|
On Kickstarter, the project description should convince the public that you are able to deliver a fun game; unfortunately you give consistent hints of the contrary.
The public knows that software projects tend to fail, run late and cost too much, and that games are often less than fun; videogames combine the two sources of uncertainty and are one of the highest risk types of Kickstarter project. "However, about nine months ago, we decided that it would be preferable to abandon AndEngine and rewrite the game from scratch, in a graphics framework called LibGDX. This set us back quite a bit. However, we’re now at the stage where the game is back to its original functionality" On the "being able to deliver" axis, you represent yourself as slow (over 1 year for a demo might be acceptable, but 9 months for a rewrite are a lot, smelling of part-time amateur development), prone to waste time with failed experiments (and persisting despite technical problems), unrealistically ambitious and/or unfocused (Windows and Mac and Linux and and iOS and Android? When high budget companies choose between Android and iOS?).
Consider what the numerous software developers and software project managers on HN are likely to think of rewriting software from scratch, regardless of your sound technical reasons. "The game plays like a cross between A Link to the Past and Mass Effect, and takes some inspiration from Iain M. Banks’ Culture novels - along with whatever else can be scraped from an imagination fired by years of reading brilliant science fiction. Gameplay focuses around Ra’s ability to use magic, and the player can find many new spells as they explore the game’s universe. It’s not all action, though - players will come up against a variety of puzzles, ranging from mildly vexing to fiendishly tricky." On the "fun game" axis, you have very little to show. You sure like your game, but TELLING it's fun is vastly different from SHOWING it's fun. Descriptions like this one are simply too generic to suggest how well you are meeting the stated objectives.
At least for me, the inexplicably low resolution graphics are particularly troublesome: whether they are the bizarre product of strange tastes or just a cheap and ugly placeholder, the concern over their quality projects on all other aspects of the game.
If an artist thinks that much smaller sprites than on the Atari 2600 are appropriate for HD screens, explaining how and why it's the best choice for your game needs to be a very important part of your message, or the public will assume the worst (you aren't giving the due attention to graphics and/or you are unable or unwilling to draw anything better). |