Game Design Pitch Deck Audit
Audit a game pitch deck as both a persuasion tool and a business-case artifact.
Use this skill to evaluate whether a game pitch deck is clear, compelling, visually readable, and properly structured for publisher or funding conversations. Focus on whether the deck makes a strong case for the team, the game, the opportunity, the ask, and the path to completion.
Core principle
A good pitch deck does not merely describe a game.
It builds confidence in the team, sells the dream of the project, proves the work, frames the opportunity, and makes a realistic ask.
What to produce
Generate:
- Deck overview - what the deck is trying to do and for whom
- Structure audit - whether the core sections are present and in a persuasive order
- Content audit - strengths, gaps, and weak claims
- Visual/readability audit - whether the deck is easy to follow without live narration
- Publisher-fit audit - whether the deck answers the practical questions a publisher or funder will ask
- Recommendations - what to cut, strengthen, reorder, or add
Audit lenses
Audit the deck through these lenses:
- Who - who is making the game and why they are credible
- Why / opportunity - why this project exists and why now
- What - what the game is, what makes it stand out, and what the final vision is
- Proof - what already exists that proves the team can deliver
- Business case - comparables, target audience, monetization, market logic, and opportunity
- Ask - budget, timeline, platforms, scope, and what support is being requested
- Readability - whether the deck works when sent ahead of a meeting without narration
Process
1. Define the deck context
Clarify:
- who the audience is: publisher, investor, platform, partner, grant body
- whether this deck is meant to be sent async, presented live, or both
- what stage the project is in: concept, prototype, vertical slice, production
- whether the deck is accompanied by a build, trailer, GDD, or other materials
2. Audit the high-level structure
Check whether the deck answers the essential questions:
- What are you making?
- Why are you making it?
- Who is making it?
- Where do you want to go?
- What do you need to get there?
- When will you get there?
Also check whether the deck roughly covers:
- team / studio credibility
- artistic why
- business why / opportunity
- dream of the game
- proof of the game
- work / systems / core loop
- market or comparables
- timeline and budget
- summary and contact info
3. Audit the team and credibility section
Ask:
- does the deck establish why this team should be trusted?
- does it show relevant shipped work, experience, or platform familiarity?
- is it concise, or does it waste time on irrelevant biography?
- does it explain who will actually make the game if funded?
4. Audit the game pitch itself
Check for three distinct functions:
- Dream - does the deck sell the final vision of the game?
- Proof - does it show prototype, vertical slice, or other non-speculative evidence?
- Work - does it explain how the game operates, what the core loop is, and why the game is compelling?
Ask:
- is the hook clear quickly?
- are the unique selling points obvious?
- does the deck lean into strengths strongly enough?
- does it show what is familiar and then what is unique?
- does it explain why the game matters, not just what it contains?
5. Audit the business case
Ask:
- does the deck explain the opportunity and target audience?
- are comparables believable and useful rather than vanity references?
- is monetization or business model clearly stated if relevant?
- is the market framing grounded, or just wishful genre enthusiasm?
- does the deck sell the collaboration case, not just the product fantasy?
6. Audit the ask
Check whether the deck makes a realistic ask around:
- budget
- timeline
- platforms
- release window
- build status
- support needed
Ask:
- is the budget plausible and safely scoped?
- are the timeline ratios believable?
- is the ask too low in a way that signals inexperience?
- does the deck separate development needs from broader publishing or marketing assumptions when relevant?
7. Audit deck usability and readability
Ask:
- does the deck work without live commentary?
- is the text readable and concise?
- are the slides overcrowded?
- does imagery carry the message effectively?
- are GIFs, videos, mockups, or key art used meaningfully?
- is the style aligned with the tone of the game?
- does the deck avoid pointless bullet sludge?
