Review of the Game (beta weekends)

[N.A.T.]

Having made successful guides for Icarus Beta https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2602093448 and having completed all the Beta Weekends, I have finished my assessment of Icarus: I refunded...

My reasons:
1) Major reason: 75% of the missions' time is spend running around to and from mission points - for a survival game this doesn't match the gameplay... I expected more survival mechanics than a running simulator. If you want proof (not my video): https://youtu.be/MW3w8A5qgAE?t=7873 (timestamped at the map, so you can see the white circles on the map where you have to run to and from). All the missions in the last beta are like this, there are no exceptions. A better description of the game is "survive the journey to the mission point(s) and then back to the dropship."
2) Minor reason: I had intermittent crashes all through the missions (perhaps it was my 3080 Ti drivers, perhaps not), but the game is still plagued by bugs. This tells me that this late in the schedule, when they are supposed to be ready to go live, the game is not ready. Among crashes there are net new duplication bugs (beta 7, last one) that are sure going to break the intended gameplay.
3) Major reason: The rewards and factions are so bad compared to the effort spent (tedious running around) that in the end you feel "I did all this work and all I got was this!?" feeling. I am sure that some of you have a different threshold for the definition of "fun," but mine couldn't classify this game as such.
4) Major reason: The gameplay loop, although new and perhaps exciting to some, is tedious instead of entertaining.

Time will tell whether my reason remain valid on Go-Live. So now it is up to you to make up your mind about whether you want to "spend" time on this game or not.

[SaibaX]

The one feature I think that might give the missions more flair will be the modifiers they talked about in the AMA. Being able to apply random world modifiers from mission to mission will definately help but I am curious how long it will support the game before new maps are introduced

[N.A.T.]

I have gone over the AMA, and all I am seeing/hearing is "will be later after launch for this" and later for that. So on launch, you have a bare-bones game... This sounds too much like No Man's Sky, and we all know how that went on launch (took them 5 years to redeem themselves with the players)!

Personally, I will wait to see what features are actually in the game and playable before giving them any money. The game development world has gotten too fat on promises to its customers and not delivering on those turning them into lies (some might label them clever marketing). My wait and see attitude has allowed me to dodge marketing bullets on launch (EA, Fallout 76, Andromeda, No Man's Sky, Anthem - to name a few).

Dean says they think this is a AAA game... I say it's not from the Beta Weekends. For all those saying that the Beta's are not representative of the game on Launch, I ask where is the logic for a developer to build something that costs money to make only to say it's not part of the real game... why would you sabotage yourself like that? Those investors that put money on the line to pay for the developers to make the game... do you think they are happy to hear that they could have paid less money to the devs if they devs would have built usable/playable code). Something doesn't add up here.

[Kershek]

Originally posted by N.A.T.:

I have gone over the AMA, and all I am seeing/hearing is "will be later after launch for this" and later for that. So on launch, you have a bare-bones game... This sounds too much like No Man's Sky, and we all know how that went on launch (took them 5 years to redeem themselves with the players)!

Personally, I will wait to see what features are actually in the game and playable before giving them any money. The game development world has gotten too fat on promises to its customers and not delivering on those turning them into lies (some might label them clever marketing). My wait and see attitude has allowed me to dodge marketing bullets on launch (EA, Fallout 76, Andromeda, No Man's Sky, Anthem - to name a few).

Dean says they think this is a AAA game... I say it's not from the Beta Weekends. For all those saying that the Beta's are not representative of the game on Launch, I ask where is the logic for a developer to build something that costs money to make only to say it's not part of the real game... why would you sabotage yourself like that? Those investors that put money on the line to pay for the developers to make the game... do you think they are happy to hear that they could have paid less money to the devs if they devs would have built usable/playable code). Something doesn't add up here.

For a game that is supposed to be updated for years after 1.0 release I expect they have lots of stuff they want to put in the game over time as they develop it. The beta weekends were to help test major systems that will enable them to add content around those systems. Whether "enough" content is available at launch to satisfy the customer is subjective, of course.

Also, the game isn't priced like a AAA game, it's $30.

[SaibaX]

I'd say it has potential to be big, but its definitely going to need a special touch to bring it there. In it's current state I think it definitely still falls under mid-high quality indie but thats entirely based on my own beta experience.

I'm a little disappointed they didn't go with a publisher since the cash infusion could have allowed the project to expand a bit more. But I mean, if Raw Fury, Devolver Digital or even Microsoft didn't fit with their vision I have to wonder what the more direct explanation is for this.

[N.A.T.]

Originally posted by Kershek:

For a game that is supposed to be updated for years after 1.0 release I expect they have lots of stuff they want to put in the game over time as they develop it. The beta weekends were to help test major systems that will enable them to add content around those systems. Whether "enough" content is available at launch to satisfy the customer is subjective, of course.

Also, the game isn't priced like a AAA game, it's $30.

You bring up valid points that do not add up for the developers very well:
1) Dean and others has called Icarus a AAA game. Check the making of Icarus videos...
2) $30 for a AAA? As you know, the gaming industry "hires" beta testers for dirt cheap. i.e. testers trade their time and effort for a discounted early buy price. $30 will not be go-live price unless one or both things are true:
a) the developers and marketing team know they are in trouble financially and need the money ASAP. Because they didn't go with a publisher, they are stumbling on pricing...
b) the developers and marketing team know the value of game on Launch day and they know that what they deliver on Launch day is not a AAA game, but maybe the framework of one.

