Reviews for roguelikes that have the reviewer constantly explaining the genre, and complaining about the game adhering to it.
"I like the combat but permadeath and random level layouts are a real pain"
Brought to you by, me trying to figure out if Rad is a good game.
"The downside is the unforgiving permadeath rogue-like nature of the game. Progress can become frustrating when you suddenly die and lose all your mutations and have to start again."
Yes, that's the genre you are playing.
"On the other hand, the RNG can be brutal in how it distributes power-ups between runs"
Yeah, that's part of playing a rogue-like
"The various mutations could present clever ideas for unique builds and a multitude of ways to solve problems in a planned, not random, world. This course would have also allowed for more balanced combat and a greater focus on narrative. But… NOPE!"
Yep!
The most negative review on Metacritic, which gives the game a 40, ends with, "As it stands, RAD will likely please roguelike aficionados who will forgive ill-conceived gameplay ideas because of the challenge it adds to the experience."
So it's basically saying, if you enjoy the genre, you will like it. But if you don't like the genre...you will not like it.
Thanks, very informative.
But what is the game like?
This game, not the entirety of the ~40 year history of roguelikes.
These are quotes from 3 real reviews.
It's like if a bunch of people who've never played a soccer game before were sat down and made to provide their nuanced professional opinions on FIFA 20.
"All you can do in this game is play soccer. Why isn't it open world?"