Info about Crossfire: Legion:

Official game description:
  
**A New Generation of Warfare!**  
The world is in conflict. Black List and Global Risk are in a perpetual fight for the domination of their ideologies; but all is shaken up with the arrival of a new faction on the battlefield.  
Lead your customized army to victory on the proving grounds of a not too distant futuristic world consumed by corporate conflict. Crossfire: Legion is the ultimate fast-paced real time strategy game.  
Whether you are looking for a highly competitive experience or prefer a slightly more relaxed approach, Crossfire: Legion has something in store for you.  
Prove your abilities in the online versus modes as you manage resources, consolidate a base and send your army to annihilate the enemies. Prepare yourself, on the field of battle, hesitation is your worst enemy.  
Crossfire: Legion also comes choke-full of exciting multiplayer modes that will test the full gamut of your abilities as a commander, from strategist to tactician - and have you realize that not all enemies are terrible foes.  
Unit control and tactics are core elements of Crossfire: Legion but success in battle starts before the first shots are fired.  
In Multiplayer, you are in full control over the composition of your army. Choose between three factions and customize your roster by selecting your troops, infantry, vehicles and air units that will guarantee victory.  
All armies are led by a Commander; choose yours wisely as they bring special commander abilities to the battlefield which just may turn the tide in critical situations.  
Society is crumbling in the near future of the Crossfire universe. Fight atop skyscrapers, dig into a bayou, or infiltrate heavily defended military bases as you get to know the main characters and goals of all three rival factions; the world is yours to conquer in this narrative-driven campaign.  
Climb the multiplayer leaderboards through a “season-based progression system.” Improve your tactics by reviewing your last battles using the built-in replay system.  
Team-up with friends to vanquish the AI in Operations. Be ready to assault enemy positions or to defend your own.  
Create your own maps or modify existing game modes using the level editor tool, or expand your RTS experience by browsing the Steam Workshop to find unique community-made challenges.

Release date: 8 Dec, 2022

Categories: Real-time Strategy, Single-player Story, Competitive Multiplayer, Cooperative Multiplayer, Base Building, Strategic Combat, Map Editor, Deckbuilding


- Hardware Profile: No data
Feature extractions:
- Community Price: No data
- Playtime Metrics: No data
- Time-to-fun: No data
- Player Archetypes: No data


Below are summaries of things people say about the game per category.
Each point is assigned a weight that represents how often it is mentioned across all reviews.
What players like:
- Strong RTS Foundation & Potential (weight 0.99): Players generally find the game to be a good, enjoyable RTS with significant potential. Many appreciate its modern graphics, satisfying effects, and overall fun gameplay, often comparing it favorably to classic RTS titles like Command & Conquer.
- Engaging Campaign Experience (weight 0.77): The single-player campaign is frequently praised for being enjoyable, well-developed, and providing a nostalgic 'old-school RTS' feeling. Its immersive nature, good value, and well-done presentation contribute to a positive experience.
- Impressive Visuals & Audio (weight 0.75): The game receives high marks for its graphics, art style, and visual effects, particularly the environments, mechanical units, and epic explosions. The audio design, including sound effects, narration, and voice acting (especially German and Korean options), is also noted as strong and fitting.
- Unique & Diverse Factions/Units (weight 0.27): Players appreciate the three distinct and unique factions, each with their own abilities, units, and base-building options. The units themselves are well-designed, visually appealing, and contribute to varied gameplay.
- Strategic Depth & Customization (weight 0.13): Players enjoy the strategic elements, such as figuring out good builds, getting used to units, and trying different tactics. The deckbuilding and card system are seen as interesting, allowing for army customization and new gameplay.
- Fair Monetization & Progression (weight 0.11): A significant positive is the absence of pay-to-win mechanics or purchasable currency. The in-game currency system is seen as fair and rewarding, encouraging players to learn the game and units naturally.
- Competent AI & Skirmish Play (weight 0.07): The AI in skirmish matches is noted for its impressive ability to build, handle abilities, deploy units, and create defensive areas, providing a good experience for players who prefer PvAi.
- Varied & Detailed Maps (weight 0.05): The game's maps are appreciated for their variety and pleasant visual details, enhancing the overall aesthetic experience.

