Thank you for watching the video. Here is my upcoming game on steam mentioned at the end of the video, you can do some comparing and let me know if it looks better or not: store.steampowered.com/app/2907050
To be completely sincere a game to be a success have to instantly provide a unique experience, a 10 seconds video of the game should be enough to demonstrate it, it doesn't have to be perfect or unique, a known trope with a twist is what people search, look at Vampire Survivors and Balatro, in both cases big Twists but the core of the game is something barebones and copypasted from different stuff, just combined in a peculiar way, and that's it, fun stuff
Yea, i think #1 problem is art style. It's MUCH harder to make good 3D artstyle and it's much better to just stick to 2D if you are not a very good 3D artist. I'm making a hobby 3D game now but i'm just using good 3D assets from store - without them game would be ugly as hell.
He might be a good 3D artist but its more like the time they need. Usually in big companies there are 4 employees for each 3D character. 1. One for modeling/sculping. 2. One for Rigging (sometimes they have tools but still someone needs to arrange bones if needed). 3. One for animating. 3. And one for mapping/meshing. Doing this on top of coding, game design, story/puzzle writing and so on is not doable for bigger games as a solo dev.
I watched both games before the video and tried to analyse the problems myself. I would agree with all the points so far. But I also noticed other things: - The steam capsule of part 1 directly reveals that it's a 2D pixel art RPG. I can imagine that the people who clicked on the game were more open to this type of game. In the second part, the orc probably put a lot of players off and players also know less about what to expect. - The trailer for the first part captured the dream of adventure much better, especially the music. If I had to guess the genre from the music of the second trailer with my eyes closed, I would guess a farming sim or a life sim and not an action RPG. Besides, the first trailer conveyed what the game is about much more quickly. - Good 3D graphics are usually better than good 2D graphics, but your 2D graphics were really very good, while the 3D graphics in the second part looked rather cheap. Anyway, that's what else I noticed, but I think your observations are all correct too. Anyway, it looks like you're going to do everything better in the next instalment and I can see a significant improvement. I think it's great how you're learning from your mistakes, and if it continues like this, the next part could be a huge success. In any case, I would wish it for you!
This one is hard to say, as optics wise the first one feels lived in, like there's a world there to explore. 2nd one doesn't have this charm and seems to have a clashing art-style? Is it like Animal Crossing RPG? and you play as an orc? Orcs are cool but a quasi-cute-not-cute orc is a bit hard to grasp for potential players unless you're a really good 3D artist. Unfortunately I feel like the 3rd is also heading the same direction of the 2nd; If we're going by artstyle alone. It doesn't have this lived-in charm in it. If you like I have a few examples to help you in your journey if you're really sold on the 2.5D art style: Octopath Traveler Soul Bound SacriFire Cassette Beasts Cult of Lamb Unicorn Overload (The overworld) Lost Castle 2 Edit: I went and looked at the trailers, and maybe it's not only the art style, but I think its the trailers as well. The first one you know what to do and expect; Explore the world, fight monsters do interesting puzzles. The second seems ...unfocused? Mind control? RPG talking? Umm hats? This is what you see in the first 30 seconds of the trailer... It seems a little frazzled and doesn't do anything to grab the players attention. Good news though is that trailers are easy to test and change.
Thank you for the great analysis! However I'm not sure about the artstyle of the next game. It looks inconsistent, and mix of 2d and 3d is not the best choice from a marketing point of view. The artstyle of the first game was the best of all three.
Just going to throw my opinion into the ring here, I personally think it looks really really cool. However you got quite a few likes on this comment so I may be in the minority here but I love 2D sprites on 3D levels.
My game didn't perform as I expected at the Steam Next Fest, and it burnt me out for a few days. But as you do, I'll keep going forward. I know you know this indie solo dev journey seems alone most times but we're not alone, we're just scattered. Take care man!
I think it is important to focus on what you could do better next time, self reflect and try again with those lessons in mind. Theres not much more we can do other than that. But simultaneously its important to acknowledge that the indie game market is a huge lottery where its incredibly random if you succeed or not. And I dunno, give yourself some grace. You cant realistically change the world, but you can acknowledge the realities of it.
Thanks for the video. Very interesting to hear your thoughts as a developer. So for me it was kind of like this: I got my Switch Lite (skipped the regular Switch because Lite was much cheaper and I seldom play on the TV anyway, so) quite late (2021?) and had a HUGE amount of games to wade through in the store (still not done, don't expect to ever catch up either). I noticed Shalnor Legends mainly because of the Zelda-like graphics, which I liked. I noticed it had been on sale a few times but the current sales I saw put the game at a higher price than previous sales, so I thought I could wait a while before getting it. Also, murdering competition from other games, so I felt like I wasn't in a hurry. However, since I have bought many games and have a little dream about reviewing games, I tend to focus more on the games that go down to a new historical low, so I buy those games first (when I feel the price is right for me) and the games that keep going on sale and keep going down to the same level...well, I reason that since they go on sale so regularly, and almost always go down to the same level or even lower, I can always wait just a little longer before I buy them. Now, I have noticed that Shalnor isn't really getting cheaper but rather more expensive. Should I have bought it sooner? Perhaps. Will I buy it now instead? Not as likely. And now Shalnor 2 is available. I wondered what the connection was between those two games, and I expected the hero to be the same as it is in most sequels, but sadly it is not. The charming graphics of the first game is also gone. I don't want to complain about your work, because I'm sure it is good and you have put plenty of time in it, but as a sequel...well, I probably expected the same hero or a relative of him, and also the same graphics or a slight improvement. Not a completely different graphics style. But anyway...if the first game is good, the second is probably good too, because why would it be bad if the first one wasn't? I also think you made the right choice, in a way: You wanted to make the sequel the way YOU wanted it to be, and you did. Yes, maybe working your ass off to make new graphics and then change it at the last minute was a reverse way of doing it (I won't lecture, I'm not a developer and I will never be either)...but like you said: Now you have learned that lesson. So my current plan is to either buy the first game when it goes on sale, or buy both when it goes on sale. A sale. Some time in the future. Not sure when. So many games. I don't even have to play them, let alone review them. Aaaah...anxiety and major stress. So. Still interested in the games, just...haven't bought them yet.
I had my eye on this game for ages. Was so close to buying it around a couple of weeks ago. Often consider getting it when I have a feeling for link of the past style game. The stiff animation of the main character is what puts me off everytime Ive been about to buy it. And the one bad review confirming it as slow movement. But I like the idea of the orc and the graphics (apart from main character animations) as it is very close to the art style I often play around with (and then eventually dump into the pile of dead projects 😂). This and oceanhorn style of graphics is what Ive enjoyed making the most so far when devving. The first game looks great too, very link to the past like which I love. But the next game youre working on now, I must say I hate that graphic style, I didnt even want to get the demo. The first game is a nice pixel style. This new half 3d pixel style is really off putting for me. I didnt like how it seemed a lot of it was on small floating floors (with the black space around. Ive even tried to convince myself that the first game's floors arnt that much bigger, but they feel better by being surrounded by walls instead of black space more often. But good luck with it, hope its just me that is weird and not a fan of the 2d in 3d approach. Im sure Ill get number 2 eventually though and probably 1 as well if 2 is any good.
I not even heard about either games. The interesting thing is, in the sea of Metroidvanias I find 99% of them are more like Castlevania then Metroid at all. In most of them you are a melee character, not shooting with a gun. Zelda like games are even more rare.So at first I thought, lets take a look maybe buy both. But like you said at 1:16 the Art Style is not great. I like the Art in the first one well enough, but the second one doesn't look appealing. I like 8bit graphics, but your "Art Style" lacks one thing, a certain "style" to it. The first game still has something unique but the second one looks too generic, and I mainly mean the textures. I like the graphic of that remake of "Zelda Links Awakening" as well as "Zelda Echoes of Wisdom" which is very similar. But reading the comments on both games I think one major issue is that the upgrading system is too money-reliant. If you look at the old NES The Legend of Zelda and Metroid game... you should not gain the majority of power from farming gold and crafting/buying upgrades. Over the years I played allot "Action-Adventure" games on the NES, Snes and heck even some on the Sega Saturn and Playstation1(Alunda among things). 2:07 You know, one big issue is also that it is hard on Steam to find stuff. When I go to your "Shalnor Legends: Sacred Lands" on steam and click the tag "Action-Adventure" a new page pops up with "Action-Adventure" in big letters. But then you scroll down some, the first post is "on your wishlist" the next is "recommended for you" and both DO NOT show any "Action-Adventure" games. You scroll further and I see a big segment with "popular titles" with big banners and stuff, still not any "Action-Adventure" games. Then for me there is a segment with "automation games" followed by "open world survival craft games"...still not any "Action-Adventure" games. Now we're finally arrived at a list, with filters on the left side and stuff, you look through that list and surprise... NONE of the games in the list have the tag of "Action-Adventure" games. Steam is really bad for finding games, unless they sell well then Steam seemingly promotes them more. The market on steam is always super saturated. 7:20 I think this is a real issue. One of the reasons why games don't do well on steam is because as I said earlier, it is hard to find games on it. If you had some form of community around you, people that are looking at your game and give feedback, that talk with others maybe even make UA-cam videos... then your game had allot more people know of it. That said, if you need someone to talk to, maybe bounce ideas around, I would talk with you.
