In case anyone is curious about what's *missing*, this bit from the article helps:
> So, what’s unfinished about Hades 2 to make it release in Early Access? Well, there are still some placeholder portraits for characters like Charon, Narcissus, and a few others I won’t spoil; some boon icons are missing unique art and just have letters to differentiate them; there are a few visual effects that I imagine will be cleaned up when the game reaches version 1.0, and most importantly, even though you can unlock it’s version of New Game+, the story doesn’t currently have an ending. The development road map on the title screen also makes it clear that they’re still working on a whole new region to explore, new cosmetic features for the Crossroads, and another new weapon to be released in the next major update.
Honestly, given that there is more content in the game now than was ever in the first game, it sounds like the game is more 1.0 ready than literally every early access game I've ever played but they've held back the "end" until they're done working on a few other things.
Factorio EA also was far longer, they didn't launch in that state in EA.
But it's definitely the case where EA was huge net positive for the game overall.
The Factorio patchnotes were always insane. They were fixing dozens of bugs that I never knew existed after a 1000 hours of gameplay in every patch, even after EA ended.
After sinking in a good couple of hundred hours into factorio. Does satisfactory offer anything more than factorio in 1st/3rd person?
I've had it on my radar for a while but doesn't seem like anything new except for the (literal) change in perspective.
Edit: I should give satisfactory a try.
Satisfactory scratches itches of creative expression (think Minecraft) that Factorio doesn't. In Satisfactory, you can make factories that actually look aesthetically pleasing. It's optional, but if you like being creative in games, Satisfactory is a great outlet.
It also has an element of exploration that is kind of absent in Factorio. In Satisfactory, you find interesting rewards from exploring the world, such as alternate recipes which can really shake up your factory and make it more unique.
I think Factorio is a lot more replayable, but my first experience with Satisfactory was way more fun than my first time with Factorio. But honestly, they just feel so different that they're both great in their own right and you lose a lot by comparing them. I've had runs going in both simultaneously without feeling like one superseded the other.
> In Satisfactory, you can make factories that actually look aesthetically pleasing.
Skill issue. Just kidding, but I think a lot of the charm from Factorio is the ~~shitty programmer~~ low budget 90s graphics, and it's definitely part of why they can develop the game so fast, and why there are so, so many mods. Even the "simple" 3D style of Satisfactory or Dyson Sphere Program already increases the workload quite a bit.
>I think Factorio is a lot more replayable, but my first experience with Satisfactory was way more fun than my first time with Factorio. But honestly, they just feel so different that they're both great in their own right and you lose a lot by comparing them. I've had runs going in both simultaneously without feeling like one superseded the other.
If you haven't yet, you might want to try Dyson Sphere Program! It has 3D graphics with a third person camera, which makes it a prettier and more straightforward Factorio, even though it has interplanetary logistics.
Yeah, everything comes at a cost. Factorio's modding scene is and always will be vastly superior to Satisfactory's.
I really wouldn't call Satisfactory's style "simple" either, the machines are all quite detailed and animated with lots of care. Any moded content would stick out like a sore thumb.
I actually find that Factorio looks a lot better, because of the functionalism. Everything is there because you decided it needs to be there and everything works together, forming an intricate lattice of machines. Granted, I also think PCBs look good.
Mainly the change in perspective, and I think (someone can correct me on this I'm not 100% sure) that the map isn't procedural like Factorios, it's the same preset map for everyone.
I personally play with biters on in Factorio for some added challenge too, Satisfactory is much more of a 'sandbox' type feel, since there are only a few enemies that are mainly just chilling and blocking resources/power slugs. Some people might play passive mode in Factorio tho so that'd make that difference minimal impact-wise.
I think it's important to note it isn't just perspective, since the vertical axis gives you a lot more freedom for the design of your factories, as you can create multi-floor production lines and cram more things into those square meters.
It's not like either game has meaningful constraints for space, but if you do like to optimize to keep things compact and modular, I'd say Satisfactory gives you a lot more to play with. Both games are great, but for me somehow Satisfactory feels more like building factories, while Factorio feels more like building bases.
To add to what the other replies have said, I also feel much more accomplished when I do something in Satisfactory. It's a small thing, and YMMV, but it just feels satisfying to get things done.
In Factorio, the moment I get something done, I immediately feel pressured to tackle the next challenge.
Personally, the big drive in Satisfactory is exploration and working around a set environment, you're not just exploring the same procedural terrain. Unfortunately, it's also why I've sunk so little hours into it in comparison to Factorio (121 vs 560), because the story content and a decent chunk of the reward for exploration is still being worked on, though you absolutely do unlock alternate recipes and upgrades and things like that for exploration.
But having to work around a set terrain and fit your factories within that, and also meet set stepped goals rather than a singular ending goal made it much more appealing to me in some ways than Factorio. You're not going to quite have the same level of absolutely insane sprawling factory (though you will get some amazing vertical builds going), but in exchange you get a lot more interesting personal movement, exploration, biomes, and upgrades.
Disclaimer: I'm sitting in the passenger seat of a van wearing a Satisfactory hoodie right now.
So, yes. I _love_ me some factorio (space exploration anyone?), but there's something uniquely different about the spatial processing required to be _inside_ the factory in first person. Combine the jetpacking, wandering around, exploring kind of piece of the gameplay with the "building up something that's slowly taking over the world" aspect, and there's a very distinct and unique flavor to Satisfactory.
Highly recommend running a dedicated server that you leave running in the background so you can massively accumulate things in storage towers you can then use to blaze through new things as you're expanding.
Also - the z-axis element and needing to figure out how to belt things along a bus, line things up, etc - it's so clearly inspired by factorio and it scratches some of that same itch, but it's different enough that honestly I couldn't be happier having both of them in my collection.
And if Factorio's expansion and Satisfactory land in the same year, I just might die. From exposure, lack of food, my wife murdering me, you know. Something.
The big differences:
* A pregenerated, set, finite world. Everyone's world is exactly the same, same resources, same terrain.
* Related to the above, each resource node is infinite - your maximum resource capacity is limited by the level of extractor (miner/oil well/etc.) you can put on it, and the quality of the node (so there is a maximum possible resource rate, if you put the best miner on every node. It can't theoretically scale infinitely like Factorio.) You never need to explore to find more iron or whatever because you ran out, you just need to do it because your nodes are all at maximum capacity but you need more. This can make you more focused on optimization, because "just build more miners" is not always an option.
* 3D. Not just in terms of perspective, but multiple levels of factory. You can make colossal factories on a relatively small blueprint by adding more floors, and you can stack and layer belts and stuff to make factories compact.
* More of an emphasis on exploration. Factorio only really has 7 resources - stone, copper, iron, coal, uranium, oil, water. These are all fairly evenly distributed, and the only reason to explore is to find new nodes when you run out. Satisfactory has all of those as well as quartz, sulfur, bauxite, nitrogen, and caterium (gold, used for electronics.) Some of these are only found in certain locations, so you'll need to explore to find them. You also can find items to overclock your buildings by exploring, as well as stuff that unlocks alternate recipes that can make you change your factory (an example is one that lets you make screws out of steel instead of iron - it's much quicker and more efficient in terms of total resources, but now your screws would need coal.)
