There's no single right approach to a feature or a game. I learned this lesson early on at Playrix. Years ago, I reviewed a new feature prototype for Fishdom. It was complex, experimental, and heavily inspired by another game. After playing, I felt the prototype missed the mark. The feature didn't evoke the desired emotions like its reference. So, I prepared detailed feedback: • Pointed out the flaws and differences • Suggested changes to align it closer to the reference I was confident my feedback was perfect. I thought I found the only "right answer," as if it was a math equation. Later on, my mentor looked at my feedback and said: 💬 "Anton, your feedback boils down to remaking everything from scratch to get closer to the initial reference. While that may be valid, did you consider finding something that works well and could be developed in a new direction, even if it’s not like the reference?" 💬 I was stunned. I hadn't considered another way except following the reference. And in the end, the team indeed found a different path for the feature. Since then, I've always reminded myself: There are always multiple paths to solve the problem. None are absolutely right or wrong.
Kishor H K
1mo
Yup, this has been a common trap... When we sit down for ideation & design this thing happens. Thanks for addressing this Anton Slashcev
Antonella Sassu
1mo
YES! I repeat it so many times I am thinking to tatoo it on my forehead
Game Designer
1moI want to mention one additional thing: an opinion of a single man cannot alsways represent the real status of a reviewed product due to the subjective nature of their assessment. Objective status comes from playtest or split testing. Yes, there are things like obvious flaws or your flair when you feel sommething's wrong, but your inner compass can make mistakes too. Maybe in the matter of saving time and money in such situations it's better to ask 1-2 more people for a review?