Paranautical Activity – Early Access Review (PC)

A mess of ideas masquerading as a Roguelike – Paranautical Activity

paranautical-activity

“You know what’s really cool?” asked Game Designer A, “Minecraft.” “Ooooh yes,” said Game Designer B, “We should make a game like that!” But after some thought they realised that that might be a lot of work, because Minecraft is actually a fairly complex, well balanced game with some pretty rich mechanics. “Well then, maybe we could just make a game that looks like Minecraft – you know, just use cubes for everything and call it done. That’s hip right? Oh! And you know what else? Since we can’t really bothered with something as dull as level design, lets just throw a bunch of rooms together and have some code shove them at random into the world and call that a level. We’ll call it a Roguelike – that’s the cool word everyone is using.”

At which point I hope some measure of sanity came into the conversation. “But what is the player actually going to do in this random thrown together hodge-podge of shit game world?” I would like to think one of them asked. All our hopes and dreams for the title were dashed when the phrase “Well, everyone likes old FPS games – let’s make it like Doom!” was uttered.

If this isn’t how the design document for Paranautical Activity was created, then I’d bet a reasonable sum of money it’s close. This is a game that is far more interested in being trendy and ticking buzzword boxes than it is in things like design or gameplay. The soundtrack is dubstep, the walls of the rooms you play in don’t quite join in the corners, which should tell you everything you need to know about this hot mess. It can’t even decide if it’s a game based around a nautical theme (which would fit with the name, the game icon and the logo shown during the startup dialog), or a game set in Hell (which would fit with… well none of these, but would explain the Diablo enemies).

paranautical-activity

Just for fun though, let’s dig a bit deeper. When you start the game, you’re confronted with a low-production value menu, and clicking play will (at least on my fairly powerful machine including an SSD that can load AAA games pretty smoothly) cause the whole thing to hang for long enough that at first you start to wonder if maybe your machine crashed. You start out in a cage apparently made of lego, holding a gun also apparently made of lego. Depending on the layout of the map that has been generated there will be between 1 and 4 rooms linked from the one the cage is placed in. Walking into a room causes the doors to close and enemies to spawn, and you’re trapped with them until you kill them all. You have 6 health units and each time you’re hit you will lose one. Killed enemies drop lego-hearts, lego-shields and lego-coins. If you can find the gift shop in the level, then you can buy things like health packs and power ups. There’s a boss room and then you progress to the next level, rinse and repeat.

The production value put into this game is by far the biggest problem. There has been no apparent effort made to polish or tune it. The gift shop is a big room the same size and shape as all the others with 3 pedestals in the middle of it, which may or may not be facing the door because nobody bothered to rotate them. The items they have on them are picked seemingly at random, so in level one, you are frequently offered items you couldn’t possibly afford given NPCs available to kill. Like I already mentioned, some of the walls in the level don’t quite meet in the corners, which is a pretty fundamental issue. The rooms that are used for the set-pieces often have unreachable areas, and enemies get stuck on level geometry or fall into sunken areas and can’t get up.

paranautical-activity

So now I’m going to get a bit technical, because as a game developer and an AI specialist, one of the things I’ve worked on extensively is the kind of procedural level generation system that you might use to generate a dungeon for a Roguelike game and it pains me, deep down in my soul, to see it done so appallingly badly. This is something that we’re seeing more and more, because it makes life a lot easier for developers by cutting down the amount of content needed. Instead of having to make each level by hand, you make some basic building blocks that can fit together in a mix-and-match style. The trick is then to combine them in interesting ways, that engage and entertain the player and also manage things like pacing and difficulty. That doesn’t mean slapping them down any old way as it seems the Code Avarice team thinks, and it also doesn’t mean making spaces that are identical generic grey boxes filled with stuff. If it did, then the whole area wouldn’t be of interest to us in the AI field, and there wouldn’t be so much interest in the games that are doing it right. Spelunky is a great example, and one the developers themselves invoke. This is about as far from Spelunky as you can get.

Overall, this looks and feels like a game created during a 48 hour game jam. The visual style, rather than tapping into the voxel zeitgeist, serves primarily to showcase the lack of originality at work throughout the rest of the product. It’s drab, it’s humdrum, it’s an attempt to claim the lowest hanging fruit of multiple different buzzwords by throwing nostalgia and “me too” at them, without any attention to the details or the experience. It’s lazy and sloppy and at $5.99 it isn’t remotely worth the asking price.