Common complaints:
- Game Abandoned and Buggy (weight 0.66): Players report the game is abandoned by developers, riddled with bugs, and unplayable, especially after recent updates. There's a significant lack of polish, content, and essential fixes, leading to a stagnant and frustrating experience.
- Lack of Core RTS Features (weight 0.47): The game is perceived as a simplistic, half-baked RTS, lacking the depth, strategic options, and unique charm of genre classics like StarCraft or C&C. Basic RTS mechanics, detailed tech trees, and varied battles are missing.
- Unplayable Game Speed Bug (weight 0.44): A critical bug causes the game speed to be stuck at maximum, particularly in skirmish mode against AI, making it impossible to play at a normal pace. This issue is present regardless of settings or even Windows language.
- Poor Unit Pathfinding & AI (weight 0.39): Units suffer from atrocious pathfinding, frequently getting stuck, blocking each other, or moving erratically. The AI is also criticized for being too difficult on easy settings and exhibiting poor behavior.
- Limited & Unbalanced Units (weight 0.31): The game suffers from a severe lack of unit variety and a low unit production limit, hindering proper gameplay. Additionally, units are unbalanced, with some types neglected and high-tier units being disproportionately large.
- Missing Save/Load Functionality (weight 0.22): A major complaint is the complete absence of in-mission save options for single-player modes, forcing players to complete missions in one sitting. This is considered a critical oversight for a strategy game.
- Campaign Story & Length Issues (weight 0.2): The campaign is criticized for being too short, having a weak, unengaging story with a 'trash ending,' and lacking depth or proper world-building. It's also not considered beginner-friendly.
- Limited & Broken Skirmish Mode (weight 0.19): The skirmish mode is described as bland, empty, and lacking essential features like adjustable AI difficulty, map variety, and unit options. Some players report it's completely non-functional.
- Insufficient Content & Replayability (weight 0.18): Players find the game repetitive and lacking in content, including a short campaign, few maps, and limited faction/unit variety. This results in low replayability and a lack of long-term engagement for solo players.
- Frequent Game Crashes (weight 0.1): Players experience frequent game crashes, black screens, and indefinite loading screen hangs, severely disrupting gameplay.

Gameplay feedback:
- Familiar RTS Gameplay with Twists (weight 0.44): The game is a fast-paced, retro-style RTS that blends elements of StarCraft and Command & Conquer, focusing less on extensive base building. It introduces a unique 'deck-building' card system for unit selection, setting it apart from traditional RTS games.
- Short and Varied Campaign (weight 0.41): The campaign is relatively short, taking 4-7.5 hours to complete its 15 missions, which are described as varied and well-told with cutscenes and voiceovers. However, some feedback suggests it feels more like a tutorial or is a bit bare, with casual mechanics.
- Unit Unlocking and Abilities (weight 0.38): While some units are unlocked from the start, many others, along with commanders, are unlocked by playing and spending in-game currency. Most units also feature active abilities, adding tactical depth to combat.
- Fair In-Game Economy (weight 0.27): The game uses an in-game currency earned solely through gameplay, such as completing challenges and daily missions. This currency is used to unlock units and commanders, with no real-money purchases or microtransactions, ensuring a non-pay-to-win experience.
- Three Distinct Factions (weight 0.22): The game features three unique and interesting factions (e.g., standard military, guerrilla rebels, high-tech corporate) that offer varied units and playstyles. This asymmetry is a core design choice, providing strategic depth.
- Fast-Paced Combat and Resource Gathering (weight 0.2): Combat is fast-paced, with units moving and dying quickly, which can make dialogue hard to follow. Resource gathering is simplified and rapid, allowing for quick unit production and aggressive strategies, sometimes leading to 'spamming' units.
- Weak AI Difficulty (weight 0.16): Player feedback indicates that the AI, even on medium and hard settings, is generally easy to beat and exhibits questionable behavior, such as retreating when winning. Some players even describe it as 'trash' or 'cheating' due to perceived advantages.
- Multiplayer Focus (weight 0.12): The game's core strength lies in its multiplayer, offering a solid foundation for PvP matches and co-op against AI. It includes a decent selection of maps across competitive modes, suggesting a strong emphasis on online play.
- Gameplay Limitations (weight 0.11): The game has certain limitations, including a unit cap and a lack of advanced unit stances (like 'hold position'). These restrictions can limit player options and strategic flexibility during matches.
- High Ground Advantage (weight 0.09): Units and defensive structures on higher ground gain a significant advantage, able to attack units below without retaliation. This creates tactical considerations for positioning and vision control.
- Skirmish Mode Availability (weight 0.08): Skirmish mode is available and generally well-received, though some players found it challenging even on easy settings. There was a conflicting report about the ability to play against AI in skirmish mode.

