Alora Fane

I've set myself the goal to finish off preparing the Steam page for Atonal Dreams today, but uncertainty's quite a barrier again so I'm writing a bit about it!

I keep worrying that nobody cares about Atonal Dreams, that it'll do no better than Sindrel Song, maybe even worse. I feel more than a bit in the dark, and the scraps of feedback I've got recently about the descriptions I've written don't exactly fill me with confidence.

It feels like... I've entered a tiny room to sit in front of a huge, daunting machine full of coloured switches and buttons, and I have to get it to work without causing it to explode, but none of the buttons are labelled and I've not been given any instructions. I've tried calling out into the quiet, empty corridor a few times, and one time someone poked their head around the corner to tell me "I wouldn't touch the blue one if I were you", then left. Something like that??

I mean it shouldn't be this big of a deal, setting up this store page for an alpha test, since I can change it as I go on, but I'm aware it'll be at least some people's first impressions of the game (since I intend to start sharing the link so I can accumulate wishlists), so I don't want to put them off from the start. Plus I feel I need a clear idea of what it is I'm trying to promote before doing that more.

The description that I have currently mostly focuses on two aspects I feel set it apart from generic indie RPGs: the taming mechanic, and the dialogue scenes which offer more immersion than the standard static-portrait-in-a-box thing I see in most indie RGPs. Personally I find the latter really appealing, but a couple of comments by people have left me feeling embarrassed about even thinking it was worth mentioning as a key feature (maybe it's like boasting "controller input supported!"), and now I'm not sure what to replace it with.

I thought while replying to one of those comments that what I've been doing is focusing on what makes the game different to others, but that's not really what people are interested in, is it? At least not primarily. A lot of indie games' descriptions start with a mention of games they're a 'love letter' to (always seems to be that term), because people are more willing to give a chance to stuff that's similar to what they've enjoyed in the past. There's less risk that way. Sindrel Song's main failure was probably that it wasn't familiar at all, as I've talked about before.

So maybe I need to focus the description first on what's familiar, and only then on what's unique about this. Maybe?? I don't know...

I just watched a youtube video by an indie dev in a not-too-dissimilar position, which I probably should do more than I do:

It's interesting how he mentions things like social anxiety being a barrier for streaming (though he's obviously able to record his voice for videos), and how working on the same game all day every day gets mind-numbing. He talks about something I've considered before, too, which is pooling together a bunch of people to essentially collaboratively work on a game - an idea that becomes increasingly appealing the more time you spend alone - though I wonder to what extent that would even really bear fruit. I'd be curious to know!

Mostly I'm mentioning it though because he talks about having worked on a game for a year, but he's giving up on it because it's been likened to another (Fall Guys), to the point that he's worried it'd just be seen as one of the many knock-offs.

So it feels like a bit of a tightrope maybe, making something that's familiar enough that people have some confidence based on past enjoyment to invest in it, but not so familiar that it comes across as a clone.

Anyway... I'm rambling so then I can feel like I'm doing something while avoiding what I should be doing, so I should stop doing this and do that.

12 COMMENTS

Comment deleted

Tobias 1115~4Y

This is what Atonal Dreams is though, essentially! It started off as Divine Dreams, some epic reimagining of the entirety of MARDEK plus a conclusion, but I realised it was insane to attempt some years-spanning project when I'm not sure how to market or whether people would even like it. I didn't want to get locked into some flop of a project for years, so I decided to use the work I'd already done to build Atonal Dreams, anticipating a relatively short development period.

It's just that even relatively short, simple games take a long, long time to make. Look at the game by the guy in the video, for example. Does that look complicated to you? It doesn't to me! And yet he spent a year on it, working all day every day from the sound of things. I once posted about a game some guy had spent five years on, which looked like some fairly simple throwaway mobile thing. These things take time, probably more than you'd expect if you've not been through the process yourself. Longer than I expect, too, despite my experience! I thought Atonal Dreams would be done by last November.

Whenever I've attempted the "oh, I'll just make something quick and easy!" thing, it never goes well. I mean, MARDEK's files were saved in a folder called "QuickQuests" because they were meant to be quick spin-offs of the other RPGs I was working on at the time (Deliverance and Fig Hunter, I think). I get carried away because the games I'm interested in making are focused on immersion, story, lore, etc; I don't seem to have it in me to make some quick plotless puzzler or whatever.

