Loading page
Choose the one design decision you want the board to compare before collecting images. Valve values viewing finishes in-game. For an original loop-and-dot finish, compare a simpler dot cluster against the earlier cluster while keeping the intended viewing task stable. The board should show what the revision changed, not reward whichever version happened to receive the most favourable presentation.
| Board element | Version A | Version B |
|---|---|---|
| Main loop | Original arrangement | Same arrangement |
| Dot cluster | Dense supporting group | Simplified supporting group |
| Review question | Is the loop still primary? | Is the loop easier to locate? |
Use your own loop-and-dot artwork. The contract is a working note, not a software feature or formal approval. Keep the source revisions identifiable so that the board refers to two actual saved drafts rather than a memory of an earlier appearance.
Write down the motif, colour relationship and relevant viewing task that stay stable. This makes accidental differences easier to spot. If the loop moved while you simplified the dots, either restore its original placement or describe the comparison as involving two decisions.
There is no benefit in pretending a broad redesign was a controlled single edit. A wider comparison can still be useful, but its conclusion should be more limited because the cause of the result is less clear.
Place comparable views next to each other and label the question each pair answers. One pair may address the overall hierarchy; another may locate the junction between loop and dots. Do not compare a large side image of A with a small player view of B as if they were equivalent evidence.
The in-hand composition guide and lighting comparison help define those tasks. Keep the image conditions explicit enough to understand what the pair can show.
Write what changed in the reading order. For example, the loop appears first in B, while the supporting rhythm feels quieter. This describes a trade-off rather than concealing it inside “B is better.” Decide whether that trade-off serves the original intention.
The salience review helps organise attention observations. If the visible difference is too small to explain, do not invent a dramatic benefit. You may need a different relevant view or may conclude that the revision has little practical effect.
Add a note for any paired view that favours A. Perhaps its dense dots support the loop from one direction even though they crowd it elsewhere. Keep that result visible so the next revision can preserve the useful relationship.
The screenshot guide can support documentation, but the board is not an export tutorial or an owned-inventory comparison. You are reviewing authored design drafts; neither image establishes a new item’s existence, price or properties.
Choose whether to retain A, retain B or create a narrower follow-up. Explain the decision in one sentence and preserve both source references. A sensible next step might keep B’s simpler upper cluster while reconsidering a lower gap exposed in the player view.
The submission explanation concerns a later stage. A preview does not modify Steam inventory, and a favourable board is not a selection guarantee. The outcome is a clear revision decision supported by paired observations, not a claim that the newest draft must always win.
Source checked on 3 November 2026. The reference supports presentation requirements; the exercises concern your own project.
What you should know before you begin.
Yes, but identify all meaningful changes and avoid attributing the result to just one of them.
Keep the trade-off and return to the intended viewing priority. A targeted follow-up may preserve the strengths of both.
No. Record the limited effect honestly rather than inventing a decisive improvement.
