, one I think is more pared back (and incorporates more of the development side of what I want to learn.) And I'm wondering if it's within the realms of achievable for someone who's managed at their furthest to implement navigating between menus and inventories in Unity3d and a few other, more straightforward systems. (I'm looking at Unity again because it ties in with Ink fairly well.) The basic idea is to have a plant growing game. A single plant, based on alien soil, that responds to input (talking to it, watering, feeding, entertaining it, ensuring it gets enough light, shade, etc.) It'd be set in a small apartment (less 2d scenes to draw) and it'd be a single plant that changes based on the player's actions. The core idea is that the plant is diagetic in its growth to the gameworld, so it responds to the circumstances the player finds themselves in and the totality of their actions as though it's a mirror. The plant also influences the game world, so the player might dream things, get mood enhancements, have ideas prompted by the effect of the plant. It's a linked system for the character, who's a recluse, trying to help themselves with the aid of a focus and a hobby. An example of the world interaction/diagesis might be the player watering the plant (and they can water them with water (a baseline input,) coffee (the plant gets long and stringy,) cola (the plant grows with sticky sap,) fruit juice (the plants colours get more vibrant,) etc.) But while they're watering them, to learn when enough liquid is enough a child might be gently caress acting about on the street below and a mother or father yells at them, "That's enough lil' Tim. Stop that!" Or if the plant is getting too much sunlight there'll be a radio program about sunstroke playing. This feeds into the player's recluse status, and why they're not out in the world, where the semiotic understanding of what's happening to them overwhelms them. The end-goal is A.) the player has a personalised plant that's helped them and B) the player learns something about their solitary status. The main thing I'm asking is whether this is too convoluted an attempt at something (from the art, writing, programming aspect) or whether it's approachable in small steps (like an agile/sprint system with incremental milestones.) And if it is approachable in small chunks, dear goon, what would be your first forays into making it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 12:56
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:If it's not too much trouble, I'd like my game to be able to load 3D models from an external-to-Unity location, to make modding easier. Basically have a directory or set of directories that contain 3D models in [some format] and data files that describe the models, like, this model is a ship named "Japanese Destroyer I", it has a loadout cap of 500, base 200 hull strength, 4x16 squares on its deck, when deployed as an AI ship it has these structures and guns, etc. Industry’s best practice: Build those assets as asset bundles, load them from S3 at runtime. Serialize your metadata and bundle it in the asset bundle. And don’t really support mods. If you want mods: Roughly the same, but load from persistent data path and skip the asset bundles (or painstakingly explain to your community how to make them). Serialize config data to JSON and avoid dictionaries and you don’t need newtonsoft or system.xml.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 14:23
|
|
|
leper khan posted:Industry’s best practice: Wait, they seriously load assets from the cloud at runtime?  Or is this part of a secondary install process?It sounds like you're basically saying though that I shouldn't worry too much about the performance penalty of not using asset bundles. I guess I was prematurely worrying about performance there; I don't expect that I'll be turning out the kinds of super-detailed models/textures that take up lots of space. Why would I want to avoid newtonsoft? They provide a (free) version of their library on the asset store.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 15:09
|
|
|
I've offered up the 2008 version of my game as dlc for the (real) game. It doesn't hold up at all, but it's neat to include just for shits anyway. Also it led me to figure out how to do dlc in steam, which is pretty cool
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
Reminder for people that since the Steam summer sale is happening, keep an eye on the software tab as well. Steam sale means more than just games. For instance Substance Painter + Designer + B2M 2019 is half price right now if you need it. GameMaker Studio 2 Desktop is 20% off etc. If you need something its not a bad time to take a look.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
Sedgr posted:Reminder for people that since the Steam summer sale is happening, keep an eye on the software tab as well. Steam sale means more than just games. Yep. Both Grid Cartographer and Aseprite are on sale, and they've been invaluable to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 20:56
|
|
|
Ian Hamilton told me that he used my game as an example in this talk. https://twitter.com/KariGaynor/status/1143577370588114944
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 22:38
