I wish Steam would let me give a mixed review for this game because my mind is really split down the middle on this one. I like so many more things about this game than I hate but the things that I hate, I REALLY hate. I would tentatively recommend this game for big-time lovers of survival games. For anyone else, I would maybe wait and check back in on the game status in a year or so. I feel frustrated because this game has enormous potential. It has all the right pieces and building blocks, they just aren’t quite fitting together the right way. Icarus has a lot going for itself but in its current state, the game leaves much to be desired. There’s a lot to talk about here so I’m gonna break it down with some pros and cons. Pros: The game is beautiful. Even without cranking the graphics up to their max, the game looks and feels breathtaking. Lighting and shadows are crisp and dynamic, the environment oscillates easily through a beautiful day/night cycle, and the general atmosphere and ambience is well-rounded. The survival mechanics are fantastic. With the player needing to monitor things like body temperature, thirst, hunger, and oxygen levels, keeping yourself alive requires attentiveness but is not unnecessarily burdensome. Forest fires! Finally, a survival game that lets you set a tree on fire and watch in morbid glee as an entire forest goes up in flames! Inclement weather events! With random weather events from minor winds to severe blizzards, this adds a whole new survival aspect to the game. Some weather events are little more than an inconvenience whereas others can cause trees to topple over, make you the victim of a lightning strike, or tear the roof right off your house. While the weather events can be unforgiving and deadly, I must say this is perhaps my favorite aspect of the game. Unique gameplay. This is the only survival game I’ve played that essentially has you start fresh with each new mission, dropping you into the map with nothing. While I do think this system is a new and interesting take on a survival game with good potential, I have some major criticisms about the way this is actually implemented. Cons: The chief issue that I have with the game is that the game flow is severely hindered by the incongruity between the mission lengths and the time investment of having to start from scratch for each mission. I’m actually quite a fan of the idea of having to regularly start fresh but the way this works in Icarus is pretty frustrating. Most missions take between 30 min and 6 hours to complete which just isn’t long enough for the grind of starting over to be anything other than criminally boring. I think this “start from scratch” idea could still work but only after significant edits to the gameplay workflow. There are many potential solutions to fix this tedious gameplay but I don’t have the space to suggest any here and still discuss the other major cons. Whatever the case, it feels like the missions are at an awkward stage of length: long enough to require you to invest time into gathering resources, crafting tools/weapons, and building stable shelters, but not long enough for you to really sink your teeth into the medium and high tiers of the craftable items which brings me to my next point: Most medium and high-tier craftable items are effectively useless. A majority of these items require unnecessarily intensive resource gathering to yield an item that is only mildly more effective than its lower-tier counterpart. This problem is compounded by the fact that you cannot take any of your crafted items with you for the next mission so why bother wasting an hour of your time trying to make a weapon that is only marginally better than a simpler one that will still get the job done? Plot/premise incongruities. I feel that in order for a mission-based survival game like this to be effective and engaging, it must rely on some sort of overarching premise to bind the different game elements together. The devs set themselves up beautifully for this in advertisements and the general game aesthetic but really just fail to follow through with it. I love the idea that Icarus was a lifeless planet that humans tried (and failed) to terraform into Earth.2.0. Unfortunately, I feel like the creators use this setting as a crutch to haphazardly excuse various game elements rather than investing themselves into creating an interesting reality and then using the game to reveal that reality to the player. E.G., It’s mentioned that the atmosphere of the planet turned “toxic” during the terraforming process which is why the planet is uninhabitable for humans. But if that’s the case, why are there still bears and wolves and deer walking around? I was initially expecting that the player would slowly discover that the toxic atmosphere had caused the plants/animals to evolve strange characteristics that allow them to survive the hostile environment, but by all counts, the deer on Icarus are no different than the deer that wander through my neighborhood in suburban Colorado. This is just one of many many examples of missed opportunities with the sci-fi elements of the game but at the end of the day, the pine trees in this foreign, extraterrestrial landscape are the same bland trees growing in my backyard. Bummer. The polar bears… I do not know what the devs had goin on in their personal lives when they made the polar bears in this game but when you’re going up against 1300 pounds of pure hatred that can run at 92 miles per hour, scale near-vertical cliffs, and slap your shrimpy lil biped butt back into orbit, your best hope is to pray. Just generally fighting hostile animals. It’s not that it’s particularly hard, it’s just wildly inconsistent. I think this inconsistency arises mostly because face shots deal significant bonus damage to animals (which makes sense); the problem is that the hitboxes are either terribly buggy or woefully oversimplified. You must hit an animal directly in the face (not head) to receive the damage bonus; hitting an animal in the side/back of the head or neck will do the same amount of damage as hitting it in the foot. The damage dealt to you by the animals is also terribly inconsistent. In some instances, hostile animals struggle to do any damage to you at all whereas other times, they can deal massive damage without even looking in your direction. They are also able to deal damage for about a full second after they are killed meaning it’s not uncommon to barely survive an encounter with a bear only to be killed moments later by the bear’s lifeless corpse (note that this has happened to me in both online multiplayer and offline solo so I don’t suspect this is a lag/ping issue). Scientific blasphemy. Maybe this is nit-picking, but for a realistic sci-fi survival game as highly anticipated as this, I had expected the scientifically relevant aspects of the game to at least make some sense. Many of them do not :/ A prime example is the fact that whenever the player is in an underground cave, they receive the “underground” debuff which significantly affects health/stamina regen. As if it wasn’t already weird that you are debuffed simply by walking into a cave, you also risk contracting pneumonia whilst underground. Given that the player is wearing an air-tight suit (“toxic” atmosphere, remember), I am fascinated to know how airborne viruses/fungi are getting into the player’s lungs and further baffled why this can only happen underground. There is still more to talk about with both pros and cons but I think this list at least hits some of my thoughts thus far into the game. All of the cons I’ve mentioned (and most, if not all the cons that I’ve seen other reviewers mention) are perfectly fixable problems; at this point, I'm just waiting to see if the developer is willing to put in the time and energy required to turn Icarus into the smash hit sci-fi survival game that it was advertised to be..
Expand the review