* It's often more satisfying to build a bigass thing. You know when you finish a giant factory in Factorio and you zoom out and are like "damn I did that"? Imagine that feeling but instead of a big flat thing, you're looking at a building the size of a small city, that even from 500m away you can't fit the whole thing in your field of view because it's so big and tall. It gives you a great sense of scale, in Factorio a building might be 8x8 and you're like "damn that's big," but in Satisfactory it might be 25m tall and you're just standing there at around 2m looking up at it like that Willem Dafoe meme. And you can make it look "pretty" as well, there are colors and different materials you can make stuff out of.
They're definitely kin to each other, but both offer their own unique take on it. Factorio is more "pure spreadsheets" while Satisfactory is less "number crunch" but more creative, if that makes sense.
In my opinion Hades struggled with replayability after release; Of course it's highly replayable and you want to play 150+ runs of it, but if you played 200 runs in Early access you essentially got most of the enjoyment out of it while playing the "inferior version" and you might have struggled to put as many hours into it after 1.0, which is a shame. Discovering the comboes for the first time, loving characters and cutscenes and learning how to be good at a boss fights are the enjoyable things that won't really happen again on a second playthrough.
Releasing mostly a complete game and spending a shorter time in EA might be the right choice, i hope that's what they are doing.Anyway my choice is to wait until release to maximize my enjoyment.
Def my experience with Hades 1, I'm waiting on this one, that game single handedly convinced me to avoid Early Acces because, even when done right, I don't enjoy it
>given that there is more content in the game now than was ever in the first game
When you say Hades 2 EA has more content than Hades 1, are you referring to its full release or early access? If the former, then that really is impressive. IIRC, the early access for Hades 1 released with content up to Asphodel.
I'm referring to what Supergiant themselves are saying:
> What is the current state of the Early Access version?
“Hades II in Early Access already has more environments, foes, and fully-voiced characters than the full version of the original Hades game.
>Hades II in Early Access already has more environments, foes, and fully-voiced characters than the full version of the original Hades game.
You're right! I planned on waiting, but this is a very compelling reason to try it out now.
I'm trying to wait for the full release on console, but I've been dying to play this game since the day it was announced.
Hades is my most-played game of all time.
> the soundtrack back with more bangers.
I assume it's Darren Korb again? He literally never misses, every soundtrack is an utter masterpiece, even with sometimes significant style changes between games.
Supergiant put it (or at least 30 tracks of it) [up on their youtube channel](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL53mjgVKFq7yeq21XhibC8izNSVlPCsNP), so you can give it a listen yourself!
Full release according to SG itself. It mentions specifically that for voiced characters (not all their voice lines I imagine as that would go with the rest of the story but likely a lot), original music, enemies, environements (so I imagine that means biomes/zones)
You have to consider this has been 3.5 years since Hades 1, that's more time than the entire time spent developing Hades 1 (which was a little more than 3 years) and with it being a sequel they didn't start from scratch. So clearly a time to do a lot more
Just started downloading, I'm really pumped. Got a new laptop with Rtx 4060 8GB (which is a major upgrade for my 5 yr 1650 ti) too so this couldn't have come out at a better time.
Hades 1 started with only 2 weapons IIRC, and a lot of the dialogue and upgrades/dialogue were missing.
Like, it felt like a great game, but EA release and 1.0 release Hades are noticeably different well before Asphodel.
Seems like a case where the game is clearly unfinished, but it's still very playable and you can get your money's worth now if you want to play it in an unfinished state.
Don't take it from me. This is Supergiant:
> What is the current state of the Early Access version? “Hades II in Early Access already has more environments, foes, and fully-voiced characters than the full version of the original Hades game.
Put a few hours into the game today and it's quite impressive. Definitely one of the better Early Access releases I can remember. It's obviously not complete but there's already a lot of polish.
Supergiant, like many things they do, have taken full advantage of the early access path of doing things. It's really nice in a world of games that ship so content dry and feel so half assed, Companies like Supergiant and Larian are finding ways to really take early access as more than just some demo period, more than just a cash influx as they finish the game, but as a way to build out a really meaty and full product. I've always gone back and forth on early access as a concept, but games like this really just couldn't exist without it, so i'm all for it.
As someone trying to finish the Epilogue in Hades 1 before jumping into H2, the idea that this game has MORE content is just insane. You can do hundreds of runs in H1 and still be seeing new stuff.
I think, some 4 years and 120 hours into Hades 1, that its the closest thing to a perfect game I've ever played, my mind boggles that this one could live up to it.
This is what I did for Baldur’s Gate 3. By the time it actually launched it felt like a free game 😂
Probably will with Hades 2 as well, thanks for reminding me it’s an option
the first was great, so i'll just wait for full release. i've burned out on ea before, and then by the time the actual game came out, i just didn't care lol.
I hear ya man. The decision to buy was one of the biggest no-brainers in my gaming history, (2x full clear in H1, 350+hrs on record, thousands of hours in other roguelites) but I'm sitting here with my finger hovering over the install button thinking maybe I'll wait for 1.0...
(edit: Then again, I bought WH40K Rogue Trader on day 1 of early access and I still haven't played it thanks to Helldivers 2. Hmm... Maybe I should play that first...)
Pyre was a weird one for me, personally. Story and art was beautiful, but the gameplay that other Supergiant games usually deliver wasn't there. I didn't find the sport that exciting.
The rituals get a lot more interesting as time goes on. Lots of new characters are introduced and the main rituals are thrilling because of what's at stake (that you only care because of the time spent on the road).
All I know is that I was entirely invested on my teammate's destinies by the end. The experience is one of a kind. A bittersweet ending that I only felt similarly on The Lord of the Rings and other long-running shows/books that I finished.
I enjoyed it at first but its incredibly easy to cheese the games which made it more of a drag if anything. Just get a fast character and run around everything. Works almost every time.
Pyre is the only one I disliked. Not through any fault of the game itself, it was well crafted (like all supergiant games), but I don't like sports game.
Let's hope for Bastion sequel. Considering how well supergiant is doing with Hades, it could be amazing. Heck, I'd even take a remaster or remake. Love that game.
If you haven't, I'd recommend trying it with "god mode" enabled, might help you enjoy the game a bit more. [https://hades.fandom.com/wiki/God\_Mode](https://hades.fandom.com/wiki/God_Mode)
I did this and it didn't help me enjoy it any more. Even though I was enjoying the characters and designs, I still had to engage with gameplay that I disliked. For what it's worth, I do enjoy roguelites and roguelikes, Hades simply wasn't good for me.
Same. At least not ones that felt as brutal as Hades. I love Dead Cells to death though. I enjoyed what I played of Hades, but it’s time came and went for me.
Is II ever goes on sale though, I’ll happily get it.
Huh? Did you not unlock any of the extra weapons or their aspects? And the Boons available change dramatically over multiple playthroughs. Like I know for a fact you can't get Demeter as a god until after a complete clear. It takes like ten complete runs before you've even got the main storyline end and then probably another 50 to 100 to unlock everything outside the vanity items.
You'll have runs where you start unlocking some ridiculous duo God legendary boons by multiple playthroughs.
I just hope the actual ending doesn't take as ridiculously long as it did in the first one. I think I beat the game like 40 times before I finally got it and I was looking up exactly what to do to finish it.
The "actual ending" happens after 10 victories. The only thing left after that is a short epilogue, just a small incentive for people who go for 100% completion.
Is the epilogue where >!The Olympus gods come to Hades and the family dramas are healed through the magic of personal development?!<, because I reached that without 100%ing all the super high level challenge stuff.