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Wait, they seriously load assets from the cloud at runtime? Need to keep the base application size within limits on mobile. The asset bundles will be cached on device based on version number. Often you’ll be downloading things in the background and be in a reduced state until everything is there. https://docs.unity3d.com/Manual/AssetBundles-Workflow.html Newtonsoft is pretty bad. My favorite pet issue is where he closed a bug as working as intended/won’t fix where the library will parse all strings that are parseable into date times into date times while losing precision and the source string. https://github.com/JamesNK/Newtonsoft.Json/issues/862 It’s like when xerox photocopiers replaced numbers with different numbers. Aside that issue, it’s a relatively large dependency that doesn’t serve much actual purpose. Serialize your dictionaries to parallel arrays and you can probably use Unity’s built in json conversion utils which can’t be stripped from the build anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 23:26
|
|
|
I'm mostly interested in JSON as a way to write config files, not so much for serialization of game objects. I was really quite surprised to see that C# doesn't seem to have a standard JSON library; it's disappointing to hear that the commonly-used alternative is problematic. I guess I'll use protobufs instead. Really I probably should have gone that route in the first place; their text format is more syntactically friendly than JSON, and the libraries provide schema enforcement. But they have more initial investment (have to write the .proto file and then build libraries for whichever languages you want to use), while JSON is easy...when it works!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 01:20
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:I'm mostly interested in JSON as a way to write config files, not so much for serialization of game objects. I was really quite surprised to see that C# doesn't seem to have a standard JSON library; it's disappointing to hear that the commonly-used alternative is problematic. Yeah, they're still working on their own library: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.text.json?view=netcore-3.0
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:I'm mostly interested in JSON as a way to write config files, not so much for serialization of game objects. I was really quite surprised to see that C# doesn't seem to have a standard JSON library; it's disappointing to hear that the commonly-used alternative is problematic. JSON is a really sloppy spec with lots of implementation challenges and any maintainer like MSFT who makes a decision on how an implementation should/shouldn't work is going to make waves! Could you use something dead simple like TOML for configs?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 21:50
|
|
|
a cyberpunk goose posted:JSON is a really sloppy spec with lots of implementation challenges and any maintainer like MSFT who makes a decision on how an implementation should/shouldn't work is going to make waves! Dhall
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
I was working this weekend on partitioning my road networks into lots (math is so hard and weird when you're bad at it, holy crap), I like how when you switch the branching angle from 90 to 45 degrees it instantly looks like the trees every article ever written about L-systems visualizes:
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 00:13
|
|
|
I'm just going to go forward with prefabs and ScriptableObjects for now. It's more important that I keep the core game unblocked than it is that I support hypothetical future modders. Now I'm wrestling with Unity and Blender. I got my models imported OK, and set up a script to spawn in a hull and put some guns on it:  But animation is a different story. I have a dead-simple armature set up for those guns, but as best I can tell, when I instantiate the prefab, it doesn't make a single-user copy of the armature. That is, the armature on the instantiated object is the same as the one on the prefab. Since it's a prefab, I can't reparent it to the boat, and therefore the gun stays at the origin. Any changes made to the armature (e.g. rotating bones) are applied to both instances of the gun. I think this may be because I'm trying to use the imported models wrong? Here's the relevant part of my assets:  I have two variants of the gun in the same file: standard, and with a 1-meter elevation platform (so you can squeeze other structures in underneath the gun barrels). I really don't want to have to have separate files for minor variants like that, but Unity insists on importing everything and putting them all into a single GameObject. I'm trying to instantiate the "Gun_0m" in that scene, which has a SkinnedMeshRenderer which has the bones that control the gun, but like I said above, those bones seem to be general and I can't reparent them. Am I going to have to manually export each individual object as a .fbx file and then import them into Unity that way? That's a fair amount of overhead to the modeling process, but if it's what has to be done to get a working rig,  I guess that's what I'll do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 01:18
|
|
|
Bert of the Forest posted:My brain broke and I started fantasizing today about "what if I purchased/got the actual film license for the Killer Tomatoes franchise and made a Dead By Daylight meets Katamari game with it?" and these were the result along with a 3-page pitch document. This is what I did instead of actual work for a better part of the day. Halp. Dude. Dude. ok, bear with me here. go to the official site. https://killertomatoes.com/ scroll down and click on "buy the game". Realize you should really send the pitch document to them and there is a good chance they will say yes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 02:30
