Because that's the point of the trailer. To wow people with that you've got thus far. If you don't wow people, then your trailer has failed. Trailers are the first instances for people to get an idea on whether or not they're going to like your game.And if they don't, well then they have every right to critique what they see. No, I expect it to look decent, not like every other Unreal Sonic fan game out there. And nowadays "woah is me, I'm the only one working on my game" doesn't fly. Minecraft, Braid, Papers Please, Dust, and Roller Coaster Tycoon were all made by one developer, all of those have original assets that had to be made, all of those had to basically be coded from scratch, and Roller Coaster Tycoon is coded in x86 for heaven's sake. What's your excuse? I understand, fangames aren't going to look as good as their official counterparts, but there is a standard for design nowadays, and you are failing spectacularly at living up to it. He says, as he dismisses every single point I brought up. The fact that your game can be held up, compared to, and be put in the same league as those other "badly done games" should show you that there is an issue at hand. It should tell you that your work is not up to snuff, and that you need to improve. No one is talking about people who do less work and get more fame. That's the way it's always been in all fascists of technology, and that's a fact we have to deal with. However, just because other people get away with doing less doesn't mean you shouldn't do more. Those guys appeal to the mass audience and get lauded for it. However, fantastic games always have the chance to shine through if they're good enough. And there's nothing wrong with that. However, the changes need to make sense from a design perspective. You can be as weird and crazy with how your game works as you want, it's what makes stuff like the Persona fighting games and TF2 so great. But you need to have some semblance of your genre left over. Going too ham with your stuff leads to poor design. Having those giant loops with no clear indication of where you're at is bad design. Having huge open areas with nothing in them while you're trying to get to the goal is bad design. So by all means, challenge the standards. But don't make a garbage game in the process. In trying to appeal to everyone, you're going to appeal to no one mate. That's just a rule of game design, and even software design in general. In a Sonic game, I don't want to search every nook and cranny to find every little thing, and the people who do want to do that stuff don't want to play a Sonic game. If I wanted to do that, I'd play an Adventure game, where your goal is to find as much stuff as you can. When I'm playing a Sonic game, I want to get through the levels as quick as I can. That's the appeal of Sonic next to his attitude. If you want to make something more along the lines of an adventure game, then bloody do it with your own character. Don't drag Sonic into it. If people wanted to play the game you're developing, they'd play Morrowind or Fallout. And even if there's the option to get through the levels as quick as you can, it's going to take some major exploration to do so. It's no longer about "what paths are the right ones to take", it's now "where do I have to be on this path to get the perfect time". No matter what incentives you offer players, they're always going to have to play by your rules to get the desired result. And that goes against your philosophy of "let the player do what they want". The only way you're gonna make everyone happy is if you make the levels even LARGER than you've already made them to incorporate a path for those who want to speedrun, which will frustrate the player as they won't know which one to take. Then, again, why plaster Sonic's face on the product? Again, this would be done better with an original character. You could sell it with an original character as well. This style of gameplay not fit for Sonic. He's always had exploration in his levels, yes, but they've always been linear in design. And they've never been this open or vague. Sonic and realism do not mix. Sonic is a 4 foot tall blue hedgehog, he needs to be in a world that compliments his design. Even more reason why you should've made this your own thing. THEN SHOW IT. You have a bloody trailer now. Talk is cheep, and it means nothing when you have nothing to show. SHOW OFF the underwater physics. SHOW OFF the slope physics. SHOW OFF the additional jump height. Quit wasting memory space in the servers by typing out that you have everything you claim to have and SHOW IT. I should be able to enjoy everything you've put into a game. Again, in trying to appease everyone, you appease no one. This screams lazy design, but whatever. That's pure opinion more than anything else. Then you shouldn't have a goal ring plastered at the end of the stage. If you wanted it to be truly open, you should have a gateway that allows you to travel to the different levels once you're done exploring the one you're in. Having the structure you have in your game defeats the purpose of it being open in the first place. You should have these plastered everywhere so levels don't feel so vast and boring. Part of the fun of an adventure game is having stuff to do in them. No one wants to run around an empty hub with nothing to do, searching for the next trinket. There should be enemies to fight, smaller trinkets to collect, things. That's an issue. You're not giving the player any feeling of consistency, which leads to confusion and frustration. The player shouldn't have to explore the level hundreds of times to get the desired results. Not even the most hardcore of adventure game fans play through the games 100s of times in order to find each and everything thing. The only people who do are speedrunners, and they most likely don't play through the games that much. Again, you're defeating the purpose of an open world. Again mate, consistency! You can't just change up your philosophy sporadically throughout your game, that's bad design. No. No, no, no, no NO! This is the one thing you can't pull the "I do things my own way" on. There are literal theories dedicated to this stuff. There are classes taught on the subject, books written about, and a standard that most, if not all, artists look up to. There is a certain way that things have to look to feel "right" or look "appealing" to humans. Even games that are supposed to feel dreary have splotches of color and brightness to them to keep environments from looking too dull. You're making a Sonic the Hedgehog game, things are supposed to look vibrant. Again, I say this, if you want to make something "different", make your own IP. Mhm. Oh how we go back on our opinions. ...Considering I am your average player, yes. I do think players will notice. I know nothing about color theory, and I know nothing about drawing in general, however I know when something looks off. And your art, my friend, looks off. Just because you think it looks "cool", doesn't mean it looks "good". Being "different" does not equate to looking "good". Look at games like Boarderlands and Telltale's lineup. They both have alternative, but distinguished styles that look good. They stick to the standard rules of art, but add their own personal touches. Tossing in extreme colors though, does not a good stylistic choice make. Muddy colors are not fun to look at. Over saturated and bright colors are not fun to look at. Music and art do not bloody go hand-in-hand. Music has a bit more leeway because what sounds "good" is more broad than what looks "good". Jazz as a genre did well by challenging the standards and doing it's own thing, but even then, it walked a very fine line in regards of what sounded good, and what didn't. And on top of that, it broke out into a subgenre known as Smooth Jazz, which took a little bit of the soul of Jazz, and made it more structured and mournful. Smooth Jazz is also what people think of when they think of Jazz. I wonder why that is. Anyway, even Jazz knew when to stop. It stuck to the basic rules of music in terms of its composition. The difference between Jazz and other forms of music is that the players felt the music as they played. However, the artists still knew what notes went well together, and knew what instruments to harmonize at what times. When your professor told you to break the rules, he wasn't talking about going completely a-wall, he was talking about breaking more nebulous concepts like composing with time signatures in mind, and over all flow of notes tying together. Try strumming a random cord with 3 fingers on your guitar. You'll be lucky if it sounds good. Now try strumming another random cord with 3 fingers. You'll be even luckier of both sound good alone, let alone together in a sequence. The same goes for art. You can't just mash up purple and lime green and expect it to look good. With music and art alike, there are a base set of principles that should not be ignored. Otherwise, the end result will be garbage in both cases. Then focus on a less complex art style. If you can't do something the way you envision it, then tone it down, and do what you can do. That's bad design. You're not making the level hard, by not allowing the player to see where they are, you make it unfair. The player should always be aware of what's coming up ahead. When they can't see obstacles, or their own bloody position in the level, they can't react to it fast enough. Ergo, it becomes unfair. Could've fooled me, considering it looks like Shadow's in the middle of space. Question: Why do you enjoy toying with your audience so much? Do you want to loose every single follower you'll have? Do you want your next project to be ignored? Because that's exactly how you go about doing it. People didn't like it when Rocksteady made them think their Xbox had crapped out on them in Arkham Asylum. Trying to frustrate and confuse your players will always lead to them hating you. TotalBiscut uses a mouse and keyboard in all of his reviews, and the movement looks buttery smooth. There's no excuse for how jaring yours looks. And a poor camera is a big deal. If a player can't properly turn the camera to see where he's going, it's going to lead to, you guessed it, frustration. Trailers usually come out around a year or so before the game itself is actually released. At that point, the game is either nearing the end of beta, or is in the final stage, and touchups are going underway. And the game is most likely near finished by that point. If you look at all the content that was shown off before Arkham Knight's release, everything seemed to be in place. The Batmobile sections, combat mechanics and systems, stealth sections, and even entire portions of the game were shown off, hinting that the game was nearly done. You say that like it means something. Just because you showed off bits and pieces of your work before it was nearly done doesn't mean it was a smart move on your end. And showing off bits and pieces of your game does not equate to making a bloody trailer for it. You mentioned AAA and AA devs releasing trailers for their games before they were out of beta. Well unlike you, they had things of substance to show off. They didn't have sprawling levels with nothing in them. They didn't have shoddy camera wok. They didn't have promised features that weren't shown off in the trailers. You, on the other hand, have given us next to nothing. You've made a trailer that shows off nothing of the game you've promised. You've made a trailer that does more to waste the viewer's time than it does to show why they should be playing the game. You've got all these supposed features in your game, yet you couldn't be bothered to show them off. Bravo good sir. All you've done is spout hot air at us. All we have are empty promises and a disappointing trailer. So by all means, release a trailer early if you want to kill off any and all interest you would've had for your game. You've certainly done that for me. If you want your project to be known for deviling none of the promised features in it's initial media run, then by all means do it. I never said you were breaking any laws. Your cockiness is starting to annoy me. With your UE4 spiel, all I see are excuses, and that's also grating to me, so let's wrap this up. Your inability to handle criticism honestly astounds me. You've literally deflected each and every piece of advice I've offered you, even after I went into explicit detail about my thoughts. There is nothing I have said that you haven't excused in some way. That's not "handling criticism", that's denying that the criticism exists. I'm most likely wasting my time by typing up this incredibly long response in the first place, but I need to say it. I need to get this off my chest. I am so sick of people coming onto the forums, showing off their work, receiving criticism, and shrugging it off like it's nothing. You did it to myself, and you did it to Xeal. We're trying to help you out, and you keep on your merry little path, thinking that your design choices are supreme. When you unveil something to the public, you make it a public product. You are now susceptible to the opinions and critiques of the public. If you want to keep your project tailored to your own wants and desires, then keep it private. Update it as you go along, and make it the best experience you can for yourself. The proper response to someone critiquing your hack that you've shown off to the public, isn't "well I want it this way", it's "how can I incorporate this feedback into my game, and still have it aligned with my vision?" You've made it clear that you want people to follow your game. Well then take the will of the people into account, and you'll get a better public turnout. Like I said, you've completely lost any and all interest I had in the project based on the trailer, and your response to critique thus far. Open your mind to feedback, and stop deflecting everything that doesn't perfectly align with your vision for the game.