Advice needed for promotion with budget and game review

I really like pool and mini golf games, however I don't get why I would play your game instead of the real thing. I think your game would work better as a trick shot style pool game graphically and in terms of driving downloads. Instead of capitalising on an existing market you have tried to create a new one. If I saw a pool table with some tricky shots you have to make it would be a whole lot more appealing even though the mechanics would be the same.

I think your graphics are okay but similar to what others have said the neon is a bit much for me. It just looks to do the job rather than attractive and appealing. 2 dots on the other hand graphics are great, they are friendly and appealing. It is obvious one was done by a designer and the other wasn't.

Don't take that the wrong way, a lot of my apps suffer from this cause I do everything myself. It is really hard to be a one man dev team.

 

What I more meant there is an existing market you can take advantage of and instead you choose not too. When you are a small indie you need to take advantage of anything you can.

I am sure two dots probably isn't original as most games are based on a similar game, nobody really knows why some games go viral. There is an element of a luck.

 

I totally agree with what Destined has said regarding the pool or mini golf. And taking advantage of existing markets and concepts.

In game design, you need to pull from existing metaphors so that people can understand your game. People need to know how to play it in a matter of seconds. Your game is a bit of a confusing mess I think. It is not intuitive as to how it works, and in my opinion the color puzzle aspect actually makes it more complex and less fun.

Mobile game design you want:

1. A very simple and easy one action concept. Which people can understand in a matter of seconds. Two Dots does this perfectly, it uses a mechanic that is well known matching colors by dragging your finger over them. Your game actually loses this because its never been done, and then doesn't explain itself very well. Plus I feel it becomes too complex. If you had made it a pool game then right away I know how it works, and what I need to do. People are far more likely to download something they are familiar with than risk some new concept. Take an existing concept, and make a small change.

2. A simple form of progression, that keeps a challenge. Like simple levels, or the next jump on an endless runner. Two dots does this really well, nice simple levels, that are not totally based on skill. This way if you fail you try again, because the level has not beaten you, you might have better luck this time. Pure skill games can mean it becomes impossible for some people to pass a particular level, this can work if the game has enough freedom to try other options. Like a hard platform game, the freedom is huge, you can try jumping at a different point, or with a different sequence (e.g. geometry dash) so your skill level can increase. I found your game to have high frustration without the desire to progress, mainly because I didn't really understand how to play the game.

3. Well balanced. I think this is something that game designers learn over time, and through testing their game lots. The first few games anyone makes seem to be very poorly balanced. And this doesn't mean easy either, just that it provides the level of challenge that makes it fun and addictive.

4. Polish, not the country, but like to make perfect. So make everything excellent, graphics, sound, game play. All the small things must fit together really well, all the contrasts in the colors look perfect, the feel of the game is amazing, no small detail is out of place. Games really get let down by small things, and these stop people playing. Bugs just destroy your game, or a difficult level that is out of place instantly stops people playing.

The major thing that lets your game down is the concept. It is too complex, and not actually that fun. Obviously this is subjective, and my judgement. So you could argue it differently.
Comparing your game to Two Dots, and not seeing how Two Dots is far far better, is just fooling yourself. And that is not a healthy thing to do in game design. And if you want to deal with facts not feelings, then put something like Flurry in it and record what level people reach and how long they are actually playing the game. Also do an update and see what percentage download the update, this is a very accurate measure as to how many people are still playing your game. Low IAPs is also another stat that shows that either people are not playing long enough, or the need to spend money is not there or understood.

Then you can either try and repair this game, or make another with the lessons learned. I would choose the later, because I think your concept is the problem, and no matter how much patching you do it is not going to save this game. But who knows, your next one might be a hit.

 

I played a bit and

1) the tutorial is too hard. It took me quite a few goes to line it up well enough to work on an ipad. If I used my phone I imagine it would of sucked.

2) why on earth you start each level on white rather than a colour is beyond me.

3) I don't find it hard to play, but while it is okay, I think it is a very plain game.

4) you don't feel you have much control over the balls bounce

5) the style of game really doesn't suit IAP

I really think you are significantly over estimating how good this app is. While it neat and presented fine. It lacks any addictive gameplay and doesn't make the player really want to continue. I really don't think a few small tweaks will change much. It is really a poor mans version of pool with inferior graphics.

 

I played it for about 20 mins, hope you don't mind if I'm wrong, though.

About the game:

1. 1. First of all, I saw that you are comparing with 2dots and CCS. This is perfectly fine, and personally I love brain games like yours, but TBH, I believe that it's partially because of the genre/gameplay you choose. You know, 2dots, CCS, and Flappy Bird are dead simple in playing (it's hard because of speed and skills, not the thinking), and that's why it's viral-ling. Not only your game, but almost every game require more "brain" elements suffer (sudoku, chess, real pool... although very popular, could not be phenomena, there could be apps with lots of downloads, but that's for standard, first-comer ones). And I think I understand the logic: mobile user prefer something, need not to think, to play. So accept it if you deciding follow this genre, it's the nature of the market.
   
