This member has provided no bio about themself...
Game Review on Jun 30th, 2013 - 1 person agrees 1 person doesn't
The graphics and the other aspects of the presentation are good, especially the "notepaper" style UI.
As a roguelike it's a simple and fun one. It's still a lot more challenging that you'd expect given the "child-friendly" look of it. By simple I mean for example you don't have an inventory as such, you can just swap stuff you find with whatever you have in that slot, you can only fire ranged weapons in the 8 main directions rather than free targetting- things like that.
What the game badly needs in my opinion is ability to move and attack with the keyboard instead of the mouse. There's too much clicking for me. Basically if there's "danger" with nearby monsters you have to click once for every square you move. When you attack monsters you have to click once for every attack.
I have asked the devs if support would be added for movement and attacking via keyboard and they said "Because we have a cursor, keyboard controls were too clunky. You can hold down left click to move, when safe". As a roguelike developer myself I'm not happy with this answer so I have had to adjust my score for the game unfortunately.
Game Review on Apr 19th, 2013 - 2 people agree 2 people don't
I'm reviewing the game as it is now. It's overpriced, overambitious and at least some of the videos for it, e.g. the one that groupees used when they put it in a bundle show all sorts of content that is not in the game at all and may never be for all we know.
Basically what you get now is a minecraft-like experience, but limited. You can dig and you can build things. It's interesting building things in high-res polygons blobs instead of cubes but it's not even as good as minecraft at the moment, e.g. the water is basically just another block type, not flowing or swimmable, there's no programmability like minecraft has. There's no mobs or combat, and the selection cursor is "quirky". Also you can easily fall through the world, and you "see" through the world often. (Mind you I suppose you do in minecraft too hehe).
I just think this project is over-ambitious. They aim to make it this big rpg with npcs and quests and combat and all this stuff. It's either going to take years and years to do or it's not going to happen at all.
The price is an absolute joke. Setting the notional full price as the same as new AAA games like Bioshock infinite? Even with all the planned features this game, because it would be indie and less polished, would normally have a price tag of about $20 new, with discounts following soon after. I think they only set the price so high so they could charge a high price for the alpha and say it's 75% off. It's not worth it.
Game Review on Apr 18th, 2013 - 5 people agree
I'm reviewing the game as it stands now. If it gets better I will upgrade my score.
1 When you go into options then back out it resets the size of your screen to small whether you are windowed or not.
2 The option to set controls does not work and the controls are not mentioned anywhere. For other people: **E** is take web or open chest.
When you look at a slime/blob on the floor you get a dotted line at the top of it horizontally.
3 Personal preference but I prefer retro chunky pixel games to stick to retro pixels rather than using polygons for some things as are done here.
4 The dungeon generation algorithm is broken and will frequently generate a level where you cannot get to the stairs down.
5 Thankfully I suppose, given the above, when you go up or down stairs the level is regenerated.
If this were a 7DRL (7 day roguelike) it would be quite good (there were several this year that were this good) but as a paid-for alpha, especially when the author's twitter has a message in the past saying he is going to stop working on it, well...
Game Review on Mar 6th, 2013 - 3 people agree 10 people don't
This game is not well-balanced with respect to the difficulty the player experiences as the game goes in.
Basically it seems there is too much randomness and not enough procedural stuff going on in the design of levels. As others have pointed out, you can start out surrounded by three enemies. Also you can start out in a room with multiple locked doors to get out and it is boring as hell battering yourself on the doors and losing most of your hp, then resting for tedious amounts of time until the game will let you try again (there's stamina points to consider in addition to hp). You can even die on doors before you get attacked by a monster.
The developer seems to offer two excuses for this:
1) Once you have played for a while you get these persistant character traits or perks or something that make it all much easier, so you'll never be in danger of dying on the first few levels.
--well that just sounds boring the other way round. Am I to assume that the only time I will ever have fun on the first few levels if for some small, unrepeatable time when I have gained some perks but not all, such that the first few levels are not too hard and not too easy?
2) A run can last 10 to 20 hours so what do the first five minutes matter? The implication being that players should keep starting over until they get a good start position.
--I'm not going to keep starting over until I get a good starting position to make up for the developer not being able to procedurally write starting positions that are not super-deadly. A roguelike game written in 7 days, in the upcoming 7drl competition (starts 9th march) would be roundly criticised if it operated like this game does.
The above things are my main objection but there's also the cringe-worthy way the tutorial calls your character your "toon", the fact that full keyboard control seems to be thrown in as an afterthought, the assumption being you'll use the mouse.
Seriously, don't buy this. Get Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup free
Game Review on Aug 19th, 2012
It's not actually really bad it's just too simplistic for my tastes. I need depth and complexity in my roguelikes. I like the sprites though. The sequel is LOTS LOTS LOTS BETTER.
Game Review on Aug 18th, 2012 - 1 person doesn't