This game is proof that the early access system is broken.

[Pretentieux]

I think that the general gaming community has been broken by poor experiences with early access games. A look at the store page and the reviews for this game that just released into early access is my proof. Further evidence is found in the other discussions posted here.

This game has been unfairly lambasted by players who at once both despise the whole process of early access and at the same time have yet again bought an early access game only to be disappointed that it isn't already finished.

[Strexxin]

I have read a lot of the negative reviews and most of them can be translated to "It isn't VS so I don't like it".

Gamers simultaneously moan about too many games being the same whilst also moaning when games are different.

[MagaWolf]

For me a lot of EA games never get finished and when they do they didn't have all the game mechanics that I expected. Not all EA games are like that though but a lot are unfortunately.

[Nocte]

Originally posted by Strexxin:

I have read a lot of the negative reviews and most of them can be translated to "It isn't VS so I don't like it".

Gamers simultaneously moan about too many games being the same whilst also moaning when games are different.

the best ones are those with "there are 50+ stats but no description what they are doing mimimi" and stats are something like range oder fire dmg+, like "wtf what description do u need"

[Hoodoo]

this game went into early access with settings bugs and controller bugs that make the game play awful. those are alpha level bugs that shouldn't have been included in EA.

[Buntkreuz]

"finished" is a relative term.
What you mean is that people "complain" about a game not being completed, what people actually mean that you dont understand is that "unfinished" means "too less and broken to be worth it right now".

What you struggle with is that the consumers/customers push back on a bad industry culture of sending out products that dont work or have obvious flaws that you notice with only 10 minutes playing, because developers treat Early Access as a way to fund their projects.
But this isnt kickstarter.

For example:
I played 2 runs, finished the runs without dying.
I noticed several flaws you would catch easily, like auto-attack actually aiming bad (i had ONE enemy in range and the auto attack aimed next to that enemy) or that the end-round timer is a bad idea and far too short.
Then stuff like the gold economy being totally whack out of balance.
After 12 minutes in a run i picked up all dropped gold and had about 190 gold.
An upgrade on level one already costs 600 and it gets to ridiculous heights.


Thats all stuff you can see, note down and fix in a day, a week max.
When simple players notice these issues, why doesnt a professional developer?

[GDeLL]

did anyone actually play this before they decided to release ea LOL

[Napocalypse]

Demo itself and demo feedback went ignored

Showed that launching it as Early access is excuse for a bad game experience even though the developer isn’t using EA/feedback for what it is and improving the game.

[Pretentieux]

Originally posted by Buntkreuz:

"finished" is a relative term.
What you mean is that people "complain" about a game not being completed, what people actually mean that you dont understand is that "unfinished" means "too less and broken to be worth it right now".

What you struggle with is that the consumers/customers push back on a bad industry culture of sending out products that dont work or have obvious flaws that you notice with only 10 minutes playing, because developers treat Early Access as a way to fund their projects.
But this isnt kickstarter.

For example:
I played 2 runs, finished the runs without dying.
I noticed several flaws you would catch easily, like auto-attack actually aiming bad (i had ONE enemy in range and the auto attack aimed next to that enemy) or that the end-round timer is a bad idea and far too short.
Then stuff like the gold economy being totally whack out of balance.
After 12 minutes in a run i picked up all dropped gold and had about 190 gold.
An upgrade on level one already costs 600 and it gets to ridiculous heights.


Thats all stuff you can see, note down and fix in a day, a week max.
When simple players notice these issues, why doesnt a professional developer?

I mean we pretty much agree on everything other than the fact that I don't believe any of this warrants a negative review. This is the kind of thing the discussions forums should be used for. Unfortunately I have to admit in this case, it actually doesn't look like they are using anything but Discord which is a big slap in the face IMO. Still I don't think their whole project should be cut short just because they didn't release a more perfect version into EA.

[Napocalypse]

Originally posted by Strexxin:

I have read a lot of the negative reviews and most of them can be translated to "It isn't VS so I don't like it".

Gamers simultaneously moan about too many games being the same whilst also moaning when games are different.

Then maybe come up with your own idea instead jump on the VS bandwagon

[Napocalypse]

Originally posted by Strexxin:

I have read a lot of the negative reviews and most of them can be translated to "It isn't VS so I don't like it".

Gamers simultaneously moan about too many games being the same whilst also moaning when games are different.

Or how about this game is triple the cost of vampire survivors and VS is 100x the game this will ever be.

[Hyde]

Don't take review scores on EA titles seriously since anything could change, especially those that are only a day old.

[Napocalypse]

Originally posted by Hyde:

Don't take review scores on EA titles seriously since anything could change, especially those that are only a day old.

Demo and “game” been out for awhile

This is trying copy VS death must die and halls of torment and does everything wrong.

Takes all the worst parts and puts them together

Not one redeeming quality about this game.

[Glitched79]

I am missing the point to this post

[Alice Bubblegum]

Steam allows people to review EA games, and you don't want people using that. Great.
The game is bad in its current state, people just stated that, what's the problem???
Could the devs play the game before releasing it on EA? Sure, they could, so they would realize the main complain: the progress. That is the worst idea ever. Any gamer making a game would understand how bad it is. You can have meta progression by character, but do something good like Death Must Die, Boneraiser Minions or even Scarlet Tower (kinda)... or many others, they have different progressions compared to Vampire Survivors, but they did a very good job. If you want to make the progression per character, you have to make it really means something, the modifiers are just stupid.

The bugs and crashes are ok, it happens cause the bugs and crashes don't happen to everybody all the time, even with hundreds of people testing the game before, some bugs would happen. But the game design was terrible, if they have thought about the progression, more than half of those reviews would be positive or wouldn't be there. And I would buy the game for sure, I tried the demo and I laughed at it.

I'm pretty sure they will fix the game, they released the game in Early Access, they RELEASED the game in early access. They should be ready for the reviews, cause people can review the game, Steam allows that, I'll still follow the game and wait until things are better, so I'll buy it for sure, but the negative reviews avoid new negative reviews, so it's not that bad. If you make a game someday, be sure it's not bad when you release it on EA, that's all. You won't have so many negative reviews. The demo could help a lot, but prob they had to release the game before fixing everything, the schedule can't be delayed in some cases.

That'll help the devs for their next project. I'll be waiting for Tower of Babel gets better, they will do that and things will be "less bad" :)

[Strexxin]

Originally posted by Napocalypse:

Originally posted by Strexxin:

I have read a lot of the negative reviews and most of them can be translated to "It isn't VS so I don't like it".

Gamers simultaneously moan about too many games being the same whilst also moaning when games are different.

Or how about this game is triple the cost of vampire survivors and VS is 100x the game this will ever be.

Oh no, 3x the cost of a game that costs $2.50, who the hell cares. VS was pretty barebones when it came out and the only reason it got the attention it did was that it was the first of its kind.