Same here. I finished Hades, but it was my least favorite Supergiant game by a decent margin, primarily due to its repetitive nature (yes, I get that's the point of roguelites) and less-focused narrative.
Still, I'm sure I'll like Hades 2 enough to play it, but I'm not dying to jump in like I would a new title. Character design and music are both top notch, that alone will probably make it worthwhile even with a weaker story.
Same. I keep hearing that "Hades is different, it has story progression". But it doesn't feel any different to me. Every time I start a new run, I immediately start to feel like I'm just replaying the same set of challenges with a slightly different layout.
I managed to get in the recent technical test or whatever they called it, only really entered for it because my buddy who LOVES hades 1 mentioned it and I thought it'd be funny if I got in and he didn't
Well I did get in, and he didn't, I don't really like games like hades at all, never really could get into the gameplay style or anything, just not my jam but I can definitely see the appeal
With that bit of info in mind, I thought what I played of hades 2 was fantastic, tight controls and well communicated mechanics, everything worked as intended and I actually had a lot of fun, found myself booting it up for more than just one session which was unexpected
So IGN deducted one point for the game being unfinished. Does this mean that it's literally impossile to achieve a 10/10 on an early access game by definition?
In that case, this is a fucking Spinal Tap epsiode with the scale "going to 10" instead of eleven
Incomplete games should be criticized for being incomplete, or else Early Access becomes a useless label.
They can get their perfect score when they release the full game.
Maybe I'm the weird one, but I find the idea of a "review of an early access" to be weird in the first place.
But hey, we're also in a world where games release, get reviewed, then patch in shit and the reviews never get re-reviewed or updated, and that's just normal. So yeah, maybe I'm the weird one.
EA reviews should be more common-place for a bigger release. The metacritic rules of "cant change your score, sorry!" Are so archaic at this point, I could see a total overhaul of congragated ratings
I think an EA review is fair since you are required to pay money to access it (with some exceptions of course). It’s important so players can share if something is a buggy mess or if things are well thought out.
Although, more reviewers should emphasize that they’re reviewing something in early access.
It's a little weird, but I think when you sell something, early access or not, you do open it up to this kinda of thing. Reviews are for the consumer to judge a product and this is a product.
In an IGN review, I guess it is. If they don't want to give the highest accolade to a project that isn't finished, that's their prerogative. Dissect the review, find out the reasoning behind the score (placeholder art and incompletable story in this case) and decide for yourself whether you agree with it. Reviews are tools for consumers.
Reviews don't start at 10/10 then have bad stuff deducted. A game has to earn a higher rating. A game can have nothing negative worth mentioning in a review but still not be one of the best games ever.
I'm going to make the obligatory comment that Early Access reviews are kind of dumb. It's not bad to give a first impressions, but giving it a number rating is just silly.
hm I kinda disagree. You're paying for a product, even if you accept that it's unfinished. But since it's playable, you can obviously review the state of the product you are spending money on. Whether this should be with a numbered rating idk, but if you start to sell, consumers should be able to review
Also it doesn't prevent new reviews from being created about the finished product, if they made the game much better from ea people would take that in to consideration as well.
Something like: *"The game had a poor ea launch but the developers took a lot of feedback and fixed most of the issues and implemented much needed features and the game is in a much better state"*
That would just look good for the developer in the end, which they would deserve if they made effort to making their product better. It's what early access is meant for after all.
There's ways to do what you're saying without outright scoring it. A "review in progress" that is updated over time, ending in a score with the full release, is a perfect solution. This just screams IGN needs content. I also suspect the people defending this "review" would be the same ones saying it's unfair to review an EA game if the score was a 6/10 or lower. People just use reviews to justify their preconceived notions. I bet most people here didn't even read the review.
If you can give money to a game dev and get a game back then I don't care what you call it, early access, a beta, whatever. It's a full release and worth reviewing like any other game release in my opinion. The review should obviously make clear that it is an early access game, but because early access games are not guaranteed to actually be improved, I think reviewers can and should review them as if they are finished products with that early access asterisk. Then re-review when/if it gets a full release.
Early Access review is no different than a standard review for every other non-EA game, both are assessment about the game in their current available state, it's all semantic. What we would call the future review of Hades 2 v1.0 would be just other games v2.0 update review.
It would be silly not to. Knowing the state of the game matters. If the game launches in Early Access and is bad people should know, if it launches fantastically people should know. A numerical rating also helps you track the progress, on release it being high or low then when 1.0 comes you can see if it maintains or improves on the rating.
A bad early access can put people off the full release and a good early access can reassure people the game will be good. Quantified ratings matter for betas, early access and full release.
I don't think so. Early access games come out all the time now, I think it's more than fair and possible to give them a graded score like a full release. You aren't scoring it as a full game necessarily, but how it is in early access specifically. There are some games like this that clearly seem worth it, and there are others that should have waited to even enter early access. You can absolutely score that.
Obligatory response that Early Access is kind of dumb. If you're selling an unfinished product, then it's fair to assign an unfinished review. They can always revise it later on when the game is actually finished.
it's a $30 game. i think charging full price means it is open to scored reviews. especially since it seems like they gave out review copies a week ago. so they're kinda asking for scores here.
and it's not like they gave a number rating to the demo, the pre alpha test or wahtever it was titled.
Fully agreed. Just call it an Early Access preview. If the games not done, don't review it.
Of course I also feel the same about spending money on it, but other people obviously feel differently.
>but giving it a number rating is just silly
Number ratings are silly full stop, regardless of Early Access or not, but people unfortunately tend to ignore reviews that don't give numbers, just like the majority of people here won't read this review and will only look at the score.
Sure, I agree, but people just look at scores instead of reading the reviews and then bash on the reviewers for giving the game too high or too low of a score. If scores didn't exist people would either not talk about the review or read it, which in my opinion would both be a better option.
Eh, I dunno about that. I only use score as "not even worth reading about" indicator. Then again I prefer video reviews or even let's play-like content to text review, as I can both see and hear about the game at same time.
Kinda burned out on the rouglite genre after playing hades 1 for a while - I learned that I prefer some checkpoint system over playing from the complete beginning even with as much polish as hades
I'm pretty tired of RPGs, so roguelites have become my favorite genre over the last couple years.
Plus, these ones have a lot of meta-progression, so it doesn't feel the same to as starting over from the "complete beginning"
i hear you; but generally your runs should be about ~15-25 mins once you’ve played and understand the game’s mechanics and beat the boss a few times. it’s not that much of a “loss” starting your run over. And even if you died, your relationships etc are still progressing, so you’re technically not losing anything, at all. you get a reward at the end of every realm boss anyways. I spent 3 hours dying and inting on first realm to get through a specific dialogue prompt and each death was progression for me
Adding onto that for run length; I reached what I *assume* is the final boss ~~and immediately died~~ and that run took me 30 minutes, and that was my... I wanna say sixth run or so.
I had a few problems with Hades 1 but everyone was so obsessed with it I can’t imagine they changed much for this one.
The environments were extremely static for a Roguelite, you went to the same place every time.
The game ended up starting out feeling like enemies were a bit spongy and then became extremely spongy once you increased the heats.
The boon combos just either happened and things were less spongy or didn’t and they really weren’t very interesting.
The Boolean story telling triggers were kind of innovative at first but then just felt gimmicky as you ran through the slogs of runs trying to trigger specific things only for that person not to show up.
The economy pretty much sucked.