I think your doing a bang up job, how many indie devs can say they sold 100k copies on a game they made. Even though you think this one failed keep in mind of your other achievements. Finishing a game is hard enough but actually having one do well and fund another is amazing. Make games that you love and if you like playing as orcs keep making games that do that.
These reasons are fairly accurate. Market especially. I legit don't know what should be released today in order for it to be interesting. My best guess is that it should be some kind of a funny well-made simple simulator and not an ARPG no matter the formula. On the art-side though you should go for clearer/simpler visuals. These spikes on 3:00 legit hurt my eyes because there are so many of them. Also even good 3D today feels cheap (unless it's heavily stylized like with some indie horrors). If you go for 3D and aren't using retro graphics then you probably need to do some heavy lifting on the particles/animations (League style of particle animation) and if you can't do that then 2D overall would look better IMO. Good pixel animation is already tough in 2D why even go for 3D which is even harder? Gameplay-wise since numbers are so all over the place I'd consider not using them like at all. Unless their max values are around 25. Ofc you can use whatever numbers you want on the backend but the user shouldn't see so many of them. There are just too many games which only use numbers as the only way of showing player that they actually progressed in some form. About the character - people would probably even play as a japanese style of an orc (one which resembles a pig) if it looked cool. Your orc is too cartoonish. About the next game. Despite all the flaws, angle in the previous game seemed right. The new angle which is about 30-50(?) feels way too small as if it would work only in some locations where the player actually needs to see something in the distance. PS And you're moving away from the numbers which feels like the right call.
Hello fellow game dev... Here are my few cents for this... Judging based on your video. 0. Angle of the camera is very wierd. closer to initial grand theft auto than to other games that employ this play style. This is one of those things you can't really say what is wrong but you know something is... looking at characters from such perspective is simply not fun nor satisfying... If it was a 2d game players would be able to see the whole character like this is very strange. 1. Envirnment/world is dry and doesn't feel like it is living, from the video I actually feelt I was among bunch models that just stay there. 2. No juicy animations on impactfull events, hits, rols, shoots etc... everything is done but not polished and finalized to a point that it would feel satisfying to play it 3. Movement is also very flat, no snappiness/punchiness when doing so... Otherwise I think it does have much potential but looking like this is maybe just not apealing enough... Edit: Now that I've seen the last sequel you want to do , camera angle is also extremely wierd very low, you can see the characters but players perspective and spatial feel will suffer... you are still forcing 3d and 2d together, you just might go with 2d all the way and fully repeat the success... Personally don't think that this 3d camera angle 2d mashup will bring much of a positive difference, contrary... good luck .
This is the first time I ever heard of your games. I immediately was interested in the first game. The art style had me very intrigued. The second game not so much. I looked on my PS5 on the PSN store and only found game 2 and (I presume) 3 (Dungeons of Shalnor) - both PS4 version. So, that is a bummer. Is there a reason for it? I would love to check out the first game on Playstation. Everything you said in this video felt true from my perspective as a new potential customer. I am a trophy hunter. Our hobby is to earn all the trophies in a game. The trophy icons look for the first game look appealing. For the second game, it looks «cheap». (I don’t want to be rude, just give my honest feedback.) Keep going. I hope, you have big success with game development.
There is nothing amazing in that ancient art style. It's just few pixels and when I was a kid there was no other way than this (Contra 1, Battle City, Big Nose the Caveman etc. all NES games looked like this) but today we have plenty options and that's funny that people consider pixels some kind of "good" graphics. 1980s will never die I guess
@Olagfigh it's timeless. It's like 2pac vs dubstep. Or classical art vs modern art. One is timeless and good and the other is a fade that will be lost to time.
@@Olagfigh just because its an old artstyle doesn't mean its a bad one. pixelart is an artstyle that is comfy an accessable both to the creator and the player alike. it has a vibe that is hard to achieve by 3d or high fidelity styles, and it is versitile as it can be used in a lot of genres successfully. even if pixel art is on a technical level not as impressive as other means of displaying pixels, it still did the job way better in the first game in the vid than the second to create a vibe and get a feeling across to the player, that is what art is supposed to do. thats why in my opinion, pixelart in this cenario for this game is way better than 3d art. "its just pixels" yea and so is the hyper realistic artstyles too, its just more of them. they do different things better and is equally good in their own respective use cases.
@@tozkal96 In my opinion Heroes 3 from 1999 looks better than Songs of Conquest from 2024. I understand that creators of SoC doesn't have money to make it look better and I am ready to except that, because game is good. Just like I excepted Broforce, because game is great even if the graphics are awful. But! Don't try to tell me than pixel art looks beautiful. Just no. It's an ancient way of making graphics that remembers not only 90s, but also 80s. When a game from 1999 looks better than game from 2024 I think something is wrong here. It's some form of regression that most players accept.
true! adding in a dirt path, making the slime blue, the orc vest red... Studying those frames could be interesting. One of the reason 2D games work so feel is because they are visually trivially to read.
My best advice for indie developers - Don't try to learn and make a game at the same time. You wouldn't try to write your fist album while learning to play guitar would you? Also, don't work on a game for 5 years before testing interest. This is the point of a vertical slice. Get your core mechanics implemented quickly and then see if people are interested. Create a Google Forms survey and find out what they liked and what they didn't like.
Aesthetically pleasing pixel art vs blocky, stiff 3d art was the single downfall here... Art alone doesn't sell a game these days, but it sure will kill a game when done poorly.
when they did the Zelda 3D remake they tilted all the models backwards so it would look more like the SNES version, just something you might not know 😺
Thats one thing that I always remember when I see tutorials making complicated stuffs saying "performance is better": the only actual speed a developer must strive for is the speed to deliver stuffs. The faster you deliver, less of the most important resource is spent: TIME!
Solo and 3D often is a studio killer. If the project is so complex that you can't focus on the meat of what makes the game great, then it's hard to create quality.
Hm... I have had Shalnor Legends 1 (and later 2) on my Steam wishlist forever. But, I never could convince myself to purchase. My thoughts: The first one looks somewhat interesting to me, as I like LoZ style games, pixel art too. Loved games like Prodigal, Hammerwatch with its co-op, CrossCode is off the charts, Minit was unique, Hatchwell was cute. Shalnor's trailer seems average, more of a tech demonstration. Not seeing anything story related to get me interested, but decent gameplay, which is not bad, but nothing that hooks me. Shalnor 2's trailer though... kinda puts me to sleep with the music for starters. And kinda odd hat system, can't see the protag's face really with that angle; hats and customization are fun, but usually you'd see optional stuff at the end of a trailer. Unless hats are plot important? Looking at the trailer again, you have this really giant tower moving on screen while sleepy music plays and I just have to lightly chuckle... Should be epic, but music choice could be worked on... And if the graphics are done by you, you could stress that as a selling point. Maybe show a timelapse of it coming to life? It does look a lot like yesteryear store assets though... The store animated gifs are not bad looking btw! Hm. Maybe you could also contact the competition? Other similar indie games that perhaps could do bundles with you and perhaps get more eyes on the game. Like Hatchwell, a cute Zelda-like game with only 30 reviews. You could also post a demo? Or maybe a free extra episode to convince people to try it and then they might continue on to buying the full game? Others have suggested having a completely free-to-play weekend. And I've heard there are five visibility update windows that can be requested? Or something? So if you make changes you could still potentially get a whole new set of customers to look at it? I was shown this video in one of my discussions about how to help indie devs: ua-cam.com/video/qkmAqBvUBOw/v-deo.html around 16:54 should be relevant. If you believe you have the base of a good game, maybe you could even hire or at least gather an audience to help remaster a game with their input. You've got this channel... Just saying, games shouldn't be lost if they don't sell well at first. They shouldn't expire unless they just won't run anymore... If you believe the core content is worthwhile. In any case good luck!
What I find interesting as well is the what the concept of success is. I released a game which sold 8 copies, if it had sold 600 copies I would have seen it as a great success, in fact if it had sold half that I would have seen it as a success. Yet for you it was considered a complete failure. I would love to make games for a living but I really would just have liked to see people playing and enjoying my games most of all. I think you can at least take heart in the fact that hundreds of people out there are playing and enjoying all the hard work you put in.
Consider the fact that 5 years was spent developing the game. Even if 5 months was spent that would be underwhelming but at least not as much time was spent on development.
Making games can also cost money. I spent a lot of money on hiring artists to do my game. If I don't make the money back I spent, I technically fail because I can't afford to make another game. I'm not sure if the person in this video spent money, but they certainly spent a long time making the game.