8. Audit submission readiness
If the deck is intended for publishers, check whether the package likely includes or references:
- a playable build
- control notes if needed
- skippable cutscenes or checkpoints if relevant to the build
- budget in practical terms
- timeline to release
- supplementary materials that help a stranger understand the project quickly
9. Diagnose common failure patterns
Common pitch-deck failure patterns:
- Identity fog - unclear what the game actually is
- Dream without proof - strong fantasy, weak evidence
- Proof without dream - lots of prototype facts, no compelling vision
- Bio bloat - too much team info with too little relevance
- Market handwaving - vague business claims with weak comparables
- Budget naivety - undercooked ask or unrealistic timeline
- Narration dependency - deck only works if someone explains everything live
- Template autopilot - all the right sections exist, but the deck says nothing memorable
- Visual sludge - unreadable, cramped, or aesthetically disconnected from the game
10. Convert findings into recommendations
For each issue, specify:
- Problem
- Why it hurts the pitch
- Fix direction
- Priority - critical / important / polish
Response structure
Deck Overview
Structure Audit
- Present: ...
- Missing or weak: ...
Content Audit
- Team credibility: ...
- Game hook: ...
- Proof: ...
- Business case: ...
- Ask: ...
Visual / Readability Audit
Publisher-Fit Audit
Failure Patterns
Recommendations
- ...
- ...
- ...
Fast mode
- What is the game?
- Why this team?
- Why this opportunity?
- What proof already exists?
- What is the ask?
- Would this deck still make sense if read without you in the room?
References
Read these when useful:
references/pitch-deck-notes.md for distilled deck structure and slide expectations from the templatesreferences/raw-fury-notes.md for the Raw Fury-specific pitch expectations
Working principle
A good pitch deck should make a stranger understand the game, trust the team, believe the opportunity, and feel the ask is grounded.
1---2name: game-design-pitch-deck-audit3description: Audit a video game pitch deck, publisher deck, funding deck, or investor-facing game presentation for clarity, structure, persuasiveness, visual readability, business-case completeness, and publisher-fit. Use when reviewing a pitch deck before sending to publishers, polishing a deck for meetings, checking whether the deck answers the essential questions about who, what, why, when, budget, and opportunity, or evaluating whether a deck sells both the game and the collaboration case rather than just dumping information.4---56# Game Design Pitch Deck Audit78Audit a game pitch deck as both a persuasion tool and a business-case artifact.910Use this skill to evaluate whether a game pitch deck is clear, compelling, visually readable, and properly structured for publisher or funding conversations. Focus on whether the deck makes a strong case for the team, the game, the opportunity, the ask, and the path to completion.1112## Core principle1314A good pitch deck does not merely describe a game.15It builds confidence in the team, sells the dream of the project, proves the work, frames the opportunity, and makes a realistic ask.1617## What to produce1819Generate:201. **Deck overview** - what the deck is trying to do and for whom212. **Structure audit** - whether the core sections are present and in a persuasive order223. **Content audit** - strengths, gaps, and weak claims234. **Visual/readability audit** - whether the deck is easy to follow without live narration245. **Publisher-fit audit** - whether the deck answers the practical questions a publisher or funder will ask256. **Recommendations** - what to cut, strengthen, reorder, or add2627## Audit lenses2829Audit the deck through these lenses:30- **Who** - who is making the game and why they are credible31- **Why / opportunity** - why this project exists and why now32- **What** - what the game is, what makes it stand out, and what the final vision is33- **Proof** - what already exists that proves the team can deliver34- **Business case** - comparables, target audience, monetization, market logic, and opportunity35- **Ask** - budget, timeline, platforms, scope, and what support is being requested36- **Readability** - whether the deck works when sent ahead of a meeting without narration3738## Process3940### 1. Define the deck context41Clarify:42- who the audience is: publisher, investor, platform, partner, grant body43- whether this deck is meant to be sent async, presented live, or both44- what stage the project is in: concept, prototype, vertical slice, production45- whether the deck is accompanied by a build, trailer, GDD, or other materials4647### 2. Audit the high-level structure48Check whether the deck answers the essential questions:49- What are you making?50- Why are you