Cataclysm of Chaos V9 (Text Adventure)

[lordpalandus]

That may be difficult. As I wanted to send out the polished V8 release before Christmas of 2017 (4 days from now), it may be very hard for players to give me feedback. However, most of what is in Hotfix 3 will remain the same for Hotfix 4, so if someone wanted to provide feedback on the game before I get Hotfix 4 out, I'd appreciate it.

But yes, mostly I'm going to keep pushing to get it out on or before Dec 24th, preferably earlier, but that depends on the difficulties I run into when finishing the tutorial and bughunting in the most critical areas.

[Hooman]

I tried again, and made use of your Testing3 shortcut. I'm curious though, why that was even announced in the game, rather than just being a hidden testing option.

My first encounter was with a monster with no name. I was unable to land any hits. After dying several times in a row, each time getting a second wind, I eventually grew bored of the cycle I was stuck in and choose to flee.

The second encounter was with a Skeletal Champion. I was also unable to land any hits. Though for some reason, the Skeletal Champion started bleeding. That felt out of character. I also started bleeding. The game told me I could stop the bleeding by drinking an elixir of ambrosia. I tried this, but not having any, it didn't work. I tried to drink another elixir, but found it no longer asked what type, and instead tried to drink another elixir of ambrosia. This caused the bleeding cycle to repeat, but not the monster attacks.

I noticed the following room description seemed oddly redundant:

There is a (crematorium) here; a device used to cremate corpses.

As was:

You see, a gigantic metal device, known as a crematorium, and it is used to cremate dead bodies into dust.

Another odd event, after fleeing and attempting to ascend several levels:

You suffer 0 poison damage and have -1 rounds remaining.

Encountered yet another monster with no name.


The server seems to have hung, so I'll stop for now.

[lordpalandus]

I announced it because, I actually forgot what the testing profile was named. If the developer can't remember, how would testers

Yep, the no name issue is being addressed, with my new Monster Descriptions. They will be rolled out in Hotfix 4. Most of the monsters in Hotfix 3, in Sections 3/4 are using temporary values.

I also haven't thoroughly tested out the testing profiles, so its understandable if you didn't do so well. I take it you didn't spend the Soul Shards at the shrine that you start at?

Interesting on the monster Bleeding. That shouldn't... oh. Yes, um. Hmm. I know what you are referring to, and don't have an immediate fix for it. If I'm right, then what you saw was something along the lines of "The Skeletal Champion is Moderately Wounded; it is bleeding from several small cuts" or something like that, yes?

Good to know on the Bleeding you suffered. It should tell you that you can use Cure-All, Curing Potion, Curing Spells, or Elixir of Ambrosia, but must have missed it for Bleeding. Thanks for bringing that to my attention!

It is and it isn't. Normally, before Hotfix 3 came out, you could only investigate something once the monster is dead, and then at the bottom of the screen it would mention points of interest. However, new in Hotfix 3, is that you can stealthily investigate objects. The only way a stealthy character would know about it is if the room description had it in it. That's why there is that redundancy, of sorts. I'll look into later on how to do that better, if you want.

I'll look into that bug, with the poison damage. Do you recall what floor you were on, or if you were poisoned beforehand, before you ascended a floor?

Thanks for giving it a go. Will help me to polish up the game for sure, and avoid some annoying bugs.

[lordpalandus]

Well, I pushed myself and managed to resolve all of the biggest bugs, typos, and interface issues with the game, for the polished beta release. I've submitted it to GoG, and we will see what happens. It does say on the submission form that most things that will be discussed (if they talk to me at all) will be between myself and them, but I will query them to see what I can mention here.

I did not manage to complete Section 3 and 4 monsters for the beta release to GoG, however, will work on them in a few days (as the next two-three days are going to be hectic with family coming in and family get-together stuff). However, the first two sections of the game are extremely well polished, and hopefully things will be alright.

