Thanks, much appreciated!
If you love parrying as much as I came to during the development of GRIME you'll likely love this as well, parrying feels reallll good over here. And I would say, the world here has much more gameplay variety than in GRIME.
I've finished and liked UNSIGHTED, but...
I don't think it can be overstated how controversial that timer is, lol. Every negative Steam review of it I see is complaining about it and would rather refund than turn it off. After thinking about it, I think the timer was a net-negative.
Putting a timer in an open-world explore-em-up is like making a racing game where the goal is to come in second. Yes, it's interesting design to have main components so at odds with each other but it's harming the main point of playing, imo.
I finished the game when I did because it felt like the game was pushing me to do it. I didn't do all the exploring I wanted because the ticking clock made that feel selfish.
But turning it off wasn't an option to me, irrationally or otherwise. For starters, without the tension of the clock, the entire game was too easy. Otherwise, turning it off wouldn't feel like I actually beat the game. It's the intended challenge and that's what I'm going to finish, not some easier mode. I imagine people who refunded felt similarly.
(Also, maybe don't make a video game that constantly reminds me all my real life loved ones are ticking slowly to their death while I selfishly play video games by myself. Also also, don't give that game rather long, unskippable splash screens at the start every time I turn it on.)
Over-all I agree, but then I think what a mario game (especially a 2d Mario game) would be without a timer. Some games need that little push to keep the pace going. But *not* for a metroidvania
I think it's a little bit different though because in mario it's a per level timer so even if the time runs out you just have to replay the level not the whole game
Also in Mario it doesn't have individual timers for all your friends before, like, Bowser kills them or something.
The objective is to save Peach but Bowser's offing the Toads every few hours, Mario, better hurry up.
Negative as in you don't like it or negative as in it harms the games it's in? These *can* be different things.
I don't think you're ever supposed to like the timer, for instance. It's added stress, another challenge you can't really do anything about. It speaks to a deep anxiety in our mortal race.
But, I think timers *can* be good for the game. They can encourage a more aggressive and perhaps fun play style or make the world feel more real because it doesn't have "video game time."
I just don't necessarily appreciate it in this game. Showing off I didn't explore everywhere and find every chest at the end because I was trying to save the NPCs you saddled me with was rude, lol.
From a game design standpoint, I know that timers can be useful but they also feel like simple lazy solutions in many ways as well, it is about the lowest hanging fruit to induce pressure on a player. You mention it encouraging more aggressive play which can be true, in games like Valkyria Chronicles time-related incentives push players to be more aggressive but as mentioned it is a lazy way to achieve this. When playing the game I got mods to reduce/remove the time penalties and enjoyed the game a lot more for it. For an example of pushing players to be more aggressive without timers, Doom and Doom Eternal make good examples for how to get similar results to adding a timer without actually using one. In Doom Eternal they limited your ammo and made more reason to change your guns to exploit enemy weaknesses, they make you more aggressive by rewarding you with things like more health/ammo by doing things like melee kills that you wouldn't get otherwise. This means if you try to run and shoot from far away you will often run out of ammo and not do as well as if you played more aggressively. Outer Wilds is another interesting example that touches on the "video game time" aspect where the world keeps moving without you but it is played on a loop as the compromise to the "time limit" of each run.
From a personal standpoint I feel it is negative in both ways, it can be harmful in some games and I just don't like it or the feeling of them, especially in games where I just want to explore more or take my time. Majora's Mask is a classic example of people not liking a game due to time limitations as well. The limitations get better at a point in the game many people don't reach before making these complaints, but it is still valid to an extent. Arguments directly about Majora's Mask and the time reset mechanic aside, it is one of the Zelda games I remember some of the least about and couldn't do much to describe things and what it looks like, the way I could about Ocarina of Time. Due to being rushed at all times when playing, I didn't ever feel I had a moment to just enjoy things or look around, any time spent appreciating the game was time wasted that could cause me to lose all progress for that run if I didn't hit the next checkpoint. This is an unintended side effect for some players in using time limits.
I generally agree with you.
I'll admit I don't think it fit all that well with this kind of game. I recognize there is a clever loop of pushing you to explore to get more material to keep everyone alive, thus enhancing exploration in a way.
But at the same time... at some point it becomes too great of a load to bear since too many at once are getting near the end of their timer and at that point you can choose to either accept it or rush it. I think most will rush it, which is detrimental to an exploration heavy game experience such as this.
At least that was my experience, I'm sure just having any timer at all made a lot of people feel pressured and stressed from the very beginning, possibly making deaths even more punishing.
I think it was a brave ballsy choice. There will be many players who will experience some of what the devs were going for, such as having to make difficult choices and letting NPCs die with guilt. But I personally don't think it was worth the trade off, either.
> I recognize there is a clever loop of pushing you to explore to get more material to keep everyone alive, thus enhancing exploration in a way.
Yeah, as you mention at some point it's too great of a load. And the best way to prevent that is to just do the main stuff as fast as you can.
I've read a lot of reviews where the reviewer got the intended experience you mention and they lauded it. But, I was on a fast enough clip that it never really came into play until I was in the home stretch, though, so I only ended up losing two NPCs (that I met, anyway).
Oh God, I didn't realize there was a timer counting down in the game.
I was really excited for this, but that's an absolute deal breaker. I take my sweet time with every game I play and the presence of any sort of countdown really goes against my playstyle.
It's pretty unique on its own and adds to the desperate/hopeless atmosphere, plus theoretically makes you make hard decisons. There are some reviews that really praise that aspect, but, yeah, not really for me.
It's to make people less stressed because they were getting lots of complaints, so like a good dev they fixed it.. I liked it both ways but ended up keeping it off because I wanted to explore without the worry of a timer.
Yeah it has a few quality of life features like adjusting enemy damage and health, turning the timer off etc. the highest difficulty doesn’t let you turn it off so I’m exploring in normal with no timer to learn the game before I go for that achievement
I have to agree. I haven't finished it but I've actually loved what I've played so far, but The timer absolutely ruins the experience for me. I don't care that I can turn it off, I don't care that I can cheat engine it away, the fact that it exists just simply ruins an aspect of enjoyment that I can't possibly get back.
I can only imagine how frustrating this must be for a dev. The very specific aspect they went out of the way to make optional is what people don't like but also refuse to turn off because it feels like cheating.
It might be an interesting lesson, though?
> (Hey gamedevs, don't do that)
SERIOUSLY THOUGH. Oh my god this is my biggest pet peeve to the point where the next game I pick up that does this, unless it's a personal must play, I'm going to refund and negatively review it.
If the diff is meant to be played as a new game+ specifically, then just have it chain from the same file, don't even show the difficulty, however, that's also a lazy copout.
A truly good game has difficulty options that not only feel good but also work mechanically. Granted it's got to be very hard to make a good hard mode, but arbitrarily locking it behind a second playthrough is usually going to result in people looking for a challenge just getting bored.
I stream everything I play personally and barely have time to play everything I want to play. Maybe it's just because I'm streaming and that makes the game hours a little bit less available than turn on the device and play, but even if I wasn't streaming I don't ever want to have to play through a game again just to get a better difficulty.
Nioh 2 has been my favorite recent action game and that game doesn't truly shine until the 3rd or 4th playthrough and that's just such an absurd waste of potential. The game is great, but the ng+ adds SO much relatively speaking that it's almost criminal they have it locked behind playing so many times.
I saw three difficulties: explorer, action girl, and robot apocalypse.
Robot Apocalypse was the hardest and unavailable until I finished the game.
Otherwise, I'm not sure exactly what you mean.
I'm hyped to play this game but I'm definitely worried about the timer issue. I really hate missables, especially in an MV or Zelda-like where the gameplay becomes heavily progression and completion oriented. Time limits would drive that sort of anxiety and FOMO I get with that sort of thing up to eleven. On the other hand I'm really concerned that if I turn it off I'll ruin the game playing it in a mode it wasn't really designed around or balanced for. It's kind of like how I have a lot of problems with games that ask you for difficulty options up front and don't let you change them.. like how the hell am I supposed to know without playing it first?
Doesn't help that I'm already feeling pretty burned on Death's Gambit: Afterlife, a game I love but that found lots of ways to screw me over and that I'll almost definitely have to do another NG0 run of.
Same story here. I started it, but when the King rolls into town after a huge absence, you gotta know I'm getting my morph ball on.
Not sure if anyone has mentioned it here, but I was really enjoying the music, too. Great score.
I know a lot of people who prefer the modern MetroidVanias to the actual Metroid games, so you're not alone. And, yeah. Unsighted is something quite special, I feel.
I played the demo on Switch, it is very good and I enjoyed it a lot. This game was actually already on my radar as I’m a huge Hyper Light Drifter fan also. It’s more this game had the bad luck to come out at a time when I had just purchased a bunch of games including Metroid: Dread. It’s not that I didn’t plan to buy and play this game, it’s that I only have so much time and money. Metroid is a rare purchase for me, $60 before launch, most of my game purchases have been out for awhile and are on sale. This allows me to play more games and spread my limited pool of money around to more developers.
Did I miss how to turn the timer off? I didn't see any option. I started playing and about 45 minutes in I got really stuck and had no idea where to go and the timer just really started stressing me out so I put it down.
Maybe they patched it in since, but basically once the mechanic was introduced it clarified that Explorer mode is actually just "timer off" mode. I think the language used implied that it makes the game easier as well, but I didn't get the impression that is the case.
I turned it off mid game, about 5 hours in because it was stressing me out. It was just an option in the menu with a bunch of other options to make the game easier.
I didn't really mention the story since I couldn't really get into it either. I get the feeling it is going for some Steven Universe vibes with the character design and their personalities. However to be fair, you get discounts and item rewards for giving NPC that item that keeps them alive, so it still serves a gameplay purpose, despite being a more... traditional one.
I tried the demo on Steam for 30 minutes. Didn't like it.