making it?51- Who is making it?52- Where do you want to go?53- What do you need to get there?54- When will you get there?5556Also check whether the deck roughly covers:57- team / studio credibility58- artistic why59- business why / opportunity60- dream of the game61- proof of the game62- work / systems / core loop63- market or comparables64- timeline and budget65- summary and contact info6667### 3. Audit the team and credibility section68Ask:69- does the deck establish why this team should be trusted?70- does it show relevant shipped work, experience, or platform familiarity?71- is it concise, or does it waste time on irrelevant biography?72- does it explain who will actually make the game if funded?7374### 4. Audit the game pitch itself75Check for three distinct functions:76- **Dream** - does the deck sell the final vision of the game?77- **Proof** - does it show prototype, vertical slice, or other non-speculative evidence?78- **Work** - does it explain how the game operates, what the core loop is, and why the game is compelling?7980Ask:81- is the hook clear quickly?82- are the unique selling points obvious?83- does the deck lean into strengths strongly enough?84- does it show what is familiar and then what is unique?85- does it explain why the game matters, not just what it contains?8687### 5. Audit the business case88Ask:89- does the deck explain the opportunity and target audience?90- are comparables believable and useful rather than vanity references?91- is monetization or business model clearly stated if relevant?92- is the market framing grounded, or just wishful genre enthusiasm?93- does the deck sell the collaboration case, not just the product fantasy?9495### 6. Audit the ask96Check whether the deck makes a realistic ask around:97- budget98- timeline99- platforms100- release window101- build status102- support needed103104Ask:105- is the budget plausible and safely scoped?106- are the timeline ratios believable?107- is the ask too low in a way that signals inexperience?108- does the deck separate development needs from broader publishing or marketing assumptions when relevant?109110### 7. Audit deck usability and readability111Ask:112- does the deck work without live commentary?113- is the text readable and concise?114- are the slides overcrowded?115- does imagery carry the message effectively?116- are GIFs, videos, mockups, or key art used meaningfully?117- is the style aligned with the tone of the game?118- does the deck avoid pointless bullet sludge?119120### 8. Audit submission readiness121If the deck is intended for publishers, check whether the package likely includes or references:122- a playable build123- control notes if needed124- skippable cutscenes or checkpoints if relevant to the build125- budget in practical terms126- timeline to release127- supplementary materials that help a stranger understand the project quickly128129### 9. Diagnose common failure patterns130Common pitch-deck failure patterns:131- **Identity fog** - unclear what the game actually is132- **Dream without proof** - strong fantasy, weak evidence133- **Proof without dream** - lots of prototype facts, no compelling vision134- **Bio bloat** - too much team info with too little relevance135- **Market handwaving** - vague business claims with weak comparables136- **Budget naivety** - undercooked ask or unrealistic timeline137- **Narration dependency** - deck only works if someone explains everything live138- **Template autopilot** - all the right sections exist, but the deck says nothing memorable139- **Visual sludge** - unreadable, cramped, or aesthetically disconnected from the game140141### 10. Convert findings into recommendations142For each issue, specify:143- **Problem**144- **Why it hurts the pitch**145- **Fix direction**146- **Priority** - critical / important / polish147148## Response structure149150### Deck Overview151- ...152153### Structure Audit154- Present: ...155- Missing or weak: ...156157### Content Audit158- Team credibility: ...159- Game hook: ...160- Proof: ...161- Business case: ...162- Ask: ...163164### Visual / Readability Audit165- ...166167### Publisher-Fit Audit168- ...169170### Failure Patterns171- ...172173### Recommendations1741. ...1752. ...1763. ...177178## Fast mode179- What is the game?180- Why this team?181- Why this opportunity?182- What proof already exists?183- What is the ask?184- Would this deck still make sense if read without you in the room?185186## References187188Read these when useful:189- `references/pitch-deck-notes.md` for distilled deck structure and slide expectations from the templates190- `references/raw-fury-notes.md` for the Raw Fury-specific pitch expectations191192## Working principle193194A good pitch deck should make a stranger understand the game, trust the team, believe the opportunity, and feel the ask is grounded.
Stanestane