I've never done a game jam because they don't appeal to me, and I don't know how the devs make the games for them so quickly. I'm assuming they use a lot of borrowed assets (this seems to be the case in videos I've seen), or the game they end up with is crude and cobbled together. I don't know enough about games to know whether they ever end up selling them - checking other indie devs' sites suggests they just put them on there for free? - but I think I've seen some where they build on an idea started in a jam over several months or more before they have something they're happy to charge people money for.

Oh, there's also the fact that marketing itself takes months, or at least it should. This is one of the many mistakes I made before, and one of the things I'm learning this time around. I put Sindrel Song on Steam too soon before its eventual release, not nearly long enough to accumulate wishlists. I'm putting Atonal Dreams up early because I'm hoping to spend months building them up so I'll get a lot of sales on launch day. That seems to be how it works.

You need time to build momentum; I couldn't just make a game in two weeks, do two weeks of marketing and see results. And making a game in two weeks then marketing it for six months just feels silly!

I'm also still considering doing a Kickstarter, once I have enough done to show off for that. That'll involve a strong marketing push for a whole month... which I'm not looking forward to but which should be a good way to break through the ignorance and get the word out.

I'm not actually seeing Atonal Dreams as something I'm pouring my heart and soul into... or at least I'm not seeing it as some magnum opus or something. I'm putting care into it, because I can't not! But mostly I'm seeing it as a way to learn how to market a game. This seems a good fit for that because it's a familiar enough genre to (hopefully) appeal to people, especially those who liked my old work in the same genre, but it's also got enough uniqueness to it that it'll (hopefully!) be worth talking about and sharing.

Learning marketing is a process though, which I'm still in the middle of but which I'm continually working on. I've been writing those Promotion posts, checking indie devs on Twitter constantly, watching videos. I'm not there yet, but I'm getting there. Making the Steam page early is a big step.

It's just that even relatively short, simple games take a long, long time to make. Look at the game by the guy in the video, for example. Does that look complicated to you? It doesn't to me! And yet he spent a year on it, working all day every day from the sound of things. I once posted about a game some guy had spent five years on, which looked like some fairly simple throwaway mobile thing. These things take time, probably more than you'd expect if you've not been through the process yourself. Longer than I expect, too, despite my experience! I thought Atonal Dreams would be done by last November.

Whenever I've attempted the "oh, I'll just make something quick and easy!" thing, it never goes well. I mean, MARDEK's files were saved in a folder called "QuickQuests" because they were meant to be quick spin-offs of the other RPGs I was working on at the time (Deliverance and Fig Hunter, I think). I get carried away because the games I'm interested in making are focused on immersion, story, lore, etc; I don't seem to have it in me to make some quick plotless puzzler or whatever.

I've never done a game jam because they don't appeal to me, and I don't know how the devs make the games for them so quickly. I'm assuming they use a lot of borrowed assets (this seems to be the case in videos I've seen), or the game they end up with is crude and cobbled together. I don't know enough about games to know whether they ever end up selling them - checking other indie devs' sites suggests they just put them on there for free? - but I think I've seen some where they build on an idea started in a jam over several months or more before they have something they're happy to charge people money for.

Oh, there's also the fact that marketing itself takes months, or at least it should. This is one of the many mistakes I made before, and one of the things I'm learning this time around. I put Sindrel Song on Steam too soon before its eventual release, not nearly long enough to accumulate wishlists. I'm putting Atonal Dreams up early because I'm hoping to spend months building them up so I'll get a lot of sales on launch day. That seems to be how it works.

You need time to build momentum; I couldn't just make a game in two weeks, do two weeks of marketing and see results. And making a game in two weeks then marketing it for six months just feels silly!

I'm also still considering doing a Kickstarter, once I have enough done to show off for that. That'll involve a strong marketing push for a whole month... which I'm not looking forward to but which should be a good way to break through the ignorance and get the word out.

I'm not actually seeing Atonal Dreams as something I'm pouring my heart and soul into... or at least I'm not seeing it as some magnum opus or something. I'm putting care into it, because I can't not! But mostly I'm seeing it as a way to learn how to market a game. This seems a good fit for that because it's a familiar enough genre to (hopefully) appeal to people, especially those who liked my old work in the same genre, but it's also got enough uniqueness to it that it'll (hopefully!) be worth talking about and sharing.

