The Metroidvania/Souls-like/Roguelike genres are so saturated at this point I feel like the only way to stand out is through striking visual design.
Youtube video - "My Indie Game Launch was a Failure - Steam Sales Numbers & Lessons Learned" (Summit)
- Thread starter Paroni
- Start date
like i said earlier in the thread, it's not even just "why would anyone buy your game", it's "why would anyone buy your game over another game they would have bought instead?"
Well by space i didn't really mean a literal service provider, rather space as in community and ideology.
I'm with you 100% on this as somebody who makes games as a hobby. I don't really have any interest in trying to make money off of the things I make, I just want to make something. If I ever get around to my "big game", I'm going to make it open source. I'd love to see it take on a life of its own and keep going long after I stop working on it. That'd be payment enough for me. I guess it'd be the equivalent of you seeing people continue to pass along some photo you took years ago and talking about, and appreciating it.
Otherwise, this would be me releasing my 2D metroidvania game on Steam and expecting my game to be any different to the others in the pile.
As he uses some game examples that aren't necessarily lookers (Undertale, Balatro and I think it's Downwell), he understands it can work as long as it's either also unique or the genre doesn't require great graphics. MV is simply a genre that cannot work without appealing art nowadays.
Yup, this. A hundred games release on Steam every day. What makes yours special?
You need a good pitch with a unique or at least interesting hook. You need a distinct art style that stands out. You need a bangin' soundtrack. You need marketing and community building. You need to get noticed by the games press. You need the right release window and platforms. You need to execute on all things well.
And even with all that you can still totally flop simply for any reason, or no reason.
It's not impossible, clearly a lot of people do it. But indie games are even more of a bloodbath than triple-A right now. For every indie game you hear about releasing and having some kind of following, there are hundreds that silently release and fade into obscurity, never to be heard from again. We don't talk much about those games, but they're the overwhelming majority. And today, even developers with games you've may have heard of are struggling to get any kind of funding.
Survivorship bias among game devs is a huge issue, including among indies. Many adopt an "I worked really hard, and just made an amazing game" mindset as if that explains their success. But in many cases that's only a part of it. The reality is that it's just often dumb luck that your game took off while another didn't.
The sad thing too? Releasing a full 10+ hour game, made entirely by yourself, doesn't even give you a path into the industry anymore. Skills? Who cares. Now it's just the expectation that young kids make amazing games even when they're still in school. You need to have solid sales, or enough reviews to get on Metacritic, or win awards, and ideally all of the above... otherwise you've just gotta get lucky and know the right people (like I did).
Indie games are the rock bands of our era. You want to play music and jam out in your garage with your friends, play a few gigs, even go to school for it? Absolutely! But keep your day job and don't put all your hopes and dreams on it.
I think itch covers these as well. There are Discord communities based around making/sharing fun little itch.io projects with no intention of anyone turning a profit. I've also found so many people who very much enjoy teaching others and providing free assets just to get people into game dev.
I don't think many will disagree that how a game looks matters.
Where people disagree is the idea that every game has to be the most technically accomplished thing that had hundreds of millions of dollars thrown at ultra high-detail assets - often at the expense of performance/polish.
Valley without wind, oh wow, i'm surprised anyone remembers that game. I'd forgotten the title, but I instantly knew what you were talking about when I read your post. I only remember it because of its insane art style, which, iirc, was changed after receiving a bunch of criticism. The updated art style was still awful, though.
thx for the nostalgia hit!
Same. Like, I know Animal Well has been highly praised and is most likely an excellent game that I would probably even immensely enjoy. But the damn genre is everywhere and I'm just kinda done with it for the most part unless it's an actual new Castlevania or Metroid.
The time investment for creating a game is much greater than most hobbies. Even a 2 minute level requires you to set up a character and controls and a layout at the absolute minimum. Even if all the visuals are extremely simple and sound effects completely absent, that could still be an hour or 2 of work that requires some up know how.
Compare that to something like photography. Most people own something that can take a picture and as soon as they press the button they a technically engaging with the hobby. There's a freedom being able to decide if you want to travel to photograph different subject or invest in better equipment. Over time you can chose to learn how better shots are framed and can practice those skills at your leisure all while doing photography.