Bottom line? It’s a game and you can play it. Why you’d want to is completely beyond me.

Paranautical Activity is currently still in Beta. This does not, however, mitigate the many issues the game currently has. Upon completion of Paranautical Activity’s development cycle we will revisit it to see how things have changed.

  • DLTyrus

    A mess of ideas, masquerading as a review.

    • Spooder

      #shotsfired

  • Oddsock

    This review is totally out of perspective. Some background research could have helped and you wouldn’t come out as a really mean person hating on a very young developer couple. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure PA is the second game Code Avarice published together?

    Let’s just don’t forget, that the game is still under construction as well. You’re reviewing unfinished work in a very harsh way and that without even mentioning “Beta” once.

    • Ryan Mc Donagh

      I stand firmly behind Luke’s piece as I know him to be fair and balanced. That said, I will add afootnote to remind users that the game is still in Beta. When the game completes its development cycle a re-review will be written, to see how things have changed. I believe this to be more than fair.

      • Matt Smith

        but his review in essence is bollocks. He ridicules a lvl design that is proven winner. Backing this reduces the validity of the website as a whole.

        • Ryan Mc Donagh

          To quote “The Dude” – ‘That’s just , like, your opinion, man’. Just like this is Luke’s opinion. You don’t agree with it and that is fair enough.

          Luke was not ridiculing random generation as a whole, rather that he found the way in which PA utilised it , to be lacklustre.

          • Matt Smith

            No he wasn’t. He made no specific reference to poor utilisation, he specifically rubbished the concept and I quote again;

            “Since we can’t really bothered with something as dull as level design, lets just throw a bunch of rooms together and have some code shove them at random into the world and call that a level.”

            sorry but that is the fact of the matter and what makes the whole review pathetic. Maybe read the review again yourself to establish what he said.

          • Bill Crosbie

            Matt, you misread Luke on this point. The quote you pulled was from him hypothesizing what the developers must have been saying. Was it harsh? yes. but since this is a review and it is Luke’s opinion, he is entitled to try to make sense of the developer’s design process in whatever way he will. And in so doing he is offering commentary that this particular design choice plays out in a failed attempt at doing it right.

            Reread the section in this light and see if you see where I’m coming from.

          • Matt Smith

            Whichever way I read it the hypothesis is wrong. Regardless of his intention (hidden or not) his specific comment is a valid and much used design process. Making the statement in order to undermine the design process that actually occurred is an oxymoron in itself.

            A well balanced, informed and reasoned NEGATIVE review scoring 2.0 is indeed the reviewer’s opinion. Not everybody has to like or agree with it but this snide piece of misinformed and misleading drivel is none of those things.

            In the words of TotalBiscuit (1.1 million youtube subscribers ) “this is actually one of the worst written reviews I’ve ever seen. Opening up with a logical fallacy didnt help”

  • Matt Smith

    Did you even play this game? Clearly you nothing about the indie game scene…

    One of the greatest and most loved indie games is Binding of Isaac. Would you use the phrase

    “Since we can’t really bothered with something as dull as level design, lets just throw a bunch of rooms together and have some code shove them at random into the world and call that a level. We’ll call it a Roguelike – that’s the cool word everyone is using.”

    Along with

    “But what is the player actually going to do in this random thrown together hodge-podge of shit game world?”

    No? Yet that is how Isaac works. Had you bothered to play the game or knew anything about games you’d have made a more compelling, less look at me review.

    You’re out of your depth, trying to be a hipster reviewer on a topic you are ill prepared to discuss. Find a new career before you bring more shame onto this website.

  • Robin B

    Ad hominems and Cherrypicking? Not sure who’s ill prepared here …

    Now, I have only seen videos of Paranautical Activity so I won’t comment on that, but I’ll rather defend Binding Isaac. Using Binding Isaac as an example that square rooms are acceptable in any game is a bit of a bold statement, and saying that it’s a hodge-podge of shit game world (I know those weren’t your words, but you used the quote to make the connection) while it has a clear artistic vision and story is quite brazen.

    • Matt Smith

      It was a reference to randomised room placement not square rooms and as such is a valid comparative. The reviewer made the assumption that this was an invalid design feature, I simply pointed out that one of the greatest Indie Games of all time utilised that very feature,

  • Robin B

    Are you saying you shouldn’t be able to review games if you haven’t made a blockbuster yourself? I wonder how many good games journalists would be out of business…

    Or are you saying that “to make a video shitting” on someone elses game is a adequate response that somehow makes your point more valid?

