I'm not really sure if "Cyber commander: Zombie Revenge" is an asset flip. Some elements of this game certainly make it seem like the developer put some effort into assembling some kind of original here. On the other hand, a lot of the game assets don't seem like they were created by the developer, but they haven't credited any asset creators for supplying assets, which might be a case of plagiarism. There's no evidence, so we need to give the benefit of the doubt... regardless, asset flip or not, the quality here is indistinguishable from many asset flip/cash grab scams, and that's a problem in itself.
So, once we work out how to change the language in the game from Russian to English, what do we have? A badly translated and really badly made ripoff of Plants vs Zombies with ninjas, cyber whatevers and spiders. Yeah, me neither. The quality here is just rock bottom. If this was a free game, I'd still feel ripped off, but they actually want roubles for this train wreck.
Taking this shovelware seriously as if it was a genuine attempt to make a game, it doesn't meet basic minimum requirements that most PC gamers expect as standard.
The game assets are fairly mediocre/low quality which fits with the idea they weren't developed by the game creator... they look like they're "just reasonable enough" to go on sale as part of an asset pack. The issue of asset flipping aside, ultimately the quality of these assets is low and low quality always makes for a less than optimal gaming experience.
The poor quality of this game is reflected by how many people spent time with it. At the time of this review, SteamDB shows the all-time peak player number was only 2 players. This is a remarkably low number, and now, the only player activity occurs once or twice a month, presumably someone loading it up to see what it is then quickly uninstalling it. Considering there's over 120 million gamers on Steam and well over 100,000 games for gamers to choose from, the overwhelming lack of interest in this low quality game is to be expected.
So, should you buy this game? Is this one of the best of the 100,000+ games on Steam?
"Cyber commander: Zombie Revenge" is relatively cheap at $3 USD, but it's not worth it. Given the defects and quality issues with the game, coupled with the unrealistic price, and the questionable ethical nature of the developer and/or their associates (as outlined above), this is impossible to recommend. This is also competing with over 11,000 free games available on Steam, many of them far better than this paid product.
[quote][b][url=https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/marketing/profile]Profile Features Limited![/url][/b]
Valve have marked this game as "Profile Features Limited" at the time of this review. This is usually caused by poor sales figures and low community acceptance for the game (to date). Until this status changes, this game will not give you +1 to your Game Collector badge count, appear in profile achievements or any other Steam meta-accomplishments, nor can it be displayed in some profile showcases. If these factors are important to you, it may be worth holding off before buying this game.[/quote]
[quote][url=https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/reviews]Developer Response![/url][/quote]The developer has weighed in to inform everyone they didn't read the [url=https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/reviews]Developer Usage Rules[/url] for Steam "partners", or they deliberately ignored the part where Valve says:
[quote]Though it may be tempting, not every review needs to be responded to. A developer response will frequently draw more attention than the original statement, potentially turning a small issue into a much larger community discussion. It's also not a good idea to use this feature to refute customer opinions. Your direct attention can be seen as validation or a defensive attempt to silence your customers.[/quote]
I reinstalled the game to make sure I hadn't missed anything, but the credits page for this game (once you switch it to English from the developers Russian language, what a surprise) is only four lines long and doesn't credit any of the assets he took from asset stores. Yet the developer even admits himself he didn't create most of the game assets. No credits, someone else's intellectual property... yes, the developer has just admitted to plagiarism. A weird thing to draw attention to, usually Russian asset flippers keep their mouths shut.
So the developer brazenly admits they're plagiarising... they took someone else's assets, and did not credit them. Gamers are not supposed to "guess" if a developer didn't actually create the assets in their game. When developers do this, they position themselves as having their name against those assets... it's 100% plagiarism. If they used someone else's work in a Hollywood movie, they'd be sued into the ground and never work in the industry again. They're tacitly telling gamers because this is their game, the assets are also theirs.
We also know that this is deliberate. It's easy to include people on the simple credits page. Why would the developer deliberately choose not to do this, if not to hide the true origin of the game assets from gamers? Claiming the work of others as your own, failing to credit the work of others, is highly unethical, [i]and the developer here now openly admits to it[/i]
Nothing in the developers pointless breach of Valve guidelines changes any of the objective facts of my review. My review stands unaltered. I cannot recommend this game to anyone.
