I love Steam's endless supply of poorly-made indie games. They offer an addicting gamble; you'll probably end up wasting your time, but there's always a chance that you could stumble upon a hidden gem. It's unlikely, but not impossible. Right?
Well, Share is definitely not that gem. It's dime-a-dozen horror junk, a messy imitation of the genre with no sense of direction. One could argue that it's ~laughably~ bad - but the frustrating mechanics and terrible design choices make it a pain to sit through. If you really want to see the funny parts, don't waste a dollar. Just watch the lone Youtube walkthrough instead.
Visuals: 0.5/5
Sound: 1/5
Story: 0.5/5
Gameplay: 0.5/5
Worldbuilding: 0.5/5
Overall game score: 0.5/5 [0.6/5]
Visuals:
There is absolutely nothing engaging, interesting, or unique about Share's visuals. The stationary models look decent, but how much does that count for when none are original work? It makes sense for new devs to use public assets as supplements in their early releases - it's not always bad practice. The problem is that Share's devs use it as a ~crutch~; nothing they had a direct hand in matches that base level of quality.
The most prominent example is easily the clumsily-chosen cast of antagonists. An illogical assortment of bland tropes, their collective extremity doesn't feel like horror; it feels more like a sitcom about Slenderman's dysfunctional extended family. In fact, the only information we have on this group (exclusively given within the Steam description) is that they ARE a family! How the fuck did all of that work?
Actually, I don't want to know.
Even if you look past those core design problems, you CAN'T ignore how bad some of the monsters' models are. It's especially noticable when they're right next to all of those borrowed assets. Whether these are borrowed assets of lower quality, or amateur original work, I can't say for sure - but it doesn't matter much, because I'd hate them the same either way.
The settings may be more visually impressive than the characters, but they suffer many of the same design issues. A haunted house out in the woods that's surrounded by a random selection of other horror tropes - a haunted lake, a haunted well, a haunted mine... There's so little cohesion in any of Share's big picture, and it really hurts the experience.
But, honestly, I don't know why I'm bothering to take Share seriously when every framed photo is a random image from Google (usually ripped straight from the Creepypasta fandom.) It's eventually revealed that this is a hallucination of the main character, but it's incredibly silly either way.
In the end, there's just nothing good I can say about this game's visuals. 'The dirt looks like dirt' can only get you so far when there's no cohesion in your presentation or style.
Overall, 0.5/5.
Sound:
There's not much for me to say at ~all~ about the audio, though. Some sound effects are way too loud, but that's pretty much a staple of shitty horror; Share is generic in even ~that~ regard!
To the dev's credit, I was pleasantly surprised by the fun Russian rock songs that played during the opening and closing 'scenes'. They were a nice touch.
Overall, 1/5.
Story:
Share's "story" is almost nonexistent. There are only a few halfhearted attempts at progression, given in the form of new locations featuring an often-new monster. First, the witch in the house; then, the creature in the lake; then, the knife girl in the well; etc.
The only "lore" available (inside ~or~ outside of the game) is the Steam description I mentioned. No further information is provided, even to answer the most basic questions. Why are the family members so radically different from each other? Why is there an abandoned mine nearby? Why have they congregated at this mostly-normal house? Does any of this really matter?
At least I can say that the cats survive.
Overall, 0.5/5.
Gameplay:
It's pretty poignant that Share's only available guide teaches you to avoid the first enemy by standing on furniture. Unfortunately for me, the devs actually took the time to patch this out. I ~guess~ it's nice that they did so.
The mechanics here revolve around two core ideas; avoiding death-by-monster, and completing item-based puzzles. I wish I could say that at least one of these elements were decently done, but... they just weren't. The game never offers a break from its general sense of frustration and tediousness - nevermind the weak attempts at variety with slightly different ways to defeat the monsters.
Uninspired enemy encounters not your cup of tea? Maybe obtuse "puzzles" will be! Even the simple task of ~knowing~ your current goal would be impossible without the use of the 'hint' hotkey; and the lack of almost any additional player direction means it's often difficult to actually EXECUTE that goal regardless. I usually had to look at the guide to figure out what to do next. I simply wouldn't have progressed further otherwise. Hell, I even got stuck trying to learn the witch's weakness in the very first encounter in the game (since the guide only showed a patched out bug for the solution, and the in-game hints are so horrible, it took quite a few tries.)
Nearly all of Share's gameplay issues are illustrated right away, in the very first puzzle, when you're tasked with fixing a nearby windmill. I had to consult the guide to even ~find~ this place, as it's a good twenty seconds out from your starting location - and when I finally did find it, I was hit with the frustrating realization that I'd have to go straight back to the house to retrieve a ladder. One trip later, another 20 second trip to the top of the windmill... and what do you know? Now I need the AXE that's back at the house! I wanted to stop playing then and there.
In the end, it took me over five minutes of inane running around to complete a task that should've taken 30 seconds. Take the time to makes your game more convenient with things like an inventory system. Give the map's layout some actual thought. Provide your players with a little bit of guidance. Those small things make a world of difference.
Overall, 0.5/5.
Worldbuilding:
Share's "horror" elements are on par with your average jumpscare-addled junk. The atmosphere is dull, and the scares are full of tropes. The scarce moments that ~do~ manage to convey tension don't last long; hideous monsters and disappointing climaxes make sure of that. The lack of story or lore really hurts the experience, too.
In fact, I only found myself surprised by Share during TWO moments. The first's initial shock wore off quickly when I realized that it was nothing more than another Google search - a creepy image that someone else had created, momentarily flashed in a reflection. The second is an idea that's more funny than anything; to keep a certain enemy away, you must crush tiny versions of the protagonist, and they make a funny little sound when you do. It relieves some of the frustration of having to play this game, at least...
