I am on the fence of releasing something that's not finished yet. The artist for the game aren't done yet (myself included).
Last time I released a beta on here it got judged for what it didn't have and not for what it was.
However one negative experience shouldn't be my only lense.
It'll still be judged on what it isn't even if it isn't a beta. If you think it represents the end product in a sufficient manner (subjective) then release it, and ignore any irrelevant reviews. You can always re-release it later once you finish it.
That being said, if you release a game with missing art then people might 0 vote it instinctively.
Slint approves of me! | "This is Newgrounds.com, not Disney.com" - WadeFulp
"Sit look rub panda" - Alan Davies
At 4/26/23 01:07 PM, Gimmick wrote: It'll still be judged on what it isn't even if it isn't a beta. If you think it represents the end product in a sufficient manner (subjective) then release it, and ignore any irrelevant reviews. You can always re-release it later once you finish it.
That being said, if you release a game with missing art then people might 0 vote it instinctively.
So in other words I was lied to about the fact people not caring about the visuals.
At 4/26/23 02:34 PM, GameSmashDash wrote: So in other words I was lied to about the fact people not caring about the visuals.
I suppose so, yes. What I always tell people is that good visuals can't save a bad game, and if your game is truly good people are more forgiving of shoddy visuals, but that doesn't mean they don't matter. If a game looks beautiful I will absolutely enjoy it more. And if a game is ugly I will like it less because of it.
Though, if you were to release an alpha build of a game with placeholder graphics I'd personally be willing to look past that. But don't expect everyone to be the same.
At 4/26/23 02:34 PM, GameSmashDash wrote: So in other words I was lied to about the fact people not caring about the visuals.
Depends on what you were told, because it's partially true, but realistically the average Joe who plays your game will prioritize shiny looks, even if the gameplay is derivative. There were some very innovative games I had seen in the past and they didn't get the recognition they deserved because the gameplay was slightly confusing to newcomers, the music wasn't anything to write home about and the graphics didn't look like they fit in. Sure, gameplay can make a game stand apart from the rest, but if it doesn't have the remaining features then it's just going to stand apart, not stand out from the rest of them.
At 4/26/23 02:46 PM, Madmazel wrote: Though, if you were to release an alpha build of a game with placeholder graphics I'd personally be willing to look past that. But don't expect everyone to be the same.
Maybe developers and others familiar with game design would be more willing to overlook the lack of assets, because in a game-development context it's fine to post a beta for other developers to critique. But since I get the sense OP was talking about submitting to the Portal, most people wouldn't be as "forgiving".
Slint approves of me! | "This is Newgrounds.com, not Disney.com" - WadeFulp
"Sit look rub panda" - Alan Davies
At 4/26/23 02:46 PM, Madmazel wrote:At 4/26/23 02:34 PM, GameSmashDash wrote: So in other words I was lied to about the fact people not caring about the visuals.I suppose so, yes. What I always tell people is that good visuals can't save a bad game, and if your game is truly good people are more forgiving of shoddy visuals, but that doesn't mean they don't matter. If a game looks beautiful I will absolutely enjoy it more. And if a game is ugly I will like it less because of it.
Though, if you were to release an alpha build of a game with placeholder graphics I'd personally be willing to look past that. But don't expect everyone to be the same.
That's fair