    • Green9090

      I’m saying that claiming to be a game developer and AI expert when your game literally looks like a highschool programming project is laughable. I’m further saying that if this guy feels comfortable shitting on a well made and interesting game to make himself look intelligent, he deserves the same done to his work.

    • ryanemm

      Thank you for the Defcon bot API. That game used to be great back in the day.

  • Spooder

    True true. Oh well, guess he’ll just have to fade back into obscurity.

  • Merc

    Okay let me get this straight. Due to the “many issues” of the game
    you are giving this a flat 2 out of 10 (the lowest score this site has
    ever given)!

    Let’s go over these issues shall we?
    1) You dislike the art-style, claiming it is copying Minecraft.
    Well first, opinions, and secondly I could argue the simplicity of the
    graphics is to ensure that you can clearly tell what is going on at any
    given moment.

    2) Procedurally generated worlds means the devs are skimping on level design.
    Are you just going to ignore the actual room design? I’m pretty certain that counts as “level design”.

    3) Dubstep
    It isn’t even dubstep… (it is more of a drum ‘n’ bass/hardstyle) and if you don’t like the music there is a slider there for a reason. Would you rather they go with a chiptune soundtrack? I bet you would nitpick that as well.

    4) Walls sometimes don’t connect in the corner.
    OH GOD EVERYONE PANIC THE GAME IS BROKEN. Is that seriously hampering your enjoyment of a work-in-progress game THAT much?

    5) Submarine or Hell, which is it?!
    Why can’t it be both?

    6) The shop, which doesn’t face the door and sometimes offers items you can’t buy.
    Because taking the two extra seconds to move yourself in a position to see the items is THAT difficult. And have you played any other rogue-likes? You often don’t have the chance to get every item you find..

    7) The procedural floor design doesn’t match Spelunky’s caliber.
    While it is clear that Spelunky has better level design, does that really mean that every game has to take that into account when they are procedurally generated? As people have mentioned, the idea is for this game is to iterate upon the Binding of Isaac, and frankly it does that just fine.

    To me it sounds like you are upset at how the floors are generated and wanted to take it out on the game as a whole. That is essentially the ONLY valid point you have in this review, and you nitpick on things that are hardly an issue. And you don’t even mention this is a product in beta, instead making someone else from the site cover for your mistake.

    Frankly, I believe you are lucky that you have reviewed this game and claimed it is worth a 2 out of 10. You received maybe a couple dozen hits because of it! 😀
    Now excuse me as I forget about this website’s existence.

    • Matt Smith

      This ^^

  • Whateven

    Constructive criticism is dandy, but you can tell from the first block of text that this “review” is vindictive (and childish/unprofessional).

    • ryanemm

      Critics are not obliged to give constructive criticism.

      • Matt Smith

        good critics are.

        The word critic comes from Greek κριτικός (kritikós), “able to discern”,[1] which is a Greek derivation from the word κριτής (krités), meaning a person who offers reasoned judgment or analysis, value judgment, interpretation, or observation.[2]

        • ryanemm

          I don’t wish to turn this into a debate about who should be doing what. That said, writers really aren’t obligated to write how you want them to.

          • Matt Smith

            I’m offering constructive criticism. Write a negative review not a bad review, there’s a big difference.

          • ryanemm

            I appreciate that. I don’t like to stifle creativity by demanding how things should be written. My own writing stlye is a little different. That said, I can be equally as brutal – see my StarDrive review for example. Anyway, have a nice day and hopefully you like some of our other content seeing as you did not like this particular piece.

          • Matt Smith

            I sent Luke a direct message to the same effect. The fact he disliked the game 100% ok. But ‘d like to read something constructive. Maybe next time

  • Lee Barnett

    Not gonna lie, this was a… pretty terrible “review” of a game.

    You claim you’re an “AI Specialist”? Why don’t you actually explain why the gameplay is bad, rather than do nothing but write paragraph upon paragraph of fancy wording and “clever” one-liners that realistically only say one thing. “I didn’t like the aesthetic choice that these developers made”.

    I don’t think it’s even possible for me to care less about your opinion on the art style chosen for this game. Tell me about the gameplay. In-depth. And stop padding the freaking paragraphs with these pointless sentences that do nothing but reaffirm your ideas in a reworded sentence.

    The only technical related issues I read in your article were that you didn’t like the procedural generation, and that the individual areas are bad.

