Recent reviews by AtticusDragon

Overall I'd recommend Teardown, the asking price is humble and the game offers a unique play experience. I do have some caveats however...

The first part of the campaign typically had the player completing time sensitive fetch goals, with the challenge being to plan/build/destroy the most efficient route. I enjoyed this framing of the premise, it used the constraints of the game environment in a creative way, motivating the player to continually employ the game's mechanics. Some were frustrating, some were quite challenging, but it was a rewarding experience.

I don't agree with the criticism of this play type, or that the developers were unclear in their advertising about what the gameplay would entail. When Teardown was released there was a fair trend of reviewers asking for less heist and more destruction. To each their own; but there has always been a sandbox mode. The fact is, a cool little prototype premise gets boring pretty quick (I'd wager this is why the sandbox mode didn't hit the mark for these users).

For what appears to be due to this consumer feedback, the developers have changed direction for part two. The emphasis is now on destruction, and the time sensitive goals (so far) are no longer present. I find the experience now... monotonous, and no longer stands out as being very unique. For comparison, a typical stage in part one would have me: meticulously blasting through walls, creating narrow pathways between rooftops, jumping through a window into a parked car, I speed up the road, smash into a building, hit my final goal and then make it to the the getaway point with milliseconds to spare (all while following the handy arrows I've painted around the map to guide my adrenaline addled dash). Sounds exhilarating, right? In part two, prepare to: throw pipe bombs at a building. Or, simply collect the things. There is less reason than ever to employ the destruction mechanics.

I've now hit a stage where the game crashes within a minute or so without fail, and I can no longer continue the campaign. Hoping to see a patch soon. Honestly I'd still recommend it, but be aware that performance has taken a hit, and the developers seem to be building someone else's game at this point. You can either make the game you want, or make the game the consumers want... It's not my place to say which is the best practice. But I'm disappointed to see Teardown seemingly abandon what made it special.

Game fails to launch after latest patch (dec2017).

It's taken patience and good will to give this game a chance, and I'm still waiting for the payoff.

The new systems had me so excited to get into this, to see them take it where it could have/should have gone.

It's just a poorly designed game. The UI, the objectives system, achievements... it's a mish-mash of staple concepts done just awkwardly enough to constantly be a pain. But the worst sin this game commits of all...

It doesn't tell you how the ♥♥♥♥ to play it. You'r constantly bombarded with little popups that are completely irrelevant, while the devs fail to give you the most basic instructions -like controls! Don't hold your breathe waiting for them to explain to you how all the actual game systems work. Huge facepalm. And on the new survival modes it becomes a walking simulator that is essentially a big waste of time, again, with fluff guidance that shows how clearly disconnected these guys are from real human players. I like difficult, I also like fun. I challenge the devs to sit and play this heap of ♥♥♥♥ for a few hours and tell me they had a good time.

Wish I could enjoy the stupid thing, honestly. Try again guys.

I judge early access games based on the attitude of the developers, as this is less likely to change than core features. Here is what you can expect from Facepunch, this is from the project lead quoted from the latest patch notes:

"You know how you’re all ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ about optimization? ‘When are we gonna optimize the game? I wish the game was optimized. You should take a week off and optimize the game.’ Well that’s what we’ve been doing, so don’t ♥♥♥♥♥ and moan that you don’t have anything new to play with."

You are going to be punished for criticizing this game. Stop hiding behind 'Early Access'. Negative feedback is the most beneficial. So if a huge majority of your customers are saying this game runs poorly, don't berate them; take it as valuable feedback and fix the problem.

The game itself can be a lot of fun, but those moments where it shines are due to player interaction, and the developers credit themselves far too much. Create a sandbox, throw players in with very little limitations, and suddenly you are an innovative genius?

There is no discernible end-goal here; half implemented features create the illusion of a full experience, but isolated from each other each mechanic is clearly feeble. Survival aspects are non-existent (I will pay you if you can manage to starve to death in this game). Building/crafting features are a fraction of what is offered from similar titles. Gunplay needs a lot of work.

To top it all off, your playtime is completely redundant because you *will* be cheated by script-kiddies.

Let's not forget the intention of Early Access is stable, full release (no ♥♥♥♥). There is no indication that Rust will ever meet that milestone, and as time progresses there are more and more indications that it will not. Which is a shame, because like many Early Access titles, "this game has so much potential".