I find this thread very depressing.
While we all agree that there are some abysmal games (the "They really shouldn't make games" category. Sometimes I wonder how many of those are actually adults), where reviews just point out the obvious, in the many games where the developer clearly is putting up an effort, the situation is much more blurred.
I'll throw in two examples:
1)
Indecent Desires has horrible ratings (weighted). In the thread you'll hear a lot of people complaining about a lots of things like the difficulty of finding events that forces to play with a walkthrough, the main plot being lost in a heap of random events, the kinks that make up the main focus not being the ones implied by the game concept and advertisement, and sex scenes being sparse and difficult to find. I'm among those complainers.
Yet, the renders are excellent and the game has decent financial backing.
2)
Battle for Luvia is a complex and very mature game with a deep setting, political intrigue (where you, the player, make a difference), unique mechanics and lots of sex.
Art was unique and ratings were enthusiastic (4.5 stars). I'm playing it and enjoying it a lot and agreeing with the hype.
The game had mediocre to bad financial backing, and ended up being abandoned.
Since I'm writing a game that has much in common, at least in the concept, I had to comb the reviews very carefully to find ones that are critical and see what caused the game to fail.
So we have a successful game and an unsuccessful one. Of both I can't really say if, ultimately, it is/was a good game or a bad game.
So, if success is the only objective criterion we've left with (the main subjective one being "creator's satisfaction") what makes a game a successful one?
As Anne pointed out (I think it was him): success needs at least some level of quality, but in an oversaturated market quality alone doesn't guarantee success. The secret ingredient being... happenstance.
The argument as presented looks sound, and PJWhoopie and yester64's descriptions of how they browse this forum confirm it.
The market being oversaturated by promising prologues with 3 minutes of content that look nice but don't get to version 0.02 suggests to me that a developer should aim to a first release with lots of content.
It means working like a mule for months just to be able to throw your dice once. Once the forumgoers will start to ignore your thread, no new players will be even aware that you exist.
I'm no great businessman, but that sounds like a bad plan.
So you have two paths: do the same old thing ("
Highschooler college guy returns home and starts fucking his single mom and sisters") and ignore the bad reviews you'll get because "that's the same as 100000 other games", hoping that you'll catch a slice of that market with some nice eyecandy.
Or focus on a specific niche: BDSM, guro, futa, loli, etc etc.
Basically, there's little room to be creative. Or at least this seems to be the consensus on this thread.
P.S.
As development threads, go, yester64, I wouldn't put too much weight on them. I saw games that look and sound amazing to me that get exactly zero reactions: it's the same as the game releases thread, but with a smaller base.
PrivateDick's development thread is basically the dev monologuing, and the game, even if failed to meet its Kickstarter objective, still ranks in the thousands.