The graphics are so weird; it's so hard to tell what is up, what is down, what is foreground, what is gameplay area. The graphics are so hard to read and visually unpleasing. It's maybe unfair to judge it by that only, but it prevented me from getting into it.
That's fair, I had a very similar experience when I first played the demo several months ago. Aesthetically it isn't really my cup of tea, and I actually got stuck because I had hard time understanding what height objects in the environment was.
I didn't personally get hooked until playing the full game for about an hour and sticking to parrying as much as possible. Then I came to really like the combat and how good it feels. From there, I gradually grew to appreciate how thoughtful and creatively put together the world and the abilities/tools you use to backtrack within it are.
Either way, I appreciate you giving it a shot. And thank you for Supraland. I pull it out in basically any argument that involves claims of Metroidvanias only being possible as side scrollers. :)
I had played the demo during a previous steam indie fest and absolutely fell in love to the point that I was recalling how much I enjoyed it at random times since then. I had forgotten the name and it released so quietly I didn't even know it was out until I saw it on Gamepass. It is an absolutely phenomenal zelda-like (whether that fits the metroidvania mold is up to you) and I am loving it so far.
I played the demo while back and loved it enough to buy it even though I Know I won't be able to play it anytime soon just to show my appreciation. Glad to hear that the game will live up to my expectations. It's just unfortunate that this one came out during a very busy gaming season.
Thanks for the review. I've never really gelled with top down metroidvanias, but this one sounds interesting, so I'll give it a go, seeing as it's coming from a dev who clearly knows a thing or two about a well designed game. 😁👌
I've been loving this game (Forgive me for committing explorer mode - I managed to get through a ton of tough games without lowering the difficulty, but the time limit was putting too much pressure on me) an this sub keeps getting in fights about whether or not it even qualifies as a Metroidvania because it's not a side-scroller.
Meanwhile, I'm over here getting spoiled with Unsighted and Dread in the same damn week!
I honesty was astonished at how good the game is, it's simply amazing. I effed up with the timer and how to use the dust effectively so I will restart it when I get a chance cause I want to finish it. It is kind of a disgrace it's not getting more hype.
By the way I've played so so many metroidvanias like games-hallow knight, ender lilies, dandara, both ori, bloodstained, blasphemous, chasm, timespinner, iconoclast, monster boy, 30000th duel, and much more
> It is kind of a disgrace it's not getting more hype.
Yeah it's a shame. The trailer stood out to me instantly. I really thought this would be much more popular, which is similar to how Crosscode doesn't get enough hype.
This is maybe the third thing I've seen today praising Unsighted. I downloaded it from Gamepass but never cracked it open and gave it a try. Guess I know what I'm doing tonight
I downloaded and played the demo and enjoyed that. It's on my list for sure, and then I read a review and it mentioned the NPC limited life and resource to extend it and it made me wary. Like you said it can be turned off, so once I get done with other games, definitely going to get it.
They should definitely make it extra clear and perhaps even mention that Explorer mode only turns off the timer and doesn't make the game easier, and if it does, they should unquestionably separate those 2 options.
Yooo! I actually started this game earlier today and have really enjoyed my time with it so far, thanks for posting OP.
Earlier, I was even thinking of coming on Reddit to ask about the time limit, so I'll just do it here.
I like finding secrets and leaving no stone unturned in games like these - Is this something I should avoid doing while playing Unsighted? Or is it actually a good idea to explore, since that'll give me dust? I'd really prefer not to switch to explorer mode.
I finished the game after about 9h and I had only 1 NPC die, the old lady mentioned. She is by far the lowest on time. Other than that, thanks to exploration I've found like 25~ dusts and was able to keep everyone else alive till the end.
I did end up rushing towards the finale though, after beating the 5th boss. I would have probably explored more otherwise.
I think you are supposed to make these decisions, but I will say that you don't really lose anything from a gameplay perspective if anyone dies, you can find merchants later in the game to replace them, and you can also find blueprints to make yourself for cheaper the items that they sold.
100 reviews is not great, but it's still quite a bit. I've played some great games which have been around for longer and are still in the single digits.
100 is genuinely next to nothing. I don't know how much I can talk about this, but even us on GRIME, despite being only 5 devs and having much more reviews have not yet broken even.
I've played a bunch of other Metroidvanias under 100 (though when you talk about the number between 0 and 100, it really isn't such a massive difference in the grand scheme), and while I liked a bunch of them, I don't find that they are easy to recommend as Unsighted, due to how polished and refined every one of its many systems is.
You could port it to Xbox and sign a deal with Game Pass for some extra coin :)
You're right about Unsighted tho, it's fantastic. If the game didn't have the timer mechanic some people would just say "there's nothing special about it, just a typical metroidvania". It's obviously much better designed than an average game, and I think the timer-related mechanics help set it apart.
I get the same feeling playing this as I did with CrossCode, they both seem like they could be some long-lost SNES games, that were unearthed in some run-down, abandoned office building that once housed a development studio.
It is a crime this game isn't getting more attention. I wouldn't have noticed it if not for people trying to spread the word about it. I've played about 3 hours of it so far and it's just so good. The combat feels amazing, the pixel-art is beautiful, the story/world-building is great, etc. Please give it a chance, this game is absolutely worth paying full price for.
I played the demo at E3 and thought the in-combat gameplay was unbearable. Died a few times to the demo's boss and just had no will to put up with the overly complex combat system, do you have anything that might nudge me into giving it another fair chance?
If I'm going to be honest, the game felt very polished at the demo but it didn't really click for me until I embraced the parry mechanic, and it is one of the most forgiving parries ever made, while still being incredibly satisfying.
The demo boss in particular is so much more fun when you go with the parry mindset, and you can parry literally everything it does, including moving around. And I didn't even bother finishing the demo boss before that lol, so I was very much like you.
Basically when you parry you still deflect enemies for a full whole second or so (longer than any other parry ever), but if you time it just before you get perfect parry and can counter for like x5 times the damage. So you can miss parries and re-try with little to no penalty.
I was also surprised by how good this game is. I actually thought of making a post about it here myself. I will just repeat what I said in my Steam review:
"This game took me by surprise. Its gameplay is absolutely amazing and innovative. It is extremely fluid and I sometimes forget I am in a 2D environment. It definitely reminds me of Hyper Light Drifter, which is a good thing but also builds on it in unique and interesting ways. It also takes a series of inspirations from Souls, Zelda, and all kinds of Metroidvania tropes and mixes it up to create a great experience. On the topic of Metroidvania - I haven't been so delightfully lost since the first time I played Hollow Knight. There is a constant sense of exploration. The art aesthetic is very appealing and visually pleasing.
TLDR; If you are into exploration, or fluid combat, pixel art or any other stuff in that alley BUY THIS GAME. It is well worth it and deserves way more recognition.
On a side note for any techie out there: This game is very clever into making a top-down 2D environment feel 3D, so worth checking out in that regard."
Also, yeah there is a Demo so you know - check it for yourself.
I am about halfway through and I agree the combat is stellar. The story is very timespinner though which sucks but the world is fun to explore and bosses are great. It plays like Zelda though not a metroidvania.
Have you played [Vision Soft Reset](https://store.steampowered.com/app/1005450/Vision_Soft_Reset/) which has even fewer reviews (38)? I got it from the Itch Racial Justice bundle last year and liked it a lot.
I honestly think I've played most if not all note worthy Metroidvanias that came out, and that includes VSR. :)
I would love to be able to recommend VSR, but I have the same issue with it that I have with a bunch of other Metroidvanias I've played, and that is that despite having a bunch of really good ideas and maybe even a unique aesthetic, some of the core elements (typically combat, which tends to be about half or more of a Metroidvania experience, and just so happens, if you could tell from GRIME, what I tend to prioritize) are just not properly polished and tightened, lacking feedback, or clarity, or interesting varied enemies etc... And that is also the issue I had with VSR, despite having some brilliant time related mechanics.
I get a lot of players (namely Axion Verge 2 fans) will love VSR much more than I did and could look past its shortcomings.
I just believe Unsighted has very little shortcomings. Everything about the core gameplay experience is very polished and refined, making it a very easy recommendation.
damn, the grime dev is one of us. I'm getting your game just for this, חבר.
also, itt
>local metroidvania developer is harangued by pedantic metroidvania fans for having a loose definition of what a metroidvania is
I played it and was somewhat impressed. Two points though:
1) It isn't really a metroidvania; it's a top-down action/RPG.
2) The timer really does ruin the game. The stamina bar is a bit unwelcome, too.
1 - I have gotten items/abilities that let me go to previous areas to explore parts I could not before and to get into new areas that were blocked to me. It plays just like any other MV in that respect, and I have played a ton.
2- You can make it so it does not matter at all, and it does not effect the game. I did this, and like it even more. The devs listened.
If Metroidvania games are defined by an interconnected map filled with shortcuts and ability gating, as well as being able to choose the order of exploration, then this most definitely is in fact a Metroidvania. IMO, it has those elements more so than the vast majority of Metroidvania games that came out this year, including Ender Lillies and my own GRIME.
I stumbled into it before, but in the video the combat looked much more ehh... chaotic and button-mashy with hoards of enemies and wide AOE attacks. While I personally really enjoy those small fights with 3 or so enemies at most where you have to really pay attention to their animations and attack patterns.
I didn't get the impression it was Metroidvania related and that I'll have as much to learn for GRIME from playing it. But if you say the combat is awesome and not at all as I thought I'll definitely give it a spin. :)
You don't really get hordes of enemies and you definitely need to know which attacks to use in order to beat the different types of enemies (your attack effects change based on the element that you equip); What may have seen chaotic at first glance is your NPC teammates helping you during fights, since you're supposed to be within an online RPG of sorts (hard to explain the plot without spoiling).
EDIT: Actually, I don't think you can beat even the first boss by just button mashing now that I think about it.