Compared to a game the very first thing you might do is program some behavior for an input, that could take a while to nail down if your not a programmer. Then making it doing something that's reflected visually on screen might be a whole new can of worms. Following all these steps until you have something that could really be considered a game is hard work. Where as you will have a photo as soon as you press the button.
I did know people who put together small games in their free time when I was attending college but only their friends would play them because they never put them online. Usually a single screen with a couple characters focused on 1 interactions, maybe a few of us would record some lines to put in for fun or draw a more detailed character. The people I knew who did that didn't want to put their games online because to them they just wanted to have fun making something for an afternoon or two instead of work on something for a few months. Even then everyone I knew who did this I would describe as exceptionally talented programmers who learned a lot on their own
Finishing and releasing a demo, let alone an entire game, is a very large amount of work and it alone is a big accomplishment. "Every released game is a miracle" is a saying that applies very much to indie games in addition to larger AAA games.
With that said, video games are a visual medium and there are simply way too many small or one-man teams who think they can "wing it" when it comes to art. You cannot "wing it". Truly talented people like Eric Barone (Stardew Valley) can do it all at once, but good art requires technical knowledge (animation, color theory, composition, etc. etc.). It isn't easy and the price of failure is a visually unappealing product that turns people off of even looking at, let alone buying your game.
There's many different ways to handle art aside from hiring a professional, which is obviously the easiest but also obviously the most expensive. Practicing and honing the skill just like one would a musical instrument is key, not just jumping in and working on art assets only when working on the game itself. Animations are critically important, again as a visual medium; animations that are just wildly rotating completely static limbs like in this game are visually unappealing and turn people off the game entirely. There needs to be motion, not just rotating assets that suggest motion.
Art can look good and be simple, it's about working smarter and not harder. If color theory vexes you, consider a monochromatic game. If human animations are tricky, figure out a way to abstract motion while introducing charm at the same time (see Yellow Taxi Goes Vroom, a brilliant solution to creating a 3D platformer without having to animate complex limb animations in 3D for the main character). It isn't only about knowing your strengths and playing to them, but knowing your weaknesses and playing to them as well. A game being visually appealing does not need to be high fidelity, it only means it needs to be well constructed and pleasing to the eye. Gato Roboto looks great and it is a collection of small sprites that uses literally two colors (black and white). It doesn't mean these are easy and it doesn't mean they can be done with low effort. Most of these games with successful simplistic art styles still require skills to make it look good, but it comes with practice and again, not something that can be "winged" by rotating sprites around and throwing gradients everywhere.
Lastly, marketing the game is important as well, and I don't mean "pay for ad placement". I mean knowing how to make good steam banners, good thumbnails, how to cut good trailers that very clearly communicate what is unique about your game in INSTANTS of a second. Not minutes, not seconds, but instants. It is not easy and again, probably best left to marketing professionals when possible but realistically an indie dev will have to handle it by themselves and they need to be constantly engaged and following tutorials and seeking feedback constantly.
I don't mean to trash this dev because like I said it's not an easy task to even complete a game, and he seems to take the game's failure in stride. But it's also very important to learn the right lessons from the failure and if he's continuing to work on his art I hope he's seeking additional help, seeking a lot of feedback, and honing his skill as a visual artist.
With that said, video games are a visual medium and there are simply way too many small or one-man teams who think they can "wing it" when it comes to art. You cannot "wing it". Truly talented people like Eric Barone (Stardew Valley) can do it all at once, but good art requires technical knowledge (animation, color theory, composition, etc. etc.). It isn't easy and the price of failure is a visually unappealing product that turns people off of even looking at, let alone buying your game.
There's many different ways to handle art aside from hiring a professional, which is obviously the easiest but also obviously the most expensive. Practicing and honing the skill just like one would a musical instrument is key, not just jumping in and working on art assets only when working on the game itself. Animations are critically important, again as a visual medium; animations that are just wildly rotating completely static limbs like in this game are visually unappealing and turn people off the game entirely. There needs to be motion, not just rotating assets that suggest motion.