@@korytoombs886 Yes I 100% agree here. I bought some art assets for my game and spent time learning how to make more. In the end it took me two years to produce my game and a lot of that was learning how to make the assets myself. Art is very very expensive I agree with that.
It's crazy because I don't think I've ever played a numbered sequel that required you to play the others to understand. Video games just aren't like that. Even for story based stuff like mgs. It's usually even better to start with the newer ones like is the case with the witcher like you mentioned. But people do still think that way for some reason especially if they've never heard of the franchise.
As someone who deep dived the whole discovery queue a year or so back, don't underestimate the market factor too. A huge majority of games get sub ~200 purchases by my estimate.
I'm sorry the game was a flop but it's great to see how realistic you are about why and what lessons you learnt from that. Good luck with your next project!
You've got the mindset of someone that will continue to see success. The art style was the thing that put me off from first impressions. I don't like how the character is being hidden from the very vertical perspective, and I think there's a lack of contrast in color and lighting. This perspective also takes less advantage of creating in 3d as it can come off as flat. The advice I have for any designer is to try your best to see what you create in the eyes of someone that has never seen it. Too often we get lost in our intent and effort.
Thank you for being humble and sharing your experience with other developers. I appreciate devs like you and others that make dev vlogs to help others, because it's much easier (and capitalist) to keep the lessons you've learned to yourself. There's the legitimate question, "What if you're helping a developer that makes a game that competes with your game?", but it seems like the indie game dev community ignores this question or the benefits of being a resource in social media outweighs the risks. In any case, you have my respect and gratitude. Best of luck on your next project!
I like the video dude great insights. No offense but to me the first game still looks better than the newest one you are working on. World just looks better on the 1st game even though ui is not great. Maybe lesson 6 is if it ain't broken don't try to fix it.
It really does, and using the ai generated anime orc on the game cover is even more baffling, no wonder people passed it up, from the cover alone it blends in with the heaps of ai generated garbage that gets spammed on the e shop
Very good analysis, and thanks for sharing it with the community. It means a lot for people/small teams developing games and wondering if they are on the right path, and if they are making any mistakes. You added more fuel to the indie bonfire. Hope/Know you will succeed in your next endevour.
It's not true that "you don't learn much from success." *** Rather, you don't learn much from one try! *** A singular failure can be as much of a non-learning experience as a singular success.
I looked up to the reviews of both of your games, and people seem to mainly complain about grinding. This is my opinion of course but grinding is not fun in most of the games. I'm sure anyone who played any game will tell you that unless the story or the gameplay is amazing, they will not tolerate grinding, it's just padding up extra time. Keep that in mind when you're making your game, please. Wish you good luck.
Im kinda sad that one of the things you "learned" was going back to pixel art and ditch the 3D art style, as someone who has played neither games due to never heard of them, seeing the gameplay here the second game looks far more appealing to me and makes me less interested on the upcoming sequel you are working on. However thats just me, I still wish you luck on it!
I can see your argument when it comes to art style. I think there are two issues: 1. It feels flat and not in the way it enhances the presentation. 2. It lacks game feel in terms of movement and attacks.
If I want to play a game like this, what I search for is pixel art game. Pixel art is a big part of the appeal to these games. There are only a few categories of proper art for videogames: there is pixel art, realistic 3d art and anime art 2D/3D that's it. Everything else must either be an artistic masterpiece or have a very good reason for it not to matter.
That second capsule probably killed you more than anything, its so incredibly bland and non descript. At first glance (which is about as long as you get when someone is browsing Steam) I'd think it's a dating sim and scroll by. In your first capsule, I see the character, he has a sword, it's pixel art and reminds me of the early Zelda games, so I'd probably open it or at least mouse-over to check out some screenshots. In the second capsule, I don't even see the text, just the giant blank ork face. It looks like a very generic anime character seen in hundreds of low-effort dating sims. The background mountains are also tells me nothing about the game.
I think artstyle is reason here. On 2d you can add details easily, especially with pixels. But for 3d you need to create entire material wich is several pictures combined and it's need to not be repetitive. Finding coherent textures in asset store is not easier. I know it because i tried.
Yeah your second game has a shiny, plastic look to it. It also looks to be not properly lit in some places. In general it needs some improvements in presentation, which will set you apart in the long run. Also the orc. If the orc as least looked like the guy on the banner I would be more interested.
You are in good company, many large studios(even AAA ones) made a lot of crappy 3D art when 3D first started coming out. Even the really good ones often age really badly. Even now, like 30 years later and with all the technological advances, a lot of people avoid 3D because it doesn't look as good some times. There are inherent downsides to the art style, that can make it less appealing, even when done well. There are like 3D movies that took millions of dollars to make, that can look a bit funky at times. Your game doesn't even look that bad, it looks fine. Some people just can't vibe with some 3D though.
I'm not a game developer. So take anything I say about art style with a tablespoon of salt. But perhaps with your third game, aside from combining 3D and 2D, perhaps consider some sort of color scheme with less clashing colors? I mean like what Octopath Traveller did. Their colors seem consistent in a way that I cannot really explain why it all works... Anyway, I just really want you to succed with your third game.
games look good, not so sure on what shalnor 3 looks like right now. but it does look better than octopath travler. more honest to old-school design. great video
have only watched 2 minutes and i think its gameplay. artstyle and marketing needs also polishment but its lesser priority than gameplay loop. nobody is going to play such anymore. there is no catch in trying, you dont do too. 10€ is lowkey also a wall for most young humans. even with high download, i bet the playtime of first game is also low. try making a shorter game. market is one of the roughest. gamers dont give a f and even free masterpieces are struggling with playcount. you are a hero for sticking to your mission. dont feel bad and feel happy that you have this strong purpose and that you are not going to stop. make a project, put them in your revolver and shoot to the sky. ps: if you lack in company, me and my wife are currently doing a fish simulator till end of year, if you feel like interested to hop on or need more information. we try to make it but its so hard.
Having finished the game, my biggest complaint would be the script. You _really_ need an editor. Other than that, i felt like you should have gathered more experience with 3D graphics first, but found them serviceable enough to play. Didn't really feel much of an issue with the rest.
From what I can tell, indie games using pixel art are likely going to sell more than 3D. Probably because the market is over saturated with asset games. Look at Disgaea, when it changed to 3D characters there were so many complaints. And that's a big company game. 2D to 3D was probably what killed the game. Edit: Another thing to note, 2D has the cheapness of only requiring proper frames/sprites to make it likeable. On 3D you need proper fluid animations or else it becomes uncanny.
I personally only heard about your first game but not followed at all because that seemingly not my style. That's normal if you want push your limits and alter the sequels in a way where they can be superior to the previous. That is what most developers try and fail to achieve even large franchises tried to make a good sequel(s) and often it got worse despite the amount of work and technology put into it. I personally would have moved towards to the sprites instead of pixel art and 3d simply because the sprited characters in my opinion looks the best. Pixeled games usually try to catch the retro feeling but in that era there was not much more options and the pixel art was an evolution from text based graphics. The pricing also not changed from the first game and you are selling it for 9.99 euro. That itself value yur confidence because maybe a slight rise on the price shows you value your game better. I can understand why you wanted to keep the pricing to be sure you earn but that itself says you do not value your next game that much. Considering how much effort you put into the game and usd better tech but in a less visual appealing way. The Orc character itself not put off potential players but the whole game have an art style which closer to Spiral knights but worse in most ways. I understand you wanted to make a better game and tried to use better animations, slightly better graphics but together these seemingly was not appealing enough. For me the game absolutely not appealing because the style is too raw. If you make a 3d game then you need to change the perspective how the game plays also make a pick on what kind of 3d style you want to go for. Either ultra realistic (expensive, not adviced in your scope), or cell shaded graphic with charming style or team fortress esque graphic or 3d with anime styled graphic. For me the first game appeal a bit more but because the style I like less neither these games sold for me. I hope my critic is not reduce your motivation, that one is also required for me for the same journey. I do not have yet the skill set to make a game but I try the godot and some chat gpt help for filling gaps and testing ideas. I personally think making simple assets is not a bad idea but using free assets neither a bad choice if you can alter to your style.
1 min in and the art style between 1 and 2 are crazy different. 2 reminded me a bit of a Nintendo game, but looks just worse. 1 looks really good actually
I didn't play either game, but I think you missed one potential factor. Perhaps the second game just isn't good or fun to play. None of the factors mentioned matter if the game is not fun or is not good.
I agree with all your points, but I wonder why your audience from your first game didn't convert to your second. Usually second games do better not worse! I think this is where having a mailing list could helo to retain your audience. Oh i just saw the bit about the character, hmmz maybe thats why.
How can it fail? What five reasons? Did you make it or not?! It is you who fails, not a video game, video game is just your work, it can not fail or the opposite!
