[quote][b]Note: Dead multiplayer game[/b]
This game contains no meaningful single player content. There's no players, no populated servers. This multiplayer-only game cannot be played as intended.[/quote]
This is a simple multiplayer asymmetrical PvP game. Set in a haunted house, one player plays the stealthy ghost bad guy, and the other 4, if there were any players at all, need to use teamwork to pin down the ghost player with torches and so on.
On paper this looks like a great idea for a game... if you never played a lot of video games before and aren't aware of the kinds of games on PC that people actually play. Don't get me wrong, Dead by Daylight did okay, but remember the other rules about PvP as a substitute for content... showing up to the interview without wearing a shirt, you better have some damn good pants.
So, "Haunting Hijinx" is a dead multiplayer game. Why did it fail? It's video game autopsy time!
The chief cause of failure is the developer thinking that their game will "go viral" without actually creating any reason for it do so.
Competition amongst multiplayer centric games is extreme, and there's only a finite player base to appeal to. This game failed to reach any kind of critical mass and died as a result. Let's go into some of the reasons this particular game failed to appeal to gamers, despite the zero up front cost.
This features really godawful pixelcrap "art" instead of real graphics. It's hard to say if this was because the developer didn't have the skill to do the job of creating 3D visuals, or couldn't afford to hire someone who does, but it also doesn't matter. What matters is that this looks much worse than most other games because of that decision, and that's a major deterrent to gamers. Games like Terraria and Stardew Valley succeeded [i]despite[/i] the bad graphics, not because of them.
Insultingly, the developer insists that you should play this with a console peasant children's toy gamepad instead of KB+M. Developers should try to be aware which platform they're designing games for. It's the responsibility of the developer to ensure the game runs well on the platform they're selling it on, with the primary peripherals that PC gamers use.
Now on to pricing and value 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.
In terms of public reception, this failed. There's over 130 million unique gamers visiting Steam every month. SteamDB showed the game peaked at [b]only 10 concurrent players[/b]... this is a dismal public reception. This was so bad they couldn't even give it away.
Given that this free title won't increase your game collector count, is it worth your time to add it to your library?
I think you should give this one a miss. Although it's free, your time and storage are valuable resources, and the market is filled with superior options.
[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]
The developer immediately delivers personal attacks, accusing this reviewer of "trolling", because it apparently never occurred to them that anyone would be honest about the garbage quality of this crap game. This is bizarre delusion, trying to force this review to be about the reviewer instead of this crap, failed product from an arrogant, insulting developer. Desperate to avoid the truth, they instead attack the messenger. But take this within the context of the developers utter failure and inadequacy. SteamDB does not lie, this is a dead game that never had enough players to reach any kind of playability, let alone what could be called "success".
The developer then outright lies, they present the argument that this is not a failure because, through this bizarre claim, they never intended for this game to be played by anyone. Which is why they spent $100 USD to dump this crap on Steam through Steam Direct, with the hopes nobody would touch it. That's obviously complete BS, but we've already seen a developer attack a reviewer with false accusations of trolling due to their own inadequacy and mental incapability of accepting the truth about their failure.
The developer continues with the dishonesty, blatantly lying about the fact they deliberately marked this game as "controller preferred". Why the developer chose to directly lie while breaching Valve guidelines is unclear, especially when the objective facts are right there on the store page, however, due to their proven tactics of attacking reviewers and lying in the face of facts and their incompetence, we shouldn't expect anything more from this textbook failure.
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 crap from a dishonest, hostile, failed "developer" to anyone.
