Info about Jon Shafer's At the Gates:

Official game description:
Testimonials
============
"You might just have a classic in the making. Reminds me a lot of Colonization (1993 version). Only, in some ways, better." - Rob "The 4Xplorer"  
"This is easily the most refreshing strategy game I have played in years." - Hooked Gamers
About the Game
==============
_At the Gates_ is a 4X grand strategy game from Jon Shafer, designer of _Civilization 5_.  
You are a Dark Age lord. Your destiny is to build a kingdom in the shadow of the crumbling Roman Empire. Explore the dangerous landscape around you, harvest its resources, and build a mighty economic and military machine. Your clans have their own personalities and desires, so carefully consider how you use them.  
It won't be easy. Your path is unsure. Overcome your immensely strong neighbors. Outlast the frigid winters of the far north to discover a source of gold and vast riches.  
Are you the leader who will usher in a new era of European history? Or will you be forgotten?
An Evolving Map
---------------
Seasons and weather dramatically transform the landscape around you. The river that once served as a barrier in the summer might become a highway in the winter - for both you and your enemies!
Character Management
--------------------
Each of your clans has unique traits and desires, so choose carefully how you use them.
Survival & Roguelike Elements
-----------------------------
Keep your clans fed through the harsh winter. Resources run out so always be hunting for more. Your neighbors can be immensely strong. Every game poses new challenges and opportunities.
Watercolor Art Style
--------------------
A beautiful watercolor landscape serves as the canvas for your clever economic and military strategies.
Tooltips-in-Tooltips!
---------------------
AtG features a revolutionary user interface which utilizes "tooltips-in-tooltips" for the very first time, making it far easier to learn without sacrificing any gameplay depth.

Release date: Jan 23, 2019

Categories: 4X, Grand Strategy, Historical Strategy, Resource Management, Territory Management, Character Management, Survival, Procedural Generation, Turn-based Strategy

Feature scans:
- Steam Deck: score 100; verdict: Broken; summary: The user feedback highlights critical failures in the Linux experience for the game, including frequent crashes to desktop (CTD), false advertising of native Linux support, and the inability to run the game even with Proton. These issues render the game unplayable on Linux, directly contradicting the advertised features and resulting in a complete breakdown of the user experience.

- 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:
- Unique 4X mechanics praised (weight 0.87): Players consistently highlight the game's innovative mechanics, such as moving settlements, clan-based units, and resource depletion, which differentiate it from traditional 4X games. These features introduce fresh strategic depth and replayability.
- High potential with polish (weight 0.83): Many players express optimism about the game's future, noting that with further polish and bug fixes, it could become a standout title in the strategy genre. The core mechanics and ideas are seen as highly promising.
- Strong economic and survival focus (weight 0.83): The game's emphasis on economic management, survival mechanics, and resource scarcity is frequently praised. Players enjoy the challenge of balancing resource gathering, production chains, and seasonal changes, which add strategic complexity.
- Innovative tooltips and tutorials (weight 0.79): The game's tooltips and tutorials are frequently highlighted as best-in-class, making complex mechanics accessible. Players appreciate the effort to ease the learning curve, especially for a strategy game with deep systems.
- Dynamic world and replayability (weight 0.51): Features like procedural map generation, seasonal changes, and resource depletion create a dynamic world that encourages replayability. Players enjoy the strategic challenges posed by these ever-changing conditions.
- Visually appealing art style (weight 0.46): The game's watercolor art style and atmospheric design are widely praised for their beauty and uniqueness. Players find the visuals immersive and a significant departure from typical 4X game aesthetics.