Never played your games. But from the start i can tell that first game looks much better than second one. It reminds of legends of zelda a lot. Second game looks cheap and goofy. Fantasy of playing as orc was very good idea for game. Problem was goofy look of game. When you think about orc you think about fight,blood,honor. It looks too happy and cheerful. It doesn t match orc fantasy at all. One talk with someone about your game would tell you that. First game encourages you to go on adventure and explore world. Vibe of game matches with art style. It i were you. I would do another top down view game as first one but used more detailed sprites and make it more dark fantasy. It would give people more orc fantasy. Vibes like Fear and Hunger but less extreme. I think you would be able to finish it faster too. Third game looks nice so far. I would need to see some gameplay to write more about it.
I can think of 2 other goblin-as-main-character games that have devlogs here on yt that also either flopped, or made them question their life choices. I'm thinking people just don't like playing as goblins/green-skinned creatures in general. Hell, i'm one of them. I do like playing the green-skinned race on RTS games though. Because it feels more like you're making your slaves work, and you're not one of "them". Call me racist, idc. In movies and TV series shows, there aren't many green-skinned characters that are like-able. I have a theory that even the Hulk needed a massive amount of supporting elements before a show with him in it is liked. I'm guessing, if you want to go all in with a green-skinned char, that's what you gotta do as well. Btw, you have bland lighting on your 3d game. You can keep the style, just make it consistent. But you can still make it look more dynamic than how it is now.
I think its hopeless for an indie game now, unless its in a niche genre, and unique enough, and that genre is still somehow popular enough to attract buys. Its very hard to do that. The reason is because a lot of us gamers have a huge backlog of massive games and no time to play them, and so little reason to add new games to the list. And because of that all the time older AAA games are getting cheaper and on sales, and we would rather buy that. And its a problem at every age group, the kids play fortnite, minecraft, roblox, vr games, cs2; the young adults play cs2, siege, AAA games, the adults 30+ play some new games, but old games a lot too, skyrim, morrowind, fallout 4, and massive strategy games, like Total War games, EU4, CSK4. And these are just a tiny number of examples, there are a lot of games that people play every day and nothing else, like TF2, Factorio, Warframe, Diablo 4, Arma 3, COD, and so on. You see, there isn't a lot of room for indie games, unless they are very good and their genre isn't filled already with options.
There are many "problems". Cutesy art style is pushing me off. Pixel art is eternal. Some people hate it, I love it. Next one is an orc. What is an orc in your game? Was there any reason to make character an orc? Is orc race/culture explored? If you changed character visuals to human, would his behavior change? Would you feel something off or would human character suit fine? If so, maybe there was no need for an orc at all. Or maybe game should explore orcs more. So far I saw some celtic symbols, occultism, ninjutsu, Legend of Zelda rooms. Game, just by watching doesn't feel interesting. It's bland. I don't see passion, I don't see promise of greatness. No mystery or adventure. I don't see an invite to experience, just a some game.
what about genre ? chris zukowski says its the most imporant thing on steam and also comparing yourself againts other games from your genre, some of them are less saturated. unfortunately the game really doenst look good, design, color and animations look like programmer's art so its really difficult to stand out like that even if the mechanics and systems are there. i wonder if you could just hire an artist, swap the art to the more appealing and in a small even for few seconds in the trailer and then see how the reception would change. i dont believe the "orc character" is an issue, if it had been drawn in an appealing way with nice animations it wouldnt be an issue. lets be honest - there is only one proper reason - the game makes bad first impression due to the art and animation.
Genre is definitely one of the most important decisions. Game stats or Steam render are quite good for comparing genres, but action RPGs are one of the more profitable tags, so I don't see a problem there. I don't think this genre is as oversaturated as platformers for example, simply because good RPGs are quite difficult and more time consuming to develop. I've also often noticed that games with non-human protagonists often perform worse if they don't make a fundamental difference to the gameplay and are simply interchangeable, so I think the Orc actually had an influence here.
I like looking at these types of videos because there's more to learn in failure than success. Because you're a solo developer, you don't have the luxury of creating deep complex systems, unless you're insane like the creators of Dwarf Fortress. There isn't a problem with having bad graphics, (look at Ultrakill), your artstyle wasn't continuous. Your scope was pretty big, look at how many levels you have and how many assets you made, how many enemies and animations, textures, materials, sound effects and so on. All of this you have to take into consideration when planning scope. Hades had more than 12 people working on it and they spent more than 5 years on it and they still didn't finish it when they released it out of early access. (Patches and content updates and so on) Your gameplay loop was akin to the Zelda type games but the feel of the game feels clunky and slow. A serious lack of polish overall. (The feel of the gameplay is extremely important, it can kill your game if you don't get it right) Many indies focus first on the gameplay loop and hyper polish that because I can overlook almost anything if it doesn't take my attention away from what is actually fun. I would recommend focusing on the gameplay and the responsiveness to the players actions. If you were to make another Zelda type game, block out the levels, estimate how much you're going to need to fill those spaces. What type of enemies you're going to have and how long will it take you to make one enemy from conception to integration. You will need to do the same process for asset creation. I learned that the hard way when trying to create a simple rock. And if you want to make money for your games, invest money into tools and assets if its going to speed things up. Prototype each idea for a short period to figure out what works and what doesn't. Be ruthless with your time, you're running a business here.
I think you are overthinking it. The art style of the second game is beyond awful. It's Net Yaroze level. Even the banner art is just awful. I'd honestly think it was a completely different dev and there's no way I would buy it even if I loved the first. Making it a numbered sequel and also completely alienating the audience by this huge downgrade is bonkers. I don't mean to be so harsh, but it needs to be said if you can't see the art style is almost certainly the sole difference here.
All it took was seeing 10 seconds of gameplay to know why this failed. Seriously, GTFO here with that art style and movement! I was instantly turned away, how come you got no criticism for that from anyone during years of development?
Why would yet another uninspiring Zelda clone with worse everything ever succeed? Oh... I see it has slow mechanical animation and submersible bridges!! Surely the killer features!!!
I was browsing the switch eshop, and came across yet another ai garbage game, but it seemed familiar. Then I looked closer and remembered it from watching this video. The fact that you actually used that ugly low quality ai generated anime orc on the cover of the game is INSANE. GET RID OF THAT AI ORC FACE. That wont fix all your problems, but it will be a HUGE improvement. People are being way too nice about this and it isn't helping.
I'll tell you why your game failed, it's ugly, and it's design actively insults the consumer. I don't think many people are willing to stoop so low to purchase such a low effort game, ai generated orc on the cover, an ugly font and ui design, art style clashes all over the place, low quality 3d. It's not good at all. That's why it failed.
the first game does not look that special either, you got lucky with that one. People were also more willing to throw money back then as well, compared to more carefull approach of today. No more pity points today not having anything unique to your game does not help either, seeing these i just want to play older Zelda or Chrono Trigger again, why should i play your game since you just recycle decade old ideas anyway? What new have you brought to the table? Does anything make you stand out above the rest? Because i dont see it if you want to copy Zelda, Stardew walley, Vampire Survivor, Hollow knight, Terraria ... you better do it properly AND put some twist to it as well otherwise why should i bother?
Thank you for watching the video.
Here is my upcoming game on steam mentioned at the end of the video,
you can do some comparing and let me know if it looks better or not:
store.steampowered.com/app/2907050
To be completely sincere a game to be a success have to instantly provide a unique experience, a 10 seconds video of the game should be enough to demonstrate it, it doesn't have to be perfect or unique, a known trope with a twist is what people search, look at Vampire Survivors and Balatro, in both cases big Twists but the core of the game is something barebones and copypasted from different stuff, just combined in a peculiar way, and that's it, fun stuff
I'm glad to know that Concord is helping you feel much better.
Yea, i think #1 problem is art style.
It's MUCH harder to make good 3D artstyle and it's much better to just stick to 2D if you are not a very good 3D artist.
I'm making a hobby 3D game now but i'm just using good 3D assets from store - without them game would be ugly as hell.
He might be a good 3D artist but its more like the time they need. Usually in big companies there are 4 employees for each 3D character.
1. One for modeling/sculping.
2. One for Rigging (sometimes they have tools but still someone needs to arrange bones if needed).
3. One for animating.
3. And one for mapping/meshing.
Doing this on top of coding, game design, story/puzzle writing and so on is not doable for bigger games as a solo dev.
I watched both games before the video and tried to analyse the problems myself. I would agree with all the points so far. But I also noticed other things:
- The steam capsule of part 1 directly reveals that it's a 2D pixel art RPG. I can imagine that the people who clicked on the game were more open to this type of game. In the second part, the orc probably put a lot of players off and players also know less about what to expect.
- The trailer for the first part captured the dream of adventure much better, especially the music. If I had to guess the genre from the music of the second trailer with my eyes closed, I would guess a farming sim or a life sim and not an action RPG. Besides, the first trailer conveyed what the game is about much more quickly.
- Good 3D graphics are usually better than good 2D graphics, but your 2D graphics were really very good, while the 3D graphics in the second part looked rather cheap.