Art can look good and be simple, it's about working smarter and not harder. If color theory vexes you, consider a monochromatic game. If human animations are tricky, figure out a way to abstract motion while introducing charm at the same time (see Yellow Taxi Goes Vroom, a brilliant solution to creating a 3D platformer without having to animate complex limb animations in 3D for the main character). It isn't only about knowing your strengths and playing to them, but knowing your weaknesses and playing to them as well. A game being visually appealing does not need to be high fidelity, it only means it needs to be well constructed and pleasing to the eye. Gato Roboto looks great and it is a collection of small sprites that uses literally two colors (black and white). It doesn't mean these are easy and it doesn't mean they can be done with low effort. Most of these games with successful simplistic art styles still require skills to make it look good, but it comes with practice and again, not something that can be "winged" by rotating sprites around and throwing gradients everywhere.
Lastly, marketing the game is important as well, and I don't mean "pay for ad placement". I mean knowing how to make good steam banners, good thumbnails, how to cut good trailers that very clearly communicate what is unique about your game in INSTANTS of a second. Not minutes, not seconds, but instants. It is not easy and again, probably best left to marketing professionals when possible but realistically an indie dev will have to handle it by themselves and they need to be constantly engaged and following tutorials and seeking feedback constantly.
I don't mean to trash this dev because like I said it's not an easy task to even complete a game, and he seems to take the game's failure in stride. But it's also very important to learn the right lessons from the failure and if he's continuing to work on his art I hope he's seeking additional help, seeking a lot of feedback, and honing his skill as a visual artist.
I was an art director layed off by a restructuring of the studio I worked on just some months ago.
A friend of mine that worked on an animation studio also wa slayed off this month, and a friend of mine that was a programmer same.
We are now with an idea of making an indie game, but first of all we wanted to be special and something we really wnated to play. Appealing art wise using styles we enjoy, and with some special gameplay elements on a genre that isnt completely oversaturated and that can work as a hook if people see them in a trailer.
Ive always said, if I wanted to go this route, right now, I would never EVER make a metroidvania, or souls like, becuase thats digging your own grave as its needs to be incredibly striking for people to notice.
I commend the dev for
1. Actually releasing his game, which is not an easy task, its a HUGE accomplishements. Massive congrats
2. Talking about what have gone wrong in the video, and knowing why his game may have failed.
But yeah, as soon as he was explaining and I watched the art I knew why it made (sadly, becuase i do feel sad for him) zero impact.
May our game have better luck? who knows, it may even never release, so its not like im saying we are better than him (becuase in this hard working industry, we are all trying to do our best), but we will try to do something that hopefully catches people interest if we actually finish it.
A friend of mine that worked on an animation studio also wa slayed off this month, and a friend of mine that was a programmer same.
We are now with an idea of making an indie game, but first of all we wanted to be special and something we really wnated to play. Appealing art wise using styles we enjoy, and with some special gameplay elements on a genre that isnt completely oversaturated and that can work as a hook if people see them in a trailer.
Ive always said, if I wanted to go this route, right now, I would never EVER make a metroidvania, or souls like, becuase thats digging your own grave as its needs to be incredibly striking for people to notice.
I commend the dev for
1. Actually releasing his game, which is not an easy task, its a HUGE accomplishements. Massive congrats
2. Talking about what have gone wrong in the video, and knowing why his game may have failed.
But yeah, as soon as he was explaining and I watched the art I knew why it made (sadly, becuase i do feel sad for him) zero impact.
May our game have better luck? who knows, it may even never release, so its not like im saying we are better than him (becuase in this hard working industry, we are all trying to do our best), but we will try to do something that hopefully catches people interest if we actually finish it.
Vampire survivors had "bad art" but it had direction. It was also cheaper than this game. The VS dev also had the forethought to commission art for the game.
Further:
Your first published game usually shouldn't be your magnum opus. Start small and hone your craft. Release on itch or similar community building platforms. Keep iterating and learn each time things to do better. Your first game will probably fail, so keep the scope small unless you're very confident in your product against others in the market.
Further:
Your first published game usually shouldn't be your magnum opus. Start small and hone your craft. Release on itch or similar community building platforms. Keep iterating and learn each time things to do better. Your first game will probably fail, so keep the scope small unless you're very confident in your product against others in the market.