Common complaints:
- Non-functional or braindead AI (weight 0.96): The AI is described as 'nonexistent,' 'passive,' or 'dumb as a box of rocks,' with factions failing to expand, interact, or follow game rules. This eliminates strategic depth and challenge, particularly in single-player.
- Broken or placeholder diplomacy (weight 0.89): Diplomacy is either missing, inconsistent, or limited to basic war/alliance options. AI factions ignore diplomacy entirely, and early-game conflicts lack resolution mechanisms (e.g., tribute).
- Frequent crashes and instability (weight 0.86): The game suffers from repeated crashes, especially in late-game stages, often due to memory issues or AI actions. Crashes are reported across platforms (Windows/Linux) and render the game unplayable for some users.
- Unfinished and abandoned game (weight 0.84): The game was released prematurely as a complete product but remains unfinished, with visible TODOs, broken mechanics, and no updates for over 2 years. Players describe it as an 'expensive alpha' or 'Early Access posing as 1.0.'
- Severe balance issues (weight 0.83): The game is punishingly hard in the early game (e.g., starvation) but becomes trivial in late-game due to resource abundance and passive AI. No difficulty settings exacerbate the problem.
- Clunky and unintuitive UI (weight 0.79): The interface is non-informative, hides critical information, and lacks quality-of-life features (e.g., unit overview, research queues). Settings are often text-file-based, and tooltips fail to compensate for poor design.
- Lack of mid/late-game content (weight 0.78): After stabilizing the economy, the game becomes repetitive and boring, with no meaningful endgame goals or challenges. Victory conditions (e.g., conquering Rome) feel unengaging or broken.
- Overpriced for its state (weight 0.76): Players widely agree the game is overpriced (e.g., $30 for an unfinished alpha), with many suggesting a $5–10 price point would be more appropriate given its bugs and lack of polish.
- Missing core 4X features (weight 0.75): Essential features like custom games, multiplayer, achievements, and mod tools are absent. The game feels more like a puzzle than a 4X title, with tactical combat overshadowed by economic micromanagement.
- Repetitive and tedious mechanics (weight 0.73): Gameplay involves excessive micromanagement (e.g., repeated clicks for treasure) and slow pacing (e.g., 4 turns to identify resources). The economy becomes overly abundant, reducing engagement.

Gameplay feedback:
- Deep economic and resource management (weight 0.77): The game emphasizes complex economic systems, including resource gathering, depletion mechanics, and production chains. Players must manage finite resources like food, iron, and timber while adapting to seasonal changes that impact availability.
- Unique clan-based unit system (weight 0.69): Clans serve as the primary units, with randomized specialties, traits, and professions (e.g., farmers, smiths). Players must manage clan dynamics, including rivalries, crimes, and morale, which influence gameplay decisions.
- Nomadic and mobile settlement mechanics (weight 0.67): Players control a single mobile settlement that can relocate until established as a kingdom. This mechanic forces strategic migration due to resource depletion and environmental challenges like winter.
- Asymmetric 4X gameplay (weight 0.65): The game blends 4X elements (explore, expand, exploit) with a focus on survival and economic simulation. Victory can be achieved through military conquest or peaceful Romanization, offering diverse playstyles.
- Limited but strategic diplomacy (weight 0.65): Diplomacy is restricted to alliances and wars, with AI factions often behaving passively or predictably. While limited, it plays a role in achieving victory conditions like Romanizing or sacking Rome.
- Profession and tech tree progression (weight 0.64): Players research and unlock professions (e.g., agriculture, metallurgy) to improve clan efficiency. The tech tree focuses on economic and societal advancements, with multiplicative boosts for specialized clans.
- Seasonal and climate impacts (weight 0.61): Seasons and climate dynamically affect gameplay, halting food production in winter and altering resource availability. Players must adapt strategies to survive harsh conditions like blizzards.
- Historical Iron Age setting (weight 0.57): The game is set during the fall of the Roman Empire (4th-5th century AD), with mechanics like Romanization and tribal alliances reflecting historical themes. This appeals to players seeking authenticity.
- Simplistic combat and military (weight 0.55): Combat is hex-based and tied to economic strength, but it is often described as simplistic. Military units are limited, requiring optimization and strategic abandonment of tasks.
- Clunky UI and tooltips (weight 0.52): The tooltip system, while informative, is criticized for being clunky and overwhelming. Economic systems can also feel confusing due to poor clarity in mechanics.

Performance notes:
- Minor bugs and technical issues (weight 0.22): Numerous minor bugs, music stuttering, and sloppy programming affect quality of life. These issues, while not game-breaking, contribute to a frustrating experience.
- Unsmooth camera panning (weight 0.01): Camera movement lacks fluidity, making navigation and gameplay less intuitive. This issue detracts from the overall user experience.

Recommendations:
- Suitable for 4X/strategy fans (weight 0.23): The game is recommended for fans of 4X or strategy genres, particularly those who enjoy complex production lines or are willing to tolerate its current state for unique gameplay.
- Early access expectations needed (weight 0.05): Players should treat the game as early-access despite its 1.0 release, as it lacks polish, balance, and completeness. Lowering expectations is advised for a niche experience.
- Patches planned for near future (weight 0.02): Reviewers mention upcoming patches (e.g., February/March) that may address some issues, suggesting patience for potential improvements.