Performance notes:
- Smooth performance reported (weight 0.14): Many players experienced smooth and stable performance, even on high settings and Linux, indicating good optimization for a significant portion of the user base.
- Performance issues and crashes (weight 0.07): Some users, even with modern hardware, reported poor performance, frequent crashes, and occasional lag, suggesting inconsistent optimization or specific system conflicts.
- Language setting impacts performance (weight 0.03): A specific issue was noted where the game only runs at full speed if the Windows language is not set to English, indicating a potential localization-related bug affecting performance.

Recommendations:
- Mixed Reception on Value (weight 0.66): Player opinions are highly divided on whether the game is worth its price, especially at full cost. Many recommend waiting for a sale, while others find it a good value or even a 'hidden gem' at discounted prices. Some feel it's not worth buying at all.
- RTS Genre Appeal (weight 0.51): The game's appeal largely depends on a player's interest in the RTS genre. Some RTS fans enjoy it, while others find it mediocre or prefer established titles like StarCraft 2 or Command & Conquer. There's a sentiment that it doesn't quite live up to classic RTS games.
- Potential for Improvement (weight 0.26): Many players see potential in the game and hope for future improvements. They wish for more content, increased player count, better UI, and continued developer support to refine the game into a 'great' or 'perfect' RTS experience.
- Provide Constructive Feedback (weight 0.08): Players are encouraged to provide constructive feedback, report bugs, and avoid insulting developers to support the game's growth and prevent it from being abandoned. This highlights a desire for community engagement in development.
- Try the Demo First (weight 0.05): Several players suggest trying the demo to determine if the game is a good fit before purchasing, especially given the mixed reviews and varying opinions on its quality and value.
- Focus on Single-Player (weight 0.03): There's a specific request for developers to prioritize and expand single-player content, suggesting that this aspect of the game is important to a segment of the player base.
- Mandatory Online Requirement (weight 0.02): One player explicitly states that the mandatory online requirement is a reason not to recommend the game, indicating a potential point of friction for some users.
- Audio Experience (weight 0.02): A niche recommendation suggests playing with headphones or surround sound with a subwoofer for a full audio experience, indicating a positive aspect of the game's sound design.

Other player notes:
- Development Status & Community Engagement (weight 0.4): There's conflicting feedback on development. Some claim active development stopped long ago, while others note recent patches and responsive developers. The game's future was seen as dependent on community feedback, but the delisting complicates this.
- Game Delisting & Future Access (weight 0.34): The game has been delisted from sale, meaning new players cannot purchase it. Existing owners will retain access, but multiplayer functionality may degrade over time. This situation significantly impacts the game's future viability.
- Pacing & Accessibility (weight 0.31): The game aims for a slower-paced RTS experience, which could appeal to a broader audience. It is generally considered easy to pick up, making it accessible for casual RTS fans.
- RTS Genre Identity & Comparisons (weight 0.29): The game is an RTS with potential, often compared to Starcraft and Command & Conquer. While some see it as a valiant attempt, others criticize it for imitating SC2 or being a 'pale copy' of established titles, lacking originality.
- Gameplay Length & Value (weight 0.24): The game offers about 6-10 hours of campaign playtime, which some find decent for the price, especially if purchased at a discount. However, others feel it's too expensive for the content provided, especially given its 'Early Access' feel.
- Voice Acting Quality (weight 0.21): The voice acting is generally considered decent, with some familiar voices. However, there's a minor note about uncredited voice-overs for characters.
- Mediocre Presentation & Story (weight 0.18): The game's graphics are considered 'okay' but lack flavor, leading to an impression of mediocrity. The campaign story is described as short, shallow, bland, and predictable, akin to a B-rated sci-fi movie.
- Low Player Count & Multiplayer Issues (weight 0.18): There is a significant lack of players, especially in multiplayer, making it difficult to find matches. This issue is exacerbated in certain regions like Oceania, leading to a dead multiplayer experience.