Last edited:
I understand this, and even without going into how photography is hella expensive and takes years of practice to be good at and how projects can require months and years of investment, this idea that "it's too much time not to turn it into money" is precisely what i want to dismantle. I've made small games, in college and out, i know what it takes. Today i understand that a project that takes me more than a weekend is one i'll hardly finish, but i understand, if it took me a month, five months, two years, it's still perfectly fine not to make any money out of it if the process is fun, and if it isn't well perhaps that's reason enough to stop.
Same. Any great new games within those genres will eventually make its way toward my Steam list.
What I'm saying is lower level is higher. The entire time you are practicing photography your are engaging with the hobby. You are doing photography while you learn, creating a video game isn't the same. You can invest all that time and money into a photography project if you want but it isn't the minimum requirement for a hobbyist unless your going to gatekeep the hobby. For a video game putting together a demo using something like RPG maker with any level of interaction take a lot of up front effort. The version of creating a game as a hobby like described in my first post probably isn't something a lot of people want show on the Internet.
They're a ton of people that make small games that are available for free on services like itch.io or even as flash-style games in the new grounds days. As they invest more time then that it starts to require some form of income to make worth it. Judging by what I can see of the game in the video, that looks it is something that required big time investment so hoping it would pay off is reasonable to me
Wait, someone here said Valve doesn't collect the full percent on the first million in sales. Or something like that. It doesn't seem to be the case. Them clawing back 30% of this guys $350 is depressing.
I think the game itself looks pretty good. Not a fan of the character designs, but I like the look of the environments.
It's just difficult to stand out with so many good indie(and other) games releasing constantly. This feels like a problem that will only get worse for developers.
Sucks to see someone put in that effort only for it to be ignored. Hopefully they can use the experience for a more successful second game.
I think the game itself looks pretty good. Not a fan of the character designs, but I like the look of the environments.
It's just difficult to stand out with so many good indie(and other) games releasing constantly. This feels like a problem that will only get worse for developers.
Sucks to see someone put in that effort only for it to be ignored. Hopefully they can use the experience for a more successful second game.
They reduce their cut to 25% after you make $10 million in revenue, but only for the amount over that $10 million. And it's reduced again to 20% after $50 million in sales.
Ah, so the shifting percentage is just on the high end.
I mentioned it would be nice if they had something similar for smaller devs and was told they only take 15% for the first million. Seems that wasn't correct.
I mostly agree with you, but giving Vampire Survivors art credit for having direction feels a bit unearned when pretty much every sprite in that game at launch was a just changed enough sprite rip from Castlevania to not be taken to court for plagiarism (and sometimes they didn't even change them that much).
It would be like this dev just copying Metroid sprites to make his game instead. It might have sold more then to be fair.
Don't make an indie game expecting it to be your full time job, do it for the love of the hobby and the pride you get for putting yourself out there.
You're an idiot if you expect your game with no unique selling point to provide for you for no other reason than "I put time and effort into this", so what? 100 Steam games get released every week that have more time and effort put into them.
Get a job with actual security and make games in your free time as a hobby.
You're an idiot if you expect your game with no unique selling point to provide for you for no other reason than "I put time and effort into this", so what? 100 Steam games get released every week that have more time and effort put into them.
Get a job with actual security and make games in your free time as a hobby.
This should be reversed, it's ridiculous they take a higher percentage from lower earners.
I'll certainly concede that it was borderline plagiarism, but at least it shows an aesthetic was considered or an ideal was aimed for. In the end, I didn't play that game for the art, but it certainly helped lower the barrier to want to try it.
I'm saying it as a general rule of thumb for anyone that's thinking about getting into indie dev currently.
Too many indie devs think they're owed success just because they made a game and try to blame it entirely on external factors if they don't, when in reality it's a little bit of that and a lot of their game not being that appealing or marketed well.
If I see a character with a small body and a huge head I just hit x on the video without even looking back in 99% of the cases.
Add me to the crowd of those who are sick of metroidvanias. I will only play them if they are absolutely exceptional, and even then I might overlook them. For example, as someone who loved Blasphemous, I don't feel like playing its sequel. Animal well is going viral, and I just find it hard to care. Definitely genre fatigue for me personally.
This is an excellent analogy, it's what made the overload of supply make sense in my head.
Particularly with the auteur mindset and horrible art, it reminds me of the 2000s webcomics boom.
And the whole indie comic book scene up to today.