2018

most people reviewing this game are probably not able to consistently get guns or kill other players. that's not a dig, it's just a fact about how much effort is required to actually "get into" Rust. i'm far from even decent at it but i am still able do the dance most other players do -- that dance being one where you grind a lot and generally shoot other players on sight before they do the same to you. that being said, i still don't much enjoy this game.

Rust is not a survival game. Don't Starve is a survival game. Project Zomboid is a survival game. instead, Rust is a battle royale FPS with respawning, paltry survival craft mechanics, no "de jure" objectives, and matches that last at minimum a week and at maximum a month or longer. pvp is basically the only thing worth doing, so everyone does it. join a pve server if you want to see Rust absent pvp. it's empty, and it's not particularly challenging. the game is designed for pvp.

i really think the core of why this game sucks despite the fact that it's rather unique and certainly the best of it's genre (survival game which is actually just a pvp game -- cf DayZ) is that 1. the pvp is not good enough to justify the investment of sweat equity required compared to a more traditional multiplayer FPS, both in learning the game's ins and outs and grinding, and 2. the rewards you get from both your sweat equity investments and pvp are such that there are no other goals to orient oneself beyond just continuing to mindlessly kill people or preparing to do so, and it grows boring and empty rather fast. people complain about roofcampers but I don't blame them; what else is there to do? pvp is not a means to an end in Rust, it is the end. you aren't fighting over stuff, you're fighting for the sake of it. why not play any other multiplayer FPS instead at that point?

the best multiplayer FPS (besides TF2) is a western-themed Source deathmatch game that averages around ~50 players.

people think the problem with multiplayer FPS is hitscan but it's not[ASTERISK]. the problem is hitscan that fires faster than a lever-action rifle, is accurate at range, has ~20-30 round capacity, can kill in 4-5 body shots, and is in game modes/maps/contexts which are decidedly not designed well for it. assault rifles and SMGs and LMGs and many handguns are a plague. good thing a cowboy game doesn't have to have any of them.

you can have loadouts and pickups in the same game/mode; they are not mutually exclusive and combined they can be superior to either individually. just make pickup weapons better than loadout weapons.

i think this is the only FPS where dual wielding (actual dual wielding, not uzis that can only ever be held in pairs) is well implemented. it definitely sucks in the Halo games that have it.

the only criticism I can offer is that handgun style seems to be a largely unnecessary feature.

[ASTERISK]more multiplayer FPS could certainly use projectile weapons that aren't effectively hitscan or instakill explosive launchers, though. of course if they exist alongside assault rifles then assault rifles will beat them in every way.

played due to nostalgia from playing Marble Blast Ultra as a youngin combined with recommendation from Patricia Taxxon (https://youtu.be/ejz5JUIjhjw). mostly played to kill time and was not entirely sure if I was really having fun. inherits all of the shitty level archetypes from previous games, even the gravity puzzle gem collection ones which i kind of like even though they're not very fun. not really sure the devs understand the parts of this genre that are actually fun. really all levels should either just embrace tough-as-shit 3D ball precision platforming or be the fuck-off huge hill levels where you get to reach absurd speeds. those are the only fun level archetypes in my experience.

the skyboxes evoked awe in me as a child.

decent addition to the "game you only play with several friends in the evening once or twice" genre. where's the metal detector?

This review contains spoilers

while the level design is certainly more consistent, for good and for ill, the atmosphere and general mood is much worse. the world of Thief 1 is way more... i don't know, interesting. mystical.

the cutscene/movie/whatever before the last mission is really bad. some story beats are weird. i don't know why Garrett was so invested in Viktoria, as if she wasn't the one that betrayed him and took one of his eyes. Karras also does not really become all that compelling of a villain until the last mission. The Woodsie Lord is compelling, more compelling, as soon as he's revealed.

ill actually play it eventually and probably enjoy it more. but for now, 2 stars is pretty accurate to my experience.

one of the best games ever made. has some of the best and most bizarre and wonderful atmosphere i've ever experienced in a game, and it's probably intentional given Resni's other work. also hard as fuck.

i've played this game so much and yet I hold incredibly mixed feelings on it.

conflicted. it's worth playing just for atmosphere and narrative alone, but only around a third to half of the levels are actually captivating and not-shit enough to not require an exertion of will to actually play through.

may lower to 3 stars.

walking sim art game shit compared to Harlequin Fair. cannot wait to see what Garden makes next.