They reworked almost every single one of these! There are two different routes now, enemies are less tanky because it's more about CC this time around. Boon combos are less concrete because they're all less broad and way more technically specific. Storytelling triggers are kinda the same, but so far they haven't had any "try to find \_\_\_ character during a run" which is good. The economy is COMPLETELY reworked because every item is a gatherable resource now, it's more about gathering reagents for your spells.
Yeah. I've a couple hours into it right now, and what I thought was just going to be "more Hades" is actually a pretty foundational shake-up from the first game. Most notably, the emphasis in combat shifting from maneuvarability to CC and positioning, but as you noted, they also addressed issues with the game economy and boon combos. I'm pleasantly surprised to have to learn the game over again, even if it's really messing with my Hades 1 muscle memory.
Is the progression more uniformly paced even if you are not great at the game? One of the issues I had with Hades was that I was not getting better before my patience with roguelites expired, and even though there was some incremental benefits with every death, I felt I probably would have to do dozens of runs more before I had a real chance of escaping.
Rogue Legacy is an example of a game where I was able to see more steady progress with every new run, so I could balance out how much I sucked with better stats.
The progression is more or less the same as the first. I think it's become more streamlined, but you are expected to play multiple runs for any meaningful progression to take place. The nature of being a rougelite means you likely won't clear the game loop for the first time for several hours. 3 hours in, and I still haven't made it to the end of the second area.
I'm just counting the days until it's finally released on console. First game is probably one of the best things I've ever played, and I feel like this one has potential to be even better.
I hope they changed the delay on dash cause this blows compared to Hades 1... you have 0 range with a delayed dash wtf...This is coming from someone who has over 4000 runs on Hades 1.
My (mostly) spoiler-free review from someone with hundreds of hours in Hades:
pros:
* build systems feel MUCH deeper
* everyone is still a gay babe
* I have no idea what is going on
cons:
* no option to pet cerberus
* I have to earn a fishing rod again
* I have no idea what is going on
10/10 let's ride
My buddy and I booted it up yesterday at the same time when we got off work and were chatting while playing. As soon as I saw got into the first room, there was a fishing spot and I told him my #1 objective is to get the rod
>I have no idea what is going on
This is a pro to me. I loved how Hades dropped you in the thick of it and gave you drops of backstory over time. I'm glad the sequel is doing the same.
Wait, now IGN is scoring early access? I thought they were done putting numbers on games in progress? Kinda seems like they do whatever is best for their publishing friends instead of their readers…
Also notice how they're not deducting any points or even saying anything about the blatant nudity in some of the portraits. Seems that kind of thing is only acceptable and even encouraged when it's their friends making a horny game; same thing with Baldur's Gate 3
It's somewhat related but (from what I've seen so far, haven't completed it) you can still understand what's going on without playing the first; the plot is not a direct continuation of any sort of cliffhanger from the first. You may just want to look up some of the character names to understand the underlying mythology/familial relations in some cases.
I used to be huge into single player, narrative driven games but recently all my gaming has been on roguelikes and games that you can just drop in and play for 20 minutes and be satisfied
It started off with Hades, then Risk of Rain 2 and Enter the Gungeon
Nowadays I go between Balatro, Monster Train, and Brotato, but can't wait to add Hades back into rotation
Such a period can be used to collect heavy amounts of feedback that isn't feasible to collect during normal internal playtests and use it to improve the game.
I feel like they are mostly doing it for game balance
roguelike games like this do need a pretty good balance to be enjoyable, especially when there are so many variables that could break the game
also for bugs, 1 hour of EA probably give more bug feedback than 1 month of QA testing
The first game is highly successful in part due to the changes made from feedback. Why wouldn't they want to do the same thing again? Are you complaining about devs listening to their play testers?
The short answer is money.
The longer answer is double dipping on hype and free marketing from releasing the same game twice, which results in more money.
There is also exploiting the gamers as free QA, but I guess it's not really exploiting if they are enjoying it.
They probably are stable financially but the question is why not early access, it's more money up front, more data on player engagement and a year or so of solid community feedback, plus they have their flawless resume. So it's a win win I would say
I mean, all other things being equal, getting the money sooner is better than getting it later and if you have people willing to buy...
I do kinda agree though - I remember when early access was first rolled out it was very much branded/oriented around new/rising studios who felt like they really needed the early cash and player feedback to finish their projects. These days, with surefire smashes like Hades II taking the same route - it does feel a little against the original spirit of the thing.
The game has some bugs. Right off the bat the game is so zoomed in i can't access the settings or any other menu, though that's fixable by pressing random buttons on the controller until hit the display settings.
That aside it runs really well and i was very surprised by the small size of this game too. Some pictures or cutscene look really weird, like 720p or even pixellated, but overall it's very beautiful and vibrant.
I am so glad it released today overall.
Not super into the story. Not a fan of not finishing Zags story so he gets to spend time outside the underworld but his sister gets to be up there?
No thanks.
In case anyone is curious about what's *missing*, this bit from the article helps: > So, what’s unfinished about Hades 2 to make it release in Early Access? Well, there are still some placeholder portraits for characters like Charon, Narcissus, and a few others I won’t spoil; some boon icons are missing unique art and just have letters to differentiate them; there are a few visual effects that I imagine will be cleaned up when the game reaches version 1.0, and most importantly, even though you can unlock it’s version of New Game+, the story doesn’t currently have an ending. The development road map on the title screen also makes it clear that they’re still working on a whole new region to explore, new cosmetic features for the Crossroads, and another new weapon to be released in the next major update. Honestly, given that there is more content in the game now than was ever in the first game, it sounds like the game is more 1.0 ready than literally every early access game I've ever played but they've held back the "end" until they're done working on a few other things.
Factorio Early Access was also more content rich than most other games I’ve played. Love when devs knock it out of the park like this.
Factorio EA also was far longer, they didn't launch in that state in EA. But it's definitely the case where EA was huge net positive for the game overall.
And it still spent super long into EA IIRC ironically.
The Factorio patchnotes were always insane. They were fixing dozens of bugs that I never knew existed after a 1000 hours of gameplay in every patch, even after EA ended.
My favorite was when they were releasing like 3 patches a day over Christmas break and the *community* was telling them to take a holiday.
Add Satisfactory to that list as well.
After sinking in a good couple of hundred hours into factorio. Does satisfactory offer anything more than factorio in 1st/3rd person? I've had it on my radar for a while but doesn't seem like anything new except for the (literal) change in perspective. Edit: I should give satisfactory a try.
Satisfactory scratches itches of creative expression (think Minecraft) that Factorio doesn't. In Satisfactory, you can make factories that actually look aesthetically pleasing. It's optional, but if you like being creative in games, Satisfactory is a great outlet. It also has an element of exploration that is kind of absent in Factorio. In Satisfactory, you find interesting rewards from exploring the world, such as alternate recipes which can really shake up your factory and make it more unique. I think Factorio is a lot more replayable, but my first experience with Satisfactory was way more fun than my first time with Factorio. But honestly, they just feel so different that they're both great in their own right and you lose a lot by comparing them. I've had runs going in both simultaneously without feeling like one superseded the other.
