This is a fictional but realistic report for Ashfall Protocol, a co-op extraction roguelite pitch deck from Night Signal Games. It shows the level of scoring, investor objections, and rewrite guidance customers get in the premium report.
Hook: Four-player smugglers raid a collapsing sky-city, escape with forbidden artifacts, and turn each run into permanent faction control.
Deck Roast Report
Ashfall Protocol sells a sharp co-op fantasy and a memorable visual identity, but the deck still makes investors guess at the market wedge, traction proof, and exactly what the $750K unlocks. It feels fundable after one more rewrite cycle, not as-is.
Overall Grade
B
Roast Type
Full Roast
Investor Verdict
This deck is pitching with heat, but not always with proof.
The report below is built from your uploaded PDF's extracted text. The Art / Visuals section only judges what the deck actually described in text, not unseen image quality.
Red Flags
Missing Sections
No major sections appear missing from the extracted text.
Rewrite Priorities
Section Scores
Section
Verdict
The pain is credible, but the timing argument lands late.
You frame the appetite for replayable co-op well, but the investor only understands the category gap after reading too much setup. The opportunity needs to be obvious by slide two, not discovered in the appendix voice-over.
Rewrite Fix
Open with the gap in one sentence: players want extraction stakes without 40-minute punishment loops, and current hits do not serve that audience cleanly.
Section
Verdict
This is the strongest slide family in the deck.
The core loop is easy to picture, the faction-control meta gives runs consequence, and the artifact risk-reward hook feels commercially legible. This section makes the game sound like a real product instead of a mood board.
Rewrite Fix
Keep the loop diagram, but shorten the copy and add one explicit line on why squads come back after the first five runs.
Section
Verdict
You gesture at a market instead of proving one.
The slide cites big survival and extraction genre numbers, but it never narrows to the actual spenders you plan to win. Publishers are left wondering whether this is a broad PC pitch or a niche Discord-native product.
Rewrite Fix
Swap the giant TAM bullets for a focused bottom-up view using comparable wishlist velocity, conversion benchmarks, and likely launch pricing.
Section
Verdict
The audience exists, but it is still too vibes-heavy.
You know the player psychographic, but the slide treats them like a creative persona instead of a buying segment. Investors need evidence of where these players gather, how they discover games, and what they already buy.
Rewrite Fix
Anchor the audience slide around three signals: current genre spend, creator ecosystems, and communities that already over-index on co-op progression games.
Section
Verdict
The monetization plan is sane, but under-modeled.
Premium pricing plus cosmetic live ops is believable, yet the deck never shows expected ARPU ranges or why cosmetics fit the fiction. Right now the model sounds acceptable, not inevitable.
Rewrite Fix
Add a short pricing table that pairs launch price, DLC cadence, and cosmetic assumptions with one realistic revenue scenario.
Section
Verdict
The team looks capable, but the slide buries its best credentials.
The founders have shipped on recognizable co-op and systems-driven titles, which is exactly what de-risks this genre bet. The problem is that those credits sit in paragraph text instead of doing sales work.
Rewrite Fix
Lead the slide with shipped titles, role ownership, and one sentence on why this specific team is unfairly suited to build this game.
Section
Verdict
This is the shakiest proof slide in the deck.
A closed-playtest waitlist and creator interest are useful signals, but they are not enough on their own to justify urgency. The deck needs harder proof that players return, evangelize, or meaningfully convert after seeing the prototype.
Rewrite Fix
Replace aspiration metrics with hard evidence: current playtest retention, Discord actives, wishlist adds from demo beats, and creator clips that drove measurable traffic.
Section
Verdict
The comp slide is where investor trust dips fastest.
You list comps, but the comparisons feel defensive rather than analytical. If you cannot explain precisely why a player or publisher picks Ashfall Protocol over existing hits, the market story collapses.
Rewrite Fix
Use a simple two-axis map plus a feature row that shows exactly where you win on session length, squad chaos, and long-term meta progression.
Section
Verdict
The visual taste is clear enough to carry premium perception.
Even through text extraction, the deck communicates a strong burnt-neon tone and a readable world fantasy. This is one of the few sections that already feels publisher-ready.
Rewrite Fix
Keep the mood references, but pair them with one slide that shows how the art direction supports gameplay readability and streamer-friendly moments.
Section
Verdict
The raise is present, but the confidence math is missing.
You state the round size, runway, and hiring intent, but you do not show the milestones that make the round feel properly scoped. Investors want to know what changes from day one of funding to the next proof point.
Rewrite Fix
Turn the ask into a milestone ladder covering prototype polish, closed alpha, wishlist target, and publisher conversation triggers, each mapped to budget use.
Ready For The Real Version?
No consultant calls. No waiting on ghosted intros. Just a scored report with red flags, rewrite fixes, and a cleaner story for publishers and investors.