Bad reviews

[Smife]

Can someone please explain why this game has such poor reviews? It looks really interesting. Is there a catch or something?

[I'm]

Because it's very unbalance, almost impossible to finish it without hardcore trying, which mean it's more frustrated than enjoyable game.
Also the developer keep giving excuse or reasoning when so many people suggest/complain about it already, rather than listen to their customer to make a better patch.

[Smife]

So being challenging does it at least have replay value or it's the same experience over and over?

[AiSard]

Game doesn't explain mechanics (no hand-holding etc etc), and has some bad UX which doesn't really tell you if the action is good/bad until it explodes in your face, making the initial hours wayyy more hard than it should be.

Once you get over the hurdle, it isn't that super difficult. Second run with Level Restart turned off and I'm all the way in the second last stage now. Still pretty ♥♥♥♥♥♥ because I didn't fully understand a mechanic which had me losing my fully kitted car and two characters D: but I've (almost) bounced back from that. Pretty fun game.

In terms of replay, I'm not sure yet, but this is my third game and I'm still discovering new mechanics (Kidnapping everyone wtf) but that might run out in 3-5 games? idk. The story itself seems pretty static so far (unless proven otherwise?) but I like it for its emergent storytelling anyways. Like the lady who kidnaps everyone she sees :P

All said, there's more content than you first expect, but its not a lot when you compare to contemporary roguelites. At its best its trying to sell an experience/ambience, at its worst its a mess of mechanics and UX tripping over each other. I'm still having fun though, surprisingly enough.

[hello]

This game seems to be really polarizing--a lot of people really love it and others hate it (I love it). A lot of the hate seems to be directed toward the difficulty; Overland is much more of a classic roguelike as opposed to more recent "roguelites"--things can go south very quickly, and the mechanics aren't spelled out to you, so you might end up killing yourself because you didn't know how some mechanic works exactly. If you're not used to more old-school roguelikes I can see how this can feel unfair and distancing, although I see it as a plus, because it encourages experimentation and I actually find it quite delightful if I lose a run to some weird edge-case I didn't anticipate. And compared to those classic roguelikes it's actually very fair (thinking of games like Nethack, where you can trip going down the stairs and stab yourself with your own sword, because you ate fried chicken earlier and have greasy hands).

I think this difference in play style is part of why people are so negative about "unfairness"--because in my opinion, the point of the game isn't necessarily to beat the game, it's more about the journey and story you create in each playthough. If you play expecting to beat the game once and be done with it you will probably be disappointed. The game has a ton of replay value, and the interesting part is the choices and encounters you experience each run. Once you start to master the mechanics you'll find that a lot of the "unfair" situations are actually very manageable. The game gives you a lot of tools and strategies to deal with encounters, but depending on the loot you find and the layout of a level, they won't all be available to you. As you play the game more you learn what items are out there. You figure out when you're unequipped to deal with something and should just nope out, and when you should spend time looking for specific weapons or items that will help you deal with those situations later. It's very well balanced, but due to its survival-oriented design sometimes it can feel like you're powerless. When you find yourself in an unwinnable situation, it's almost always because of decisions you've made over the past several levels and things have finally caught up with you.

I'll be honest, a lot of negative reviews also seem to just want this game to be a different game entirely. They didn't get what they expected and feel like it's the job of the developers to change the game to fit the model of some game they have in their head. One thing I keep seeing is people complaining about how killing monsters makes noise and summons more monsters. The game is designed to keep you on the move--killing an enemy is just a way to buy yourself a little time, and there's a cost to that time. You're not meant to be able to control a situation, only to stave off the enemies for long enough to grab some gas or loot and GTFO.

A lot of negative reviews also say things like "each person can only carry one thing and you can't store items in your empty van? Can't unequip a backpack and give it to another person? UNREALISTIC! IMMERSION BREAKING! FIX THE GAME!" To me these comments just seem genuinely silly. The developers have made explicit decisions as to how these mechanics work in the game, which have consequences the overall design and shape how it is played. Even if it doesn't "make sense" that you can't store an extra item in the empty seat of your car, it also wouldn't make sense if the van was just more powerful than every other vehicle. Everything in this game has carefully designed trade-offs that make sense within the mechanics of the game, and it just seems absurd to me to judge game mechanics based on if they "make sense" in real life. Are these people also complaining that it doesn't make sense in other games that eating food heals your bullet wounds, or that you can carry hundreds of tons of rocks in your inventory?

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and Overland is definitely a punishing game that won't be for everyone. But I think it's very well designed and balanced. If you're on the fence about buying this game you should watch some gameplay of it, and you should pretty quickly be able to determine if this is the kind of game you'll enjoy.

If you made it this far, you might also want to check out the review I wrote for this game, which talks more about the game itself, rather than just being a ramble on what I've seen other people say about it.

[Glamorpuss]

Nethack is absolutely more fair than this game. 1. You can wipe off your hands. 2. The levels are actually balanced to spawn appropriate numbers of enemies. 3. You can pray to your god. 4. Wand of wishing. 5. Wand of polymorph.

[bubucaos]

Hi. mr hello i like you enjoy the game.
I think diferent gamemodes could satisfy the people like you that loves the game exactly as it is and other people at same time that looks for a different a experience.
in my point of view here dev has at least 2 options
1 say "we made it. some people love our game and can apreciate the hours and effort on it"
2 try to use the job done to offer a good experience to more peolple what implies more work and not necesary more money. But could be a good try to revert situation.

[hello]

Yeah, the greasy hands thing is fair if you realize that you can potentially instantly die with greasy hands, and if you happen to have a towel and know how to wipe off your hands you can remove the effect. But if you don't know those things and you die, you understandably might feel that the game is unfair. I guess my point is I think that's similar to what's happening with people playing Overland and saying that it's unfair and unbalanced when they haven't figured out how to safely approach encounters, and it pains me to see what I think is a great game get so many negative reviews because of it.

I do agree that the game could use some difficulty settings to help people enjoy the game the way they want to. I see the developers are actively working on that, and trying to emphasize the level restart feature, and I hope that these changes will help more people enjoy the game. I just don't think it deserves so many negative reviews I guess.

[Smife]

I personally don't mind losing as long as the game provides a fun challenge, interesting mechanics and replayability. Considering the price I hope the devs have a roadmap in mind and keep supporting their product.

[Dr. Faustus]

1. I love turn-based RPGs.
2. I love survival games.
3. This is neither.

I guess I thought it was gonna me more like a technical survival game and less like a dumbed-down mobile game stressfest.

[alexander.lindner]

You give the "carefully designed gameplay" way too much credit. Difficulty and austere gameplay design are one thing....incomprehensible silly and lazy decisions another. It makes NO sense at all to have a campfire moment during which you can do absolutely nothing. You can't heal a bit, you can't exchange goods with your companions (you can however at any other moment), you can't refuel your car with a gas tank on the roof, etc. It makes no sense. It makes no sense either that every companion has the same action bars. Even a dog companion doesn't have more. Furthermore it makes no sense that some companions can only carry one single item...which is ridiculous. They have two arms and hands, haven't they? The objectives are also really poor. 80% of the time it's about getting fuel. And then some more fuel, and some more, and rince and repeat. I am a game since the mid-nineties, and I have everything you can imagine on every platform imaginable. I played this game one afternoon, and it was soon clear to me that this is a very neat idea with some great indie graphics, but really with poor and uninspired game mechanics. I think that the critics are spot on.