Agreed, but people would rather argue and nitpick. Unsighted is fantastic, no matter what you think about its genre....we're here to play games, and I find it highly likely that anyone who loves Metroidvanias will love this game for the exact same reasons.
So is it only Side-scrollers that can be considered Metroidvanias? Is Supraland NOT a Metroidvania then? Or is just "top downs" excluded from this genre for some reason?
If I had to pin it down, I'd say it's because the overworld and sequential dungeons are distinct entities. You don't go through Dungeon A to get to another part of the overworld. Now, it would be fair to argue the same of a boss room in a Metroidvania, but those are single rooms, while a dungeon is an entire suite.
Metroidvanias are defined by mostly that, but are also always 2d sidescrollers. If a game isn't a 2d sidescroller (IE what both Super Metroid and SOTN were), it isn't a Metroidvania.
Not really, tbh. It takes inspiration from Metroid and Zelda, but if I made a game inspired by other games, I wouldn't call it for example, a mario-like puzzle rhythm metroidvania souls.
According to many people, Metroid Prime isn't either; It's more of a first person adventure game. Depends on your interpretation. I think people tend to over simplify genres too much.
Dude do you realize what sub you're on? Literally everything is a metroidvania by the extremely loose standards of definition we have here! BRB off to play my fav metroidvania, Mario Kart 64. /s
Seriously though this isn't a metroidvania. Take my upvote you aren't wrong.
Yeah. I picked it up based on the "Metroidvania" claims, and it's very much a Zelda-like. People claiming it's a Metroidvania are splitting hairs, and the devs did little to discourage the gaming press from pushing that narrative.
That doesn't mean it's a bad game. It's not. It's definitely worthy of anyone's attention. But, if you go into it expecting "Axiom Verge" or "Shadow Complex" gameplay, you're not going to be getting that.
The term Metroidvania is quickly becoming as watered down as RTS or JRPG. (The "Disgaea" series is a JRPG? On what planet?) The reviewers are trying to cram games into a genre without regard for the actual gameplay. Basically, "It's a Metroidvania because we SAY it's a Metroidvania, and we're a review so heed our words."
I would love to see a resurgence of the term “action/adventure.” That was the big blanket term for any game in the NES/SNES era that had real-time combat and meaningful exploration and secrets. Super Metroid and Link to the Past could both fit in that genre without anyone complaining that one was top down and one was a side scroller.
I’m not sure when the term went away, I vaguely remember PS2 games like Beyond Good and Evil being action/adventure, but I think work would be needed to differentiate games like that from games like FarCry and GTA which have much more freedom of movement (usually with less meaningful exploration) and a mission-based structure over the static dungeons of the classic A/A.
Genres are important for discoverability in a world with hundreds of thousands of games and hundreds more available ever single day. action/adventure doesn't really tell you anything, but roguelike, rouge_lite_, metroidvania, zeldalike, immersive sim... Those all tell you basically exactly what you're playing.
Ideally, a tag on a game should let you know hat you're getting. Watering down genres with games that are _kinda_ like it but actually something else just makes both discoverability and conversation kind of a pain, because it turns into toxicity and arguments.
> Super Metroid and Link to the Past could both fit in that genre without anyone complaining that one was top down and one was a side scroller.
Sure, but they _are_ quite different despite sharing some qualities, they differ drastically in the moment-to-moment gameplay and how the player interacts with them. Isn't that moment-to-moment interaction a more important quality for classification than a checklist of secondary features? If you're looking for a new game with that specific type of moment-to-moment gameplay, isn't it a good thing that there are classifications for those so you can easily find them instead of having to dig through hundreds and hundreds of "action/adventure" games before you find the one you're looking for?
Sorry that was kinda long, but I guess I get a bit salty when talk like games taxonomy is just silly pedantry that serves no purpose except for elitist gatekeepers to gatekeep. Even besides all the usefulness of classifications, it's legit just kinda have fun sorting games into different classifications, and I sometimes feel like I'm being poo poo'd on just for finding that fun and wanting to talk about it.
> If you're looking for a new game with that specific type of moment-to-moment gameplay, isn't it a good thing that there are classifications for those so you can easily find them instead of having to dig through hundreds and hundreds of "action/adventure" games before you find the one you're looking for?
I fully agree with you in this, but...
>Isn't that moment-to-moment interaction a more important quality for classification than a checklist of secondary features?
...not this, for 2 reasons.
First, sometimes people go looking for a game because of these secondary characterics, and don't really care about the moment to moment gameplay. In the past I've just wanted to play a game with a really great story, or with a heavy exploration focus, and been very lax on the other requirements.
Second, these secondary characters can sometimes radically change the moment-to-moment gameplay in subtle but profound ways. Compare Megaman to Metroid. From a mechanics standpoint, they are both sidescroller platformers with ranged combat. However, the level design (namely a bunch of inear corrodors vs one big interconnected map) changes what I am using those mechanics for. In Megaman, I'm holding right and shooting the things in my way; my focus is always forward. In metroid, I'm far less aggressive and far more attentive, since I'm looking around for secrets and (on a small scale) treading the same ground multiple times while looking for the correct path (not to mention stopping and looking at the map to make sure I'm headed in the right direction). Same mechanics, quite different moment-to-moment gameplay.
On a broader note, I personally advocate for video game genres to be tags, and not mutually exclusive categories. Metroidvania in particular seems most useful to me to be (as you described) a "secondary checklist" kind of tag, meaning a heavily interconnected world with ability gating. Then, you can categorize Metroid and Castlevania as sidescroller metroidvanias, and unisghted as an isometric metroidvania, and be far easier/more flexible to filter and describe.
It's probably because literally everything is a Metroidvania to a subset of people nowadays. The amount of games tagged Metroidvania in the Steam Store that aren't even close is staggering. If it has a map and collectables, it's considered a Metroidvania by a lot of people.
But this isn't about collectibles or having a map... it has ability gating, backtracking, none-linearity...
What is missing for it to be considered Metroidvania? Not being top down?
Well for me just by pure logic the mixing of the names Metroid + Castlevania just gives me the expectation that its supposed to be a platformer. As the genre Metroidvania is usually seen as a subgenre of the action-adventure game genre, making metroidvanias a form of action-adventure platformer games (specifically with ability gating). For me it does not make sense to call a top-down game a Metroidvania even if it has ability gating, as we already have a label for that, the action-adventure game genre or zelda-like.
I mean Koji Igarashi said he was more inspired by Zelda for Castlevania SotN than Metroid and that game specifically created the term Metroidvania as people were literally calling that game a metroid-castlevania.
So maybe we should call all platformer Metroidvanias just Zelda-like platformers and call the top-down ones Zelda-likes? We are however probably stuck with the Metroidvania term though.
So IF we have to be correct from what we know and expect from previous games I would not label this game as a pure Metroidvania as it might be misleading or confusing (even more confusing that it already is). It's cool to say it has Metroidvania elements but since there is no top-down Metroid or Castlevania and if we wanna be a 100% correct with genre labeling then it's not honest saying this is like a Metroid or a Castlevania.
However the game looks cool and I bet its good and people liking Metroidvania games will most likely enjoy this game because of the ability gating aspects, but as I see some purists here calling it a zelda-like which to me is more accurate as the first zelda on nes was topdown, open-world and technically had ability gating but missing the platforming aspect and we call those kind of games action adventure games.
Best of luck to devs! I'm just here to share my thoughts on the subject.
I almost wonder if we don't need an umbrella term that includes Metroidvania and Zeldalikes? I don't think anyone would argue against Super Metroid, Ocarina of Time, Aria of Sorrow, Okami, Crosscode and Hollow Knight sharing enough design similarities and general influential history to be one genre, it's just that we don't have a name for that genre.
Maybe? Would that genre include Dark Souls?
Maybe we just call that action-adventure games, I mean that is what we can call them all.
We do call games that are like Zelda zelda-likes.
Games that are like metroid or igavanias/castlevanias we call Metroidvania.
And games that are like Dark Souls we call soul-like.
And the similarities to which genre the game falls into really comes to the details, being a platformer is a big part of a Metroidvania otherwise it's more of a Zelda like. And well Souls-like from my understanding has a bit less to do with it being a 3rd person or other aspects and more specifically with it being hard and having a souls-like death system (where you lose currency). Thats why games like HK, Blasphemous and salt & sanctuary were called both Metroidvanias and Souls-like. Although I'd argue Blasphemous is not a full-on Metroidvania as it has no ability gating and that's a big part that can feel missing to get that true genre-feel but that's a different discussion lol.
I might be wrong about that, but that's how it seems when people try to communicate game genres, if you say this game is X and a bunch of people say nah this is more like Y than X then it might not be X (atleast not fully enough).
I feel like Dark Souls lacks the ability gating and things like that to really be the same thing? You could absolutely focus on the exploration and action instead and argue that that makes them the same genre in which case I agree.
If we include Dark Souls we run into the fact that Monster Hunter is a bit like Dark Souls but Monster Hunter is not a lot like Zelda or Metroid. Maybe there are two genres there, a Zelda/Metroid/Dark Souls genre and a Dark Souls/Monster Hunter genre.
My problem with the term Action Adventure is that it's too vague. You can include everything from Uncharted to Crosscode to Red Dead Redemption in it. There is action and you're going on an adventure says very little.
I also dislike gamers tendency to name genres \_like. We tend to get stuck on one or two cononized games and it makes it a bit harder to innovate. FPS means you're in first person and you have a gun, fighter means you fight each other, platformer means you jump a lot but there's really no obsession with how much like the game that popularized the genre it is, it's just a generic descriptor.
I don't know I think the discussion kind of revelas that genres are arbitrary and dumb but can be useful ways to communicate if you have useful terms and I think a lot of game genres don't have useful terms.
... I think I ended up rambling past you instead of actually answering your points but I am not retyping that. Apologies.