From what I am seeing of their operation, they are banking on DLC revenue more than the Launch. But I think this is a mistake (if you have a AAA game ready). If you don't have it ready, then you need the DLC revenue...

I hope you see why things do not add up, and causes concerns and people pulling their money out.

[Kershek]

Originally posted by N.A.T.:

Originally posted by Kershek:

For a game that is supposed to be updated for years after 1.0 release I expect they have lots of stuff they want to put in the game over time as they develop it. The beta weekends were to help test major systems that will enable them to add content around those systems. Whether "enough" content is available at launch to satisfy the customer is subjective, of course.

Also, the game isn't priced like a AAA game, it's $30.

You bring up valid points that do not add up for the developers very well:
1) Dean and others has called Icarus a AAA game. Check the making of Icarus videos...
2) $30 for a AAA? As you know, the gaming industry "hires" beta testers for dirt cheap. i.e. testers trade their time and effort for a discounted early buy price. $30 will not be go-live price unless one or both things are true:
a) the developers and marketing team know they are in trouble financially and need the money ASAP. Because they didn't go with a publisher, they are stumbling on pricing...
b) the developers and marketing team know the value of game on Launch day and they know that what they deliver on Launch day is not a AAA game, but maybe the framework of one.

From what I am seeing of their operation, they are banking on DLC revenue more than the Launch. But I think this is a mistake (if you have a AAA game ready). If you don't have it ready, then you need the DLC revenue...

I hope you see why things do not add up, and causes concerns and people pulling their money out.

You haven't listened to their dev vlogs where they explain their reduced launch pricing and DLCs - it's a deliberate choice on their part. They also explained the publisher thing as well.

Between the vlogs and their dev streams, a lot of info is said publicly that isn't known in these Steam forums. While I don't think every fan should have to know everything that's said publicly, I think the messaging could be improved so it's easier for them to find out.

[jazon1]

Considering whos behind this game and the abysmal reviews so far,ill be holding off on this and see how it works in the long run after more production time and see how they manage Dlc's and other money grabs. looks semi interesting otherwise if they can make the game play fun, im not into walking simulators but do love survival games.

[N.A.T.]

Originally posted by jazon1:

Considering whos behind this game and the abysmal reviews so far,ill be holding off on this and see how it works in the long run after more production time and see how they manage Dlc's and other money grabs. looks semi interesting otherwise if they can make the game play fun, im not into walking simulators but do love survival games.

This is not a true survival game, as currently defined by the majority of the survival games out there. Wait and see is a good approach. The disappointing thing for me is that it has all the survival mechanics there, but the way the game loop plays (at least in Betas) is not entertaining, yet...

[Kershek]

Originally posted by jazon1:

Considering whos behind this game and the abysmal reviews so far,ill be holding off on this and see how it works in the long run after more production time and see how they manage Dlc's and other money grabs. looks semi interesting otherwise if they can make the game play fun, im not into walking simulators but do love survival games.

I mean, consider some balance to those reviews. There are a lot of people playing the game who are expressing how much they like it on the Discord and in YT videos. So to say "abysmal reviews" I don't think really gives a balanced take.

The beta weekends were the best time to check it out for many hours and still refund if it's not your thing. This is a very consumer-friendly approach. You could certainly refund and wait a while to see how things shake out. Although at this point, the last beta weekend is over in 90 minutes and the next time we'll get to play is when it releases.

[Fuzzy]

Originally posted by Kershek:

Originally posted by N.A.T.:

I have gone over the AMA, and all I am seeing/hearing is "will be later after launch for this" and later for that. So on launch, you have a bare-bones game... This sounds too much like No Man's Sky, and we all know how that went on launch (took them 5 years to redeem themselves with the players)!

Personally, I will wait to see what features are actually in the game and playable before giving them any money. The game development world has gotten too fat on promises to its customers and not delivering on those turning them into lies (some might label them clever marketing). My wait and see attitude has allowed me to dodge marketing bullets on launch (EA, Fallout 76, Andromeda, No Man's Sky, Anthem - to name a few).

Dean says they think this is a AAA game... I say it's not from the Beta Weekends. For all those saying that the Beta's are not representative of the game on Launch, I ask where is the logic for a developer to build something that costs money to make only to say it's not part of the real game... why would you sabotage yourself like that? Those investors that put money on the line to pay for the developers to make the game... do you think they are happy to hear that they could have paid less money to the devs if they devs would have built usable/playable code). Something doesn't add up here.

For a game that is supposed to be updated for years after 1.0 release I expect they have lots of stuff they want to put in the game over time as they develop it. The beta weekends were to help test major systems that will enable them to add content around those systems. Whether "enough" content is available at launch to satisfy the customer is subjective, of course. call it EA and you are greedy trying to sell an incomplete game that will never be finished.

Also, the game isn't priced like a AAA game, it's $30.

not sure what dictates a 1.0 release today, its more of a marketing technique to sell bloated content after the games release, call it a 1.0 and anything fixed or added after that is a blessing but call it EA and the fixes are expected and more demanded than anything. look at satisfactory, its EA and a whole lot more polish put on it compared to this but this will release as 1.0 and have terrible bugs and lack of content, they already have a list of planned content lol....

[Kershek]

Would you release a game without a list of planned content?

[Okami]

Originally posted by Kershek:

Would you release a game without a list of planned content?

There was a time it was simply the only option
They give their very best, release, and if it click to it's audience, then it would have addons and potentially a sequel.