|
|
|
Lork posted:As my non game related day job increasingly shows signs that it's not long for this world, I'm starting to think about how badly I'd like to make a living from my own game instead of going through the hell that is job searching again. It must be profoundly unsaleable based on either the visuals, concept or theme if it couldn't even elicit enough interest for anyone to explain what led to them dismissing it. I guess I'd like to know what about it makes it so easy for the eyes to glide over it on the way to the  button. Maybe something I can change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 03:01
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:I'm just going to go forward with prefabs and ScriptableObjects for now. It's more important that I keep the core game unblocked than it is that I support hypothetical future modders. You have to unpack the prefab after creating it if you're going to make changes on the fly or create multiple copies of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 03:17
|
|
|
Lork posted:Oof Not gonna lie first time I just looked at the pictures and didn't read the text in the post. Gameplay footage on the left looks ok but there isn't a lot being shown. Show what makes your game unique and not just another shooter. Also need more than a 3 second clip. The more content you can post to gain a potential player's interest the better. Whatever is happening on the right is indecipherable, at first glance I thought it was a powerpoint slide. Looks nothing like a video game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 03:30
|
|
|
"Nobody posted about it" is not an indictment. It's hard to get excited about two seconds of a guy shooting a gun in an empty room; that doesn't mean the game is bad. Also, "how close is this to being saleable" is a really hard question to answer constructively; I imagine a lot of people reacted as I did ("I dunno man, probably a long way away but I can't tell from this GIF") and thus didn't post. The shooty bit looks pretty good. I personally despise cookie clicker sort of things so I can't say much about that part. My immediate feedback visually speaking is to get a better font, or rather any font that isn't Default Arial, and generally improve how your UI looks. Cookie clickers are mostly staring at numbers while clicking on a button so the numbers better be in a pretty font and the button better have beveled edges and whatever. The "draw the rest of the owl" bit is "build some cool interesting-looking levels with weird distinctive enemies in them and then make a GIF of that." e: f;b
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 03:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:41 |
|
|
Lork posted:Oof "Blockchain," as a word, is an incredibly rough starting point, especially since you seem to be aiming exclusively for that market. Your terminology might make sense for people in that sphere but for anyone else it's just magic words vaguely associated with a (often unpleasantly evangelical) subculture, and without any idea of what all that stuff in the second image is meant to be, there's no indication at all of a goal or ideal that it's working toward. SA has multiple threads dedicated to mocking the gently caress out of Bitcoin and friends, so this was always going to be a risky place to pseudo-pitch this. So, point number 1: Pick your pitch audience carefully and know what they're gonna be. As for the actual content, your first image is incredibly dark and impossible to read, and your second image is crowded with a bunch of ugly numbers that might make some sense in context but outside of that context are meaningless. Clicker / incremental games make bank on very explicitly not being engaging like shooters, so you're going to be fighting an uphill battle to prove that the two visually unrelated parts fit together. And the indication from a quick-cut gif like the one you posted is that this is how long the cool part lasts and that's all there is to show. You might be able to wheedle some money out of hardcore, wealthy BTC true believers who will throw money at anything with the right keywords in it. Big studios want something that can be sold to the general public, small studios want something like what they've already made, and kickstarter wants prettiness above all else. I genuinely can't think of anyone who would fund this, and I don't say that as an insult. E: To elaborate a bit on this, you could probably pitch to Croteam and Devlover Digital with a similar deck, since they're in a similar market of lower-end shamelessly silly violence games (Devolver loves their gore and pixels, Croteam loves anything they can make into a Serious Sam game), but you wouldn't bring that same deck to a discussion with Supergiant, since they're a bit more toward the reserved story-and-art-and-music edge of the spectrum. Coming to SA to talk about your project in a way that will engage anyone requires you to be able to smack out a brief greatest hits of your games' intended hooks and throw lots of dopey pictures around, not just about the best parts but about the parts that people can make dumb jokes about. Somfin fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Jul 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2019 04:01
|
|