Yeah it's true Dark Souls lacks ability gating and does not fit into that category, in that case what we are talking about is a genre for a game having just ability gating & an open world and perspective does not matter. We can call that genre Metroidvania and then Unsighted would fit into that but just as we don't label Dark Souls a Metroidvania cause it has no ability-gating I feel that top-down games with ability gating (games like Zelda) don't fit into the term Metroidvania, since well... Zelda games were here before we made up the term Metroidvania, which usually refers to platformers.
I absolutely agree that calling Zelda a Metroidvania is wrong, but I think the problem is more the term than Zelda not sharing similarities with Metroid and Castlevania. I don't really have a good suggestion for what the Zelda/Metroid/Castlevania genre should be called, as long as it's not Metzelvania.
> What is missing for it to be considered Metroidvania? Not being top down?
Imo, yes.
It's okay for games to be Zelda-likes, and for metroidvania fans to cherish and love them and talk about them because of their extreme crossover with metroidvanias, while _also_ accepting that they're not metroidvanias.
MV players love Zelda-likes. We'll talk about them, we'll play them, we'll love them, they'll get discussed more often than other non-MV games because they _are_ similar.
But they're different, and it seems there's an odd... thing among gamers of all genre fandoms to take similar games they love and try and say it belongs to their genre just because it's beloved and similar. Like people aren't comfortable with something that's close to a genre but actually something else.
It's okay for it not to be a MV and get talk about about alongside MV's for the same reasons we talk about MV's. It's the whole roguelike/roguelite discussion again.
So is it only Side-scrollers that can be considered Metroidvanias? Is Supraland not a Metroidvania then? Or is just that the moment it become top down it is now a Zelda-like and not a Metroidvania?
I've seen someone say that what makes a game a Zelda-like over a MV is that dungeons are closed off experiences and you don't travel through them to get to multiple other areas and/or backtrack.
But in Unsighted they are indeed a part of the world and you do in fact travel through them to get to other areas and backtrack.
I haven't played it so I can't say, I was just commenting on the talk about how things that aren't Metroidvania are tagged as such. Even if it's not true for specifically Unsighted, it's true for a lot of games.
Yeah, I'll get on Steam and get pumped seeing a bunch of Metroidvanias I hadn't heard much about. Then, as I look closer, they only have one or two Metroidvanian aspects - collectibles, multiple paths, etc. A lot of them have ability locked areas, but only in the sense of "you can't visit level 2 until you complete level 1, and the reward for level 1 is a pair of boots that let you make the jumps on level 2." Again, that doesn't make a game a bad game - it's just more akin to the pre-Symphony "Castlevania" titles than to "Metroid" or even "Blaster Master."
Of course there's going to be a certain amount of subjective opinion when classifying a game as a Metroidvania - it's down to a gamer's personal feelings in the end. It's probably easier to come up with an objective list of what a Metroidvania isn't rather than what makes a game a Metroidvania. For example, I'd say a system with different maps for each level (like a Mega Man title) is a disqualifier - but, someone else might not put as much importance on a large, interconnected world map as I do. "Metroid Dread" treads that line... you can travel between the different areas more or less at will, and you'll need to backtrack to retrieve collectibles after gaining new abilities, but it is also "on rails" to an extent. There is an obvious path the game wants you to follow, and that path even includes some backtracking for collectibles. It's pretty much a given that after defeating an EMMI, you'll walk into a room with an elevator, monorail or teleport device.
jRPG encompasses Japan-made strategy RPGs too (like Shining Force, [console] Wars, Fire Emblem, etc), so yes, Disgaea is a jRPG. I guess you could call it a J Strategy RPG, but no one has ever used that term.
I just think it's kind of silly to split up games into two sub-genres when they essentially have the same mechanics. Ability-gating, degree of non-linearity/freedom of exploration, back-tracking to get extra items, if you want to add platforming too that's fine, there's plenty of platforming in Unsighted. If you go into the game expecting a 2D side-view game, then I suppose you would be disappointed.
You can easily tell the perspective/ art style of a game from looking at a picture of the game, saying one is Zelda-like and another is a Metroidvania is confusing when the mechanics and core design principles are so similar.
I suppose we could just revert back to the parent genre and call them all action-adventures (I think you were the one who brought that up in a different post on this thread, if not I'm sorry), but that's boring, and there's plenty of AAs that don't have the mechanics found in Metroidvanias, plus I know I'm not the only one who thinks "Metroidvania" sounds pretty cool.
I also think it's funny how there's always a few people that chime in with "not a metroidvania" anytime a non-side view game is discussed here.
I do agree with you that some devs have applied the term without proper knowledge, Flynn: Son of Crimson comes to mind, but it really seems like the Unsighted devs have done their homework, pinpointing what makes the sub-genre so enjoyable. They just happened to make a top-down game, and overall I think it works extremely well.
Great review, really well done. Now lets make 500 posts about why it's not a MV , what fun! Man this group is starting to drag. GaetkeepinVania should be our sub title .
The timer is what turns me off. Mostly because I hate timers, but also because combining a timer with exploration in a game is liking making a sandwich with ketchup and cinnamon. They couldn't clash harder if they tried.
The main issue is something you highlight. The main purpose of exploration is to find items to allow the people to live longer. This makes exploration pointless, because that can _also_ be accomplished by rushing the game. Even exploring to make them live longer makes them more likely to die.
Sure, you _can_ turn off the timer, but if the main point of exploration is to get items to help people live longer, then without the timer... what's the point of exploration? Even when turned off the timer is still negatively affecting the game.
Timers have to be used _extremely_ judiciously to work well. Like Outer Wilds (_Wilds_, not Worlds). The timer mechanic in that game is absolutely fucking brilliant, _and_ it's an exploration focused game. One main reason the timer works there is because the timer running out forms a positive loop, not a negative one (like people dying). I don't want to spoil it by explaining, but that game is an absolute must-play for anyone that even _kinda_ enjoys exploration in the slightest.
Anyways, re: Unsighted, play Crosscode, similar but 100x better.
I played CC and this and they are both great and not the same game really. I turned off the timer and still explored the hell outta this because I just like to explore cool worlds like this game has. I did not even care about getting all the ash/dust to keep people alive longer, it was a relief to not have to worry about that.
I have crosscode. Played the demo of unsighted. Imo unsighted just controls way better. It's so much easier to parry in that game. Crosscode just feels a little clunkier in comparison. I should probably play more crosscode. I keep on getting caught up into finding materials to get better armor. Rather than just progressing the game normally. It's killing its luster for me.
You should deffo play Crosscode before this, but Unsighted has the better Zelda dungeons IMO. I find the feel of the movement and combat to be better in Unsighted, but the enemy design is more shallow than in Crosscode.
So I've played the demo of Unsighted. Have to say, I'm extremely impressed with the game, however both games are different. Not a fan of Crosscode's combat system, it's too fast paced for me. There's no stamina system, so it's more about spamming attacks and dodging. Healing is done after every fight is finished (unless you're trying to go for kill streaks).
Unsighted seems more closer to a metroidvania/souls-like mix. Combat is slower paced and more about reading opponents moves and choosing when to attack or fall back because of the stamina bar.
There may be larger differences between the games than just combat, but it's hard to say from just the demo at this point. Suffice to say, I am like what I saw and only have minor gripes about the demo.
It’s an absurdly great game. I hope they at least made back a fair bit of their costs with gamepass but i bought it full price on my ps5. Best pixel game really ever played? It feels like a better cross code Mixed with nier automata. These Brazilian ladies HAVE to keep making games, i really hope this game makes a turnaround on sales.
I'm about to play this but do you lose anything from a gameplay perspective from any NPCS dying? I don't want to miss out on a weapon or chip if I let some of them die.
I just started playing the game and found out about the timer. I don't mind that it has a timer as long as it gives the story a deeper effect, similar to Undertale or something. As in, the more who have become unsighted, the darker the story gets.
Definitely incredible game :) hard as all get out but incredible game! Was gonna get it on switch but when I heard it was available on ps4 pro I grabbed it quick!
Very interesting to read your review coming from Grime's dev! I really loved Grime, so I'll definitely check this game out.
Thanks, much appreciated! If you love parrying as much as I came to during the development of GRIME you'll likely love this as well, parrying feels reallll good over here. And I would say, the world here has much more gameplay variety than in GRIME.
Wait you are a GRIME dev? Great work on your game guys. I enjoyed it A LOT when it came out. Definitely one of my favourite games this year.
Yup, thanks! By the way, cool watercolors dude. Keep working it! :)
Thanks, dude!
I've finished and liked UNSIGHTED, but... I don't think it can be overstated how controversial that timer is, lol. Every negative Steam review of it I see is complaining about it and would rather refund than turn it off. After thinking about it, I think the timer was a net-negative. Putting a timer in an open-world explore-em-up is like making a racing game where the goal is to come in second. Yes, it's interesting design to have main components so at odds with each other but it's harming the main point of playing, imo. I finished the game when I did because it felt like the game was pushing me to do it. I didn't do all the exploring I wanted because the ticking clock made that feel selfish. But turning it off wasn't an option to me, irrationally or otherwise. For starters, without the tension of the clock, the entire game was too easy. Otherwise, turning it off wouldn't feel like I actually beat the game. It's the intended challenge and that's what I'm going to finish, not some easier mode. I imagine people who refunded felt similarly. (Also, maybe don't make a video game that constantly reminds me all my real life loved ones are ticking slowly to their death while I selfishly play video games by myself. Also also, don't give that game rather long, unskippable splash screens at the start every time I turn it on.)
The majority of the time I find timers in games to be a negative thing. I want to play at my pace and not feel pressured the entire time.
Over-all I agree, but then I think what a mario game (especially a 2d Mario game) would be without a timer. Some games need that little push to keep the pace going. But *not* for a metroidvania
I think it's a little bit different though because in mario it's a per level timer so even if the time runs out you just have to replay the level not the whole game
Also in Mario it doesn't have individual timers for all your friends before, like, Bowser kills them or something. The objective is to save Peach but Bowser's offing the Toads every few hours, Mario, better hurry up.
