King of the World

very fun game

[quote][b]Note: Dead PvP game[/b] This game contains no meaningful single player content. There's no viably populated servers/active player population. This game cannot be played as intended.[/quote] [quote][b][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtransaction]Warning: In-Game Cash Shop[/url][/b] This game is infested with a toxic mobile app style cash shop. You will be prompted to and expected to give money/credit card details to the developers through this cash shop to buy in-game goods so you can play the game.[/quote] This is one of those cases where a developer bit off way more than they could chew, and also didn't bother with QA or testing or focus groups... really important stuff, especially when slapping together a PvP game... amateur developers love PvP games because they don't have to add any content (this does, in fairness, have a godawful campaign, not worth it, and too shallow to count towards the crux of the game as a failed PvP arena). It's a tower orientated RTS, thematically ripping off Age of Empires only badly. It lacked balance, polish, nuance, and engaging progression (we all know how good it feels to get out the big end game units in successful RTS games like C&C and Starcraft, you won't get that thrill here). So, "King of the World" is a dead PvP game. Why did it fail? It's video game autopsy time! [i]Almost every PvP 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. Competition amongst PvP 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. First and foremost, there's no meaningful single player content. The developer gambled that other players would be an acceptable substitute for adding storytelling, level design etc to the Game. They lost that bet. Without a huge community of players or single player content to add a lasting value to the game, the game dies. Developers must learn that other players are not an acceptable substitute for adding content to a game. Despite not being in Early Access, it's obvious this is an incomplete product. Developers have an obligation to deliver compeletd 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. Visually, this has some fairly mediocre/dated looking graphics that will understandably be a turn off for a lot of gamers, and it's a big contributor to the failure of the game to attract gamers despite having no up-front cost. This game is fairly dated at 7 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. On the important matter of pricing and value for gamers, there's a lot going on here with monetisation, so this really shouldn't be considered a truly free product because of that. There's no initial download price, but the developer was charging $10 USD for this. Price barriers, especially on low quality products, can be a direct cause of failure. It seems like a nice gesture for the game to have no up-front cost anymore, but it also tells us that the game wasn't good enough to succeed as a paid product. This is also a bit of a slap in the face to anyone who showed enough questionable judgement to pay money for this... nobody got refunded. They also have their hand out for a $5 USD "donation" for this as you're expected to give them money from buying empty DLC from Steam... digital panhandling. Like the homeless guys who splash dirty water on your windscreen at the traffic lights. No thanks. There's also the toxic cash shop... the monetisation and greed here is insane. 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 13 concurrent players[/b]... this is a dismal public reception. This was so bad they couldn't even give it away. Since free games don't contribute to your game collector badge and other profile stuff, is this a worthwhile addition to your Steam library? Definitely not. This isn't worth it. I'm paraphrasing another reviewer here, but this should be a paid product... they'd have to pay people to download it. [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 response is appalling. The developer provides solid reasons why this should never have been published on Steam in the first place. The developer admits they didn't hire a team of talented staff to produce the game and tried to do the whole thing on their own, instead. This is a lot like boarding an airplane, and halfway through the flight, having the pilot come out and serve peanuts. It's going to end in disaster. It requires a team of competent people, budget, and talent to do a complex job properly, and that's not what has happened here... another explanation for the poor quality of this game. The developer deliberately and dishonestly persists in trying to push this as "free" when it obviously has a toxic mobile app cash shop in it, as this was definitely a for-profit scheme to attempt to gouge gamers. This is not acceptable and it's something I clearly warn gamers about. The developers dishonest attempt to mislead gamers and double down on that through this breach of Valve guidelines hammers home that point, and explains so much about the disgusting, anti-gamer atttidue of this failed "developer". 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 dead garbage to anyone.

☀️

After five years, my patience has been rewarded. Is this a cheap game? Yes. Are the price and the reviews right? Yes. Finished? No. Playable? Yes. Would you be silly to ignore the chance of a bit of cheap fun? That's up to you. If you think so, I'll look for you on the field.

fun

yes (sadly dead game, come play !)

I'd give it the full inch. 1/1.

Игра 'King of the World' оказалась неожиданно увлекательной стратегией! Простой, на первый взгляд, игровой процесс быстро затягивает, заставляя продумывать каждый свой ход. Особенно понравилась возможность дипломатических маневров – заключать союзы, подставлять соперников, развязывать войны, все как в настоящей политике. Графическое исполнение лаконичное, но приятное, не отвлекает от самого геймплея. Изначально настораживало обилие микротранзакций, но, к счастью, они не критичны для прохождения. Можно вполне комфортно играть и без доната, просто это потребует больше времени и тактического мышления. Не хватает, пожалуй, более глубокой кастомизации своей фракции и разветвленной системы исследований. Однако, учитывая цену игры, об этом грех жаловаться. В целом, это отличная игра для любителей пошаговых стратегий, позволяющая почувствовать себя настоящим властелином мира. Рекомендую!