Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
I don't pay for visions as way too many publishers came up with visions and abondonned everything after a while leaving you as an investor with a messed up "game" in an unplayable state and without something worth your money.
I don't pay 30 bucks for something in this state, not any more.
This is a fine review, Dok. Tells me exactly what I need to know.
That's why early access reviews are automatically deleted when the game leaves early access.
If you use the space between your ears you may figure out that this review will be irrelevant in one year when the game changed, but holds true for now. What the heck do you guys expect? Review on vision and anticipation?
Yes the game should be in a playable state and with reasonable amounts of content with a clear development path available, all of which this game has.