[Vagabond]

Congratulations on getting the submission in! I hope you get good news. I was going to test some, but guess I was too slow to jump in!

If GOG likes your game enough to discuss it with you, there should be a non disclosure agreement involved spelling out exactly what you are allowed to discuss. Typically, they may not want to make certain pricing information shared or parts of their API that they would give you access to for integration into their services.

Usually attached to the NDA will be a terms of service explaining what each party is liable for. It will also spell out how long your game would remain available after you elected to pull it from their marketplace, how they are allowed to use your content for advertising purposes, what happens if another company claims trademark/copyright infringement against you, etc. I would encourage you to read all this information very closely if they contact you. It is hard to play the game if you don't know the rules as boring as they are.

Please read to make sure, but the NDA shouldn't stop you from sharing with us whether they say yes or no and generally explaining to what they didn't like if they get back to you.

I've submitted a game to 3 different publishers (not including Itch). Two rejections and one acceptance. For one of the rejections, the company didn't send me any info on why it was rejected besides it wasn't a good fit for them. Each publisher took at least 2 weeks to get back to me (and that wasn't over Christmas/New Years). I had to resubmit twice to the one that accepted to fix various issues. The game was 100% complete for the submission. Anyways, what I'm saying is that getting your game recognized by a publisher is fickle and difficult. Even a quality game may not get picked up for various reasons, so don't be too upset if it goes poorly with your first try.

-Brett

[lordpalandus]

Thanks, me too!

Good to know.

And good to know about the submission process.

Question: I just played the game on my iPad and noticed I couldn't see the inventory or status attributes. Is that also the case for you, or hooman? As the status attributes contain crucial information, if it's not being displayed for browsers, then that is something I'll want to address asap.
EDIT: Answered my own question. Appears its an ipad issue. Or possibly a Safari issue, as it uses Safari.

EDIT: Also, I plan on trying to finish off the Monster Descriptions for V8 today, as Hotfix 5, before starting to work on V9.

[Vagabond]

lordpalandus,

I loaded CoC via chrome on an Android phone. The inventory and status attributes dialogs were not displayed. I noticed the URL switches to .mobile when loading on the phone. I suspect that any time the website tests a machine and determines it to be 'mobile', it removes the dialogs. Maybe check what the URL is on your Ipad when you go to the site and see if it is loading in mobile form?

There really isn't space to show the dialogs on a phone screen, so it makes sense that the website drops them. I suspect there is enough screen real estate on a tablet to show them though?

-Brett

[lordpalandus]

Good to know. I might have to work on a way of providing key information then to mobile players.

Also, I've released Hotfix 5 for V8. It adds the Wyvern, Wyrm, Possessed Wyvern, and Primal Chaos Wyrm to Section 3, making it accessible and playable. Also adds the Vampire, Deathknight, Possessed Vampire and Primal Chaos Deathknight to Section 4, also making it accessible and playable.

I'll now start working on V9; no word yet from GoG, though its only been 1 (maybe 2) business days since submitting late on Friday 22nd.

[Hooman]

Cool, best of luck.

That was some good info there Vagabond.

[lordpalandus]

Thanks Hooman!

EDIT: I've released V8, Hotfix 6. This is the final hotfix for V8, and I'm now going to work on a massive amount of lore and various fixes to the tutorial to make it less of an information overload. I wanted to get this Hotfix 6 out, as there are a lot of gameplay enhancements and general improvements that I've added that really improve the quality of gameplay and didn't want people waiting on those changes while I worked on the lore and the tutorial, iteration #2.

Enjoy!

[lordpalandus]

I released Hotfix 7 for V8. In my playtesting I encountered a large logic error in the spellcasting code that incorrectly displayed the amount of damage you actually did to the creature and the calculation used to determine damage had logic errors in it as well. Thus, it needed to be addressed, and therefore released the 7th hotfix.

I really hope that is the last hotfix, as I'm eager now to get started on a major lore update for V9.