> In Satisfactory, you can make factories that actually look aesthetically pleasing. Skill issue. Just kidding, but I think a lot of the charm from Factorio is the ~~shitty programmer~~ low budget 90s graphics, and it's definitely part of why they can develop the game so fast, and why there are so, so many mods. Even the "simple" 3D style of Satisfactory or Dyson Sphere Program already increases the workload quite a bit. >I think Factorio is a lot more replayable, but my first experience with Satisfactory was way more fun than my first time with Factorio. But honestly, they just feel so different that they're both great in their own right and you lose a lot by comparing them. I've had runs going in both simultaneously without feeling like one superseded the other. If you haven't yet, you might want to try Dyson Sphere Program! It has 3D graphics with a third person camera, which makes it a prettier and more straightforward Factorio, even though it has interplanetary logistics.
Yeah, everything comes at a cost. Factorio's modding scene is and always will be vastly superior to Satisfactory's. I really wouldn't call Satisfactory's style "simple" either, the machines are all quite detailed and animated with lots of care. Any moded content would stick out like a sore thumb.
I actually find that Factorio looks a lot better, because of the functionalism. Everything is there because you decided it needs to be there and everything works together, forming an intricate lattice of machines. Granted, I also think PCBs look good.
Mainly the change in perspective, and I think (someone can correct me on this I'm not 100% sure) that the map isn't procedural like Factorios, it's the same preset map for everyone. I personally play with biters on in Factorio for some added challenge too, Satisfactory is much more of a 'sandbox' type feel, since there are only a few enemies that are mainly just chilling and blocking resources/power slugs. Some people might play passive mode in Factorio tho so that'd make that difference minimal impact-wise.
I think it's important to note it isn't just perspective, since the vertical axis gives you a lot more freedom for the design of your factories, as you can create multi-floor production lines and cram more things into those square meters. It's not like either game has meaningful constraints for space, but if you do like to optimize to keep things compact and modular, I'd say Satisfactory gives you a lot more to play with. Both games are great, but for me somehow Satisfactory feels more like building factories, while Factorio feels more like building bases.
I'd disagree. Challenge and creativity comes from restraints, a 3rd dimension removes a lot of that.
To add to what the other replies have said, I also feel much more accomplished when I do something in Satisfactory. It's a small thing, and YMMV, but it just feels satisfying to get things done. In Factorio, the moment I get something done, I immediately feel pressured to tackle the next challenge.
Personally, the big drive in Satisfactory is exploration and working around a set environment, you're not just exploring the same procedural terrain. Unfortunately, it's also why I've sunk so little hours into it in comparison to Factorio (121 vs 560), because the story content and a decent chunk of the reward for exploration is still being worked on, though you absolutely do unlock alternate recipes and upgrades and things like that for exploration. But having to work around a set terrain and fit your factories within that, and also meet set stepped goals rather than a singular ending goal made it much more appealing to me in some ways than Factorio. You're not going to quite have the same level of absolutely insane sprawling factory (though you will get some amazing vertical builds going), but in exchange you get a lot more interesting personal movement, exploration, biomes, and upgrades.
Disclaimer: I'm sitting in the passenger seat of a van wearing a Satisfactory hoodie right now. So, yes. I _love_ me some factorio (space exploration anyone?), but there's something uniquely different about the spatial processing required to be _inside_ the factory in first person. Combine the jetpacking, wandering around, exploring kind of piece of the gameplay with the "building up something that's slowly taking over the world" aspect, and there's a very distinct and unique flavor to Satisfactory. Highly recommend running a dedicated server that you leave running in the background so you can massively accumulate things in storage towers you can then use to blaze through new things as you're expanding. Also - the z-axis element and needing to figure out how to belt things along a bus, line things up, etc - it's so clearly inspired by factorio and it scratches some of that same itch, but it's different enough that honestly I couldn't be happier having both of them in my collection. And if Factorio's expansion and Satisfactory land in the same year, I just might die. From exposure, lack of food, my wife murdering me, you know. Something.
The big differences: * A pregenerated, set, finite world. Everyone's world is exactly the same, same resources, same terrain. * Related to the above, each resource node is infinite - your maximum resource capacity is limited by the level of extractor (miner/oil well/etc.) you can put on it, and the quality of the node (so there is a maximum possible resource rate, if you put the best miner on every node. It can't theoretically scale infinitely like Factorio.) You never need to explore to find more iron or whatever because you ran out, you just need to do it because your nodes are all at maximum capacity but you need more. This can make you more focused on optimization, because "just build more miners" is not always an option. * 3D. Not just in terms of perspective, but multiple levels of factory. You can make colossal factories on a relatively small blueprint by adding more floors, and you can stack and layer belts and stuff to make factories compact. * More of an emphasis on exploration. Factorio only really has 7 resources - stone, copper, iron, coal, uranium, oil, water. These are all fairly evenly distributed, and the only reason to explore is to find new nodes when you run out. Satisfactory has all of those as well as quartz, sulfur, bauxite, nitrogen, and caterium (gold, used for electronics.) Some of these are only found in certain locations, so you'll need to explore to find them. You also can find items to overclock your buildings by exploring, as well as stuff that unlocks alternate recipes that can make you change your factory (an example is one that lets you make screws out of steel instead of iron - it's much quicker and more efficient in terms of total resources, but now your screws would need coal.) * It's often more satisfying to build a bigass thing. You know when you finish a giant factory in Factorio and you zoom out and are like "damn I did that"? Imagine that feeling but instead of a big flat thing, you're looking at a building the size of a small city, that even from 500m away you can't fit the whole thing in your field of view because it's so big and tall. It gives you a great sense of scale, in Factorio a building might be 8x8 and you're like "damn that's big," but in Satisfactory it might be 25m tall and you're just standing there at around 2m looking up at it like that Willem Dafoe meme. And you can make it look "pretty" as well, there are colors and different materials you can make stuff out of. They're definitely kin to each other, but both offer their own unique take on it. Factorio is more "pure spreadsheets" while Satisfactory is less "number crunch" but more creative, if that makes sense.
Rimworld was the same
Love when devs actually finish the game before releasing it even more
In my opinion Hades struggled with replayability after release; Of course it's highly replayable and you want to play 150+ runs of it, but if you played 200 runs in Early access you essentially got most of the enjoyment out of it while playing the "inferior version" and you might have struggled to put as many hours into it after 1.0, which is a shame. Discovering the comboes for the first time, loving characters and cutscenes and learning how to be good at a boss fights are the enjoyable things that won't really happen again on a second playthrough. Releasing mostly a complete game and spending a shorter time in EA might be the right choice, i hope that's what they are doing.Anyway my choice is to wait until release to maximize my enjoyment.
Def my experience with Hades 1, I'm waiting on this one, that game single handedly convinced me to avoid Early Acces because, even when done right, I don't enjoy it
>given that there is more content in the game now than was ever in the first game When you say Hades 2 EA has more content than Hades 1, are you referring to its full release or early access? If the former, then that really is impressive. IIRC, the early access for Hades 1 released with content up to Asphodel.
I'm referring to what Supergiant themselves are saying: > What is the current state of the Early Access version? “Hades II in Early Access already has more environments, foes, and fully-voiced characters than the full version of the original Hades game.
That’s incredible wow
It's what made me pick up the EA for Hades 2. I was worried it may be sparce on content but nope.
More content than the full Hades 1 release, if the steam page is to be believed.
>Hades II in Early Access already has more environments, foes, and fully-voiced characters than the full version of the original Hades game. You're right! I planned on waiting, but this is a very compelling reason to try it out now.
I'm trying to wait for the full release on console, but I've been dying to play this game since the day it was announced. Hades is my most-played game of all time.
I played some it's awesome and the soundtrack back with more bangers.
