I think that this EA Is too early. Too much less content and that content Is too uncertally that for each request from the community, the staff make changes like if the game design Is not so strong.
Scuse me but i starting to think so.
8 Likes
I think it is hard to judge when is too early for Early Access, especially as we don’t know how much is actually done behind the scenes. If their systems are rather modular, they may be able to plug in different systems or do bigger changes without affecting a lot of other areas.
With all of that said, I do agree that we are seeing just a very early portion, which is probably a lot less than what a lot of people are used to with Early Access titles. Most (from what I’ve seen) use it as a stress test and/or bug sweep, but I think it also works great at helping giving early feedback to help shape a game.
7 Likes
Thank u for the answer
1 Like
If the devs need player feedback EA is the best way to get it.
Up to now they have been very quick at responding to feedback so I think they know what they are doing and this EA is not just for publicity.
1 Like
Feedback is okay BUT whole Attribute/Enchant System looks very basic with alot of potential abuse. I mean in a few hours people bust the shackles from a Souls like game and make it into a Diablo like Ability Spam.
2 Likes
Thats exactly why you need this type of tests. In paper many systems sounde good but when you throw it at hundred of test scenario you find the weak points. A team of QA can never execute this many test scenarios and give the feedback of hundreds of players.
4 Likes
It is an early early access, but i think its ok. The fundamentals are there and the most obvios things we have here are typical for EA.
- performance
- content
- minor and medium bugs
- balance
Looks promising. Stay a while and listen 
3 Likes
I was thinking of making a post with this exact same sentiment.
Game has so much potential, I’m sure we all agree on that, but the game should not have been publicly accessible so early (even as EA).
-World feels somewhat empty.
-Enemy variety is low, and their AI is extremely predictable after some time.
-The loot system is badly implemented. I get the RNG based drops, but it’s too RNG.
-Attributes seem nothing more than numbers right now (the weapon scaling ones). There’s no passive to them, they’re just there to gatekeep weapons.
-Speaking of weapons, stat requirements are pretty absurd and there’s no real reason for them to be symmetrical as they are.
-Elemental damage has little impact right now, aside some broken freeze interactions.
-Still tons of optimization issues with textures, audio, frame drops, etc.
-Some baffling decisions on upgrade materials and their availability as of now.
-Game has identity crisis. It tries to be many genres at once but falls short on everyone one of them, so none of it’s components feel very good to play right now.
-In it’s attempt to “redefine” genres, it purposely ignores tried and true mechanics/ideas that took the industry years or decades to polish. I respect the risk-taking, but it could be a catastrophic mistake that could prevent lots of people from being interested in this game/finding it fun.
I could go on.
I’m not saying I was expecting an almost complete game when I bought this as EA, and I’m completely fine with being part of the process to polish it into the best it can be, but I have played a ton of EA before and none felt so… superficial as this one.
This was made even more pronounced after the release of Hades 2 last week. Also an EA game, cheaper, and my god does it already have A TON of content and story.
They did a closed technical test, and I think that did wonders. Maybe NRFTW could’ve benefited from that?
At this point it (NRFTW) seems more like a pretty expensive demo rather than an EA game. I respect the devs philosophy on wanting to “create” this game along with it’s community, but maybe that strategy is a bit misguided.
There is a certain standard I’m sure most people expect when paying $30+ for a game, even EA.
Mostly talking about performance and content here, everyone knows there will be bugs, balance issues, etc. on EA. But the game was nigh unplayable at launch and so far the content has little depth and a ton of balance/QOL issues.
Ori games have been some of my all time favorite in history, so I have complete faith this game will eventually be just as good, but I do feel they needed some closed Alpha for like 6 months to really get some feedback from a smaller pool of players and then release it on EA in a better state than it is today.
I’m just a bit worried that many people will lose interest in it after playing now and will not appreciate what it will be later on, but hopefully those worries are unfounded.
7 Likes
im glad for early access. this game hooked me. if you think of genshin 1.0 compared to today, i think its best to start small, especially if you plan a battle pass and quarterly updates when the real 1.0 starts. now, that being said, 35 bucks for early access? i question that. but if this game plans on being full triple a with huge content and maps, best to start small to make sure to get the bugs out
2 Likes
Refunded on Steam. I’m not paying to be an Alpha tester. Early access should be almost feature complete and stable but not content complete yet.
1 Like
That was always allowed.
I am ok with what it is right now and i see potential.
1 Like
I mean not all early access works the same way but refunding is still 100% fair. But saying you’re not paying to be an alpha tester is disingenuous when it’s clearly labelled and it’s quite clear what the game is providing. I’d rather have this than something like Witcher 3 at launch, and yes this is different Moon is a much smaller company.
2 Likes
I can definitely agree here while I find the RNG and attribute systems to be mostly fine stuff like KBM rebinding, no respec, plain bad inventory, and hearing that a demo-version of the crucible was shipped out is weird. Like I understand not having Multiplayer or farming yet those are huge gameplay systems that require own balancing but apparently stuff like housing being able to be upgraded so refiners in houses would speed up as well was supposed to be implemented & since the system for housing is separated from RNG/combat why not have that done here?
1 Like
Baldur’s Gate 3, which won Game of the Year, was in Early Access for THREE YEARS.
Also, I’ve gotten over 120-130 hours out of this No Rest for the Wicked “EA”. More than some fully released games.
4 Likes
agreed. I don’t think EA is the same as “open stress test” two weeks before launch.
1 Like
I’ve really enjoyed this EA.
I haven’t beaten the game but got a taste of what’s to come, have an opportunity to share, my opinion in the direction of final development, and helped to fund further development.