[Hooman]

Any chance of a before and after of the code? 

I'm willing to bet such changes could be pretty interesting, and probably lead to a few programming insights. I'm guessing the kinds of mistakes people make are actually pretty similar, and when viewed from a distance, may even go through a natural progression.

[lordpalandus]

I might be able to find the original, bad, code in one of my backups and post it, alongside the fixed code. But no guarantees. I'll look into it tomorrow.

[Hooman]

That would be cool. I always loved code before-and-afters.

[lordpalandus]

Updated the game to V9. Added a variety of improvements, quality of life changes, and the instructional components for the 2nd iteration of the Tutorial.

Enjoy. Link = http://textadventures.co.uk/games/view/rvnjlvi4heq6u7-namkaxa/the-cataclysm-of-chaos-v9

[Hooman]

I gave it a try. I'm a bit tired right now, so that may weigh heavily on my assessment.


The tutorial has too much boring fluff; less text please.

You double prompt yes/no to show the tutorial.

The second yes/no prompt is present above the explanatory text, rather than below it. This does not differentiate well from the prompt above, and makes it unclear that a second question (or any question) has been asked, leaving the player staring at an input box with no immediate reason to provide input.

It's hard to follow what text is new since the last prompt was answered. Maybe echo the last answer with a highlighted background color, possibly spanning the whole line.

After starting the tutorial I feel bored. I also feel a bit overwhelmed with all the sections. I would prefer to be led through a tutorial, not choose a section to read about. This is more of a "help" system than a "tutorial". Right now I just want to close the tab and not bother playing, nor even find out how to exit the tutorial.

I would really like to be able to click on the text in () to have it typed for me.

I can not see all of the "Active Buffs" section without collapsing the other sections. There is no possibility to scroll, and it overflows the screen size.

"Which section of the tutorial do you wish to start with today?" <- How many days does it take to read the damn tutorial? Ack! Get me out of here!

"Please type one of the options in parentheses ( ) now!" <- Maybe summarize all the options in one place? Such as:
What would you like to do? (option1, option2, ...)

I typed "exit" trying to escape the tutorial. It didn't look like it worked, but now none of the other options work.

I typed "descend" got into a fight, and after many rounds failed to do any damage. I either miss, or fail to penetrate their armor. This feels buggy. I should be able to hurt level 1 monsters, even if I didn't buy anything first. I have been unrewarded in my attempts to play for a while now, and now feel bored.

I eventually tried "overpower" as an attack, and did 2 damage. At this rate, I need 15 very repetitive rounds to kill a level 1 monster. I think I'm out.

[lordpalandus]

Thanks for giving it a go and giving me some feedback. Responses:

===========

The problem that I've found with creating a tutorial for a very complex text adventure, is how do you "Show" rather than "Tell". A tutorial is meant to reduce the complexity of a game and aid the user in understanding its depth. But, unlike most games, where a tutorial has Audio and Visual queues, it is impossible to "Show" without "Telling". So, how do I explain to a player how the game works, what are the rules of the game, and what are a player's options, without a massive text dump? This is the 2nd iteration of the tutorial, and I did manage to greatly reduce the massive text dump of the 1st iteration, but the issue I'm running into is that there is too much complexity in the game and I need a way to teach players that complexity, but avoid text dumps. But, text dumps appears to be the only way to teach someone. Thoughts?

Well, I do the double prompt for the Tutorial because some people don't like Tutorials and prefer to learn as they go. So I give players the option to skip the tutorial or not. And as for your experience of the tutorial, many players currently might want to skip it.

Good point on the second yes/no prompt. I'll move it below the explanatory text.

Okay, I'll bold the message with it stating you are Darak, the Quickling, to help it stick out. That should do the trick, I hope.