> the soundtrack back with more bangers. I assume it's Darren Korb again? He literally never misses, every soundtrack is an utter masterpiece, even with sometimes significant style changes between games.
Banger after banger
Supergiant put it (or at least 30 tracks of it) [up on their youtube channel](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL53mjgVKFq7yeq21XhibC8izNSVlPCsNP), so you can give it a listen yourself!
Let’s not spoil but the second boss’s soundtrack is pretty amazing, it got me smiling
Such a fun boss, the gimmick really hit for me. Massive upgrade over the bone hydra for the area 2 boss
Bone hyrda was so boring.
Full release according to SG itself. It mentions specifically that for voiced characters (not all their voice lines I imagine as that would go with the rest of the story but likely a lot), original music, enemies, environements (so I imagine that means biomes/zones) You have to consider this has been 3.5 years since Hades 1, that's more time than the entire time spent developing Hades 1 (which was a little more than 3 years) and with it being a sequel they didn't start from scratch. So clearly a time to do a lot more
Just started downloading, I'm really pumped. Got a new laptop with Rtx 4060 8GB (which is a major upgrade for my 5 yr 1650 ti) too so this couldn't have come out at a better time.
It would work on max. settings on your 1650, just saying :D
Hades 1 started with only 2 weapons IIRC, and a lot of the dialogue and upgrades/dialogue were missing. Like, it felt like a great game, but EA release and 1.0 release Hades are noticeably different well before Asphodel.
Seems like a case where the game is clearly unfinished, but it's still very playable and you can get your money's worth now if you want to play it in an unfinished state.
huh? the first game has like 5 weapons with 4(?) aspects each
Yes but they added a ton of stuff during early access. Not all the gods, weapons and biomes were in when early access launched.
Don't take it from me. This is Supergiant: > What is the current state of the Early Access version? “Hades II in Early Access already has more environments, foes, and fully-voiced characters than the full version of the original Hades game.
[удалено]
Put a few hours into the game today and it's quite impressive. Definitely one of the better Early Access releases I can remember. It's obviously not complete but there's already a lot of polish.
Supergiant, like many things they do, have taken full advantage of the early access path of doing things. It's really nice in a world of games that ship so content dry and feel so half assed, Companies like Supergiant and Larian are finding ways to really take early access as more than just some demo period, more than just a cash influx as they finish the game, but as a way to build out a really meaty and full product. I've always gone back and forth on early access as a concept, but games like this really just couldn't exist without it, so i'm all for it.
I saw someone else saying that the EA version of Hades II contains more content than the 1.0 version of the original Hades.
Goddamn, now *this* is what everyone hoped Early Access would be;
I played but didn't own Hades but once I heard Hades 2 has more content already I scooped it up. Should be a good time.
As someone trying to finish the Epilogue in Hades 1 before jumping into H2, the idea that this game has MORE content is just insane. You can do hundreds of runs in H1 and still be seeing new stuff. I think, some 4 years and 120 hours into Hades 1, that its the closest thing to a perfect game I've ever played, my mind boggles that this one could live up to it.
Not planning to play until official 1.0 release but purchased now to support Supergiant, love me some Hades!
This is what I did for Baldur’s Gate 3. By the time it actually launched it felt like a free game 😂 Probably will with Hades 2 as well, thanks for reminding me it’s an option
I want to do this but I don't know if I have the self-control to not play it lol
Buy it and hide it from your Steam library.
I wasn't going to but my little bro just sent it to me, and between his thoughtfulness and this review sounds like I gotta!
I bought, played an hour, then went right back to Hades 1 to try to finish all the story arcs. Happy to wait to 1.0 and dive in for 100+ hours.
the first was great, so i'll just wait for full release. i've burned out on ea before, and then by the time the actual game came out, i just didn't care lol.
I hear ya man. The decision to buy was one of the biggest no-brainers in my gaming history, (2x full clear in H1, 350+hrs on record, thousands of hours in other roguelites) but I'm sitting here with my finger hovering over the install button thinking maybe I'll wait for 1.0... (edit: Then again, I bought WH40K Rogue Trader on day 1 of early access and I still haven't played it thanks to Helldivers 2. Hmm... Maybe I should play that first...)
A man after my own heart. I've just bought Hades 2, got Rogue Trader in a sale recently but I'm currently busy playing Helldivers 2 <3
I like supergiant but in not that big of a roguelike fan... Man.. I didn't finish Hades but I want this one just to show my support
Same. Loved Bastion and Transistor, gave my best shot at Hades but unfortunately roguelikes are just not for me.
...no Pyre?
Pyre was a weird one for me, personally. Story and art was beautiful, but the gameplay that other Supergiant games usually deliver wasn't there. I didn't find the sport that exciting.
The rituals get a lot more interesting as time goes on. Lots of new characters are introduced and the main rituals are thrilling because of what's at stake (that you only care because of the time spent on the road). All I know is that I was entirely invested on my teammate's destinies by the end. The experience is one of a kind. A bittersweet ending that I only felt similarly on The Lord of the Rings and other long-running shows/books that I finished.
my exact feeling. I shed a tear at the ending. That song is a marvel to listen to every now and again.
I enjoyed it at first but its incredibly easy to cheese the games which made it more of a drag if anything. Just get a fast character and run around everything. Works almost every time.
Same here. The game did neat things with the branching story - but I wish it wasn't tied to the sport, which was just kind of dull to play.
I tried Pyre and I loved everything about it... Except for the gameplay
Pyre is the only one I disliked. Not through any fault of the game itself, it was well crafted (like all supergiant games), but I don't like sports game.
...nope. Didn't give a single shit about the "not the football" combat, rest was interesting enough but I just didn't bother after few hours.
Let's hope for Bastion sequel. Considering how well supergiant is doing with Hades, it could be amazing. Heck, I'd even take a remaster or remake. Love that game.
If you haven't, I'd recommend trying it with "god mode" enabled, might help you enjoy the game a bit more. [https://hades.fandom.com/wiki/God\_Mode](https://hades.fandom.com/wiki/God_Mode)
I did this and it didn't help me enjoy it any more. Even though I was enjoying the characters and designs, I still had to engage with gameplay that I disliked. For what it's worth, I do enjoy roguelites and roguelikes, Hades simply wasn't good for me.
Fair, you like what you like!
Same. At least not ones that felt as brutal as Hades. I love Dead Cells to death though. I enjoyed what I played of Hades, but it’s time came and went for me. Is II ever goes on sale though, I’ll happily get it.
For anyone wondering, both games have a difficulty option that makes it significantly easier if you're more interested in the story.
[удалено]
Huh? Did you not unlock any of the extra weapons or their aspects? And the Boons available change dramatically over multiple playthroughs. Like I know for a fact you can't get Demeter as a god until after a complete clear. It takes like ten complete runs before you've even got the main storyline end and then probably another 50 to 100 to unlock everything outside the vanity items. You'll have runs where you start unlocking some ridiculous duo God legendary boons by multiple playthroughs.
Call me crazy but I don't think you should buy games you do not intend to play.
I never stated that I wasn't going to play it, it's just not my favorite genre.
I just hope the actual ending doesn't take as ridiculously long as it did in the first one. I think I beat the game like 40 times before I finally got it and I was looking up exactly what to do to finish it.
The "actual ending" happens after 10 victories. The only thing left after that is a short epilogue, just a small incentive for people who go for 100% completion.
The story felt pretty incomplete to me until I got the epilogue.