Anyway, that's what else I noticed, but I think your observations are all correct too. Anyway, it looks like you're going to do everything better in the next instalment and I can see a significant improvement.
I think it's great how you're learning from your mistakes, and if it continues like this, the next part could be a huge success. In any case, I would wish it for you!
Thank you 😍
I second this, the art style of the 2d is amazing
This one is hard to say, as optics wise the first one feels lived in, like there's a world there to explore. 2nd one doesn't have this charm and seems to have a clashing art-style? Is it like Animal Crossing RPG? and you play as an orc? Orcs are cool but a quasi-cute-not-cute orc is a bit hard to grasp for potential players unless you're a really good 3D artist.
Unfortunately I feel like the 3rd is also heading the same direction of the 2nd; If we're going by artstyle alone. It doesn't have this lived-in charm in it. If you like I have a few examples to help you in your journey if you're really sold on the 2.5D art style:
Octopath Traveler
Soul Bound
SacriFire
Cassette Beasts
Cult of Lamb
Unicorn Overload (The overworld)
Lost Castle 2
Edit: I went and looked at the trailers, and maybe it's not only the art style, but I think its the trailers as well. The first one you know what to do and expect; Explore the world, fight monsters do interesting puzzles. The second seems ...unfocused? Mind control? RPG talking? Umm hats? This is what you see in the first 30 seconds of the trailer... It seems a little frazzled and doesn't do anything to grab the players attention. Good news though is that trailers are easy to test and change.
Thank you for the great analysis! However I'm not sure about the artstyle of the next game. It looks inconsistent, and mix of 2d and 3d is not the best choice from a marketing point of view. The artstyle of the first game was the best of all three.
Just going to throw my opinion into the ring here, I personally think it looks really really cool. However you got quite a few likes on this comment so I may be in the minority here but I love 2D sprites on 3D levels.
My game didn't perform as I expected at the Steam Next Fest, and it burnt me out for a few days. But as you do, I'll keep going forward. I know you know this indie solo dev journey seems alone most times but we're not alone, we're just scattered. Take care man!
This was a great post-mortem. Very honest and self aware. Wishing you much success going forward!
I think it is important to focus on what you could do better next time, self reflect and try again with those lessons in mind. Theres not much more we can do other than that. But simultaneously its important to acknowledge that the indie game market is a huge lottery where its incredibly random if you succeed or not. And I dunno, give yourself some grace.
You cant realistically change the world, but you can acknowledge the realities of it.
Thanks for the video. Very interesting to hear your thoughts as a developer.
So for me it was kind of like this:
I got my Switch Lite (skipped the regular Switch because Lite was much cheaper and I seldom play on the TV anyway, so) quite late (2021?) and had a HUGE amount of games to wade through in the store (still not done, don't expect to ever catch up either). I noticed Shalnor Legends mainly because of the Zelda-like graphics, which I liked. I noticed it had been on sale a few times but the current sales I saw put the game at a higher price than previous sales, so I thought I could wait a while before getting it. Also, murdering competition from other games, so I felt like I wasn't in a hurry. However, since I have bought many games and have a little dream about reviewing games, I tend to focus more on the games that go down to a new historical low, so I buy those games first (when I feel the price is right for me) and the games that keep going on sale and keep going down to the same level...well, I reason that since they go on sale so regularly, and almost always go down to the same level or even lower, I can always wait just a little longer before I buy them. Now, I have noticed that Shalnor isn't really getting cheaper but rather more expensive. Should I have bought it sooner? Perhaps. Will I buy it now instead? Not as likely. And now Shalnor 2 is available. I wondered what the connection was between those two games, and I expected the hero to be the same as it is in most sequels, but sadly it is not. The charming graphics of the first game is also gone. I don't want to complain about your work, because I'm sure it is good and you have put plenty of time in it, but as a sequel...well, I probably expected the same hero or a relative of him, and also the same graphics or a slight improvement. Not a completely different graphics style. But anyway...if the first game is good, the second is probably good too, because why would it be bad if the first one wasn't? I also think you made the right choice, in a way: You wanted to make the sequel the way YOU wanted it to be, and you did. Yes, maybe working your ass off to make new graphics and then change it at the last minute was a reverse way of doing it (I won't lecture, I'm not a developer and I will never be either)...but like you said: Now you have learned that lesson. So my current plan is to either buy the first game when it goes on sale, or buy both when it goes on sale. A sale. Some time in the future. Not sure when. So many games. I don't even have to play them, let alone review them. Aaaah...anxiety and major stress.
So.
Still interested in the games, just...haven't bought them yet.
I had my eye on this game for ages. Was so close to buying it around a couple of weeks ago. Often consider getting it when I have a feeling for link of the past style game.
The stiff animation of the main character is what puts me off everytime Ive been about to buy it.
And the one bad review confirming it as slow movement.
But I like the idea of the orc and the graphics (apart from main character animations) as it is very close to the art style I often play around with (and then eventually dump into the pile of dead projects 😂). This and oceanhorn style of graphics is what Ive enjoyed making the most so far when devving.
The first game looks great too, very link to the past like which I love.
But the next game youre working on now, I must say I hate that graphic style, I didnt even want to get the demo. The first game is a nice pixel style. This new half 3d pixel style is really off putting for me.
I didnt like how it seemed a lot of it was on small floating floors (with the black space around. Ive even tried to convince myself that the first game's floors arnt that much bigger, but they feel better by being surrounded by walls instead of black space more often.
But good luck with it, hope its just me that is weird and not a fan of the 2d in 3d approach.
Im sure Ill get number 2 eventually though and probably 1 as well if 2 is any good.
5:22 you could've had the orc the "main guy" that you're helping to achieve his objective, that way he stays as main character
I not even heard about either games. The interesting thing is, in the sea of Metroidvanias I find 99% of them are more like Castlevania then Metroid at all. In most of them you are a melee character, not shooting with a gun. Zelda like games are even more rare.So at first I thought, lets take a look maybe buy both. But like you said at 1:16 the Art Style is not great. I like the Art in the first one well enough, but the second one doesn't look appealing. I like 8bit graphics, but your "Art Style" lacks one thing, a certain "style" to it. The first game still has something unique but the second one looks too generic, and I mainly mean the textures. I like the graphic of that remake of "Zelda Links Awakening" as well as "Zelda Echoes of Wisdom" which is very similar.
But reading the comments on both games I think one major issue is that the upgrading system is too money-reliant. If you look at the old NES The Legend of Zelda and Metroid game... you should not gain the majority of power from farming gold and crafting/buying upgrades. Over the years I played allot "Action-Adventure" games on the NES, Snes and heck even some on the Sega Saturn and Playstation1(Alunda among things).
2:07 You know, one big issue is also that it is hard on Steam to find stuff. When I go to your "Shalnor Legends: Sacred Lands" on steam and click the tag "Action-Adventure" a new page pops up with "Action-Adventure" in big letters. But then you scroll down some, the first post is "on your wishlist" the next is "recommended for you" and both DO NOT show any "Action-Adventure" games. You scroll further and I see a big segment with "popular titles" with big banners and stuff, still not any "Action-Adventure" games. Then for me there is a segment with "automation games" followed by "open world survival craft games"...still not any "Action-Adventure" games.
Now we're finally arrived at a list, with filters on the left side and stuff, you look through that list and surprise... NONE of the games in the list have the tag of "Action-Adventure" games.
Steam is really bad for finding games, unless they sell well then Steam seemingly promotes them more.
The market on steam is always super saturated.
7:20 I think this is a real issue. One of the reasons why games don't do well on steam is because as I said earlier, it is hard to find games on it. If you had some form of community around you, people that are looking at your game and give feedback, that talk with others maybe even make UA-cam videos... then your game had allot more people know of it.
That said, if you need someone to talk to, maybe bounce ideas around, I would talk with you.
Fun fact: Iga himself said his inspiration was Zelda, not Metroid.
I think your doing a bang up job, how many indie devs can say they sold 100k copies on a game they made. Even though you think this one failed keep in mind of your other achievements. Finishing a game is hard enough but actually having one do well and fund another is amazing. Make games that you love and if you like playing as orcs keep making games that do that.
10k, not 100k.
@@restlessfrager still an accomplishment. I mustve misheard.
These reasons are fairly accurate.
Market especially. I legit don't know what should be released today in order for it to be interesting. My best guess is that it should be some kind of a funny well-made simple simulator and not an ARPG no matter the formula.
On the art-side though you should go for clearer/simpler visuals. These spikes on 3:00 legit hurt my eyes because there are so many of them. Also even good 3D today feels cheap (unless it's heavily stylized like with some indie horrors). If you go for 3D and aren't using retro graphics then you probably need to do some heavy lifting on the particles/animations (League style of particle animation) and if you can't do that then 2D overall would look better IMO. Good pixel animation is already tough in 2D why even go for 3D which is even harder?