I do it in sections because I wanted a modular tutorial. Some people will feel that they don't really want to know most stuff, and skip to a later section, like Melee Playstyle. I didn't want to force the user to do the whole tutorial if they didn't want to. Some players learn at different rates and figured I'd allow a player to decide how much of the tutorial they wished to do. I do get that, one would prefer a single continuous tutorial, I just don't currently know how to build one that isn't a chore to go through... ie the first iteration of the tutorial. I even dreaded going through the 1st iteration of the tutorial.

Aside = ... Interesting... a Help System... maybe I'll redesign the tutorial and move the 2nd iteration of the tutorial into the "help" command. Though that'll mean I need a new tutorial... then again, I need a new one anyways, based on feedback.

I'll look into if its possible to turn the things in the parentheses into commands, so that they can be clickable. Won't work for everything; I tried to build that into the recast and reattack system, and it borked the logic, so it definitely won't work there. But, it might work better elsewhere...

Interesting. On my screen, I can see all active buffs, lesser debuffs and greater debuffs, while doing the tutorial. However, I have my game full-screened, and did notice that by having it not at full-screened that I also can't see all my buffs. Unfortunately, I'm unsure of how to build a scroll bar into the custom built panels yet... if it is possible at all to begin with.

Well, the way the tutorial currently works, is that you pick a section and then it moves onto the next section and such forth until the tutorial is done. It allows entering the tutorial at any section and completing it from where you started at. As a result, the tutorial can be completed fast, if you choose "Conclusion".

Good point on the summarizing. I knew I forgot something.

Game is finicky like that. It is a function GetInput, and then a Switch statement and if you provide any input that isn't valid, then, it performs the "Default" portion. If there is no Default, then nothing happens, like a typical switch statement. However, I will add a default code branch and a possible "exit" type command, to get out of the tutorial, without doing it... or just direct the player to type "Conclusion" as it quickly exits the tutorial if you do.

That is completely logical and working as intended. Remember, you start off as a Quickling; these are designed for the Stealthy Playstyle (backstab/pickpocket), and you were trying to do the Melee Playstyle (strike/overpower). If you backstab a foe with a Shortsword, you would deal x8 damage (base value is 32 damage). As a quickling your starter gear is also a Buckler (0 Protection), a Shortsword (4 Damage) and Leather Armor (2 Protection). So, if you wanted to do a Melee Playstyle, you could as a quickling, but it would take a while of grinding attributes to get there and likely a gear change as well. ... IF you had chosen "Conclusion" it would have taken you to Character Creation and let you choose a different race, than a Quickling. Appears I need to be more clear with things. More... Work work work. >.>

===============

EDIT: Released Hotfix 1 for V9 of CoC.

Converted the 2nd iteration of the Tutorial into the Help Command. Created a quick, 5 bullet point, 3rd iteration of the Tutorial; maybe too quick, we shall see. And modified character creation for new players to make racial choice clearer.

Give it a whirl and tell me what you think.

[Hooman]

how do you "Show" rather than "Tell"

Yes!

So, how do I explain to a player how the game works, what are the rules of the game, and what are a player's options, without a massive text dump?

Exactly the question you need to be asking.

maybe I'll redesign the tutorial and move the 2nd iteration of the tutorial into the "help" command. Though that'll mean I need a new tutorial...

Not necessarily. If you can design sufficient feedback into the game, and limit options early on, you should be able to progressively teach people how to play your game just by having them play.

Why are there so many attack options at level 1? Why not just have a single option, and unlock the others as a player progresses, or based on the equipment they have. Progressive immersion. Alternatively, you could highlight a suggested option, based on the player's level, class, or equipment, though I would prefer options just not being options until you get to a point where they matter.

As a result, the tutorial can be completed fast, if you choose "Conclusion".

This is not intuitive. I was guessing that at the end, but even after trying it, I wasn't sure if it worked that way. There was insufficient feedback.

In general, it's hard to know what state the game is in. Maybe after an input, particularly a failed input, the player should be re-prompted with something that gives them more context.