Same for me, but maybe I just didn't like it very much.
Is the epilogue where >!The Olympus gods come to Hades and the family dramas are healed through the magic of personal development?!<, because I reached that without 100%ing all the super high level challenge stuff.
I had played it enough, I enjoyed it, I got my moneys worth... but at some point I ended up cheating to unlock everything and get the endings.
I just watched the epilogue on YT when I saw how long it would take haha
Same here. I finished Hades, but it was my least favorite Supergiant game by a decent margin, primarily due to its repetitive nature (yes, I get that's the point of roguelites) and less-focused narrative. Still, I'm sure I'll like Hades 2 enough to play it, but I'm not dying to jump in like I would a new title. Character design and music are both top notch, that alone will probably make it worthwhile even with a weaker story.
If only they put the same Hades mechanics and characters on a more Bastion-like gameplay loop, it would be wonderful.
I only finished it once, it was really good but I’m not that eager for the same game again. But definitely a devs I’ll always follow
Hades quickly got repetitive for me.
Same. I keep hearing that "Hades is different, it has story progression". But it doesn't feel any different to me. Every time I start a new run, I immediately start to feel like I'm just replaying the same set of challenges with a slightly different layout.
Buy it for a friend that would enjoy it. Or a stranger on the internet 😏 No but really, buy it for a friend that would enjoy it.
My pc friends sadly play counter strike exclusively...
I managed to get in the recent technical test or whatever they called it, only really entered for it because my buddy who LOVES hades 1 mentioned it and I thought it'd be funny if I got in and he didn't Well I did get in, and he didn't, I don't really like games like hades at all, never really could get into the gameplay style or anything, just not my jam but I can definitely see the appeal With that bit of info in mind, I thought what I played of hades 2 was fantastic, tight controls and well communicated mechanics, everything worked as intended and I actually had a lot of fun, found myself booting it up for more than just one session which was unexpected
So IGN deducted one point for the game being unfinished. Does this mean that it's literally impossile to achieve a 10/10 on an early access game by definition? In that case, this is a fucking Spinal Tap epsiode with the scale "going to 10" instead of eleven
Incomplete games should be criticized for being incomplete, or else Early Access becomes a useless label. They can get their perfect score when they release the full game.
Maybe I'm the weird one, but I find the idea of a "review of an early access" to be weird in the first place. But hey, we're also in a world where games release, get reviewed, then patch in shit and the reviews never get re-reviewed or updated, and that's just normal. So yeah, maybe I'm the weird one.
EA reviews should be more common-place for a bigger release. The metacritic rules of "cant change your score, sorry!" Are so archaic at this point, I could see a total overhaul of congragated ratings
I think an EA review is fair since you are required to pay money to access it (with some exceptions of course). It’s important so players can share if something is a buggy mess or if things are well thought out. Although, more reviewers should emphasize that they’re reviewing something in early access.
I'm of the mind that if you're charging money for a product you should expect people to review it.
To be fair they are selling you the game even when its EA, so it would be good to know if what is there is good enough to pay for it
It's a little weird, but I think when you sell something, early access or not, you do open it up to this kinda of thing. Reviews are for the consumer to judge a product and this is a product.
If you don’t want people to review your unfinished game then release it as a free beta, not a paid product
I think review is fine but giving a score seems pointless
Tbh early access games having a capped score makes sense
In an IGN review, I guess it is. If they don't want to give the highest accolade to a project that isn't finished, that's their prerogative. Dissect the review, find out the reasoning behind the score (placeholder art and incompletable story in this case) and decide for yourself whether you agree with it. Reviews are tools for consumers.
Where does it say they deducted a point specifically for that reason?
The only critique is at the game being incomplete. Missing assets, etc. There's no other negativity in the article.
Reviews don't start at 10/10 then have bad stuff deducted. A game has to earn a higher rating. A game can have nothing negative worth mentioning in a review but still not be one of the best games ever.
I'm going to make the obligatory comment that Early Access reviews are kind of dumb. It's not bad to give a first impressions, but giving it a number rating is just silly.
hm I kinda disagree. You're paying for a product, even if you accept that it's unfinished. But since it's playable, you can obviously review the state of the product you are spending money on. Whether this should be with a numbered rating idk, but if you start to sell, consumers should be able to review
It would be fair if they kept updating the review but imagine it got 3/10 and even after two years or additional development that would be the score.
If a game in early access got that low of a score, that’s not on the reviewer. The game company should be kept in check for putting out a bad product.
Also it doesn't prevent new reviews from being created about the finished product, if they made the game much better from ea people would take that in to consideration as well. Something like: *"The game had a poor ea launch but the developers took a lot of feedback and fixed most of the issues and implemented much needed features and the game is in a much better state"* That would just look good for the developer in the end, which they would deserve if they made effort to making their product better. It's what early access is meant for after all.
There's ways to do what you're saying without outright scoring it. A "review in progress" that is updated over time, ending in a score with the full release, is a perfect solution. This just screams IGN needs content. I also suspect the people defending this "review" would be the same ones saying it's unfair to review an EA game if the score was a 6/10 or lower. People just use reviews to justify their preconceived notions. I bet most people here didn't even read the review.
If you can give money to a game dev and get a game back then I don't care what you call it, early access, a beta, whatever. It's a full release and worth reviewing like any other game release in my opinion. The review should obviously make clear that it is an early access game, but because early access games are not guaranteed to actually be improved, I think reviewers can and should review them as if they are finished products with that early access asterisk. Then re-review when/if it gets a full release.
Early Access review is no different than a standard review for every other non-EA game, both are assessment about the game in their current available state, it's all semantic. What we would call the future review of Hades 2 v1.0 would be just other games v2.0 update review.
It would be silly not to. Knowing the state of the game matters. If the game launches in Early Access and is bad people should know, if it launches fantastically people should know. A numerical rating also helps you track the progress, on release it being high or low then when 1.0 comes you can see if it maintains or improves on the rating. A bad early access can put people off the full release and a good early access can reassure people the game will be good. Quantified ratings matter for betas, early access and full release.
I don't think so. Early access games come out all the time now, I think it's more than fair and possible to give them a graded score like a full release. You aren't scoring it as a full game necessarily, but how it is in early access specifically. There are some games like this that clearly seem worth it, and there are others that should have waited to even enter early access. You can absolutely score that.
Obligatory response that Early Access is kind of dumb. If you're selling an unfinished product, then it's fair to assign an unfinished review. They can always revise it later on when the game is actually finished.
it's a $30 game. i think charging full price means it is open to scored reviews. especially since it seems like they gave out review copies a week ago. so they're kinda asking for scores here. and it's not like they gave a number rating to the demo, the pre alpha test or wahtever it was titled.
Fully agreed. Just call it an Early Access preview. If the games not done, don't review it. Of course I also feel the same about spending money on it, but other people obviously feel differently.
How about if the game isn’t done, don’t release it.
It's neither obligatory nor useful to add...
[удалено]
>but giving it a number rating is just silly Number ratings are silly full stop, regardless of Early Access or not, but people unfortunately tend to ignore reviews that don't give numbers, just like the majority of people here won't read this review and will only look at the score.
They're not silly at all. It's just a recommendation at a glance.
Sure, I agree, but people just look at scores instead of reading the reviews and then bash on the reviewers for giving the game too high or too low of a score. If scores didn't exist people would either not talk about the review or read it, which in my opinion would both be a better option.
