I'm not actually annoyed at that assessment. In fairness, the timer for that was set too high. Besides, I shouldn't ever use "hold button" for navigation. It's just easier to implement and I'm lazy on some of the uncommon player scenarios.
I am annoyed at reviewer number 2, who I came in afterwords, saw reviewer 1 asking whether it was an issue, marked as fail, and proceeded to write a quite condescending comment to me. Now I remember why I don't actually participate in online communities.
Mostly though, I'm annoyed with the process. It takes is two fails to be rejected. With only one, you're fine. I know one fail is fine because I failed a game, which showed up on the marketplace anyway (strangely, I failed for something described as one of the "Most common review failures". Really makes me wonder what other people tested...)
As near as I can tell, I can't really contest it. I would argue it's not a fail reason, but I can sort of see the arguments the other way. It doesn't really matter at this point.
The problem with failing is it delays the game a month. It's a week before I can re-post, and it will be in review longer. No one wants to review a game twice, especially when very little changes. This took two weeks, the next time will be longer.
I suppose in the interim, there are things I can do. I can add in some proper dialog and confirmation boxes in some places. A number of reviewers thought the game was too slow. It's already very streamlined for a tactical game. I suspect some of that may be down to expectations of the marketplace. I can speed some actions up here and there, and I can definitely include a go-faster button or menu option to speed it up more. I'll probably take another look at font choices and improve the pause menu since I have the time. I might also make a retro-manual for it.
Here, have an unrelated screenshot:
No comments:
Post a Comment