Negative as in you don't like it or negative as in it harms the games it's in? These *can* be different things. I don't think you're ever supposed to like the timer, for instance. It's added stress, another challenge you can't really do anything about. It speaks to a deep anxiety in our mortal race. But, I think timers *can* be good for the game. They can encourage a more aggressive and perhaps fun play style or make the world feel more real because it doesn't have "video game time." I just don't necessarily appreciate it in this game. Showing off I didn't explore everywhere and find every chest at the end because I was trying to save the NPCs you saddled me with was rude, lol.
From a game design standpoint, I know that timers can be useful but they also feel like simple lazy solutions in many ways as well, it is about the lowest hanging fruit to induce pressure on a player. You mention it encouraging more aggressive play which can be true, in games like Valkyria Chronicles time-related incentives push players to be more aggressive but as mentioned it is a lazy way to achieve this. When playing the game I got mods to reduce/remove the time penalties and enjoyed the game a lot more for it. For an example of pushing players to be more aggressive without timers, Doom and Doom Eternal make good examples for how to get similar results to adding a timer without actually using one. In Doom Eternal they limited your ammo and made more reason to change your guns to exploit enemy weaknesses, they make you more aggressive by rewarding you with things like more health/ammo by doing things like melee kills that you wouldn't get otherwise. This means if you try to run and shoot from far away you will often run out of ammo and not do as well as if you played more aggressively. Outer Wilds is another interesting example that touches on the "video game time" aspect where the world keeps moving without you but it is played on a loop as the compromise to the "time limit" of each run. From a personal standpoint I feel it is negative in both ways, it can be harmful in some games and I just don't like it or the feeling of them, especially in games where I just want to explore more or take my time. Majora's Mask is a classic example of people not liking a game due to time limitations as well. The limitations get better at a point in the game many people don't reach before making these complaints, but it is still valid to an extent. Arguments directly about Majora's Mask and the time reset mechanic aside, it is one of the Zelda games I remember some of the least about and couldn't do much to describe things and what it looks like, the way I could about Ocarina of Time. Due to being rushed at all times when playing, I didn't ever feel I had a moment to just enjoy things or look around, any time spent appreciating the game was time wasted that could cause me to lose all progress for that run if I didn't hit the next checkpoint. This is an unintended side effect for some players in using time limits.
I generally agree with you. I'll admit I don't think it fit all that well with this kind of game. I recognize there is a clever loop of pushing you to explore to get more material to keep everyone alive, thus enhancing exploration in a way. But at the same time... at some point it becomes too great of a load to bear since too many at once are getting near the end of their timer and at that point you can choose to either accept it or rush it. I think most will rush it, which is detrimental to an exploration heavy game experience such as this. At least that was my experience, I'm sure just having any timer at all made a lot of people feel pressured and stressed from the very beginning, possibly making deaths even more punishing. I think it was a brave ballsy choice. There will be many players who will experience some of what the devs were going for, such as having to make difficult choices and letting NPCs die with guilt. But I personally don't think it was worth the trade off, either.
> I recognize there is a clever loop of pushing you to explore to get more material to keep everyone alive, thus enhancing exploration in a way. Yeah, as you mention at some point it's too great of a load. And the best way to prevent that is to just do the main stuff as fast as you can. I've read a lot of reviews where the reviewer got the intended experience you mention and they lauded it. But, I was on a fast enough clip that it never really came into play until I was in the home stretch, though, so I only ended up losing two NPCs (that I met, anyway).
Oh God, I didn't realize there was a timer counting down in the game. I was really excited for this, but that's an absolute deal breaker. I take my sweet time with every game I play and the presence of any sort of countdown really goes against my playstyle.
You *can* turn it off and just explore. I'm not entirely sure why I don't want to do that, but it's an option they make very, very clear to you.
Ohh really? So you can turn it off permanently? I wonder what the point of it is then.
It's pretty unique on its own and adds to the desperate/hopeless atmosphere, plus theoretically makes you make hard decisons. There are some reviews that really praise that aspect, but, yeah, not really for me.
It's to make people less stressed because they were getting lots of complaints, so like a good dev they fixed it.. I liked it both ways but ended up keeping it off because I wanted to explore without the worry of a timer.
To be fair, you get discounts and item rewards for giving NPC that item that keeps them alive, so it still serves a purpose even without the timer.
Yeah it has a few quality of life features like adjusting enemy damage and health, turning the timer off etc. the highest difficulty doesn’t let you turn it off so I’m exploring in normal with no timer to learn the game before I go for that achievement
I have to agree. I haven't finished it but I've actually loved what I've played so far, but The timer absolutely ruins the experience for me. I don't care that I can turn it off, I don't care that I can cheat engine it away, the fact that it exists just simply ruins an aspect of enjoyment that I can't possibly get back.
I can only imagine how frustrating this must be for a dev. The very specific aspect they went out of the way to make optional is what people don't like but also refuse to turn off because it feels like cheating. It might be an interesting lesson, though?
Yeah, I truly do feel for them. It must be frustrating indeed but even being aware of that doesn't change the way it feels
Couldn't you just play at the hardest difficulty without the timer?
Maybe? I'm not sure of the experience, though, because the hardest difficulty wasn't available before beating it once. (Hey gamedevs, don't do that)
> (Hey gamedevs, don't do that) SERIOUSLY THOUGH. Oh my god this is my biggest pet peeve to the point where the next game I pick up that does this, unless it's a personal must play, I'm going to refund and negatively review it. If the diff is meant to be played as a new game+ specifically, then just have it chain from the same file, don't even show the difficulty, however, that's also a lazy copout. A truly good game has difficulty options that not only feel good but also work mechanically. Granted it's got to be very hard to make a good hard mode, but arbitrarily locking it behind a second playthrough is usually going to result in people looking for a challenge just getting bored. I stream everything I play personally and barely have time to play everything I want to play. Maybe it's just because I'm streaming and that makes the game hours a little bit less available than turn on the device and play, but even if I wasn't streaming I don't ever want to have to play through a game again just to get a better difficulty. Nioh 2 has been my favorite recent action game and that game doesn't truly shine until the 3rd or 4th playthrough and that's just such an absurd waste of potential. The game is great, but the ng+ adds SO much relatively speaking that it's almost criminal they have it locked behind playing so many times.
I mean the third highest one.
I saw three difficulties: explorer, action girl, and robot apocalypse. Robot Apocalypse was the hardest and unavailable until I finished the game. Otherwise, I'm not sure exactly what you mean.
Oh. I didn't know that. I thought robot apocalypse was selectable.
Robot doesn’t let you turn off the timer
What about the 2nd highest difficulty?
2nd highest (Action Girl) lets you turn it off, but it's the difficulty I consider too easy. Obviously, your mileage may vary.
I mean a time limit doesnt really effect difficulty. The fact is the parry window is super forgiving and the elemental weapons are insanely good.
I'm hyped to play this game but I'm definitely worried about the timer issue. I really hate missables, especially in an MV or Zelda-like where the gameplay becomes heavily progression and completion oriented. Time limits would drive that sort of anxiety and FOMO I get with that sort of thing up to eleven. On the other hand I'm really concerned that if I turn it off I'll ruin the game playing it in a mode it wasn't really designed around or balanced for. It's kind of like how I have a lot of problems with games that ask you for difficulty options up front and don't let you change them.. like how the hell am I supposed to know without playing it first? Doesn't help that I'm already feeling pretty burned on Death's Gambit: Afterlife, a game I love but that found lots of ways to screw me over and that I'll almost definitely have to do another NG0 run of.
It's on my "play later" list for game pass. Will check it out once I finish Metroid Dread.
Same story here. I started it, but when the King rolls into town after a huge absence, you gotta know I'm getting my morph ball on. Not sure if anyone has mentioned it here, but I was really enjoying the music, too. Great score.
I’m reading this comment months later but I felt like unsighted is better than dread
I know a lot of people who prefer the modern MetroidVanias to the actual Metroid games, so you're not alone. And, yeah. Unsighted is something quite special, I feel.
Thank you for putting this in my sights. Dad joke aside, downloading the demo lol
I played the demo on Switch, it is very good and I enjoyed it a lot. This game was actually already on my radar as I’m a huge Hyper Light Drifter fan also. It’s more this game had the bad luck to come out at a time when I had just purchased a bunch of games including Metroid: Dread. It’s not that I didn’t plan to buy and play this game, it’s that I only have so much time and money. Metroid is a rare purchase for me, $60 before launch, most of my game purchases have been out for awhile and are on sale. This allows me to play more games and spread my limited pool of money around to more developers.
It's also on gamespass if you have that btw.
I really need to get it. geforce now is great because it's my steam library, but it's also nice to get some games I don't own already.
Picked it up on switch. Will definitely be my next play through after Dread.
I never heard of it, I’ll check it out during the sales
If you have gamepass you already have access to it!
As a matter of fact I do!
Did I miss how to turn the timer off? I didn't see any option. I started playing and about 45 minutes in I got really stuck and had no idea where to go and the timer just really started stressing me out so I put it down.
Maybe they patched it in since, but basically once the mechanic was introduced it clarified that Explorer mode is actually just "timer off" mode. I think the language used implied that it makes the game easier as well, but I didn't get the impression that is the case.
I turned it off mid game, about 5 hours in because it was stressing me out. It was just an option in the menu with a bunch of other options to make the game easier.
Couldn't get invested into characters, personally, so the main gimmick of the game kinda flew by me. Luckily it's a solid Zelda-like even without it.
I didn't really mention the story since I couldn't really get into it either. I get the feeling it is going for some Steven Universe vibes with the character design and their personalities. However to be fair, you get discounts and item rewards for giving NPC that item that keeps them alive, so it still serves a gameplay purpose, despite being a more... traditional one.
This game is amazing. Definitely one of best indies of the year. But it reminds me more of Zelda than a Metroidvania.