I figured there were some issues with switch statements not having a matching case. Not forgetting a default seems error prone. Rather, I think you need to look at the design of input loops around switch statements that will give an appropriate re-prompt.

That is completely logical and working as intended. Remember, you start off as a Quickling; these are designed for the Stealthy Playstyle (backstab/pickpocket), and you were trying to do the Melee Playstyle (strike/overpower).

I think a more logical default would be a melee character. I think that's what most people would expect as a default.

If you backstab a foe with a Shortsword, you would deal x8 damage (base value is 32 damage).

There was no obvious in game feedback to teach me this sort of thing.

IF you had chosen "Conclusion" it would have taken you to Character Creation and let you choose a different race, than a Quickling.

I don't recall that happening. Maybe it behaved differently due to my bad response earlier?

More... Work work work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YBvP6j8cJ8


I think you need to focus on making your game simpler, rather than adding more too it. It's already sufficiently complex that it feels like a chore to learn. I really think progressive enhancement would help here, and using in game feedback to teach the player how to play.

[lordpalandus]

Well, I finally got a reply from GOG. They said that they tried it out, and found it to be fun, mechanically interesting, and had simple, yet eyecatching graphics, made possible by my work in making the text descriptions of actions very imaginative. However, they won't sell it. They say if it was more like their best selling games, then they might sell it. Well, I took a look at their best sellers, are the recurring theme was = graphics, sounds, gui, NOT text adventure. So, I'm reading between the lines that they think that CoC is a great game, but not as a Text Adventure, and they'd be happy to do business with me if CoC developed into something more akin to their best selling games.

So..., CoC V9, is the final release of the game, and I'm stopping developing it as a Text-Adventure. However, I am looking into the feasibility, of adapting the game into an ASCII game, with the intent of trying to build it into something like ADOM Deluxe is doing; starting with a good ASCII (to test out the gameplay features), and then trying for a fundraising run to give it a graphical overhaul, with added sounds, tiles, graphical effects, and a musical score.

Its good to know that GOG thinks the overall gameplay and mechanics are good, but it sucks that they don't want to sell it because it is a text adventure. So, that kills all motivation to finish the Text-Adventure CoC, and instead I'm diverting my efforts to creating a bigger and better game, also called Cataclysm of Chaos, but as a GUI-driven ASCII game and eventually a Tiled game, with sounds, and such forth.

I'd like to thank everyone for the feedback they've given CoC thus far, and it will help me to go and create an overall better game in the future. I'm unsure when the next time I'll post on CoC though, as it will likely take me some time to figure out how to build the basic ASCII interface and room generation code before I have something worthwhile to show off again.

[Hooman]

If there's one thing I've learned about human nature, it's that people are seldom honest when giving rejections.

They say if it was more like their best selling games, then they might sell it. Well, I took a look at their best sellers, are the recurring theme was = graphics, sounds, gui, NOT text adventure. So, I'm reading between the lines that they think that CoC is a great game, but not as a Text Adventure, and they'd be happy to do business with me if CoC developed into something more akin to their best selling games.

So basically you made an untested assumption.

I doubt it being a text adventure is the real reason for their rejection. They probably just don't have the courage to give a real reason. They're going to try and find something nice to say about it, and then reject it in some vague way to avoid being specific about something that might cause offence or anger.


Some points I'd like to make.

It's really impressive that you pushed a project through to a point where it was submitted to a publisher. That's a huge undertaking. Most people get bogged down and quit way before that ever happens.

You should expect failure/rejection. It's part of the process. A first try is likely going to be a bit rough. It's a learning experience. You've now got the basic procedure down. Now it's time to refine.

Be brutally honest with yourself about your game. What could be done better? Is there anything specific they didn't like? If so, such negative feedback is incredibly valuable. The worst kind of feedback is when it's basically positive, but still rejected, without any clear reason why it was rejected. You need to get negative feedback.

