(joke)

THIS REVIEW WAS WRITTEN AT LAUNCH.
See the date at the top?
Yeah, that doesn’t say 2012 does it!?

ANY new features added since launch (online, leaderboards, extra missions) are not covered because they DIDN’T exist at the time of review. Does this review accurately depict the game as it is now, 3 years after release? OF COURSE NOT. The same is true of ANY other at-launch review, of ANY other game made in the last decade, written on ANY other website.

Or do you actually think 2005 reviews of Guild Wars or World of WarCraft in magazines like PC Gamer present accurate perspectives of what those games are like now? I certainly hope not.

Now stop pointing out the blatantly obvious and try actually reading before you comment. And don’t just mindlessly reiterate what has already been covered, and explained, a million times over.

Thank you.

Now there is
-leaderboards
-Online
-Moar missions

If Droniac didn’t enjoy the game on first review then fine, just let it be. Sure there has been some updates but it’s hardly a AAA title that deserves a re-review.

My own opinion: these updates are pretty worthless; leaderbaords, achievements and perks don’t change the monotonous gameplay for me. Again this is just my opinion after giving the game more play time.

Don’t even mention the “co-op” ;)

Wow, quick reply, thanks!

So when I read your review, the main feeling I got was that it came across so negative to the point where it feels like an agenda against the game (I’m not saying you do of course)

And then unsurprisingly it’s followed by those ‘Yeah, worst movie ever’ reply posts. You know the type, people who don’t include any reasons, probably didn’t even play the game and just agree with the reviewer with nonsense.. ‘it sucks because the camera is bad’, then the same guy ‘no I know it’s not the camera.. but it sucks’. No idea what they are actually talking about, which is disappointing.

Now it looks like Nation Red is one of the more popular Indie games on Steam. There is no way that can happen without a wide range of people like myself liking it and build up such a popular forum like for example Beat Hazard. If that many people like the game, a review that’s practically the opposite feels off and very surprising (like I think it did to the other poster above).

A few players can be wrong, but this many? Hmm..

But anyway, you already know the review is outdated and has some incorrect facts, it’s up to you of course but I’m not sure about a re-review since it’s predictable you still won’t approve of the game, and that makes it easy to guess what it will end up like – Nation Red is better than before, but buy (Geometry Wars, Beat Hazard is my guess, probably a space/sci-fi title from your replies:) if you want to buy a shooter.

Those are good games, fully agree with you, but so is Nation Red and those space-set games are too different to appeal to someone who wants an arena zombie shooter with loads of perks/scoring systems, etc. This is probably one of the reasons it became popular since it doesn’t really have much competition on the PC. Name a fairly realistic, recent, and bloody top down zombie shooter on the PC which gets this many updates?

Steam says it’s the most updated game after TF2. Coop just came out so it’ll hopefully get more work done on that. (it needs that, I admit).

But what Nation Red is doing on Steam is great and I fully support it! I don;t see the negative comments you mention though, 90% of it looks positive except bug reporting which is not suprising given they need to add new features all the time.

I think it should be plenty obvious that this review was in no way biased against Nation Red. As I clearly stated in the very first paragraph of this review, it was bought on a whim after recommendation by a friend and checking out the Steam store page. I had hoped for a sweet little game, but after forcing myself through numerous hours of play for a complete and unbiased review, the best I could give it was the result it ended up with.

And I freely admit that I doubt that any future re-review would suddenly see me endorsing the game as the greatest thing since sliced bread. If I claimed otherwise then I’d be saying that I’d simply dismiss my earlier play experience and this original review as if it never happened. That would make me a liar and an absolutely terrible games critic.

But I have revised my opinion on games I loathed before. I absolutely despised Modern Warfare when I first played it, but now I’ve played several hundred hours of Modern Warfare 2 and I think both are fairly decent shooters. My opinion of Modern Warfare was much harsher than this review of Nation Red – and the developers have already eliminated several of my original complaints: no leaderboards and no multiplayer. So yes, it certainly look like Nation Red would score better in a re-review. My most recent comment was merely meant to indicate that I deem it highly unlikely that I’d ever see it as the best top-down shooter ever created… nothing short of a miracle indeed.

I have never stated that the developers did not listen to user feedback, because I’ve actually stated – several times – that they in fact do listen to player feedback and have improved the game in numerous ways. In fact, the very comment you reference contains that very statement! So I’m certainly in agreement with the thousands of gamers who left feedback on the forums: a lot needed fixing and a lot has obviously been fixed. I don’t see where there’s any possible sort of conflict of opinion there?

Your reference to the lack of negativity on the forums only tells half the story. The other half is that there really shouldn’t be any negativity at all because there’s a free demo available on Steam now! Who would bother with negative comments on a demo of a low budget indie game? Practically no one. And who would buy a game based on a demo they didn’t like? Absolutely no one.

OP: Alien Shooter is way, way, outdated compared to this. It has no smooth movement, no targeting, poor presentation, no user feedback added features, perks, and more. Nobody’s buying this on Steam, check the forum as that much is clear. Beat Hazard is great but it’s a completely different game. A game being top-down or side-view doesn’t make it the same.

As mentioned the review is horribly outdated but from your comments it’s clear you’re not approaching this game objectively (you’re already saying: it’ll be miracle to like this). Why so biased?

When I started checking the forum 3 weeks ago, it’s clear the extras added to Nation Red are all from 1000′s of gamer’s ideas. How can they be wrong and you’re right? Makes no sense.

Anyway check the forum and see for yourself, you’ll find you’re in a minority.

Still, I’ll probably give it another go sometime in the near future seeing as how they’ve added achievements, leaderboards and multiplayer since launch. Hopefully they’ve also tweaked the game to an extent that it’s now actually entertaining rather than dreadfully dull.

Nation Red probably deserves a re-review now that so much about it has changed, but I’m not holding my breath for it to compare favorably against other low budget indie shooters like Alien Shooter or Beat Hazard. That would be nothing short of a miracle.

i think this is more than enough to compensate for the lack of story and campaign. i picked it up for 5$ during steam deals and i know i’ll be playing it for a long time, especially if i only have a little break! definetly worth the buy. play the demo for a while till you get the hang of the game, if you dont like it then, dont pick it up.