Emotions:
- Frustration (weight 0.26): Players are primarily frustrated by numerous technical issues, including game-breaking bugs, unplayable skirmish mode speeds, and persistent performance problems. Other significant causes include poor AI behavior, restrictive game mechanics like unadjustable game speed and inability to save mid-mission, and design flaws such as atrocious pathfinding and unbalanced units.
- Disappointment (weight 0.25): Disappointment stems from the game being perceived as abandonedware, with developers failing to address critical bugs and issues, leading to a short, unfulfilling campaign and a dead multiplayer. Players also express regret over missed potential, lack of standard RTS features, and the game's overall failure to meet expectations or innovate.
- Satisfaction (weight 0.16): Players find satisfaction in the game's campaign, often citing its quality, story, and ability to evoke a 'good old RTS feeling' reminiscent of classic titles. Enjoyment also comes from the core gameplay, graphics, sound design, and the game's overall entertainment value, especially considering its price point.
- Hope (weight 0.07): Hope is largely tied to the game's potential for future improvements, with players wishing for bug fixes, performance enhancements, and additional content like more story missions. There's also a desire for the game to gain a healthier player base and for developers to continue supporting and promoting it.
- Excitement (weight 0.03): Excitement is generated by the game's high-quality visual and audio elements, particularly explosion animations and sound design. Players also feel excited by the potential for meaningful strategic choices, dynamic gameplay, and the prospect of the game evolving into a worthy successor to classic RTS titles.
- Surprise (weight 0.02): Players express surprise, often positively, when the game's quality exceeds their expectations, especially given negative reviews or its inclusion in a particular series. This surprise is frequently linked to an overall positive experience with the game.
- Appreciation (weight 0.02): Appreciation is shown for the game's art style, developer dedication, and the very existence of a new RTS game, particularly one that evokes the style of Command & Conquer. Players also value the game's visual clarity, unit detail, and immersive audio experience.
- Anger (weight 0.02): Anger is directed at developers for abandoning the game in a broken state and for perceived monetization issues, such as an in-game store and currency system that locks units. This emotion is fueled by the game's unplayable state and poor design choices.
- Optimism (weight 0.02): Optimism is present due to the game's strong foundation as an RTS, with players seeing significant potential despite early access issues. There's a belief that the game will receive necessary updates and improvements as it progresses through its development cycle.
- Enjoyment (weight 0.02): Enjoyment comes from the general spectacle of RTS combat, including rockets, lasers, and explosions, as well as the campaign, graphics, audio, and animations. Players also enjoy the C&C-like vibes, base building, and the unit unlocking system.
- Nostalgia (weight 0.01): Nostalgia is triggered by the game's ability to evoke fond memories of classic RTS games, particularly Command & Conquer, providing an old-school RTS experience.
- Sadness (weight 0.01): Sadness arises from the perception that a good game was ruined by broken features, despite having promising ideas and potential.
- Disgust (weight 0.01): Disgust is expressed regarding the game's overall quality and certain settings, indicating a strong negative reaction to its current state or design.
- Regret (weight 0.01): Regret is felt over wasted money and the game's limited replayability, suggesting that the purchase did not provide lasting value or entertainment.
- Urgency (weight 0.01): Urgency is driven by the game's impending delisting, prompting players to encourage others to purchase it before it becomes unavailable.
- Confusion (weight 0.01): Confusion stems from certain design decisions, such as limited commander energy, and a general lack of clarity regarding the game's purpose and overall design choices.
- Desire (weight 0.01): Players express a desire for more campaign content and additional skirmish options, along with fixes for persistent issues like pathfinding.
- Caution (weight 0.01): Caution is advised regarding the game's value proposition and its current price point, suggesting that potential buyers should be wary or consider waiting.
- Mixed feelings (weight 0.01): Mixed feelings arise from the game's overall quality, where players want to be positive but encounter significant flaws, leading to a conflicted assessment.
- Joy (weight 0.01): Joy is found in the game's soundtrack and sound effects, as well as its ability to fulfill the desire for an old-school Command & Conquer-style RTS experience.}