Get feedback from multiple sources.

Finally, wait a couple of days for the emotional impact of the rejection to wear off. Then look back at the project with a more rational mind.

[lordpalandus]

An unfortunate truth that is and another unfortunate truth is that in order to learn, adapt and grow, negative criticism is needed, something I and others try to avoid.

Well, I stand by my game; it is fun, immersive, and mechanically deep and interesting. But, I did not know if there was a market for it. Now I do. It was valuable to create it and I've learned much about bughunting, developing, designing, refactoring, and creating an immersive game.

Maybe it isn't. I have asked them what was it about it that led to the rejection. Maybe they will tell me. Honestly, if someone is going to reject it I want the cold hard bitter truth, not flowery, friendly, niceties. If the one reviewing it thought it was fun and interesting to play, but didn't want to sell it, I need to know what is preventing it from being a title worth selling. I can't solve its unsellable problems to make it sellable if I don't know what are the problems.

Thank you. It has been a hard road. Harder with an unhappy ending.

I am a pessimist and I always expect rejection. I assumed it was going to get rejected and it did. You are right it is a learning experience but what am I trying to learn or refine? I don't even know why it is rejected other than the assumptions I have of why it was rejected.

Honestly, the past few months with the text adventure has been rough and in some ways I'm relieved it got rejected. The Quest program has been screwing with me a lot lately. It's been deleting my code, changing print message to expression, crashing unexpectedly and producing tons of wierd unexplainable problems.

As for what can be done better? I honestly think it would be better as an Ascii or tile based game, than a text adventure. I've felt limited in the games potential by lacking a good gui and by lacking a concept of range or distance to make playing a Spellcaster feel fair. I found the lack of sounds or music really hurt immersion and made gameplay feedback to player actions very hard to do. I found that having generic monsters with only a single for in a room or simple fights made the game feel repetitive in a bad way. I felt I allo too much feature creep of unnecessary things, like custom item renaming. Also I've been thinking of making a larger game world anyway where you could explore more of the old empire and not just the capital city. A lot of stuff i don't think is possible with a text adventure.

Who else can give me feedback?

I'll try that out once I've calmed down a bit.

Edit: two thing that I thin I could have done better is to have designed the game with a tutorial in mind as building one in was a huge chore and I feel that if I had written up detailed comments in my code I cou have likely reduced the number of logic errors I ran into. Those are two things in hindsight that could have made things significantly better.

Edit2: sorry for typos. Ipad is being a douche.

[White Claw]

I am jumping in late, and have only been tangentially following the thread. Text adventures are not my thing so I didn't really give this a proper try, but I do want to echo what Hooman said.

I congratulate you on having a plan and building it out, reaching a point where the project was shareable at this level. It is discouraging, no doubt, but you did something a lot of people aren't able to bring themselves to do. Also, you actually took a risk and submitted it, though I agree that it would be nice to know more of "what to improve."

I'm sure nothing I can say is of great consolation, but again, I congratulate you on following through on a project. Well done.

[lordpalandus]

Well I got a reply from them about an hour ago, and as expected the reasons it was passed up was: graphics, sounds, gui, and not a text adventure. They did say that it was a cool idea and they really liked the game, but are refusing it on those grounds. So, if I can figure out a way to translate all the good things from CoC to a different game, then they'd likely accept it, if it had visuals, sounds, and a GUI. So... it sounds like I didn't do anything wrong, its just that they don't think their userbase would want it and thus they are passing on it.

Well, that sucks.

[Hooman]

Well, I stand by my game; it is fun, immersive, and mechanically deep and interesting.

This sounds curiously prideful.

But, I did not know if there was a market for it. Now I do.

I would claim you still don't.

It was valuable to create it and I've learned much about bughunting, developing, designing, refactoring, and creating an immersive game.

Absolutely. I wholeheartedly agree with this.

I am a pessimist and I always expect rejection. I assumed it was going to get rejected and it did.

