Up front I feel that far too many early access reviews do everyone a disservice: the Indie Developer, the would-be curious Fan wondering if they should buy the game and the Reviewer's credibility.
Reviewing an early access game should be treated like something pre-alpha, proof of concept, proof or feature implementation -- so, if the game is only as far along as some very limited design goal, you're reviewing that, not what isn't there yet, or may never be offered.
By far most games in early access on Steam are very small teams, sometimes just a one man show projects that are looking for a few basic things:
· is what they're offering appealing
· are people interested in this kind of game implementation
· does it work properly on many machines
· are people willing to pay for it
· is there enough of any the above to continue development
If you're paying for an early access game, you are almost never buying anything remotely resembling a finished game, it may even be a game that's NEVER finished.
Early access game may have almost zero fun factor, i.e. it may just be a test of various features and systems, to see if they work properly and smoothly -- and unless you like game engines and exploring this kind of thing there may be nothing to occupy your interest. Or it may be a brilliant implantation of high concept game design that's horrifically bug ridden and virtually unplayable.
In the opinion of this reviewer you should not buy an early access game for the same reasons you buy a big commercially developed titles from a large publisher, i.e. something that that's a known quantity, a known kind of fun, and has certain reasonable expectations and disappointments attached to it.
The reasons you should buy an early access game are, or should include: you like the genre, you like the Developer's ideas or content, the genre is poorly represented and anything that has hope of going in a good direction needs your support, there is enough of a game there at the price that you're happy to pay for it regardless of limitations.
Of course, if development continues, and you support the game you may have some input in the direction development takes, and this can be a lot of fun and a very constructive positive experience for Fans and the Developer.
So 捍卫SafeGuard, is a very bare bones game at this stage, what it does offer on the six PCs I have run it on is rock solid everything, no crashing, hitching, or flaky everything. This imho, is how games SHOULD be developed -- features are added, refined till the work flawlessly, then new features can be added or a level of aesthetic polish can be added.
So very bare-bones game, but all the systems are there for what could evolve into a very compelling and well-built game: good net code, weapons configuration systems, terrain maps!, and decent looking art assets.
Where 捍卫SafeGuard goes from here remains to be seen, but if the Developer continues this could be a real sleeper that becomes one of those hidden gems. Until then you can support it like I did buy buying it, but you're not putting money down for a game with much in the way of compelling game design yet, but a very solid foundation for what could be a good tactical realism game.