Other player notes:
- Rushed and underfunded development (weight 0.13): Players frequently cited the game as rushed due to a small team, limited budget, and long development cycle (7+ years). Many believed the game was released unfinished, with post-release plans indicating time or funding constraints.
- Kickstarter delays and mismanagement (weight 0.12): The crowdfunded nature of the project led to frustration over delayed features and extended development timelines, with players feeling misled about the game's progress and scope.
- Poor developer communication (weight 0.11): Criticism focused on the developer's lack of transparency and perceived abandonment of the game post-release. Some players noted sporadic updates, but overall communication was seen as insufficient.
- Misleading game title and theme (weight 0.11): The title 'At the Gates' was criticized for suggesting a military focus, while the game's actual premise (building a post-Roman kingdom) was seen as mismatched. Alternative names like 'Barbarian Kings' were proposed.
- Open-source terrain generation (weight 0.01): The developer's open-source approach to terrain generation was highlighted as a positive, though niche, aspect of the game's development.

Emotions:
- Frustration (weight 0.32): Players experience frequent crashes, bugs, and game-breaking issues, particularly in late-game stages, which disrupt progress and immersion. The AI is widely criticized for being passive, incompetent, or overly aggressive, while diplomacy and core mechanics (e.g., settlements resurrecting, unbalanced gameplay) feel unfinished or poorly designed.
- Disappointment (weight 0.26): The game fails to meet expectations due to its unfinished state, lack of polish, and unfulfilled promises (e.g., missing features, poor optimization). Players feel let down by the developer's abandonment, infrequent updates, and the game's perceived rushed release, which undermines its potential despite interesting ideas.
- Hope (weight 0.09): Players express optimism that the game could improve with future patches, updates, or developer responsiveness. The potential for AI improvements, deeper mechanics, and genre innovation fuels expectations for a more polished experience, despite current flaws.
- Appreciation (weight 0.04): Players praise the game's innovative mechanics (e.g., nomadic gameplay, profession system), unique visuals, and historical setting. The developer's transparency and creative risks are also highlighted as strengths, even amid technical shortcomings.
- Excitement (weight 0.03): The game's fresh mechanics—such as dynamic map changes, organic nomadic systems, and resource discovery—generate enthusiasm. Players appreciate its departure from traditional 4X tropes and the potential for emergent storytelling.
- Enjoyment (weight 0.03): Despite flaws, players find the game fun during its learning phase, citing unique features like the profession system and survival-strategy elements. The novelty of its setting and mechanics provides engaging moments.
- Frustrated (weight 0.02): Crashes, bugs, and poor AI interactions repeatedly disrupt gameplay, while slow pacing and unbalanced mechanics exacerbate frustration. Game-breaking issues often force players to restart progress, undermining enjoyment.
- Disappointed (weight 0.02): The game's marketing as a complete product clashes with its unfinished, buggy state, leaving players feeling misled. High expectations set by its premise or development history are unmet, leading to dissatisfaction.
- Satisfaction (weight 0.02): Players enjoy the game's focus on peaceful activities, deep mechanics (e.g., profession system), and atmospheric design (e.g., sound/music). Unique elements like dynamic environments or historical themes contribute to a rewarding experience.
- Hopeful (weight 0.02): Confidence in the developer's ability to address issues (e.g., AI, difficulty) through future patches fosters optimism. Players anticipate improvements that could elevate the game's quality and longevity.
- Curiosity (weight 0.01): The game's dynamic map, weather systems, and historical clan dynamics intrigue players, offering a fresh take on 4X conventions. Its unique premise sparks interest in exploring its mechanics further.
- Nostalgia (weight 0.01): The game evokes memories of classic titles like *Seven Kingdoms* or complex board games from the 1980s–90s, resonating with players who appreciate its strategic depth or retro-inspired design.
- Anger (weight 0.01): Players feel deceived by the game's release in an unfinished state, compounded by the developer's abandonment. The mismatch between marketing and reality, along with wasted investment, fuels frustration.
- Regret (weight 0.01): Purchasing the game in its current state leads to regret, as bugs, lack of content, and poor value for money make it feel like a wasted expense. Players lament supporting an unfinished product.
- Boredom (weight 0.01): Late-game stages become repetitive due to excessive resources, lack of compelling goals, or monotonous mechanics. The absence of depth or challenge diminishes long-term engagement.
- Awe (weight 0.01): The game's fresh concept and innovative mechanics (e.g., dynamic environments) stand out in the 4X genre, impressing players with its creativity and potential to redefine expectations.
- Pleasure (weight 0.01): Players are pleasantly surprised by the game's quality despite low expectations, often due to its unique mechanics, atmosphere, or historical setting. The experience exceeds initial skepticism.}