4 ms·

After reading this, and having never heard of the game before, I checked it out and just spent 90 minutes playing it. It has some serious problems, and those ar

by Udo 11y ago

After reading this, and having never heard of the game before, I checked it out and just spent 90 minutes playing it. It has some serious problems, and those are in my opinion the reason why it's not selling very well: The basic idea is great. This game has the kind of factors that make you want to like it: it's experimental, it hints at a great story, it's a period piece. However, the disappointments keep adding up as you interact with it. Sunset's graphics performance is abysmal on OS X. On a current, maxed-out iMac I had to keep lowering the settings throughout play and still wound up with intolerable choppiness. The game does look good, but not that good as to justify having these issues. In the beginning, it's fun to play. You discover the house, and the house keeps changing in interesting ways every time you visit. It's atmospheric. The music is as stark and beautifully depressing as the apartment. I enjoyed doing the chores, and took great care of what I did in the house. But it soon dawned on me that my actions don't really have any consequences. The "plot" keeps moving along, telling you of the results of your actions, whether you actually performed them or not (at least as far as I can tell, it's kinda difficult to say). The chores get old very fast, and you start to skip your work. Which doesn't seem to be of any consequence at all. The more you play, the more you get the feeling that you're moving on rails, pushing difficult-to-reach yet pointless buttons in the process. The monologue put forth by the protagonist isn't encouraging either. While at times poetic, it seems mostly banal and fake - which is astonishing considering the subject matter. Talking about banality, I played this on Steam, and you literally get achievements for zooming in on book titles and record labels, for no apparent reason. More than anything, it's a missed opportunity. Nobody involved in the process stopped and looked at basic factors like: the pacing, the graphics, the dialogue/monologue, or the user experience overall. The game feels like something you'd expect to be still in development. Although the game is most likely a labour of love, the jarring shortcomings in its implementation make it look like it's coasting along lazily on the merits of its premise without any intention of actually delivering on it.

sageabilly 11y ago
This is a really excellent point, doubly so when three of the bullet points in the article about what they did to sell Sunset had zero to do with improving the game itself (namely, hire a PR firm, take out a pricy internet ad, hire an image consultant). Advertising your game is great and all (although I seriously question if their PR/ad markets were well researched before their money was spent, because their ROR on those dollars was essentially nil) but you HAVE TO have a good game in the first place or else no one is going to want to play it. After reading the article it seems like they were more interested in going around saying "hey we made this game and we really really want you to pay us money and play it!" instead of making a kick-ass game in the first place.
- Udo 11y ago
  > what they did to sell Sunset had zero to do with improving the game itself There are genres where this could and does work, but not in the niche Sunset is playing in. > although I seriously question if their PR/ad markets were well researched before their money was spent I agree, and it's an easy trap to fall into for anyone. Spending money in all the wrong places is always a danger, and the problem is that the people you are paying of course won't tell you even if they know you're making a mistake. > instead of making a kick-ass game in the first place I believe someone on the team thought the game was excellent as is. Development shops and teams of all sizes can exhibit work dynamics where problem areas get ignored and sub-par stuff is getting churned out. In a big company this might be due to politics and power structures. In small shops this might be because you don't want to disappoint a close friend. Somebody at that company should have said "this is a good idea, and a promising prototype, now let's get back to the drawing board and keep iterating". In retrospect I don't get the bitterness expressed in the article. It's not like they lack talent, and it's not like they're drastically under-appreciated for unknowable reasons. Those would be reasons to quit. But not this. This is something you can learn from and improve on.
  - angelbob 11y ago
    What I took from the article was that this just isn't going to make enough money for them to deal with it. Iterating gets expensive, fast. And apparently they're not making back the money they put in. I think that's fair. There's a limit to how much you should have to spend to entertain other people if they're not (collectively, after expenses) paying you.
  - smacktoward 11y ago
    > I believe someone on the team thought the game was excellent as is Behind every terrible work of art is a creator insisting that it's brilliant. Artists love their art the way parents love their children. That means they're not really reliable judges of its quality, so a key to success for them is finding people who can be objective, and learning to listen to them.

by Udo 11y ago

sageabilly 11y ago

This is a really excellent point, doubly so when three of the bullet points in the article about what they did to sell Sunset had zero to do with improving the game itself (namely, hire a PR firm, take out a pricy internet ad, hire an image consultant). Advertising your game is great and all (although I seriously question if their PR/ad markets were well researched before their money was spent, because their ROR on those dollars was essentially nil) but you HAVE TO have a good game in the first place or else no one is going to want to play it. After reading the article it seems like they were more interested in going around saying "hey we made this game and we really really want you to pay us money and play it!" instead of making a kick-ass game in the first place.

Udo 11y ago
> what they did to sell Sunset had zero to do with improving the game itself There are genres where this could and does work, but not in the niche Sunset is playing in. > although I seriously question if their PR/ad markets were well researched before their money was spent I agree, and it's an easy trap to fall into for anyone. Spending money in all the wrong places is always a danger, and the problem is that the people you are paying of course won't tell you even if they know you're making a mistake. > instead of making a kick-ass game in the first place I believe someone on the team thought the game was excellent as is. Development shops and teams of all sizes can exhibit work dynamics where problem areas get ignored and sub-par stuff is getting churned out. In a big company this might be due to politics and power structures. In small shops this might be because you don't want to disappoint a close friend. Somebody at that company should have said "this is a good idea, and a promising prototype, now let's get back to the drawing board and keep iterating". In retrospect I don't get the bitterness expressed in the article. It's not like they lack talent, and it's not like they're drastically under-appreciated for unknowable reasons. Those would be reasons to quit. But not this. This is something you can learn from and improve on.
- angelbob 11y ago
  What I took from the article was that this just isn't going to make enough money for them to deal with it. Iterating gets expensive, fast. And apparently they're not making back the money they put in. I think that's fair. There's a limit to how much you should have to spend to entertain other people if they're not (collectively, after expenses) paying you.
- smacktoward 11y ago
  > I believe someone on the team thought the game was excellent as is Behind every terrible work of art is a creator insisting that it's brilliant. Artists love their art the way parents love their children. That means they're not really reliable judges of its quality, so a key to success for them is finding people who can be objective, and learning to listen to them.