![\"Screen](\"\/data\/posts\/2013\/08\/ad361af4582d1d012726c39286a24afb.png\")
<\/a>The comments said the problem was with the visuals. I agree. But visuals aren\u2019t everything. I mean my game had more animation and gameplay options then Receiver (by Wolfire games) and that was one of the very first games to be Greenlit. The problem is people just look at the graphics. They just look at the \u201coriginal\u201d parts of a game, and even though I spent 300+ hours on complicated animation matrices, coding, and AI development, the visuals weren\u2019t enough for people to take interest.<\/p>\nYou know it bothers me when games with screenshots like this:<\/p>\n
Get more votes then games with screenshots like this:<\/p>\n A lot of comments said \u201cYou shouldn\u2019t have put this game out in Alpha. You should\u2019ve waited until Beta.\u201d Well take a look at the game above. 30 seconds of walking gameplay<\/em>, remember? Yet people weren\u2019t even bothered by the fact that their systems weren\u2019t developed at all and all they could show off was a walk-through demo. This has started to make me think\u2026 Do people base development progress on visuals? Because it doesn\u2019t make any sense for people to just skim over mine because the graphics didn\u2019t look so good. Did people even see what my game was about?<\/p>\n Now call me a baby for complaining like this, but Greenlight is a flawed<\/em> system. Personally I\u2019d like to see how much work was actually put in to some of these entries. And by how much work I mean how many hours did they spend working on art<\/em> and how many hours did they spend on actual gameplay<\/em>. Sure the two go hand in hand, but people only look at the art, so what\u2019s the point in working hard on the other part? I took the game down from Greenlight. <\/strong>Sorry, but the results have just proven too horrible for now. I don\u2019t want to just trash 300+ hours of work, yet I see no other option. Sure, I could increase the visuals of the game. But that\u2019s something I\u2019ve always been bad at and it\u2019ll probably take another 100 hours or something to properly do. By that point who knows what people will think. They probably still won\u2019t like the graphics, and by then they\u2019ll start worrying about the gameplay or something. Overall it\u2019s just too risky for me to put any more time into this game. There\u2019s a chance it could be accepted after an aesthetics overhaul, but that\u2019s a chance I don\u2019t know if I want to take. Now that I know what people are looking for, it shouldn\u2019t be hard to develop a new game, it\u2019ll just take a really long time\u2026<\/p>\n What do you think I should do? <\/strong><\/p>\n Happy gaming!<\/p>\n Tags: game<\/a>, postmortem<\/a>, screenshot<\/a>, unity<\/a>, unity3d<\/a>, update<\/a><\/p>","time":"August 8th, 2013 8:41 am","title":"Sorry Guys\u2026 (And why Greenlight stinks)","title_was_empty":false}<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a>I picked a random game to compare with mine. While the random game had somewhat impressive backgrounds and an interesting character design, they showed 30 seconds of repetitive walking gameplay<\/em>. Looked like they had about 3 animations. And then they showed off some of their models and called it a game. And yet people are 300x more excited for it because their design is similar<\/em> to that of popular mmos. Their game probably won\u2019t have complicated animation matrices, AI systems with multiple states, and stealth scenarios that put you crawling inches from enemies. Their game probably doesn\u2019t even have any complete levels. Now which game sounds more promising to you?<\/p>\n