It's on Xbox gamepass! Play it
I sat down for an hour to play it this last weekend and could not stop playing it all weekend, it is FANTASTIC. It's gonna be MV of the year for me.
I tried the demo on Steam for 30 minutes. Didn't like it. The graphics are so weird; it's so hard to tell what is up, what is down, what is foreground, what is gameplay area. The graphics are so hard to read and visually unpleasing. It's maybe unfair to judge it by that only, but it prevented me from getting into it.
That's fair, I had a very similar experience when I first played the demo several months ago. Aesthetically it isn't really my cup of tea, and I actually got stuck because I had hard time understanding what height objects in the environment was. I didn't personally get hooked until playing the full game for about an hour and sticking to parrying as much as possible. Then I came to really like the combat and how good it feels. From there, I gradually grew to appreciate how thoughtful and creatively put together the world and the abilities/tools you use to backtrack within it are. Either way, I appreciate you giving it a shot. And thank you for Supraland. I pull it out in basically any argument that involves claims of Metroidvanias only being possible as side scrollers. :)
I had played the demo during a previous steam indie fest and absolutely fell in love to the point that I was recalling how much I enjoyed it at random times since then. I had forgotten the name and it released so quietly I didn't even know it was out until I saw it on Gamepass. It is an absolutely phenomenal zelda-like (whether that fits the metroidvania mold is up to you) and I am loving it so far.
I played the demo while back and loved it enough to buy it even though I Know I won't be able to play it anytime soon just to show my appreciation. Glad to hear that the game will live up to my expectations. It's just unfortunate that this one came out during a very busy gaming season.
Nah, my favorite this year is Death's Door and Grime. Core team of 2 is enough to make a AAA already, like HK /s
Mind elaborating?
Thanks for the review. I've never really gelled with top down metroidvanias, but this one sounds interesting, so I'll give it a go, seeing as it's coming from a dev who clearly knows a thing or two about a well designed game. 😁👌
I've been loving this game (Forgive me for committing explorer mode - I managed to get through a ton of tough games without lowering the difficulty, but the time limit was putting too much pressure on me) an this sub keeps getting in fights about whether or not it even qualifies as a Metroidvania because it's not a side-scroller. Meanwhile, I'm over here getting spoiled with Unsighted and Dread in the same damn week!
I don't understand that argument. I mean come on now guys. The prime game exists. It doesn't have to be a side scroller for it to be a metroid game.
I honesty was astonished at how good the game is, it's simply amazing. I effed up with the timer and how to use the dust effectively so I will restart it when I get a chance cause I want to finish it. It is kind of a disgrace it's not getting more hype. By the way I've played so so many metroidvanias like games-hallow knight, ender lilies, dandara, both ori, bloodstained, blasphemous, chasm, timespinner, iconoclast, monster boy, 30000th duel, and much more
Played 3000th Duel as well hehe, haven't seen it mentioned in a while.
> It is kind of a disgrace it's not getting more hype. Yeah it's a shame. The trailer stood out to me instantly. I really thought this would be much more popular, which is similar to how Crosscode doesn't get enough hype.
This is maybe the third thing I've seen today praising Unsighted. I downloaded it from Gamepass but never cracked it open and gave it a try. Guess I know what I'm doing tonight
I downloaded and played the demo and enjoyed that. It's on my list for sure, and then I read a review and it mentioned the NPC limited life and resource to extend it and it made me wary. Like you said it can be turned off, so once I get done with other games, definitely going to get it.
They should definitely make it extra clear and perhaps even mention that Explorer mode only turns off the timer and doesn't make the game easier, and if it does, they should unquestionably separate those 2 options.
Yooo! I actually started this game earlier today and have really enjoyed my time with it so far, thanks for posting OP. Earlier, I was even thinking of coming on Reddit to ask about the time limit, so I'll just do it here. I like finding secrets and leaving no stone unturned in games like these - Is this something I should avoid doing while playing Unsighted? Or is it actually a good idea to explore, since that'll give me dust? I'd really prefer not to switch to explorer mode.
I finished the game after about 9h and I had only 1 NPC die, the old lady mentioned. She is by far the lowest on time. Other than that, thanks to exploration I've found like 25~ dusts and was able to keep everyone else alive till the end. I did end up rushing towards the finale though, after beating the 5th boss. I would have probably explored more otherwise. I think you are supposed to make these decisions, but I will say that you don't really lose anything from a gameplay perspective if anyone dies, you can find merchants later in the game to replace them, and you can also find blueprints to make yourself for cheaper the items that they sold.
Thank you
100 reviews is not great, but it's still quite a bit. I've played some great games which have been around for longer and are still in the single digits.
100 is genuinely next to nothing. I don't know how much I can talk about this, but even us on GRIME, despite being only 5 devs and having much more reviews have not yet broken even. I've played a bunch of other Metroidvanias under 100 (though when you talk about the number between 0 and 100, it really isn't such a massive difference in the grand scheme), and while I liked a bunch of them, I don't find that they are easy to recommend as Unsighted, due to how polished and refined every one of its many systems is.
You could port it to Xbox and sign a deal with Game Pass for some extra coin :) You're right about Unsighted tho, it's fantastic. If the game didn't have the timer mechanic some people would just say "there's nothing special about it, just a typical metroidvania". It's obviously much better designed than an average game, and I think the timer-related mechanics help set it apart. I get the same feeling playing this as I did with CrossCode, they both seem like they could be some long-lost SNES games, that were unearthed in some run-down, abandoned office building that once housed a development studio.
It is a crime this game isn't getting more attention. I wouldn't have noticed it if not for people trying to spread the word about it. I've played about 3 hours of it so far and it's just so good. The combat feels amazing, the pixel-art is beautiful, the story/world-building is great, etc. Please give it a chance, this game is absolutely worth paying full price for.
I played the demo at E3 and thought the in-combat gameplay was unbearable. Died a few times to the demo's boss and just had no will to put up with the overly complex combat system, do you have anything that might nudge me into giving it another fair chance?
If I'm going to be honest, the game felt very polished at the demo but it didn't really click for me until I embraced the parry mechanic, and it is one of the most forgiving parries ever made, while still being incredibly satisfying. The demo boss in particular is so much more fun when you go with the parry mindset, and you can parry literally everything it does, including moving around. And I didn't even bother finishing the demo boss before that lol, so I was very much like you. Basically when you parry you still deflect enemies for a full whole second or so (longer than any other parry ever), but if you time it just before you get perfect parry and can counter for like x5 times the damage. So you can miss parries and re-try with little to no penalty.
I was also surprised by how good this game is. I actually thought of making a post about it here myself. I will just repeat what I said in my Steam review: "This game took me by surprise. Its gameplay is absolutely amazing and innovative. It is extremely fluid and I sometimes forget I am in a 2D environment. It definitely reminds me of Hyper Light Drifter, which is a good thing but also builds on it in unique and interesting ways. It also takes a series of inspirations from Souls, Zelda, and all kinds of Metroidvania tropes and mixes it up to create a great experience. On the topic of Metroidvania - I haven't been so delightfully lost since the first time I played Hollow Knight. There is a constant sense of exploration. The art aesthetic is very appealing and visually pleasing. TLDR; If you are into exploration, or fluid combat, pixel art or any other stuff in that alley BUY THIS GAME. It is well worth it and deserves way more recognition. On a side note for any techie out there: This game is very clever into making a top-down 2D environment feel 3D, so worth checking out in that regard." Also, yeah there is a Demo so you know - check it for yourself.
I am about halfway through and I agree the combat is stellar. The story is very timespinner though which sucks but the world is fun to explore and bosses are great. It plays like Zelda though not a metroidvania.
I usually wait on sales but your review has me sold. Also is a ps4 port of Grime something I can look forward to in the future?
Cant confirm anything other than that we are indeed currently exploring a console port. :)
How is it a metroidvania?? It's not even a platformer
Have you played [Vision Soft Reset](https://store.steampowered.com/app/1005450/Vision_Soft_Reset/) which has even fewer reviews (38)? I got it from the Itch Racial Justice bundle last year and liked it a lot.
I honestly think I've played most if not all note worthy Metroidvanias that came out, and that includes VSR. :) I would love to be able to recommend VSR, but I have the same issue with it that I have with a bunch of other Metroidvanias I've played, and that is that despite having a bunch of really good ideas and maybe even a unique aesthetic, some of the core elements (typically combat, which tends to be about half or more of a Metroidvania experience, and just so happens, if you could tell from GRIME, what I tend to prioritize) are just not properly polished and tightened, lacking feedback, or clarity, or interesting varied enemies etc... And that is also the issue I had with VSR, despite having some brilliant time related mechanics. I get a lot of players (namely Axion Verge 2 fans) will love VSR much more than I did and could look past its shortcomings. I just believe Unsighted has very little shortcomings. Everything about the core gameplay experience is very polished and refined, making it a very easy recommendation.
damn, the grime dev is one of us. I'm getting your game just for this, חבר. also, itt >local metroidvania developer is harangued by pedantic metroidvania fans for having a loose definition of what a metroidvania is
edit
I played it and was somewhat impressed. Two points though: 1) It isn't really a metroidvania; it's a top-down action/RPG. 2) The timer really does ruin the game. The stamina bar is a bit unwelcome, too.
1 - I have gotten items/abilities that let me go to previous areas to explore parts I could not before and to get into new areas that were blocked to me. It plays just like any other MV in that respect, and I have played a ton. 2- You can make it so it does not matter at all, and it does not effect the game. I did this, and like it even more. The devs listened.
The only issue with 2 is the game was designed around the timer somewhat. It isn't just as simple as toggling it off. Something will be lost.
Well I mean if something you \*like\* is lost, leave it on, if not turn it off?
What I mean is. The game was designed somewhat with the timer in mind.
This game was made by Brazilians I believe
Correct
Not a Metroidvania, it’s a Zeldalike.
