My tutorial submission has been declined. Can you review it and tell me why?

Hi all,
I have recently made an extensive tutorial on how to make an Angry Birds-Like game, including all assets, scripts, comments and so on. I thought that my design is modular and easily adaptable. However, it has been declined by asset store team with the following reason

"We feel this package isn't set up in an intuitive way for users to learn, adapt, and build up their own projects"

Therefore, I decided to share it here with the community to help me figuring out what is really the problem with my tutorial.

You can try the web player live demo here:
http://unityschool.me/wp-content/uploads/external/AngryAnimals/WebBuild.html

The complete project is available here
http://unityschool.me/wp-content/uploads/external/AngryAnimals/AngryAnimals.zip

Thanks in advance for any help

 

Hey Yasser

Here is some feedback based off of playing the web player build.
- There is no instruction for the player in the game. I know it's an angry birds clone, but imo instructions should at least be an optional button on the menu screen for all games.
- I think this really needs a zoom in zoom out function. Scrolling right and left was really fast and didn't look/feel good.
- Was there any difference in the "type" of projectile for different animals? If yes is this organized in the project to be logical? If no - that might be a point Unity didn't feel was up to the quality they desire.
- There was no difference in the way the different animals flew through the air. That is one part of the original angry birds which made each bird unique and I think this project doesn't cover.

I'm not a coder so I can't supply and suggestions on project creation beyond the common suggestions found here on the forum and throughout the web.

Seems like you got some quality feedback compared to other projects recently rejected. Use this as directions to update and resubmit.

 

Thanks for your feedback. In fact, the tutorial is targeted to programmers not players, and that's why I have somehow ignored in-game instructions. BTW, you can zoom by dragging with the right mouse button, and there are differences between the animals in the "special attack" which is performed after launching the projectile. If you click the left mouse button anywhere in the scene after launching a projectile, it will do a special attack.
I have viewed some of the published tutorials, and they look rather simple compared to mine. Maybe it is too advanced to be a tutorial (I have implemented some design patterns and best practices from experts' blogs). This project was originally built to be part of a series of lessons I am going to publish soon, and these lessons are spread over 100+ pages. So now, I <maybe> know why it is not accepted as "tutorial": indeed it is not intuitive, it needs lots of explanations as it has many WHY's

 

Good point - but I think setting up the instructions as a programmer would normally do would add quality - maybe only very little - to the asset pack.

Oh - I see - the controls or tutorial page would be helpful for delivering info to the player - which is something I think is important for the developer to perform.

Answers for why you did this is - in this part is very helpful for learning beyond the initial instruction. I think you have a quality project. imo the best instruction gives the concept of settings something up - while performing the setup process - so the learner can hopefully retain that information and use it in a different applications beyond the scope of the tutorial.
Maybe asking a couple other programmer/developers to look at it objectively could give you some better feedback on why the package doesn't feel intuitive.

 

That's exactly the reason for posting the project here: I wanted programmers to review it and tell me their opinions. However, maybe jumping to the best practices in a tutorial isn't always a good idea. Those who have completed one or two game projects using Unity might recognize my design decisions, but beginners would see it unnecessarily complicated