100% would support other games do this too.
1 Like
It’s comments like yours that bring panic. But they are understandable.
I think it’s no secret that the early access of No Rest For the Wicked was already delayed for several months.
I really hope that we will wait for the time when I myself will spam you on other game forums (although it’s bad to do so and can be banned in steam) when No Rest For the Wicked will be many times more in content than those two Hades games and generally any or anything else. In terms of location design, these games can’t be compared to No Rest.
While in Hades 2 it’s already deep early access, in fact they could have released the game without it, in No Rest it’s a really an earlier version.
Otherwise, how can you compare Hades 2, which has 80-90% finished content with No Rest, which has only 5-20% of the of content? These numbers may not be true, they are relative, but it’s noticeable that Hades 2 is ready for release soon and the content won’t add as much new content as No Rest Wicked.
And with the plan that No Rest For Wicked will have multiplayer and PvP, how can you compare the game to Hades 2? Hades 2 is more of a game for fun, it’s smaller in scope, it’s arena battles with power-ups, it’s the idea that every time you die you level up and get stronger.
You’re comparing No Rest to the wrong games. It’s better not to compare at all.
I can’t regret buying No Rest For The Wicked, but I also don’t regret not buying Hades 2.
Would you like me to answer the question "Why did I buy No Rest For The Wicked but not Hades 2"? Was recently revealed that Hades 2 has been reduced in price in steam for the Ukrainian region. So what prevents you to buy it? I’ll answer you.
I also have my own principles. It’s not that there is no money or that Hades 2 came out later than No Rest. I can buy it. I might buy Hades 2, but not at the expense of my first meaningful purchase, No Rest. I wouldn’t trade what I was planned to buy with something I might not. I’m not saying Hades 2 is a bad game (I’ve already tried it for free for a bit).
But Hades 2 is not on Nvidia GeForce Now. That is one of the principles. And the reviews and online numbers don’t tell me anything for a game that doesn’t have multiplayer. Numbers don’t get you very far. You won’t buy my favorite Talos Principle 2 just because of what’s in styme. 95% positive reviews and the price is good?!?! Or RoboCop: Rogue City 91% positive reviews. So now relatively niche games have to buy everything? Or should I buy Helldrivers 2 because it has more online? It doesn’t work that way for me.
There was recently 50% off on the Dark Souls series of games. Why not buy it instead of No Rest Wircked? Because Dark Souls I don’t like it. This series: graphics (I know that’s not why people love the series, but still), the interface of the game, it is also not support in the cloud service GeForce Now…
Your whole comment could be changed to “I want updates for No Rest Wicked” to come out at a good pace.
The fact that the game is raw is not a big deal for everyone. There are players who have already spent more than 100 hours, and there are those who have not launched or spent 10-20 hours in the game.
In steam now 1100+ reviews from those who have spent more than 50 hours in the game (88% positive) and 133 reviews from those who have spent more than 100 hours in the game (85% positive).
I too, like you, can see the point flaws in the game. You know, the best way to do that is to distract yourself with something else, until the right patch comes out that fixes that bug or translation or whatever it is that you really don’t like.
The game will get more content and flaws fixed, multiplayer will appear and it will be more than interesting even now.
You can lose interest in the game even after a hundred hours. It all depends on how you explore the game. You can take it apart very slowly like me, or close your eyes to the unpleasant little things (gameplay is more important) and just carry on and kill everyone very quickly, and then say that there is no content; from patch to patch play a little bit at a time. Different players and different opinions.
The most important thing is to leave feedback. Usually games collect in-game stats, but your feedback is also very valuable. Make sure you don’t get burned out by the game and stay with it for the longer haul.
To summarize, there are many criteria for buying the game: future potential of the game; price; language support; support for different platforms; GFN support; multiplayer and so on.
Based on all of this, I see potential in the game. Buying No rest For the Wicked was done with the same heartfelt impulse as its development. No matter what game came out or would come out before or after it, buying No rest For The Wicked was predetermined. Just like I, for example, know that whatever game comes out in the future, I’ll buy the DlC for Talos Principle 2, and I don’t even need the announcement because I’ll buy it anyway.
No Rest For The Wicked teaches patience.
2 Likes
That’s what early access is, there is no set determined definition for how complete a game is in early access. What you’re talking about is your expectations. But quite honestly, moon is a good developer, I don’t feel at all anxious about spending the money to help them produce another spectacular game. If you don’t want to deal with unfinished games don’t buy early access, but if you care about the game I suggest sticking it out and waiting. I bought baldurs gate 3 when it first came out and it barely went past 4 hours of gameplay, but I liked what I saw. So I played those 4 hours, waited 3 years for it to come out, and it was an amazing game.
Because I did that I paid less than those that didn’t, for a spectacular game. Taking into consideration who is making the game is important. Sure some studios fall to shit, but that’s usually after they’re bought by a big publisher that pushes them into including cheap mechanics. The big publishers love to hoover up your dollars selling people cosmetics and garbage like that.
Private division was created by take 2 and they are a big publisher, but they usually don’t hound their developers to pump out turds to satisfy people’s inability to wait for things.
3 Likes
Nope Early Access means you have a fleshed out Game idea but lacking content. In the moment the Feedback Threads are 99% Game mechanic threads, means the fundamentals are lacking or very weak. Nobody cries about Design, Story or Content. 99% are not pleased with the fundamentals of the game and Moon Studios give 0 feedback.
No, game is stable, i had no CTDs, devs are using EA to test stuff, balance and such, as they should. Enshrouded did the same, added a lot of QoL that was asked by the EA players.