A Walk in the Woods

Worst "game" ever made

ну что могу скказать, игра балдежная, даже не запустилась, я счтитаю это положительным качеством так как сэкономил время и не потратил его на ♥♥♥♥♥, спасибо разрабам за гэймплей!

Гавнище! Не понравилась! не запустилась ♥♥♥♥♥ ваша!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!НООООО очень круто, что в меню есть кнопка играть. На самом деле - это очень полезная кнопка. Только играть не получается

Это конечно не лучшая хоррор игра из тех что я видел, тут есть хоть что-то минимальное, чтобы назвать это играбельным, да конечно без минусов не обошлось и их не мало, поэтому обзоры в целом смешанные, хотя мне кажется что игра заслуживает лучшего отношения. Действительно побегать, поорать с друзьями, эту цель игра выполняет, можно конечно было сделать лучше, но что имеем. В итоге с натяжкой могу порекомендовать ознакомится.

immersive firepit

This is a rather poor attempt at making a co-op survival horror game where you and nobody else (because nobody plays this) take on the roles of cartoony low quality camper assets and run around a possibly asset flipped forest waiting to get jumpscared and die. The objective, loosely defined as it is, is to find your friends (nobody plays this) and escape the monsters. This kind of thing might work if implemented with AAA quality, but the delivery here is a clunky, unpolished, unoptimised dogs breakfast, and the visuals are laughably bad. This is a dead multiplayer game. Why did "A Walk in the Woods" fail? Time for a video game autopsy. [i]Almost every multiplayer exclusive game on Steam fails.[/i] Only a tiny proportion of them "go viral". This game failed for many of the same reasons those others fail. The chief of which is the developer thinking that their game will "go viral" without actually creating any reason for it do so. Multiplayer games face extreme competition, multiplayer gamers have plenty to choose from and they gravitate to where all the other players are. This game didn't offer anything to peel those players away from the games they're already invested in. It had no upfront cost, but gamers still rejected it. There is little to no solo content here. The developer thought other players could replace actual storytelling and level design. That was a bad bet to make, and yeah, the developer lost. Hard. Without a player base or meaningful solo content (storytelling, narrative, you know, what makes games like GTA famous), the game has nothing to offer. Other players are not a substitute for doing the job of a developer and creating meaningful game content. The controls can't be customised, which will be an annoyance for many, but it can also render this unplayable for differently-abled gamers, left handed gamers or gamers using AZERTY or other international keyboard layouts. Despite not being in Early Access, it's obvious this is an incomplete product. Developers have an obligation to deliver complete, not partially done products to gamers, that shouldn't be controversial. Whatever the excuses may be, it does no service to gamers for incomplete products polluting Steam like this. It makes it harder for gamers to find complete games, and it makes it harder for ethical developers who do the right thing to find their audience. I'm not sure if this is an asset flip, but it's one of those cases where the assets just look much better than the rest of the quality of the game... a glaring inconsistency.  There's no evidence, but as always, the biggest problem with asset flips besides the plagiarism is the deplorably low quality of the other aspects of the game, and even if the game assets are genuinely created for the game, the quality of the rest of the game is indistinguishable from that of asset flips. This game is fairly dated at 8 years old... and even back then it looked old and busted compared to contemporary, professionally made 3D games of the same period. It looked bad then, it looks worse now. Next is pricing and what value this has for gamers. This is "free" enough (not every "free" game in the "free" section is truly free, there's usually some hidden price tag), at least you won't be expected to spend any more money after you download this, but just because something is free doesn't mean it's good, and the cost of a game is more than just financial, your time is valuable too. Despite having no up-front cost, this failed to appeal to the 130 million+ gamers on Steam. SteamDB shows this peaked at just a dozen or so concurrent players, and now there's basically nobody playing it. Even though it's free, that was a dismal public reception. But if you take into account the problems I bring up in this review, it's easy to see why gamers rejected it. All other issues aside (any of which would disqualify this from being worth your time), this is a game that relies on other players for it to be viable, and because there's not enough players, it's not viable. I can't recommend anyone downloads this, it's basically dead.

this game sucks