Gameplay-wise since numbers are so all over the place I'd consider not using them like at all. Unless their max values are around 25. Ofc you can use whatever numbers you want on the backend but the user shouldn't see so many of them. There are just too many games which only use numbers as the only way of showing player that they actually progressed in some form.
About the character - people would probably even play as a japanese style of an orc (one which resembles a pig) if it looked cool. Your orc is too cartoonish.
About the next game. Despite all the flaws, angle in the previous game seemed right. The new angle which is about 30-50(?) feels way too small as if it would work only in some locations where the player actually needs to see something in the distance.
PS And you're moving away from the numbers which feels like the right call.
Creative vision is what you want and marketing is what the people want?
... This right there is why your gane failed
How did you arrive at the conclusion that these are the most important reasons?
Hello fellow game dev... Here are my few cents for this... Judging based on your video.
0. Angle of the camera is very wierd. closer to initial grand theft auto than to other games that employ this play style. This is one of those things you can't really say what is wrong but you know something is... looking at characters from such perspective is simply not fun nor satisfying... If it was a 2d game players would be able to see the whole character like this is very strange.
1. Envirnment/world is dry and doesn't feel like it is living, from the video I actually feelt I was among bunch models that just stay there.
2. No juicy animations on impactfull events, hits, rols, shoots etc... everything is done but not polished and finalized to a point that it would feel satisfying to play it
3. Movement is also very flat, no snappiness/punchiness when doing so...
Otherwise I think it does have much potential but looking like this is maybe just not apealing enough...
Edit: Now that I've seen the last sequel you want to do , camera angle is also extremely wierd very low, you can see the characters but players perspective and spatial feel will suffer... you are still forcing 3d and 2d together, you just might go with 2d all the way and fully repeat the success... Personally don't think that this 3d camera angle 2d mashup will bring much of a positive difference, contrary... good luck .
This is the first time I ever heard of your games. I immediately was interested in the first game. The art style had me very intrigued. The second game not so much. I looked on my PS5 on the PSN store and only found game 2 and (I presume) 3 (Dungeons of Shalnor) - both PS4 version. So, that is a bummer. Is there a reason for it? I would love to check out the first game on Playstation.
Everything you said in this video felt true from my perspective as a new potential customer. I am a trophy hunter. Our hobby is to earn all the trophies in a game. The trophy icons look for the first game look appealing. For the second game, it looks «cheap». (I don’t want to be rude, just give my honest feedback.)
Keep going. I hope, you have big success with game development.
thanks for sharing. Your fisrt game looks way better to me. Even if is not better, i would choose the first one anyway
Its the art style, the first one had a timeless amazing art style
There is nothing amazing in that ancient art style. It's just few pixels and when I was a kid there was no other way than this (Contra 1, Battle City, Big Nose the Caveman etc. all NES games looked like this) but today we have plenty options and that's funny that people consider pixels some kind of "good" graphics.
1980s will never die I guess
@Olagfigh it's timeless. It's like 2pac vs dubstep. Or classical art vs modern art. One is timeless and good and the other is a fade that will be lost to time.
@@Yummynomnom123 Nothing is timeless :) Someday we will move forward. We or next generations.
@@Olagfigh just because its an old artstyle doesn't mean its a bad one. pixelart is an artstyle that is comfy an accessable both to the creator and the player alike. it has a vibe that is hard to achieve by 3d or high fidelity styles, and it is versitile as it can be used in a lot of genres successfully. even if pixel art is on a technical level not as impressive as other means of displaying pixels, it still did the job way better in the first game in the vid than the second to create a vibe and get a feeling across to the player, that is what art is supposed to do. thats why in my opinion, pixelart in this cenario for this game is way better than 3d art.
"its just pixels" yea and so is the hyper realistic artstyles too, its just more of them. they do different things better and is equally good in their own respective use cases.
@@tozkal96 In my opinion Heroes 3 from 1999 looks better than Songs of Conquest from 2024. I understand that creators of SoC doesn't have money to make it look better and I am ready to except that, because game is good. Just like I excepted Broforce, because game is great even if the graphics are awful.
But! Don't try to tell me than pixel art looks beautiful. Just no. It's an ancient way of making graphics that remembers not only 90s, but also 80s. When a game from 1999 looks better than game from 2024 I think something is wrong here. It's some form of regression that most players accept.
2:26 the game looks too green here and the green color doesnt look right
It isn't aesthetically pleasing. The colours, the art style. He should stick to 2d pixel arts.
true! adding in a dirt path, making the slime blue, the orc vest red...
Studying those frames could be interesting.
One of the reason 2D games work so feel is because they are visually trivially to read.
My best advice for indie developers - Don't try to learn and make a game at the same time. You wouldn't try to write your fist album while learning to play guitar would you? Also, don't work on a game for 5 years before testing interest. This is the point of a vertical slice. Get your core mechanics implemented quickly and then see if people are interested. Create a Google Forms survey and find out what they liked and what they didn't like.
Aesthetically pleasing pixel art vs blocky, stiff 3d art was the single downfall here... Art alone doesn't sell a game these days, but it sure will kill a game when done poorly.
Thank you for your honest sharing. It's good to see that you learned from that experience to give your new project the best chances.
when they did the Zelda 3D remake they tilted all the models backwards so it would look more like the SNES version, just something you might not know 😺
Thats one thing that I always remember when I see tutorials making complicated stuffs saying "performance is better": the only actual speed a developer must strive for is the speed to deliver stuffs.
The faster you deliver, less of the most important resource is spent: TIME!
Solo and 3D often is a studio killer. If the project is so complex that you can't focus on the meat of what makes the game great, then it's hard to create quality.
Hm... I have had Shalnor Legends 1 (and later 2) on my Steam wishlist forever. But, I never could convince myself to purchase. My thoughts:
The first one looks somewhat interesting to me, as I like LoZ style games, pixel art too. Loved games like Prodigal, Hammerwatch with its co-op, CrossCode is off the charts, Minit was unique, Hatchwell was cute.
Shalnor's trailer seems average, more of a tech demonstration. Not seeing anything story related to get me interested, but decent gameplay, which is not bad, but nothing that hooks me.
Shalnor 2's trailer though... kinda puts me to sleep with the music for starters. And kinda odd hat system, can't see the protag's face really with that angle; hats and customization are fun, but usually you'd see optional stuff at the end of a trailer. Unless hats are plot important?
Looking at the trailer again, you have this really giant tower moving on screen while sleepy music plays and I just have to lightly chuckle... Should be epic, but music choice could be worked on... And if the graphics are done by you, you could stress that as a selling point. Maybe show a timelapse of it coming to life? It does look a lot like yesteryear store assets though...
The store animated gifs are not bad looking btw!
Hm.
Maybe you could also contact the competition? Other similar indie games that perhaps could do bundles with you and perhaps get more eyes on the game.
Like Hatchwell, a cute Zelda-like game with only 30 reviews.
You could also post a demo? Or maybe a free extra episode to convince people to try it and then they might continue on to buying the full game?
Others have suggested having a completely free-to-play weekend.
And I've heard there are five visibility update windows that can be requested? Or something? So if you make changes you could still potentially get a whole new set of customers to look at it?
I was shown this video in one of my discussions about how to help indie devs:
ua-cam.com/video/qkmAqBvUBOw/v-deo.html
around 16:54 should be relevant.
If you believe you have the base of a good game, maybe you could even hire or at least gather an audience to help remaster a game with their input. You've got this channel...
Just saying, games shouldn't be lost if they don't sell well at first. They shouldn't expire unless they just won't run anymore... If you believe the core content is worthwhile.
In any case good luck!
What I find interesting as well is the what the concept of success is. I released a game which sold 8 copies, if it had sold 600 copies I would have seen it as a great success, in fact if it had sold half that I would have seen it as a success. Yet for you it was considered a complete failure. I would love to make games for a living but I really would just have liked to see people playing and enjoying my games most of all. I think you can at least take heart in the fact that hundreds of people out there are playing and enjoying all the hard work you put in.
Consider the fact that 5 years was spent developing the game.
Even if 5 months was spent that would be underwhelming but at least not as much time was spent on development.
Yeah, financial success or failure depends a lot on if you're expecting it to put food on your table...
Making games can also cost money. I spent a lot of money on hiring artists to do my game. If I don't make the money back I spent, I technically fail because I can't afford to make another game. I'm not sure if the person in this video spent money, but they certainly spent a long time making the game.
@@korytoombs886 Yes I 100% agree here. I bought some art assets for my game and spent time learning how to make more. In the end it took me two years to produce my game and a lot of that was learning how to make the assets myself. Art is very very expensive I agree with that.
It's crazy because I don't think I've ever played a numbered sequel that required you to play the others to understand. Video games just aren't like that. Even for story based stuff like mgs. It's usually even better to start with the newer ones like is the case with the witcher like you mentioned. But people do still think that way for some reason especially if they've never heard of the franchise.
As someone who deep dived the whole discovery queue a year or so back, don't underestimate the market factor too. A huge majority of games get sub ~200 purchases by my estimate.