2. 2. On that "addictive" part, I think it's related to my first point, brain-required games like yours is appealing and "addictive" to a small community who likes the genre, but could hardly considered "addictive" in general in a sense of CCS, since:
   
   
   [*]2.1 It's hard to play because of genre nature, I've seen poker apps, pool apps, sudoku apps... get thousands of downloads, but I think it's because people like it in real life for the first place. CCS, Flappy Bird is considered "addictive" 'cause it's hard to play by player skills (again, not the long thinking).
   [*]2.2 Really, if you are comparing with CCS and 2dots, I would say virality is the point you need to make, your game might really addictive but if it can't be viral, would result in low downloads also. (Ever you see a chess game gone viral?)​
3. 3. Beside "addictive" elements which would make me play for hours (buying IAP is another story) and being seen by my friends, I think if you want real good sharing rate, you should improve game modes with cooperation, competition, sharing options...
   
4. 4. Same as above comments. I find the tutorial quite hard. And the fact that you yourself believe if you showed us face to face, we would understand immediately, just prove that your tutorial is not effective (its purpose is that we could understand the game without you, right? - sorry if I was harsh)
   
5. 5. Color schemes of your game is quite weird, imho. I couldn't explain it well since I basically have no idea on art, but personally, it's too contrasting and colors are clashing each other... not well (really don't know how to explain this )

About marketing and business:

1. 1. First off, I think you are confusing about the goals of this product. It might be just me, but personally, I believe a game (indie-developed) could just aim for one of three: (1) virality (i.e. downloads, player bases...) (2) fame (reviews, critical acclaimed...) (3) profits
2. It's hard for a game (indie-developed) to got all three at once (please don't count CCS, 2dots... here, they get virality first, then incomes follows). So:
   
   
   [*]1.1 Your goal is profits? I think you should forget it at first. For your type of game, it's almost always virality first.
   [*]1.2 I stick to my points, though, your game genre is not appealing to the larger masses and your virality game design needs better features.​
   
   => Strategies for this type of games, imho, is 2 things (1) player bases which will grow gradually (like other brain games, big hit is almost impossible) (2) ad-based revenue (really, would you buy IAP for chess games?) it will be stable income if your game is good and have loyal players.
   
3. 2. About IAP, although I do think it's not effective anyways, I think you should re-construct your levels. It's too... erm, gradual and... mixed. Not hard enough for a hardcore brain game, not easy enough for a casual one, not have any special elements after a while for easily-get-bored players like me. So, there is no need for buying something to "help" me. The situation is simply not desperated enough for me to open my wallet.
4. 3. About the screenshots, I think you should remove the phone images (except the 2nd one). It adds little thing to your purpose of showcasing the apps. While flat design needs blank space, in this case, I don't think it's necessary.

That's it. Please don't be offended if my wording is bad.

 

I agree on removing the phone images, it is silly seeing the phone when viewing on the phone.

To answer your questions

1) I line perfectly with the predictor and never hits. It felt like total luck I achieved it in the end.

2) That is silly cause I feel like i am wasting a move and it is pointless.

4) Doesn't feel easy for the ball to do multi's. Feels heavy and uncomfortable to do anything but single hits. It should have way less friction on it.

5) I feel IAP purchase won't work cause there is no incentive or point for a player to buy.

I can't tell you exactly what the difference is, but I played a load of candy crush even though I didn't like the game much. Your game I forced myself to play a few levels to give you feedback. If I wasn't trying to give you feedback I would of deleted before even finishing the tutorial. The gameplay is clumsy, disjointed and doesn't feel easy to control. Think angry birds how simple the catapult is, and how quickly you enjoy playing. You could make the same game with plain boxes and it wouldn't have the same appeal. Your game lacks any character or charm. It is cold and unforgiving.

Anyway that is just my opinion.

 

How hard a game isn't directly relation to the frustration people feel in the game.

Super hexagon, a game I love, is waaaaay harder than your game (most people die in a few seconds of their first go), however it is a fun quick learning curve. There is the belief you can always do better.

With one of my games (which isn't really popular at all, The Light Box) I have noticed people tend to either solve 1 or 0 puzzles and give up, or solve quite a number of them. I believe that is cause it appeals to a certain niche audience but in general it is too challenging for most people to keep doing it.

 

Have you tried doing varying difficulty levels per level?
In some games you can see that difficulty is increased not by making the AI deadlier or putting a shorter time to solve puzzles, but by having different goals to complete that come with better rewards.
I find Zeptolab's Pudding Monsters to be doing a very good job with it. Basically fusing monsters without caring about their position is the easiest thing to do and generally covered pretty quickly, often times by accident and players don't feel frustrated. Plus hitting some obstacles or simply taping on monsters gives you +1 coins. It's a very smooth experience and perhaps even better scaled than their Cute the Rope series.

 

If that was aimed as advice for me, I made the light box cause I enjoyed it. The fact a few thousand others have enjoyed it too is enough for me The puzzle itself is hard even on the most simple levels.