Learning marketing is a process though, which I'm still in the middle of but which I'm continually working on. I've been writing those Promotion posts, checking indie devs on Twitter constantly, watching videos. I'm not there yet, but I'm getting there. Making the Steam page early is a big step.

Comment deleted

Tobias 1115~4Y

I've edited the store page description so it now starts:

"Atonal Dreams is an RPG reminiscent of old-school console JRPGs: you roam around a field and through dungeons looting treasure chests, talking to NPCs, and engaging in (non-random) turn-based battles that pit your team against hordes of monsters. Grow your characters by masterfully using musical magic to alter modifiers, build combos, and either destroy your foes or convert them to your side. The game is heavily story- and lore-rich, featuring an often-silly cast of characters who each have hidden depths that are gradually revealed."

I wasn't sure whether to mention inspirations like Final Fantasy by name; I don't think other games do that, but I'm not sure.

This is rough and needs cleanup, but what I'm going to do is wait until some people have alpha tested first, then I'll talk with them about what it'd be best to focus on in the description. I'll also check some other store pages to see what they've done.

By collaborating I was thinking more with fans/players than with other devs, since I can imagine those getting enjoyment from their ideas being included at all, while other devs might be more insistent that their ideas are the best or something!

I've edited the store page description so it now starts:

"Atonal Dreams is an RPG reminiscent of old-school console JRPGs: you roam around a field and through dungeons looting treasure chests, talking to NPCs, and engaging in (non-random) turn-based battles that pit your team against hordes of monsters. Grow your characters by masterfully using musical magic to alter modifiers, build combos, and either destroy your foes or convert them to your side. The game is heavily story- and lore-rich, featuring an often-silly cast of characters who each have hidden depths that are gradually revealed."

I wasn't sure whether to mention inspirations like Final Fantasy by name; I don't think other games do that, but I'm not sure.

This is rough and needs cleanup, but what I'm going to do is wait until some people have alpha tested first, then I'll talk with them about what it'd be best to focus on in the description. I'll also check some other store pages to see what they've done.

By collaborating I was thinking more with fans/players than with other devs, since I can imagine those getting enjoyment from their ideas being included at all, while other devs might be more insistent that their ideas are the best or something!

ElektrikMagenta20~4Y

I hope "angelic alien-devil knight travels with his spunky dog-girl apprentice/fangirl" make it into the final draft, there's just something deeply appealing about that phrase. And I hope that my last comment mentioning the emotive dialogue didn't come across as rude! I think it's still worthwhile to talk about, especially since there seems to be a lot more care put into the interactions than in other games that also have some sort of emotive dialogue (things seem much more subtle, expressive, and organic, while still being theatrical and entertaining). It may be helpful to have different sections of the description be based on "familiar" and "unfamiliar" like you had mentioned, because then people would know that it's not just "normal dialogue but sometimes someone grimaces" sort of thing that lots of games have, but its own unique tool!

(Also as a little sidenote, mentioning that you don't just randomly start battle in the middle of walking might be its own selling point, as more and more people seem to be realizing how frustrating that is when there's an alternative)

(Also as a little sidenote, mentioning that you don't just randomly start battle in the middle of walking might be its own selling point, as more and more people seem to be realizing how frustrating that is when there's an alternative)

Tobias 1115~4Y

I didn't perceive your comment as rude! Enlightening, if anything. It's easy to become trapped in a bubble while working in isolation, and it's very valuable to know what other people outside that bubble would actually want to see. I mentioned the emotive thing because I'm quite proud of the creative side of it, and I want to stress the immersion of the experience since that's what I personally value most, but I get that it isn't exactly the best feature to focus on to lure in new players. I'm still not entirely sure what is, though!

I've revised the store page description a bit to start with an appeal to familiarity, and have this at the start now:

"Atonal Dreams is an RPG reminiscent of old-school console JRPGs: you roam around a field and through dungeons looting treasure chests, talking to NPCs, and engaging in (non-random) turn-based battles that pit your team against hordes of monsters. Grow your characters by masterfully using musical magic to alter modifiers, build combos, and either destroy your foes or convert them to your side. The game is heavily story- and lore-rich, featuring an often-silly cast of characters who each have hidden depths that are gradually revealed."

