How honest should you be in your postmortem when the game just wasn't good enough?
I've been reflecting on some of the postmortems I've read lately, including the ones where devs pour their hearts out about marketing failures, bad timing, wrong platform, algorithm changes, and so on. And I've noticed a pattern: we rarely just say the game needed more work.
I get it. It's brutal to admit publicly. You spent years on something and the instinct is to find external reasons it didn't land. But I wonder if the community would actually benefit more from devs being radically honest, including about design mistakes, scope problems, or just shipping something that wasn't quite there yet.
There's also a practical question: if you're writing a postmortem primarily to help other devs learn, does softening the selfcriticism make it less useful? Or does some level of charitable framing help you actually publish it at all, which is better than silence?
I'm working on documenting my own project's struggles and trying to figure out where the line is between constructive reflection and just beating myself up publicly in a way that helps nobody.
Has anyone written or read a postmortem that felt genuinely, almost uncomfortably honest? What made it useful or not?