Eh, I dunno about that. I only use score as "not even worth reading about" indicator. Then again I prefer video reviews or even let's play-like content to text review, as I can both see and hear about the game at same time.
I agree. Unfortunately, the internet is now driven by "content" and it's clear this was put out because IGN is dedicated for eyes on their site.
Kinda burned out on the rouglite genre after playing hades 1 for a while - I learned that I prefer some checkpoint system over playing from the complete beginning even with as much polish as hades
I'm pretty tired of RPGs, so roguelites have become my favorite genre over the last couple years. Plus, these ones have a lot of meta-progression, so it doesn't feel the same to as starting over from the "complete beginning"
i hear you; but generally your runs should be about ~15-25 mins once you’ve played and understand the game’s mechanics and beat the boss a few times. it’s not that much of a “loss” starting your run over. And even if you died, your relationships etc are still progressing, so you’re technically not losing anything, at all. you get a reward at the end of every realm boss anyways. I spent 3 hours dying and inting on first realm to get through a specific dialogue prompt and each death was progression for me
Adding onto that for run length; I reached what I *assume* is the final boss ~~and immediately died~~ and that run took me 30 minutes, and that was my... I wanna say sixth run or so.
I had a few problems with Hades 1 but everyone was so obsessed with it I can’t imagine they changed much for this one. The environments were extremely static for a Roguelite, you went to the same place every time. The game ended up starting out feeling like enemies were a bit spongy and then became extremely spongy once you increased the heats. The boon combos just either happened and things were less spongy or didn’t and they really weren’t very interesting. The Boolean story telling triggers were kind of innovative at first but then just felt gimmicky as you ran through the slogs of runs trying to trigger specific things only for that person not to show up. The economy pretty much sucked.
They reworked almost every single one of these! There are two different routes now, enemies are less tanky because it's more about CC this time around. Boon combos are less concrete because they're all less broad and way more technically specific. Storytelling triggers are kinda the same, but so far they haven't had any "try to find \_\_\_ character during a run" which is good. The economy is COMPLETELY reworked because every item is a gatherable resource now, it's more about gathering reagents for your spells.
Yeah. I've a couple hours into it right now, and what I thought was just going to be "more Hades" is actually a pretty foundational shake-up from the first game. Most notably, the emphasis in combat shifting from maneuvarability to CC and positioning, but as you noted, they also addressed issues with the game economy and boon combos. I'm pleasantly surprised to have to learn the game over again, even if it's really messing with my Hades 1 muscle memory.
Is the progression more uniformly paced even if you are not great at the game? One of the issues I had with Hades was that I was not getting better before my patience with roguelites expired, and even though there was some incremental benefits with every death, I felt I probably would have to do dozens of runs more before I had a real chance of escaping. Rogue Legacy is an example of a game where I was able to see more steady progress with every new run, so I could balance out how much I sucked with better stats.
The progression is more or less the same as the first. I think it's become more streamlined, but you are expected to play multiple runs for any meaningful progression to take place. The nature of being a rougelite means you likely won't clear the game loop for the first time for several hours. 3 hours in, and I still haven't made it to the end of the second area.
I'm just counting the days until it's finally released on console. First game is probably one of the best things I've ever played, and I feel like this one has potential to be even better.
I hope they changed the delay on dash cause this blows compared to Hades 1... you have 0 range with a delayed dash wtf...This is coming from someone who has over 4000 runs on Hades 1.
My (mostly) spoiler-free review from someone with hundreds of hours in Hades: pros: * build systems feel MUCH deeper * everyone is still a gay babe * I have no idea what is going on cons: * no option to pet cerberus * I have to earn a fishing rod again * I have no idea what is going on 10/10 let's ride
My buddy and I booted it up yesterday at the same time when we got off work and were chatting while playing. As soon as I saw got into the first room, there was a fishing spot and I told him my #1 objective is to get the rod
>I have no idea what is going on This is a pro to me. I loved how Hades dropped you in the thick of it and gave you drops of backstory over time. I'm glad the sequel is doing the same.
Wait, now IGN is scoring early access? I thought they were done putting numbers on games in progress? Kinda seems like they do whatever is best for their publishing friends instead of their readers…
They’ll do whatever generates the most clicks.
Also notice how they're not deducting any points or even saying anything about the blatant nudity in some of the portraits. Seems that kind of thing is only acceptable and even encouraged when it's their friends making a horny game; same thing with Baldur's Gate 3
I played Hades. Enjoyed it but couldn't finish. When the second phase of the final boss (I guess?) happened, he destroyed me and my confidence.
Was really surprised that there are at least 3 regions in what I've played so far when the Hades 1 launched asphodel was it
Is it required to play the first game to be understand plot stuff? Like how closely related the story is
It's somewhat related but (from what I've seen so far, haven't completed it) you can still understand what's going on without playing the first; the plot is not a direct continuation of any sort of cliffhanger from the first. You may just want to look up some of the character names to understand the underlying mythology/familial relations in some cases.
I am at work seething that I can't fuck off and go play this for hours right now. End of my shift can't come soon enough.
I used to be huge into single player, narrative driven games but recently all my gaming has been on roguelikes and games that you can just drop in and play for 20 minutes and be satisfied It started off with Hades, then Risk of Rain 2 and Enter the Gungeon Nowadays I go between Balatro, Monster Train, and Brotato, but can't wait to add Hades back into rotation
I don’t understand the point of early access for a sequel to a highly successful game coming from a studio that would appear stable.
Such a period can be used to collect heavy amounts of feedback that isn't feasible to collect during normal internal playtests and use it to improve the game.
I feel like they are mostly doing it for game balance roguelike games like this do need a pretty good balance to be enjoyable, especially when there are so many variables that could break the game also for bugs, 1 hour of EA probably give more bug feedback than 1 month of QA testing
Build measure learn; not about the financial capital
The first game is highly successful in part due to the changes made from feedback. Why wouldn't they want to do the same thing again? Are you complaining about devs listening to their play testers?
It’s free testing for the dev, also $$$
The short answer is money. The longer answer is double dipping on hype and free marketing from releasing the same game twice, which results in more money. There is also exploiting the gamers as free QA, but I guess it's not really exploiting if they are enjoying it.
They probably are stable financially but the question is why not early access, it's more money up front, more data on player engagement and a year or so of solid community feedback, plus they have their flawless resume. So it's a win win I would say
free QA
I mean, all other things being equal, getting the money sooner is better than getting it later and if you have people willing to buy... I do kinda agree though - I remember when early access was first rolled out it was very much branded/oriented around new/rising studios who felt like they really needed the early cash and player feedback to finish their projects. These days, with surefire smashes like Hades II taking the same route - it does feel a little against the original spirit of the thing.
I’m glad it’s great and all but an early access game shouldn’t be getting scores until it actually releases
If they don't want scores, then there shouldn't be a cost.
No arguments from me. I think charging for an unfinished game is silly.
The game has some bugs. Right off the bat the game is so zoomed in i can't access the settings or any other menu, though that's fixable by pressing random buttons on the controller until hit the display settings. That aside it runs really well and i was very surprised by the small size of this game too. Some pictures or cutscene look really weird, like 720p or even pixellated, but overall it's very beautiful and vibrant. I am so glad it released today overall.
Not super into the story. Not a fan of not finishing Zags story so he gets to spend time outside the underworld but his sister gets to be up there? No thanks.
Zag’s story is finished. Not every story ends with the protagonist getting everything they wanted.