    Why was this random generation so bad? You didn’t even explain it!! It does it exactly the same as The Binding of Isaac and Spelunky (The game you so praised). It takes a series of pre-created box shaped areas and procedural generates them in a method so the the player can beat the stage, but also doesn’t know the layout of it

    Alright, I’ll give you credit, you explained why you didn’t like individual areas. Good for you! Now explain it more in-depth. What are this areas that the enemies sink into? Can they still attack from there? Does it force the player to get in close to attack them? If so, those are deliberate and good sink holes. How’s about the areas the player can’t get to. Do they hold any significance? Is there anything in there the player would want? Could enemies get stuck in those spaces, halting further progression of the game?

    Seriously, this was a terrible review, filled with nothing but your own sully opinions on the aesthetic choice, padded with different sentences saying the same thing over and over again, and quickly glossing over the important parts, the gameplay and mechanics.

    I see this is your first review, so hopefully this was simply a bad first attempt, but seriously. Step it up, or you will be a joke in the reviewing industry.

    • Matt Smith

      also this ^^. Sad that readers make for better and more coherent reviewers.

      • Green9090

        This is probably related to the fact that no other article here has ever had a discussion before.

        • Matt Smith

          You can be a small concern and have great content. Sadly this wasn’t great content….

        • ryanemm

          Actually our 3DS/Vita piece had well over 100 comments. And generated around 15,000 views in under 2 days. Which is not bad fora website that is only around 5 weeks old. Not to mention the fact that interaction with websites is usually pretty low for small review outlets. I have written for a couple of sites with medium sized readerships who see little to no reader interaction.

          • Matt Smith

            Yes but the interaction you are getting now is for the wrong reason. If Luke gave a 2.0 with reasons to back it up then it would be accepted as his “considered” opinion. He didn’t and made an arse out of himself and the site.

            Having such low quality control does not bode well for the future of the site.

  • Twisted

    Comparing this game with Minecraft in the first sentence? I would have understood if you compared it to The Binding or Isaac or some other game that is at least similar to it, but comparing it to Minecraft is proof that this site is a joke. You won’t be seeing me around here anymore.

  • Vattics

    Hey! I don’t know a sh*t about game dev, but:

    “Overall, this looks and feels like a game created during a 48 hour game jam”

    I want to see you making a game like this in 48 hours

    I also have to say, it’s the first time i see a “Beta review” (ok, im lying, i’ve seen in Destructoid an Airmech review, but they rectified because they forgot it was a Beta). It doesn’t make sense, you are reviewing an incomplete product saying it’s bad, does this require any explanation??!

    “Lego hearts!” “Lego ammo!” “Lego enemies!!” haha!!!

  • http://lukedicken.com/ Luke Dicken

    OK so I will take Lee Barnett’s point that maybe I didn’t expand sufficiently on the Procedural vs Random thing – I try to walk the line between talking about things I’m intimately familiar with from my day job and not getting bogged down in technical detail, so here’s a bit of an expansion on that aspect:

    Procedural Generation relies on a procedure – an algorithm – that is designed in such a way that it replicates (or near-enough replicates) the level design process. It takes into account things like pacing and player progression, learning curves and so on to build spaces that are engaging to the players. Games like Temple Run are a great example for this because they’re relatively easy to talk about. A random placement of things would lead (eventually) to a set of obstacles that you physically can’t overcome – like a right ledge and a left edge without time to transition between. It could also generate a difficult setup immediately, and it’s pretty clear that as the game progresses difficulty increases with games like this.

    Designing and tuning algorithms to produce the kinds of levels you need is a pretty involved task. These algorithms are AI systems – not in the gamer “the AI is shooting at me” sense, but in the broader “I need the computer to make these decisions independent of human intervention – and get them right” sense. It’s tricky to do, and this is why if you can’t be bothered doing that, you fall back on slapping some stuff together at random and call it done, but when people talk about “Procedural Content” it’s important to note that there’s effort been spent on the “procedure” involved.

    For those of you who’ve played Easy Money, thanks for your time and for adding to our player data. It’s not an active project right now, and I don’t have any particular plans to release it commercially, but it was a nice little prototype for us to work on implementing these kinds of concepts – though there’s no AI in the gamer sense in the game, the level generation is powered by exactly this kind of system where the tone of the maps we’re generating evolves over time as does the difficulty.