I expected rejection too. ... on the first round, and maybe a few more.

You are right it is a learning experience but what am I trying to learn or refine? I don't even know why it is rejected other than the assumptions I have of why it was rejected.

Then you need to learn how to learn this

Honestly, the past few months with the text adventure has been rough and in some ways I'm relieved it got rejected.

Curious. Fear of success. That is a real thing.

The Quest program has been screwing with me a lot lately. It's been deleting my code, changing print message to expression, crashing unexpectedly and producing tons of wierd unexplainable problems.

Sounds like you're looking for an excuse to ditch your current development method and leave the Quest engine behind.

As for what can be done better? I honestly think it would be better as an Ascii or tile based game, than a text adventure. I've felt limited in the games potential by lacking a good gui and by lacking a concept of range or distance to make playing a Spellcaster feel fair. I found the lack of sounds or music really hurt immersion and made gameplay feedback to player actions very hard to do. I found that having generic monsters with only a single for in a room or simple fights made the game feel repetitive in a bad way. I felt I allo too much feature creep of unnecessary things, like custom item renaming. Also I've been thinking of making a larger game world anyway where you could explore more of the old empire and not just the capital city. A lot of stuff i don't think is possible with a text adventure.

Some very interesting ideas in there. Though I'm going to point out that "feature creep", and some of your suggested improvements are at odds with each other. I think your game was at quite an appropriate level. If anything, I would first look at trimming things out of the game, and cleaning things up a bit, to make it simpler and more playable, and save some of those extra ideas for a future game. I wrote about 2 or 3 text adventures, each successively more complicated, before I moved up to ASCII graphics, and something more Rogue-like.

Edit: two thing that I thin I could have done better is to have designed the game with a tutorial in mind as building one in was a huge chore and I feel that if I had written up detailed comments in my code I cou have likely reduced the number of logic errors I ran into.

Yes! Comments, and ... automated testing! 

As for the tutorial, I've generally always hated game tutorials. They're not fun. They're a chore. I think games that do it really well build teaching the game into the gameplay itself. They successively reveal features and complexity. They don't dump it on the player all at once. The player has a chance to gain experience with each skill as it becomes available before they are exposed to the next. They design feedback into the game so players understand each new part.

Well I got a reply from them about an hour ago, and as expected the reasons it was passed up was: graphics, sounds, gui, and not a text adventure.

Yeah, I don't think it being a text adventure is the real problem. Even if they list "graphics", and "gui", I don't think that precludes a text-adventure. Maybe you just need to present the game's interface a little differently.

Some music or sound might be nice. I've seen old games that relied heavily on text for the imagery, where music added a lot to the immersion. Music has a way of stimulating the imagination. And it doesn't fill in the details for you, so each person can see what they want to see.

So, if I can figure out a way to translate all the good things from CoC to a different game, then they'd likely accept it

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but that sounds overly hopeful, with a hint of denial. A graphical remake might also be rejected, especially on a first try. There's a good chance there is more they haven't told you. I think the rejection based on graphics or gui is just too easy and convenient of an excuse for them. I think they're coping out and giving you an easy surface level reason, rather than get into the uncomfortable nitty-gritty details.


Regardless of all that, I'm still in awe that you worked so hard, stayed at it, got it to where it is now, and even had the courage to submit it to a publisher.

This is not the end. This is just the beginning.

[Vagabond]

lordpalandus,

I'm sorry to hear about your rejection.

Consider finishing your game in its current form (text adventure using Quest engine without sound effects/music/graphics). How many more hours of work do you think would be needed to get it completed to your satisfaction? If you finish it, I'll give it a serious playthrough to the end as I feel like it is a fun looking game.

I have enjoyed playing plenty of games without music or sound effects or graphics outside of ASCII.

Don't let it get you down too much. It is common for projects/games to be rejected for various reasons by a publisher, even if the submission is quality work.

-Brett