The wording's rough and clumsy though, so what I'm probably going to do is wait until I've had some people play it, and then we can talk about what it'd be best for me to focus on and I can edit the page to reflect that.

I did mention that the battles are 'non-random' though since I'd prefer that too! But do any games have purely random battles these days? Seems so outdated.

I've revised the store page description a bit to start with an appeal to familiarity, and have this at the start now:

The wording's rough and clumsy though, so what I'm probably going to do is wait until I've had some people play it, and then we can talk about what it'd be best for me to focus on and I can edit the page to reflect that.

I did mention that the battles are 'non-random' though since I'd prefer that too! But do any games have purely random battles these days? Seems so outdated.

mount201046~4Y

> He talks about something I've considered before, too, which is pooling together a bunch of people to essentially collaboratively work on a game - an idea that becomes increasingly appealing the more time you spend alone - though I wonder to what extent that would even really bear fruit

The thing about this (especially if you throw it wide open, as in open-source), is that you become sort of a maintainer or leader which... you also need to gain experience in doing, lest everyone clashes with each other and the project ends up folding a week into development, or someone's aspiration ends up leaving the whole team running around a goose which would never be caught... You basically become a maintainer, and what others want of a game might not be the exact same as yours - what you've made will become the basis of new ideas that will probably not be compatible with what you want. In fact, don't you think that happened with MARDEK? People getting inspiration from it, wanting to add onto it, and fleeing off on what is essentially their own, new project?

Not to say you shouldn't *try* it, mind you. Life's too short to not try it. I'd say it'd be better if you did it with someone experienced. I'm sure you'd be surprised by how friendly and open people would be to that kind of thing. I honestly don't think it's a bad idea to reach out to your Flash-era peers. After all I think all of you made games as a passion (who makes Flash games, which had a reputation of being amateur, to sell? You tried, you probably know... I feel like it was the Scratch of the late-2000s, a place where new fresh-faced game devs started with big dreams and new ideas.)

The thing about this (especially if you throw it wide open, as in open-source), is that you become sort of a maintainer or leader which... you also need to gain experience in doing, lest everyone clashes with each other and the project ends up folding a week into development, or someone's aspiration ends up leaving the whole team running around a goose which would never be caught... You basically become a maintainer, and what others want of a game might not be the exact same as yours - what you've made will become the basis of new ideas that will probably not be compatible with what you want. In fact, don't you think that happened with MARDEK? People getting inspiration from it, wanting to add onto it, and fleeing off on what is essentially their own, new project?

Not to say you shouldn't *try* it, mind you. Life's too short to not try it. I'd say it'd be better if you did it with someone experienced. I'm sure you'd be surprised by how friendly and open people would be to that kind of thing. I honestly don't think it's a bad idea to reach out to your Flash-era peers. After all I think all of you made games as a passion (who makes Flash games, which had a reputation of being amateur, to sell? You tried, you probably know... I feel like it was the Scratch of the late-2000s, a place where new fresh-faced game devs started with big dreams and new ideas.)

Tobias 1115~4Y

Oh, I didn't mean as some kind of formal project, where people have roles and continuous contributions or anything like that. I was thinking of something entirely informal, like going in the Discord and asking "what kind of stuff would you like to see in a game?", then we'd just discuss it as a group and see who agrees on what. Really vague general ideas at the start, I imagine. Then I'd go off and do the actual work myself, maybe checking in to see what people think along the way. That'd feel like involving the community without actually making them part of the team, and it's the only way I could ever really see it working. I've no plans to attempt it any time soon, though the idea comes up every so often.

Other than Matt Roszak, I can't even think of any other Flash devs! I was never exactly social with any of them back then - I just kept to myself - and I wonder how many of them stuck with games. Oh, there's the Sinister Design guy too. I've considered reaching out to him, but at the moment I don't have much motivation to since there's no specific reason. That and the CRIPPLING SOCIAL ANXIETY of course, though I feel it's more of a lack of motivation than a presence of fear these days.

Other than Matt Roszak, I can't even think of any other Flash devs! I was never exactly social with any of them back then - I just kept to myself - and I wonder how many of them stuck with games. Oh, there's the Sinister Design guy too. I've considered reaching out to him, but at the moment I don't have much motivation to since there's no specific reason. That and the CRIPPLING SOCIAL ANXIETY of course, though I feel it's more of a lack of motivation than a presence of fear these days.