    For those of you questioning my credentials, you should feel free to Google me, which I know some already have. I’m not currently working on an active game development project as I’m trying to wrap up my doctorate creating a new system for companion AI decisions, which will be my fourth degree in AI. I’ve worked on a number of titles as an external, and I’m regularly invited to speak at gamedev conferences around the world, as well as publishing articles on technical topics and so on.

    I hope that that addresses some of the comments here, though I stand behind the points I raised above – I don’t find this to be an enjoyable game and I don’t think there is enough attention to detail being put into it to justify the price tag. But you are all entitled to disagree and go buy it if you want – nobody is forcing you to care what I think.

    • Matt Smith

      This does not address the fact you rubbished a game mechanic that is proven to be both popular and highly engaging.

      specific to this game random room placement on each floor offers replayabilty

      • http://lukedicken.com/ Luke Dicken

        With no regard for pacing, player progression etc. It is yet another way of “lowest hanging fruit” -ing – this time to replayability. There are far more interesting, more polished ways of imparting replayability as pretty much every implementation of procedural level generation demonstrates.

        • Matt Smith

          Pacing, player progression etc comes from each floor as they get harder.

          I’m left asking once again did you even play the game past the first floor?

    • Lee Barnett

      Thank you for explaining Procedural Content, I actually wasn’t very sure about what that term meant exactly.

      Unfortunately, (or fortunately, depending on your stance), I now get to rip apart another of your arguments. The comparison to Spelunky.

      I have had Mines where 1-1 was an arrow trap filled hell hole, 1-2 was the spider level, and then magically, 1-3 was a complete cake walk, and 1-4 was an average level. I’ve had Jungle levels where 2-1 was pretty average, and 2-2 was filled with Tiki traps all over the place, and a couple of man-eaters on very inconveniently placed ledges. Ice Caves where… okay… Ice Caves are just easy, moving on.And finally, Temples where 4-1 had lava pits and the thwomp-like guys in tons of inconveniently placed areas, and then 4-2 has easily avoided thwomp-like guys and only one lava pool actually spawned in my path.
      Anyways, point is, Spelunky is not this procedurally generated gem that you’re making it out to be, and it’s just as random as Isaac, and Paranautical Activity.

      “With no regard for pacing, player progression etc.” Are you kidding me? The game has an exponential difficulty curve. It starts off with the player fighting basic, slow moving enemies with simple projectiles so that he can get attuned to the game feel and controls. Then, as the floors go on and on, and the player gets better and more adapted to the feel of the game, he gets introduced to another new enemy on each floor, and room layouts that you had once seen before are seen again, only this time with that new enemy you encountered and sometimes additional hazards.

      To say that this game has no pacing in mind is a baseless argument and it shows just how little of the game you’ve actually played.

  • Anders K. Madsen

    Let’s just completely ignore gameplay and say that the devs really wanted to make a Minecraft clone because voxels. I mean, designing the visuals is obviously the first thing a gamedev does — even before ever thinking of gameplay and other trivial matters, but you probably already know that being a gamedev (and AI specialist) yourself.

    You pretty much establish in the very first paragraph — actually, the very first sentence — that you’ve completely misunderstood the game and that you only have an extremely superficial knowledge of it. Hell, if you think comparing it to Minecraft makes sense in any way, then I doubt you’ve even played the game. Or maybe you think Subset Games really wanted to make a new Sins of a Solar Empire with Faster Than Light because both games have spaceships in them…

    It’s pretty hard to take a review seriously when the reviewer constantly demonstrate his lack of understanding of the game and the genre it belongs to.

  • Spencer Buchanan

    Here is the best part to this review. It is not a 10/10 thus we despise the critique. Or it does not view the same way I view something thus I will not acknowledge the criticism.

    I have been involved in both the fine art community and game dev to know one thing: We do not hate you, we hate your ugly baby.

    I have been told my work is bad, or not communicating what I want and it may have been said in ways that sounded hurtful because I was so attached to the work. I needed to grow a tough skin so I can detach myself from what I am doing and see how it can improve.

    In the gaming community there needs to be a call for people to grow a tough skin *cough*Jon Blow*cough* so we can learn from criticism instead of protecting yourself from what appears to be negative comments.

    “But”, you say, “He was blatantly being rude and obnoxious. This is just unfair.”

    Again, deal with it. Listen to what he said and see if there is truth in it and figure out how to make your game better.

    That all said. I am interested in this game. Hopefully we can learn from this review as gamedevs and realize that Procedural content is super hard to get right and you cannot just slap it in your game because it is popular.