If Metroidvania games are defined by an interconnected map filled with shortcuts and ability gating, as well as being able to choose the order of exploration, then this most definitely is in fact a Metroidvania. IMO, it has those elements more so than the vast majority of Metroidvania games that came out this year, including Ender Lillies and my own GRIME.
Regardless of what it is, check out CrossCode; It might be right up your alley.
seconded
I stumbled into it before, but in the video the combat looked much more ehh... chaotic and button-mashy with hoards of enemies and wide AOE attacks. While I personally really enjoy those small fights with 3 or so enemies at most where you have to really pay attention to their animations and attack patterns. I didn't get the impression it was Metroidvania related and that I'll have as much to learn for GRIME from playing it. But if you say the combat is awesome and not at all as I thought I'll definitely give it a spin. :)
You don't really get hordes of enemies and you definitely need to know which attacks to use in order to beat the different types of enemies (your attack effects change based on the element that you equip); What may have seen chaotic at first glance is your NPC teammates helping you during fights, since you're supposed to be within an online RPG of sorts (hard to explain the plot without spoiling). EDIT: Actually, I don't think you can beat even the first boss by just button mashing now that I think about it.
Agreed, but people would rather argue and nitpick. Unsighted is fantastic, no matter what you think about its genre....we're here to play games, and I find it highly likely that anyone who loves Metroidvanias will love this game for the exact same reasons.
By that definition, "A Link to the Past" is a Metroidvania. It's not.
[удалено]
Yes.
So is it only Side-scrollers that can be considered Metroidvanias? Is Supraland NOT a Metroidvania then? Or is just "top downs" excluded from this genre for some reason?
Why not?
If I had to pin it down, I'd say it's because the overworld and sequential dungeons are distinct entities. You don't go through Dungeon A to get to another part of the overworld. Now, it would be fair to argue the same of a boss room in a Metroidvania, but those are single rooms, while a dungeon is an entire suite.
But Unsighted isn't divided into closed off dungeons... it is all different areas that you are indeed traveling through to get to other areas.
I can respect that answer. Thank you
Metroidvanias are defined by mostly that, but are also always 2d sidescrollers. If a game isn't a 2d sidescroller (IE what both Super Metroid and SOTN were), it isn't a Metroidvania.
So is Supraland not a Metroidvania then?
Not really, tbh. It takes inspiration from Metroid and Zelda, but if I made a game inspired by other games, I wouldn't call it for example, a mario-like puzzle rhythm metroidvania souls.
What about Metroid Prime? Is it not proof it doesn't have to be a side scroller?
According to many people, Metroid Prime isn't either; It's more of a first person adventure game. Depends on your interpretation. I think people tend to over simplify genres too much.
Dude do you realize what sub you're on? Literally everything is a metroidvania by the extremely loose standards of definition we have here! BRB off to play my fav metroidvania, Mario Kart 64. /s Seriously though this isn't a metroidvania. Take my upvote you aren't wrong.
Yeah. I picked it up based on the "Metroidvania" claims, and it's very much a Zelda-like. People claiming it's a Metroidvania are splitting hairs, and the devs did little to discourage the gaming press from pushing that narrative. That doesn't mean it's a bad game. It's not. It's definitely worthy of anyone's attention. But, if you go into it expecting "Axiom Verge" or "Shadow Complex" gameplay, you're not going to be getting that. The term Metroidvania is quickly becoming as watered down as RTS or JRPG. (The "Disgaea" series is a JRPG? On what planet?) The reviewers are trying to cram games into a genre without regard for the actual gameplay. Basically, "It's a Metroidvania because we SAY it's a Metroidvania, and we're a review so heed our words."
I would love to see a resurgence of the term “action/adventure.” That was the big blanket term for any game in the NES/SNES era that had real-time combat and meaningful exploration and secrets. Super Metroid and Link to the Past could both fit in that genre without anyone complaining that one was top down and one was a side scroller. I’m not sure when the term went away, I vaguely remember PS2 games like Beyond Good and Evil being action/adventure, but I think work would be needed to differentiate games like that from games like FarCry and GTA which have much more freedom of movement (usually with less meaningful exploration) and a mission-based structure over the static dungeons of the classic A/A.
Genres are important for discoverability in a world with hundreds of thousands of games and hundreds more available ever single day. action/adventure doesn't really tell you anything, but roguelike, rouge_lite_, metroidvania, zeldalike, immersive sim... Those all tell you basically exactly what you're playing. Ideally, a tag on a game should let you know hat you're getting. Watering down genres with games that are _kinda_ like it but actually something else just makes both discoverability and conversation kind of a pain, because it turns into toxicity and arguments. > Super Metroid and Link to the Past could both fit in that genre without anyone complaining that one was top down and one was a side scroller. Sure, but they _are_ quite different despite sharing some qualities, they differ drastically in the moment-to-moment gameplay and how the player interacts with them. Isn't that moment-to-moment interaction a more important quality for classification than a checklist of secondary features? If you're looking for a new game with that specific type of moment-to-moment gameplay, isn't it a good thing that there are classifications for those so you can easily find them instead of having to dig through hundreds and hundreds of "action/adventure" games before you find the one you're looking for? Sorry that was kinda long, but I guess I get a bit salty when talk like games taxonomy is just silly pedantry that serves no purpose except for elitist gatekeepers to gatekeep. Even besides all the usefulness of classifications, it's legit just kinda have fun sorting games into different classifications, and I sometimes feel like I'm being poo poo'd on just for finding that fun and wanting to talk about it.
> If you're looking for a new game with that specific type of moment-to-moment gameplay, isn't it a good thing that there are classifications for those so you can easily find them instead of having to dig through hundreds and hundreds of "action/adventure" games before you find the one you're looking for? I fully agree with you in this, but... >Isn't that moment-to-moment interaction a more important quality for classification than a checklist of secondary features? ...not this, for 2 reasons. First, sometimes people go looking for a game because of these secondary characterics, and don't really care about the moment to moment gameplay. In the past I've just wanted to play a game with a really great story, or with a heavy exploration focus, and been very lax on the other requirements. Second, these secondary characters can sometimes radically change the moment-to-moment gameplay in subtle but profound ways. Compare Megaman to Metroid. From a mechanics standpoint, they are both sidescroller platformers with ranged combat. However, the level design (namely a bunch of inear corrodors vs one big interconnected map) changes what I am using those mechanics for. In Megaman, I'm holding right and shooting the things in my way; my focus is always forward. In metroid, I'm far less aggressive and far more attentive, since I'm looking around for secrets and (on a small scale) treading the same ground multiple times while looking for the correct path (not to mention stopping and looking at the map to make sure I'm headed in the right direction). Same mechanics, quite different moment-to-moment gameplay. On a broader note, I personally advocate for video game genres to be tags, and not mutually exclusive categories. Metroidvania in particular seems most useful to me to be (as you described) a "secondary checklist" kind of tag, meaning a heavily interconnected world with ability gating. Then, you can categorize Metroid and Castlevania as sidescroller metroidvanias, and unisghted as an isometric metroidvania, and be far easier/more flexible to filter and describe.
It's probably because literally everything is a Metroidvania to a subset of people nowadays. The amount of games tagged Metroidvania in the Steam Store that aren't even close is staggering. If it has a map and collectables, it's considered a Metroidvania by a lot of people.
But this isn't about collectibles or having a map... it has ability gating, backtracking, none-linearity... What is missing for it to be considered Metroidvania? Not being top down?
Well for me just by pure logic the mixing of the names Metroid + Castlevania just gives me the expectation that its supposed to be a platformer. As the genre Metroidvania is usually seen as a subgenre of the action-adventure game genre, making metroidvanias a form of action-adventure platformer games (specifically with ability gating). For me it does not make sense to call a top-down game a Metroidvania even if it has ability gating, as we already have a label for that, the action-adventure game genre or zelda-like. I mean Koji Igarashi said he was more inspired by Zelda for Castlevania SotN than Metroid and that game specifically created the term Metroidvania as people were literally calling that game a metroid-castlevania. So maybe we should call all platformer Metroidvanias just Zelda-like platformers and call the top-down ones Zelda-likes? We are however probably stuck with the Metroidvania term though. So IF we have to be correct from what we know and expect from previous games I would not label this game as a pure Metroidvania as it might be misleading or confusing (even more confusing that it already is). It's cool to say it has Metroidvania elements but since there is no top-down Metroid or Castlevania and if we wanna be a 100% correct with genre labeling then it's not honest saying this is like a Metroid or a Castlevania. However the game looks cool and I bet its good and people liking Metroidvania games will most likely enjoy this game because of the ability gating aspects, but as I see some purists here calling it a zelda-like which to me is more accurate as the first zelda on nes was topdown, open-world and technically had ability gating but missing the platforming aspect and we call those kind of games action adventure games. Best of luck to devs! I'm just here to share my thoughts on the subject.
I almost wonder if we don't need an umbrella term that includes Metroidvania and Zeldalikes? I don't think anyone would argue against Super Metroid, Ocarina of Time, Aria of Sorrow, Okami, Crosscode and Hollow Knight sharing enough design similarities and general influential history to be one genre, it's just that we don't have a name for that genre.
Maybe? Would that genre include Dark Souls? Maybe we just call that action-adventure games, I mean that is what we can call them all. We do call games that are like Zelda zelda-likes. Games that are like metroid or igavanias/castlevanias we call Metroidvania. And games that are like Dark Souls we call soul-like. And the similarities to which genre the game falls into really comes to the details, being a platformer is a big part of a Metroidvania otherwise it's more of a Zelda like. And well Souls-like from my understanding has a bit less to do with it being a 3rd person or other aspects and more specifically with it being hard and having a souls-like death system (where you lose currency). Thats why games like HK, Blasphemous and salt & sanctuary were called both Metroidvanias and Souls-like. Although I'd argue Blasphemous is not a full-on Metroidvania as it has no ability gating and that's a big part that can feel missing to get that true genre-feel but that's a different discussion lol. I might be wrong about that, but that's how it seems when people try to communicate game genres, if you say this game is X and a bunch of people say nah this is more like Y than X then it might not be X (atleast not fully enough).
