I'm completely discouraged with "Dreams", not sure how much more I'm going to play it.

I am unbelievably poor at doing artwork of almost any kind. And that's no exaggeration: I can only "imagine" things in two dimensions, so stick figures-- and even then, not doing any kind of inventive poses-- is quite literally as sophisticated as I get. In part because of that, the game creation systems I've had the most fun and been the most successful with-- ZZT, Megazeux, STOS-- are the ones where you're basically doing low-grade, two-dimensional pixel art.

What's interesting about that, is that I do have excellent aesthetic sensibilities! So when the scope is limited to making little 16x16 pixel tiles or 2-bit color ASCII sets, my games wind up being rather attractive! Even in something like "Super Mario Maker", I think my levels cosmetically were some of the best around. My STOS racing game as well is looking quite pleasing so far.

But you dump me into something like "Dreams", and... forget it. I spent four hours tonight trying to make my own character, and it's so embarrassingly bad that me and my kids were howling with laugher. That extends to trying to make "textures", and pretty much everything else. So the only realistic way I can make a game in it is to either do "pixel art"-- and then why not just make a STOS game at that point?-- or just wholesale rip off other people's stuff, at which point it doesn't even feel like my own game anymore.

I think "Dreams" is clearly more oriented towards designers and creative types. You drop a pure logic, mathematical person like me into it and I'm totally at sea. On the flip-side though, I'd love to see the look on the faces of these designer types were I to sit them down in front of my blurry composite-out, 320x200 CRT Atari ST signal, and pull up my 80-column STOS game source code-- they'd be just as adrift, if not even moreso! Different game creation systems, for different kinds of people.