I'm sorry the game was a flop but it's great to see how realistic you are about why and what lessons you learnt from that. Good luck with your next project!
Really great video. Kudos to being so self-reflective and honest about your mistakes.
Bravo to you for doing an honest post-mortem on your game.
I love the attitude that puts YOU in the driver's seat of making things better.
Hey man, the art style of the sequel reminds me of the PS1 Net Yaroze games, which is awesome!
How much time did you spend daily on devloping this project? Is this your side hustle or main thing? How do you organize your time for that?
You've got the mindset of someone that will continue to see success.
The art style was the thing that put me off from first impressions. I don't like how the character is being hidden from the very vertical perspective, and I think there's a lack of contrast in color and lighting. This perspective also takes less advantage of creating in 3d as it can come off as flat.
The advice I have for any designer is to try your best to see what you create in the eyes of someone that has never seen it. Too often we get lost in our intent and effort.
Thanks to share this experience to us. It should be very difficult to you but you’re right about the learning process and teach us a lot
Thank you for being humble and sharing your experience with other developers. I appreciate devs like you and others that make dev vlogs to help others, because it's much easier (and capitalist) to keep the lessons you've learned to yourself. There's the legitimate question, "What if you're helping a developer that makes a game that competes with your game?", but it seems like the indie game dev community ignores this question or the benefits of being a resource in social media outweighs the risks. In any case, you have my respect and gratitude. Best of luck on your next project!
yo
I like the video dude great insights. No offense but to me the first game still looks better than the newest one you are working on. World just looks better on the 1st game even though ui is not great. Maybe lesson 6 is if it ain't broken don't try to fix it.
I agree. Stick to 2D or hire a graphics artist. You said you should have gotten more feedback. Here it is.
Thb 2 looks like a shavelware
It really does, and using the ai generated anime orc on the game cover is even more baffling, no wonder people passed it up, from the cover alone it blends in with the heaps of ai generated garbage that gets spammed on the e shop
Very good analysis, and thanks for sharing it with the community. It means a lot for people/small teams developing games and wondering if they are on the right path, and if they are making any mistakes. You added more fuel to the indie bonfire. Hope/Know you will succeed in your next endevour.
It's not true that "you don't learn much from success."
*** Rather, you don't learn much from one try! ***
A singular failure can be as much of a non-learning experience as a singular success.
I looked up to the reviews of both of your games, and people seem to mainly complain about grinding. This is my opinion of course but grinding is not fun in most of the games. I'm sure anyone who played any game will tell you that unless the story or the gameplay is amazing, they will not tolerate grinding, it's just padding up extra time. Keep that in mind when you're making your game, please. Wish you good luck.
Im kinda sad that one of the things you "learned" was going back to pixel art and ditch the 3D art style, as someone who has played neither games due to never heard of them, seeing the gameplay here the second game looks far more appealing to me and makes me less interested on the upcoming sequel you are working on. However thats just me, I still wish you luck on it!
"a wise man does not repeat uncredited quotes they find on the Internet" - Abraham Lincoln
I can see your argument when it comes to art style. I think there are two issues:
1. It feels flat and not in the way it enhances the presentation.
2. It lacks game feel in terms of movement and attacks.
If I want to play a game like this, what I search for is pixel art game. Pixel art is a big part of the appeal to these games. There are only a few categories of proper art for videogames: there is pixel art, realistic 3d art and anime art 2D/3D that's it. Everything else must either be an artistic masterpiece or have a very good reason for it not to matter.
Nice spirit. Keep up living your passion.
That second capsule probably killed you more than anything, its so incredibly bland and non descript. At first glance (which is about as long as you get when someone is browsing Steam) I'd think it's a dating sim and scroll by.
In your first capsule, I see the character, he has a sword, it's pixel art and reminds me of the early Zelda games, so I'd probably open it or at least mouse-over to check out some screenshots.
In the second capsule, I don't even see the text, just the giant blank ork face. It looks like a very generic anime character seen in hundreds of low-effort dating sims. The background mountains are also tells me nothing about the game.
Yea I agree, the anime thing is very off putting, I probably would never even look at that game if that is all I saw of it
I think artstyle is reason here. On 2d you can add details easily, especially with pixels. But for 3d you need to create entire material wich is several pictures combined and it's need to not be repetitive. Finding coherent textures in asset store is not easier.
I know it because i tried.
Yeah your second game has a shiny, plastic look to it. It also looks to be not properly lit in some places. In general it needs some improvements in presentation, which will set you apart in the long run.
Also the orc. If the orc as least looked like the guy on the banner I would be more interested.
You are in good company, many large studios(even AAA ones) made a lot of crappy 3D art when 3D first started coming out. Even the really good ones often age really badly. Even now, like 30 years later and with all the technological advances, a lot of people avoid 3D because it doesn't look as good some times. There are inherent downsides to the art style, that can make it less appealing, even when done well. There are like 3D movies that took millions of dollars to make, that can look a bit funky at times. Your game doesn't even look that bad, it looks fine. Some people just can't vibe with some 3D though.
Orcent would be proud of your maturity.
I'm not a game developer. So take anything I say about art style with a tablespoon of salt. But perhaps with your third game, aside from combining 3D and 2D, perhaps consider some sort of color scheme with less clashing colors? I mean like what Octopath Traveller did. Their colors seem consistent in a way that I cannot really explain why it all works... Anyway, I just really want you to succed with your third game.
games look good, not so sure on what shalnor 3 looks like right now. but it does look better than octopath travler. more honest to old-school design.
great video
have only watched 2 minutes and i think its gameplay. artstyle and marketing needs also polishment but its lesser priority than gameplay loop. nobody is going to play such anymore. there is no catch in trying, you dont do too. 10€ is lowkey also a wall for most young humans. even with high download, i bet the playtime of first game is also low. try making a shorter game. market is one of the roughest. gamers dont give a f and even free masterpieces are struggling with playcount. you are a hero for sticking to your mission. dont feel bad and feel happy that you have this strong purpose and that you are not going to stop. make a project, put them in your revolver and shoot to the sky.
ps: if you lack in company, me and my wife are currently doing a fish simulator till end of year, if you feel like interested to hop on or need more information. we try to make it but its so hard.
Having finished the game, my biggest complaint would be the script. You _really_ need an editor.
Other than that, i felt like you should have gathered more experience with 3D graphics first, but found them serviceable enough to play.
Didn't really feel much of an issue with the rest.
we are here to follow the next game, the demo is very good slime girl is adorable hehe
From what I can tell, indie games using pixel art are likely going to sell more than 3D.
Probably because the market is over saturated with asset games.
Look at Disgaea, when it changed to 3D characters there were so many complaints. And that's a big company game.
2D to 3D was probably what killed the game.
Edit: Another thing to note, 2D has the cheapness of only requiring proper frames/sprites to make it likeable. On 3D you need proper fluid animations or else it becomes uncanny.
You changed the whole art style and that's the one bro. Your following was like what is this.
its all good big dawg next time make a smaller game in 1 year! title run starts now!!!!
What game is that at 6:29?
So I did a deep research and pulled in all my favors to find out that it is Hammerwatch.
I personally only heard about your first game but not followed at all because that seemingly not my style. That's normal if you want push your limits and alter the sequels in a way where they can be superior to the previous. That is what most developers try and fail to achieve even large franchises tried to make a good sequel(s) and often it got worse despite the amount of work and technology put into it.
I personally would have moved towards to the sprites instead of pixel art and 3d simply because the sprited characters in my opinion looks the best. Pixeled games usually try to catch the retro feeling but in that era there was not much more options and the pixel art was an evolution from text based graphics.
The pricing also not changed from the first game and you are selling it for 9.99 euro. That itself value yur confidence because maybe a slight rise on the price shows you value your game better. I can understand why you wanted to keep the pricing to be sure you earn but that itself says you do not value your next game that much. Considering how much effort you put into the game and usd better tech but in a less visual appealing way.
The Orc character itself not put off potential players but the whole game have an art style which closer to Spiral knights but worse in most ways. I understand you wanted to make a better game and tried to use better animations, slightly better graphics but together these seemingly was not appealing enough. For me the game absolutely not appealing because the style is too raw. If you make a 3d game then you need to change the perspective how the game plays also make a pick on what kind of 3d style you want to go for. Either ultra realistic (expensive, not adviced in your scope), or cell shaded graphic with charming style or team fortress esque graphic or 3d with anime styled graphic.
For me the first game appeal a bit more but because the style I like less neither these games sold for me.
I hope my critic is not reduce your motivation, that one is also required for me for the same journey. I do not have yet the skill set to make a game but I try the godot and some chat gpt help for filling gaps and testing ideas. I personally think making simple assets is not a bad idea but using free assets neither a bad choice if you can alter to your style.