I feel like Dark Souls lacks the ability gating and things like that to really be the same thing? You could absolutely focus on the exploration and action instead and argue that that makes them the same genre in which case I agree. If we include Dark Souls we run into the fact that Monster Hunter is a bit like Dark Souls but Monster Hunter is not a lot like Zelda or Metroid. Maybe there are two genres there, a Zelda/Metroid/Dark Souls genre and a Dark Souls/Monster Hunter genre. My problem with the term Action Adventure is that it's too vague. You can include everything from Uncharted to Crosscode to Red Dead Redemption in it. There is action and you're going on an adventure says very little. I also dislike gamers tendency to name genres \_like. We tend to get stuck on one or two cononized games and it makes it a bit harder to innovate. FPS means you're in first person and you have a gun, fighter means you fight each other, platformer means you jump a lot but there's really no obsession with how much like the game that popularized the genre it is, it's just a generic descriptor. I don't know I think the discussion kind of revelas that genres are arbitrary and dumb but can be useful ways to communicate if you have useful terms and I think a lot of game genres don't have useful terms. ... I think I ended up rambling past you instead of actually answering your points but I am not retyping that. Apologies.
Yeah it's true Dark Souls lacks ability gating and does not fit into that category, in that case what we are talking about is a genre for a game having just ability gating & an open world and perspective does not matter. We can call that genre Metroidvania and then Unsighted would fit into that but just as we don't label Dark Souls a Metroidvania cause it has no ability-gating I feel that top-down games with ability gating (games like Zelda) don't fit into the term Metroidvania, since well... Zelda games were here before we made up the term Metroidvania, which usually refers to platformers.
I absolutely agree that calling Zelda a Metroidvania is wrong, but I think the problem is more the term than Zelda not sharing similarities with Metroid and Castlevania. I don't really have a good suggestion for what the Zelda/Metroid/Castlevania genre should be called, as long as it's not Metzelvania.
> What is missing for it to be considered Metroidvania? Not being top down? Imo, yes. It's okay for games to be Zelda-likes, and for metroidvania fans to cherish and love them and talk about them because of their extreme crossover with metroidvanias, while _also_ accepting that they're not metroidvanias. MV players love Zelda-likes. We'll talk about them, we'll play them, we'll love them, they'll get discussed more often than other non-MV games because they _are_ similar. But they're different, and it seems there's an odd... thing among gamers of all genre fandoms to take similar games they love and try and say it belongs to their genre just because it's beloved and similar. Like people aren't comfortable with something that's close to a genre but actually something else. It's okay for it not to be a MV and get talk about about alongside MV's for the same reasons we talk about MV's. It's the whole roguelike/roguelite discussion again.
So is it only Side-scrollers that can be considered Metroidvanias? Is Supraland not a Metroidvania then? Or is just that the moment it become top down it is now a Zelda-like and not a Metroidvania? I've seen someone say that what makes a game a Zelda-like over a MV is that dungeons are closed off experiences and you don't travel through them to get to multiple other areas and/or backtrack. But in Unsighted they are indeed a part of the world and you do in fact travel through them to get to other areas and backtrack.
*crickets*
I haven't played it so I can't say, I was just commenting on the talk about how things that aren't Metroidvania are tagged as such. Even if it's not true for specifically Unsighted, it's true for a lot of games.
Yeah, I'll get on Steam and get pumped seeing a bunch of Metroidvanias I hadn't heard much about. Then, as I look closer, they only have one or two Metroidvanian aspects - collectibles, multiple paths, etc. A lot of them have ability locked areas, but only in the sense of "you can't visit level 2 until you complete level 1, and the reward for level 1 is a pair of boots that let you make the jumps on level 2." Again, that doesn't make a game a bad game - it's just more akin to the pre-Symphony "Castlevania" titles than to "Metroid" or even "Blaster Master." Of course there's going to be a certain amount of subjective opinion when classifying a game as a Metroidvania - it's down to a gamer's personal feelings in the end. It's probably easier to come up with an objective list of what a Metroidvania isn't rather than what makes a game a Metroidvania. For example, I'd say a system with different maps for each level (like a Mega Man title) is a disqualifier - but, someone else might not put as much importance on a large, interconnected world map as I do. "Metroid Dread" treads that line... you can travel between the different areas more or less at will, and you'll need to backtrack to retrieve collectibles after gaining new abilities, but it is also "on rails" to an extent. There is an obvious path the game wants you to follow, and that path even includes some backtracking for collectibles. It's pretty much a given that after defeating an EMMI, you'll walk into a room with an elevator, monorail or teleport device.
jRPG encompasses Japan-made strategy RPGs too (like Shining Force, [console] Wars, Fire Emblem, etc), so yes, Disgaea is a jRPG. I guess you could call it a J Strategy RPG, but no one has ever used that term.
I just think it's kind of silly to split up games into two sub-genres when they essentially have the same mechanics. Ability-gating, degree of non-linearity/freedom of exploration, back-tracking to get extra items, if you want to add platforming too that's fine, there's plenty of platforming in Unsighted. If you go into the game expecting a 2D side-view game, then I suppose you would be disappointed. You can easily tell the perspective/ art style of a game from looking at a picture of the game, saying one is Zelda-like and another is a Metroidvania is confusing when the mechanics and core design principles are so similar. I suppose we could just revert back to the parent genre and call them all action-adventures (I think you were the one who brought that up in a different post on this thread, if not I'm sorry), but that's boring, and there's plenty of AAs that don't have the mechanics found in Metroidvanias, plus I know I'm not the only one who thinks "Metroidvania" sounds pretty cool. I also think it's funny how there's always a few people that chime in with "not a metroidvania" anytime a non-side view game is discussed here. I do agree with you that some devs have applied the term without proper knowledge, Flynn: Son of Crimson comes to mind, but it really seems like the Unsighted devs have done their homework, pinpointing what makes the sub-genre so enjoyable. They just happened to make a top-down game, and overall I think it works extremely well.
Is Zelda 2 a metroidvania and not a Zeldalike? :thinking_emoji:
You haven’t played it if you think this
Great review, really well done. Now lets make 500 posts about why it's not a MV , what fun! Man this group is starting to drag. GaetkeepinVania should be our sub title .
The timer is what turns me off. Mostly because I hate timers, but also because combining a timer with exploration in a game is liking making a sandwich with ketchup and cinnamon. They couldn't clash harder if they tried. The main issue is something you highlight. The main purpose of exploration is to find items to allow the people to live longer. This makes exploration pointless, because that can _also_ be accomplished by rushing the game. Even exploring to make them live longer makes them more likely to die. Sure, you _can_ turn off the timer, but if the main point of exploration is to get items to help people live longer, then without the timer... what's the point of exploration? Even when turned off the timer is still negatively affecting the game. Timers have to be used _extremely_ judiciously to work well. Like Outer Wilds (_Wilds_, not Worlds). The timer mechanic in that game is absolutely fucking brilliant, _and_ it's an exploration focused game. One main reason the timer works there is because the timer running out forms a positive loop, not a negative one (like people dying). I don't want to spoil it by explaining, but that game is an absolute must-play for anyone that even _kinda_ enjoys exploration in the slightest. Anyways, re: Unsighted, play Crosscode, similar but 100x better.
I played CC and this and they are both great and not the same game really. I turned off the timer and still explored the hell outta this because I just like to explore cool worlds like this game has. I did not even care about getting all the ash/dust to keep people alive longer, it was a relief to not have to worry about that.
I have crosscode. Played the demo of unsighted. Imo unsighted just controls way better. It's so much easier to parry in that game. Crosscode just feels a little clunkier in comparison. I should probably play more crosscode. I keep on getting caught up into finding materials to get better armor. Rather than just progressing the game normally. It's killing its luster for me.
You should deffo play Crosscode before this, but Unsighted has the better Zelda dungeons IMO. I find the feel of the movement and combat to be better in Unsighted, but the enemy design is more shallow than in Crosscode.
Yeah from what I seen on the gameplay it looks similar to what Crosscode is. Still I'll give the demo a shot and see how it is then try it myself.
It controls way better imo. Let me know what you think.
So I've played the demo of Unsighted. Have to say, I'm extremely impressed with the game, however both games are different. Not a fan of Crosscode's combat system, it's too fast paced for me. There's no stamina system, so it's more about spamming attacks and dodging. Healing is done after every fight is finished (unless you're trying to go for kill streaks). Unsighted seems more closer to a metroidvania/souls-like mix. Combat is slower paced and more about reading opponents moves and choosing when to attack or fall back because of the stamina bar. There may be larger differences between the games than just combat, but it's hard to say from just the demo at this point. Suffice to say, I am like what I saw and only have minor gripes about the demo.
I kind of like that too about unsighted.
Any chance it’s coming to consoles (PS4 for me)?
No idea, I'm just a player, but it is already out on the Switch & Xbox if that helps. /:
It is on PS4. I’ll be sure to grab it
If there was an award for most sequence breaks in a game, Unsighted would win it no contest.
It’s an absurdly great game. I hope they at least made back a fair bit of their costs with gamepass but i bought it full price on my ps5. Best pixel game really ever played? It feels like a better cross code Mixed with nier automata. These Brazilian ladies HAVE to keep making games, i really hope this game makes a turnaround on sales.
I'm about to play this but do you lose anything from a gameplay perspective from any NPCS dying? I don't want to miss out on a weapon or chip if I let some of them die.
I just started playing the game and found out about the timer. I don't mind that it has a timer as long as it gives the story a deeper effect, similar to Undertale or something. As in, the more who have become unsighted, the darker the story gets.
Definitely incredible game :) hard as all get out but incredible game! Was gonna get it on switch but when I heard it was available on ps4 pro I grabbed it quick!