Overall, 0.5/5.
Overall game score: 0.5/5 [0.6/5]
Well, Share is definitely not that gem. It's dime-a-dozen horror junk, a messy imitation of the genre with no sense of direction. One could argue that it's ~laughably~ bad - but the frustrating mechanics and terrible design choices make it a pain to sit through. If you really want to see the funny parts, don't waste a dollar. Just watch the lone Youtube walkthrough instead.
Visuals: 0.5/5
Sound: 1/5
Story: 0.5/5
Gameplay: 0.5/5
Worldbuilding: 0.5/5
Overall game score: 0.5/5 [0.6/5]
Visuals:
There is absolutely nothing engaging, interesting, or unique about Share's visuals. The stationary models look decent, but how much does that count for when none are original work? It makes sense for new devs to use public assets as supplements in their early releases - it's not always bad practice. The problem is that Share's devs use it as a ~crutch~; nothing they had a direct hand in matches that base level of quality.
The most prominent example is easily the clumsily-chosen cast of antagonists. An illogical assortment of bland tropes, their collective extremity doesn't feel like horror; it feels more like a sitcom about Slenderman's dysfunctional extended family. In fact, the only information we have on this group (exclusively given within the Steam description) is that they ARE a family! How the fuck did all of that work?
Actually, I don't want to know.
Even if you look past those core design problems, you CAN'T ignore how bad some of the monsters' models are. It's especially noticable when they're right next to all of those borrowed assets. Whether these are borrowed assets of lower quality, or amateur original work, I can't say for sure - but it doesn't matter much, because I'd hate them the same either way.
The settings may be more visually impressive than the characters, but they suffer many of the same design issues. A haunted house out in the woods that's surrounded by a random selection of other horror tropes - a haunted lake, a haunted well, a haunted mine... There's so little cohesion in any of Share's big picture, and it really hurts the experience.
But, honestly, I don't know why I'm bothering to take Share seriously when every framed photo is a random image from Google (usually ripped straight from the Creepypasta fandom.) It's eventually revealed that this is a hallucination of the main character, but it's incredibly silly either way.
In the end, there's just nothing good I can say about this game's visuals. 'The dirt looks like dirt' can only get you so far when there's no cohesion in your presentation or style.
Overall, 0.5/5.
Sound:
There's not much for me to say at ~all~ about the audio, though. Some sound effects are way too loud, but that's pretty much a staple of shitty horror; Share is generic in even ~that~ regard!
To the dev's credit, I was pleasantly surprised by the fun Russian rock songs that played during the opening and closing 'scenes'. They were a nice touch.
Overall, 1/5.
Story:
Share's "story" is almost nonexistent. There are only a few halfhearted attempts at progression, given in the form of new locations featuring an often-new monster. First, the witch in the house; then, the creature in the lake; then, the knife girl in the well; etc.
The only "lore" available (inside ~or~ outside of the game) is the Steam description I mentioned. No further information is provided, even to answer the most basic questions. Why are the family members so radically different from each other? Why is there an abandoned mine nearby? Why have they congregated at this mostly-normal house? Does any of this really matter?
At least I can say that the cats survive.
Overall, 0.5/5.
Gameplay:
It's pretty poignant that Share's only available guide teaches you to avoid the first enemy by standing on furniture. Unfortunately for me, the devs actually took the time to patch this out. I ~guess~ it's nice that they did so.
The mechanics here revolve around two core ideas; avoiding death-by-monster, and completing item-based puzzles. I wish I could say that at least one of these elements were decently done, but... they just weren't. The game never offers a break from its general sense of frustration and tediousness - nevermind the weak attempts at variety with slightly different ways to defeat the monsters.
Uninspired enemy encounters not your cup of tea? Maybe obtuse "puzzles" will be! Even the simple task of ~knowing~ your current goal would be impossible without the use of the 'hint' hotkey; and the lack of almost any additional player direction means it's often difficult to actually EXECUTE that goal regardless. I usually had to look at the guide to figure out what to do next. I simply wouldn't have progressed further otherwise. Hell, I even got stuck trying to learn the witch's weakness in the very first encounter in the game (since the guide only showed a patched out bug for the solution, and the in-game hints are so horrible, it took quite a few tries.)
Nearly all of Share's gameplay issues are illustrated right away, in the very first puzzle, when you're tasked with fixing a nearby windmill. I had to consult the guide to even ~find~ this place, as it's a good twenty seconds out from your starting location - and when I finally did find it, I was hit with the frustrating realization that I'd have to go straight back to the house to retrieve a ladder. One trip later, another 20 second trip to the top of the windmill... and what do you know? Now I need the AXE that's back at the house! I wanted to stop playing then and there.
In the end, it took me over five minutes of inane running around to complete a task that should've taken 30 seconds. Take the time to makes your game more convenient with things like an inventory system. Give the map's layout some actual thought. Provide your players with a little bit of guidance. Those small things make a world of difference.
Overall, 0.5/5.
Worldbuilding:
Share's "horror" elements are on par with your average jumpscare-addled junk. The atmosphere is dull, and the scares are full of tropes. The scarce moments that ~do~ manage to convey tension don't last long; hideous monsters and disappointing climaxes make sure of that. The lack of story or lore really hurts the experience, too.
In fact, I only found myself surprised by Share during TWO moments. The first's initial shock wore off quickly when I realized that it was nothing more than another Google search - a creepy image that someone else had created, momentarily flashed in a reflection. The second is an idea that's more funny than anything; to keep a certain enemy away, you must crush tiny versions of the protagonist, and they make a funny little sound when you do. It relieves some of the frustration of having to play this game, at least...
Overall, 0.5/5.
Overall game score: 0.5/5 [0.6/5]