    Besides what this game really needs is a Clash of Clans/League of legends MOBA feel…

    PS. If you want someone to tell you your game is good, you can always go talk to your parents. In the real world we need to tell each other how to improve otherwise we would still be drawing pretty pictures that show up on the fridge.

    • Oddsock

      I bet those side blows help making your point or is it more the contrary?

      I mean, I hope I understand this situation correctly: Your colleague, friend or so is being attacked by a few fans (I guess) of the game he’s harshly criticizing in a very subjective manner. You believe it’s unfair because “That’s like his opinion, dude” and one should learn from that.

      The thing is, an opinion can be formulated in very different ways. The way Luke did was pretty offensive in a way that it satirized the way he thought the developers were coming up with the idea of their game. You can’t deny that and if you do, it would probably jeopardise your credibility as a journalist (if that’s what you are) for not recognizing it.

      The game is, if you would actually listen to the developers instead of making up your own conclusions, inspired by the Binding of Isaac and Doom. That explains the gameplay and the level designs as well as the random generation of the rooms. As for the minecraft references… really?

      But there is space for improvement. According to the review above following things should change or being improved:

      – The walls should join in the corners.
      – After clicking the “Play” the game freezes for a few moments (Loading screen is missing, because the game is still under construction).
      – Everything is made of Lego (Capital “L” by the way).
      – The items in the gift shop should rotate / face the entrance.
      – Items in the gift shop should be affordable in the early levels.
      – Enemies get stuck in the level geometry.
      – Some rooms have unreachable areas.
      – Procedural level generation system

      I don’t understand enough to actually tell if the last point is also a valid point. Never crossed my mind while playing so I guess it’s more like an insider criticism from game dev to game dev (which can be helpful, of course).

      For the rest of the constructive critique, it’s probably pretty simple to learn from it. Adjoin the corner correctly, include loading screen (is concluded with the newest update if I’m correct), change the overall art design, rotate items in the shop and so on.

      My point is, you don’t need to write a review for that and I certainly don’t want to hear about a beta feedback disguised as a review (never actually saw an official alpha/beta feedback from a testplayer but I guess it would mention similar improvement critique). What I want to know is: Did the game make fun to play? Is it hard to play? What rocked your boat?

      If opinion is weighed as gold on here, please take mine serious as well. Constructive critique is good as long as it is presented in a respectful and actually helpful manner. If one cannot do that, the critique is useless. It won’t help interested parties nor will it help the developers themselves to read about (honestly irrelevant) information like “enemies get stuck” because they probably know it themselves already.

      At last, please try to empathize. I can only imagine how hurtful such reviews can be for a developer. “We do not hate you, we hate your ugly baby” is only one way of saying it the “bad way”. If you can’t control how your words could affect others, how can you possibly be responsible for a blog that tries to reach out to a mass audience. Of course, I’m dramatizing the scene but I hope you get the point.

    • Matt Smith

      Criticism is useful when constructive. This was not constructive. The obnoxiousness just covered the lack of any content in the “review”

    • Anders K. Madsen

      “Hopefully we can learn from this review as gamedevs and realize that
      Procedural content is super hard to get right and you cannot just slap
      it in your game because it is popular.”

      Yeah, only problem is that PA doesn’t do it much different from e.g. The Binding of Isaac which is widely accepted as Good Enough[tm]. Sure, TBoI has a little more rules to it in terms of room placement where PA seems to be much more random. The reviewer mentions difficulty scaling — that’s a non-issue unless you absolutely suck at the game. The rooms only get major increases in difficulty when you advance to the next level.

      “Besides what this game really needs is a Clash of Clans/League of legends MOBA feel…”

      Now I know you’re trolling…

  • Draewa

    Pretty much everything has been said about this review. It’s poorly written, extremely superficial, biased, displays a severe lack of knowledge about the topic at hand and generated at least 90% of its views through the controversy surrounding it… but while I couldn’t care less about some dabbling writer delivering a bad review, I’m disappointed in the moderation of this site for publishing this; do you even do basic quality control here? It shouldn’t be too difficult for a moderator to spot a flawed piece of content and to ask the author for a revision. Letting something like this slide doesn’t bode well for the quality of this site, which is a shame. Looking at other content here (notably the Receiver review) I definitely noticed some nice work, and it’d be rather sad to see another site swamped into obscurity by bad content.

  • Pingback: Big Mouth Strikes Again: The Idiotic Activity Files | Critical Indie Gamer()

  • Pingback: Hardland – Preview (PC) | Critical Indie Gamer()