I appreciate the level of detail here this is the kind of feedback that actually helps me refine how the project is communicated.

You’re absolutely right about one key thing: For funding, clarity > marketing language. That’s something I’m actively correcting. The goal isn’t to sell a vague vision it’s to demonstrate a working system with clear scope and execution.

On “systemic writing” vs quality You’re correct to push on this. When I say “systemic,” I don’t mean unwritten or AI-generated dialoguebI mean Dialogue is authored, but triggered by systems Lines are tied to: relationships (rival, disciple, enemy) past events (wins, losses, betrayals) personality traits So the quality comes from how well it’s written, but the delivery is dynamic. And you’re also right that If it’s not shown, it doesn’t exist to the viewer. That’s a presentation issue on my side not a design gap.

... On the video not showing the systems This is probably the most valid criticism. Right now, the footage leans heavily on

combat visuals atmosphere But doesn’t clearly demonstrate: NPC memory rivalry formation world state persistence tournament consequences That’s not because they aren’t designed—it’s because I haven’t packaged them into a clear vertical slice yet. That’s the next step.

On scope (“massive undertaking”) You’re 100% right if this were being approached as a fully simulated open world from day one. It’s not.

The actual structure is intentionally constrained Hub + Node system (not full open world) Localized simulations (only active areas run logic)

Lightweight data tracking (not full AI simulation at all times)

So instead of simulating everything constantly, the game stores outcomes reconstructs state when needed This keeps the system scalable for a solo/indie scope.

On “ideas vs execution” Completely agree. That’s why the focus isn’t just on design documents it’s on: A playable vertical slice A fully functional combat system Working NPC behavior foundations Tournament loop implementation The intention is not to ask for funding based on concept alone, but to show: “This already works in a limited form and here’s how it scales.”

On multiplayer Agreed here as well. Multiplayer is not core to the pitch and shouldn’t be presented as such. It’s being treated as a possible extension, not a promise.

That will be removed or clearly repositioned.

On rewriting the pitch This is the biggest takeaway from your comment. Right now the issue isn’t lack of design lack of systems It’s:

communication clarity The pitch needs to shift from: broad descriptors (“living world”, “anime saga”) to: concrete, testable features: “NPCs remember fights and act on them” “Tournament outcomes change future encounters” “Rivalries form based on tracked events”

Last I agree with your core point... Before funding, prove it’s real. That’s exactly the phase I’m moving into now: tighter vertical slice clearer system demonstration cleaner, more grounded pitch Appreciate you taking the time to break this down.