Colors and terrain look like from Nintendo64 versions of Zelda 3D but characters, animations and props not so much
oh hey i bought this game rather recently!
shame to hear it didn't well o3o
I have to agree that the cute hot anime character on the game cover art sells 😅
its cause ur sequel art style looks cheap. you need solid animation and lighting to grab ppl in any 3d game.
Honestly if u changed the sprite models with 2D ones the games art style would be more interesting.
Edited
after watching your video u did do it lol
1 min in and the art style between 1 and 2 are crazy different. 2 reminded me a bit of a Nintendo game, but looks just worse. 1 looks really good actually
So... Is it too late to have an alt version where the player is a hot orc lady...?
I didn't play either game, but I think you missed one potential factor. Perhaps the second game just isn't good or fun to play. None of the factors mentioned matter if the game is not fun or is not good.
Great video
I guess the cute elf girl was a tough act to follow, no offense to the orc.
I agree with all your points, but I wonder why your audience from your first game didn't convert to your second. Usually second games do better not worse! I think this is where having a mailing list could helo to retain your audience.
Oh i just saw the bit about the character, hmmz maybe thats why.
Brilliant post mortem.
How can it fail? What five reasons? Did you make it or not?! It is you who fails, not a video game, video game is just your work, it can not fail or the opposite!
Great insight.
From my point of view, you should have kept the art style of the previous game. And yes i don't have problem with orc protagonist.
Never played your games. But from the start i can tell that first game looks much better than second one. It reminds of legends of zelda a lot. Second game looks cheap and goofy. Fantasy of playing as orc was very good idea for game. Problem was goofy look of game. When you think about orc you think about fight,blood,honor. It looks too happy and cheerful. It doesn t match orc fantasy at all. One talk with someone about your game would tell you that. First game encourages you to go on adventure and explore world. Vibe of game matches with art style. It i were you. I would do another top down view game as first one but used more detailed sprites and make it more dark fantasy. It would give people more orc fantasy. Vibes like Fear and Hunger but less extreme. I think you would be able to finish it faster too. Third game looks nice so far. I would need to see some gameplay to write more about it.
I can think of 2 other goblin-as-main-character games that have devlogs here on yt that also either flopped, or made them question their life choices.
I'm thinking people just don't like playing as goblins/green-skinned creatures in general.
Hell, i'm one of them. I do like playing the green-skinned race on RTS games though. Because it feels more like you're making your slaves work, and you're not one of "them".
Call me racist, idc.
In movies and TV series shows, there aren't many green-skinned characters that are like-able.
I have a theory that even the Hulk needed a massive amount of supporting elements before a show with him in it is liked.
I'm guessing, if you want to go all in with a green-skinned char, that's what you gotta do as well.
Btw, you have bland lighting on your 3d game.
You can keep the style, just make it consistent.
But you can still make it look more dynamic than how it is now.
Really good content
I think its hopeless for an indie game now, unless its in a niche genre, and unique enough, and that genre is still somehow popular enough to attract buys. Its very hard to do that. The reason is because a lot of us gamers have a huge backlog of massive games and no time to play them, and so little reason to add new games to the list. And because of that all the time older AAA games are getting cheaper and on sales, and we would rather buy that.
And its a problem at every age group, the kids play fortnite, minecraft, roblox, vr games, cs2; the young adults play cs2, siege, AAA games, the adults 30+ play some new games, but old games a lot too, skyrim, morrowind, fallout 4, and massive strategy games, like Total War games, EU4, CSK4. And these are just a tiny number of examples, there are a lot of games that people play every day and nothing else, like TF2, Factorio, Warframe, Diablo 4, Arma 3, COD, and so on. You see, there isn't a lot of room for indie games, unless they are very good and their genre isn't filled already with options.
There are many "problems". Cutesy art style is pushing me off. Pixel art is eternal. Some people hate it, I love it. Next one is an orc. What is an orc in your game? Was there any reason to make character an orc? Is orc race/culture explored? If you changed character visuals to human, would his behavior change? Would you feel something off or would human character suit fine? If so, maybe there was no need for an orc at all. Or maybe game should explore orcs more. So far I saw some celtic symbols, occultism, ninjutsu, Legend of Zelda rooms. Game, just by watching doesn't feel interesting. It's bland. I don't see passion, I don't see promise of greatness. No mystery or adventure. I don't see an invite to experience, just a some game.
It just does not look interesting.. I might be alone on this but it looks really not great compared to first game.
what about genre ? chris zukowski says its the most imporant thing on steam and also comparing yourself againts other games from your genre, some of them are less saturated. unfortunately the game really doenst look good, design, color and animations look like programmer's art so its really difficult to stand out like that even if the mechanics and systems are there. i wonder if you could just hire an artist, swap the art to the more appealing and in a small even for few seconds in the trailer and then see how the reception would change. i dont believe the "orc character" is an issue, if it had been drawn in an appealing way with nice animations it wouldnt be an issue. lets be honest - there is only one proper reason - the game makes bad first impression due to the art and animation.
the art and "first appeal" is definitely a big one, i brought up orc character because I believe that it has at least 10% effect!
Genre is definitely one of the most important decisions. Game stats or Steam render are quite good for comparing genres, but action RPGs are one of the more profitable tags, so I don't see a problem there. I don't think this genre is as oversaturated as platformers for example, simply because good RPGs are quite difficult and more time consuming to develop.
I've also often noticed that games with non-human protagonists often perform worse if they don't make a fundamental difference to the gameplay and are simply interchangeable, so I think the Orc actually had an influence here.
I like looking at these types of videos because there's more to learn in failure than success. Because you're a solo developer, you don't have the luxury of creating deep complex systems, unless you're insane like the creators of Dwarf Fortress. There isn't a problem with having bad graphics, (look at Ultrakill), your artstyle wasn't continuous. Your scope was pretty big, look at how many levels you have and how many assets you made, how many enemies and animations, textures, materials, sound effects and so on. All of this you have to take into consideration when planning scope. Hades had more than 12 people working on it and they spent more than 5 years on it and they still didn't finish it when they released it out of early access. (Patches and content updates and so on) Your gameplay loop was akin to the Zelda type games but the feel of the game feels clunky and slow. A serious lack of polish overall. (The feel of the gameplay is extremely important, it can kill your game if you don't get it right) Many indies focus first on the gameplay loop and hyper polish that because I can overlook almost anything if it doesn't take my attention away from what is actually fun. I would recommend focusing on the gameplay and the responsiveness to the players actions. If you were to make another Zelda type game, block out the levels, estimate how much you're going to need to fill those spaces. What type of enemies you're going to have and how long will it take you to make one enemy from conception to integration. You will need to do the same process for asset creation. I learned that the hard way when trying to create a simple rock. And if you want to make money for your games, invest money into tools and assets if its going to speed things up. Prototype each idea for a short period to figure out what works and what doesn't. Be ruthless with your time, you're running a business here.
Reason Nr. 3 made me not buy the game 😅
I think you are overthinking it. The art style of the second game is beyond awful. It's Net Yaroze level. Even the banner art is just awful. I'd honestly think it was a completely different dev and there's no way I would buy it even if I loved the first. Making it a numbered sequel and also completely alienating the audience by this huge downgrade is bonkers.
I don't mean to be so harsh, but it needs to be said if you can't see the art style is almost certainly the sole difference here.
All it took was seeing 10 seconds of gameplay to know why this failed. Seriously, GTFO here with that art style and movement! I was instantly turned away, how come you got no criticism for that from anyone during years of development?
Why would yet another uninspiring Zelda clone with worse everything ever succeed? Oh... I see it has slow mechanical animation and submersible bridges!! Surely the killer features!!!
Dont give up
Zelda at home.....
I was browsing the switch eshop, and came across yet another ai garbage game, but it seemed familiar. Then I looked closer and remembered it from watching this video.
The fact that you actually used that ugly low quality ai generated anime orc on the cover of the game is INSANE.
GET RID OF THAT AI ORC FACE. That wont fix all your problems, but it will be a HUGE improvement.
People are being way too nice about this and it isn't helping.
I'll tell you why your game failed, it's ugly, and it's design actively insults the consumer. I don't think many people are willing to stoop so low to purchase such a low effort game, ai generated orc on the cover, an ugly font and ui design, art style clashes all over the place, low quality 3d.
It's not good at all. That's why it failed.
(5:19) Hi there... actually and additional: time issues.
While yes- I do played something else, but (reasons)
This looks like a game from last century. The only reason it cant succeed.
Older style is better
Tip from gamer,don't follow DEI goofy ahh agenda
the first game does not look that special either, you got lucky with that one. People were also more willing to throw money back then as well, compared to more carefull approach of today. No more pity points today
not having anything unique to your game does not help either, seeing these i just want to play older Zelda or Chrono Trigger again, why should i play your game since you just recycle decade old ideas anyway? What new have you brought to the table? Does anything make you stand out above the rest? Because i dont see it
if you want to copy Zelda, Stardew walley, Vampire Survivor, Hollow knight, Terraria ... you better do it properly AND put some twist to it as well otherwise why should i bother?