Squirrelmageddon! is an Unreal Engine based first/third person shooter with a comedy theme as you must fight giant genetically mutated squirrels.
There's a single player campaign and multiplayer options. There's a few graphics tweaks and decent enough visuals, although it does look and feel like a lot of the game assets are asset flipped from the Unreal asset store (Edit: The developer has confirmed this is using flipped assets from the Asset Store). Control bindings are locked and can't be changed (and what the heck is "Use" bound to anyway? It's unclear) (Edit: "Use is bound to "F", and is also bugged, so the game may be unplayable for some due to those bugs), which is a flaw that pushes this below acceptable standards, especially as it may prevent differently abled gamers from enjoying the game.
This feels as much like a demo/proof of concept as it does a complete game, and lacks polish in many areas. While the concept is okay, the delivery is a bit flat, especially considering the unrealistic $10 USD price tag will easily pick up any number of older AAA games when on sale, and that might be a better investment for gamers to consider. (Edit: The developer has advised this is an incomplete game, yet is unethically selling it as a complete game, to extract as much money as possible from a bad product, this should be taken into account when considering whether to buy the game).
[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 advises where he force bound the Use key (a configuration that is not properly documented and cannot be changed, and also does not work in the game because I already tried it). I'm not here to provide technical support for games, and if developers learn about bugs in their games from reviews, that just tells us they didn't bother with adequate software testing... another solid reason to reject this game.
The developer advises that he did not adequately budget the game or hire any staff to cover his own inability to develop the game... yet still insists he should be paid for it! Ridiculous. Nobody is entitled to being paid for failing to do their job properly, especially in a competitive marketplace.
The developer advises that the game is mostly just an Unreal Marketplace asset flip, despite putting (apparently) 1,200 hours into the game, it's still of very poor quality as my review demonstrates. An important thing developers do not understand is the amount of effort that goes into a game is completely unimportant. All that matters is the resultant quality. If GTAV took 5 minutes to make, it would still be a AAA+ smash hit. If Squirrelmageddon was developed by Rockstar and took hundreds of staff 8 years to make, it would still be a failure.
Developers must, at least at some point, consider gamers when they develop games. This very much seems to be a game made by the developer for their own sake, as is often the case with "indie" games.
The developer also drops the bombshell that they haven't finished the game, thus it should be in Early Access... however, the developer is also selling the game and has game keys being sold into cheap game bundles as a complete game. This comes across as an attempt to mislead gamers into paying for an incomplete game, and is essentially a cash grab.
The developer has done nothing but to supply more reasons to avoid buying this game. My review stands as-is, but I have amended it to include additional flaws and buyer risks as highlighted by the developer.
Edit: A huge response from the developer angry and unable to accept the basic facts about the poor quality of their game. Instead of owning their failure, they attack the reviewer. Let's break it down.
I'm not trying to destroy any games, just factually reviewing them, and advising gamers whether I think, based on the facts of the game, whether it's worth it. I absolutely don't have an agenda against amateur developers, but there is a significant correlation between the professional qualifications of a developer and the products that result from their skills. Talented developers make great games, untalented amateurs do not. Why is the developer angry about this basic fact? And seriously, [b]what do my reviews for other games have to do with the technical and design flaws in this game?[/b]
It's not misleading to link to Valve's guidelines for developers, especially when they are breached. The developer absolutely tells us by this pointless attack on a reviewer, directly in contravention of the guidelines, that they feel the rules don't apply to them. This is obviously not a lie, Valve's guidelines are their own. How is it a "lie" to point to something that's factual? Why did the developer lie about this?
The developer arrogantly insists that the ability to customise controls, a feature that all games should have, especially because it is needed for some differently abled gamers, is irrelevant. The developer apparently despises the disabled, and thinks games should not be made accessible to them. You can see the true nature of this developer emerging from their thoughtless and arrogant response... anything to avoid owning their failure as a developer.
The developer lies about the game being incomplete, yet it remains in Early Access. There's zero doubt the game is in Early Access. If it's complete, why would the developer leave it in Early Access? It is a mystery.
The developer then goes on to spam advertising for this train wreck of a game, with additional admissions of guilt including acknowledgement that the game is full of flipped assets, that it's missing features (so why call it complete?). The developer insists that gamers must accept terrible quality asset flips just because they aren't a professional developer, and it's obvious they are an amateur. They can't even spell "indie" properly... what a joke.
This rambling tirade from the developers does nothing but enforce my stance on this failed dumpster fire of a game. Perhaps it would be better if they focused on the obvious flaws in this train wreck rather than attacking reviewers. And I'm not wrong about what I say, the facts speak for themselves. SteamDB shows this game only ever exceeded 2 players at the same time, once. Usually, this game has ZERO players at any time. Why? Because I wrote negative reviews for other games? Or perhaps because the game is objectively bad and the gamers have spoken.
