Info about Meridian: New World:

Official game description:
An accomplished, old-school, indie, futuristic Sci-fi RTS with RPG elements!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Play as Daniel Hanson, commander of the first expedition to planet Meridian and uncover the dark secrets it holds! Shape the world around you with every decision you make and through every dialogue with your crew. Meridian: New World offers countless options to devise your own strategy, including various equipment options for your units and special abilities for you to rely upon. Use your abilities anywhere on the battlefield and turn the tide of battle by weakening the enemy troops. Alternatively take the covert approach and sabotage the enemy power supply to shut down their production. You can rely entirely on researching superior weapons or special abilities. Or you can risk building a large economy, constructing a massive army from your enormous resources. The strategy you use and how many troops you sacrifice to reach your goal will influence the attitude of your crew towards you. Are you ready to shape the history of galactic colonization?  
Brought to you as the brainchild of Ede Tarsoly - the sole man behind Elder Games - Meridian: New World was mostly received with disbelief and awe at the fact that it's a one-man production. While it remains true that Ede is the source of every detail of the game, some assets were created by his friends Balázs Bodnár, Tamás Gyermán and Gábor Menyhárt, who are credited with their contribution.  
**Engaging and original story with varied missions**  
*   A single player game  
*   Polished, dynamic and fluid unit control  
*   Beautiful graphics; realistic environments  
*   Amazing immersive music
Steam Workshop
--------------
Share the maps you create in the editor with the Community.

Release date: Sep 26, 2014

Categories: Real-time Strategy, Base Building, Single-player Story, Unit Customization, Character Progression, Tower Defense, Mod Support

Feature scans:
- Steam Deck: score 85; verdict: Broken: Does not launch on Linux; summary: The review set is limited, but the decisive Steam Deck-relevant evidence is a report that the game does not launch on Linux/NixOS. Since Steam Deck runs Linux, this is a high-severity barrier and aligns with the Broken category. Other feedback mentions minor general performance and control concerns, but no evidence of launcher workarounds or Proton toggling is present. The launch failure alone is sufficient to classify the Deck experience as broken.

- Hardware Profile: No data
Feature extractions:
- Community Price:
  - Community fair range: $5.00 - $20.00
  - Reasoning: Positive reviews anchor the upper end of fair value around $20, with some players saying the game is worth that amount or that a 20-euro purchase was justified. However, many negative reviews demand a deep discount, naming under $5 or even $1 as the only acceptable price, and several say it is not worth buying at full price. The community fair range is therefore wide but centered toward the lower end: roughly $5 to $20, with stronger support near $5 for cautious buyers.
- Playtime Metrics:
  - Game completion: 13.0h
  - Story completion: N/A
  - Session length: N/A
  - Endgame: N/A
  - Reasoning: One reviewer directly reports finishing the game in 13 hours, while another frames the experience as around 15 hours of fun, so gameCompletion is set to 13 hours as the clearest finish report. The 4.5-hour campaign comment describes time spent playing the campaign, not a completed campaign time, so storyCompletion is null. No review gives a typical play-session length or post-campaign/endgame hours, so sessionLength and endgame are null.
- Time-to-fun:
  - Summary: Most reports describe a game that does not become fun: early play and missions are called boring, and bugs, AI issues, and progression friction block a satisfying loop. Isolated positive reports exist, but they do not establish a consistent unlock point.
  - Stance: Never clicks
  - Anchor: N/A
  - Time to anchor: N/A
  - Friction: Bugs and technical problems; Poor AI and pathfinding; No multiplayer or co-op; Missing or ineffective tutorial; Repetitive, tedious missions; Slow or inconsequential abilities and units
  - Unlock drivers: Adding multiplayer or co-op; Continued developer maintenance and updates; A proper tutorial and interface onboarding; More varied mission objectives
  - Conditions: Players seeking multiplayer are deterred by its absence; Tolerance for bugs, pathfinding, and AI issues; Preference for fast, simple RTS battles; Valuing story, tutorial, and presentation over depth; Waiting for multiplayer before buying or playing; Tolerance for a single faction and limited variety
- Player Archetypes:
  - Old-School RTS Veteran (buy)
    - Motivation: Reliving classic RTS base-building and skirmish challenge.
    - Playstyle: Plays campaign and skirmish maps with classic build orders, expecting smart unit control and little hand-holding.
    - Experience: veteran
    - Purchase stance: buy
    - Labels: N/A
    - Reference games: Command & Conquer; StarCraft; Supreme Commander
  - Single-Player Campaign Story Seeker (buy)
    - Motivation: Following a multi-mission sci-fi story with character choices.
    - Playstyle: Plays through scripted campaign missions, talks to crew characters, and makes choices between missions.
    - Experience: familiar
    - Purchase stance: buy
    - Labels: N/A
    - Reference games: Mass Effect
  - Competitive Multiplayer RTS Player (no buy)
    - Motivation: Testing skill against human opponents.
    - Playstyle: Focuses on online PvP, multiplayer skirmish, and competitive matches rather than single-player missions.
    - Experience: veteran
    - Purchase stance: no buy
    - Labels: N/A
    - Reference games: StarCraft
  - Casual Sale-Value Dabbler (sale)
    - Motivation: Passing time with simple, low-cost RTS play.
    - Playstyle: Plays simple single-player or skirmish sessions casually and waits for discounts or bundles.
    - Experience: familiar
    - Purchase stance: sale
    - Labels: casual at RTS
    - Reference games: N/A


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:
- Praise for graphics (weight 0.31): Reviewers consistently highlight the game's visuals, describing them as beautiful, cool, and vibrant, with appealing details and modern HD quality.
- Fun and enjoyable gameplay (weight 0.16): Many find the game fun to play, with smooth and slick gameplay that keeps them engaged even in early stages.
- Engaging story with twists (weight 0.11): Reviewers praise the well-structured and original story, noting surprising twists that enhance the narrative experience.
- Unit weapon customization (weight 0.1): Reviewers like the ability to customize individual units with different weapons or tools when producing them.
- Good value for price (weight 0.09): Several reviewers find the game surprisingly good for its price, offering reasonable value and quality.
- Excellent soundtrack and sound design (weight 0.08): The music and sound design are frequently highlighted as excellent, adding to the overall experience.
- Good but vague impressions (weight 0.06): A few players give generally positive but vague feedback, saying the game seems cool or looks okay at first glance.
- Varied mission design (weight 0.06): Players enjoy the variety in missions and multiple objectives, which adds depth to the gameplay.
- Custom map editor included (weight 0.04): The inclusion of a map editor is appreciated by players who enjoy creating custom content.
- Fast loading times (weight 0.04): Loading times are notably short, often close to zero, providing a seamless experience.
- Original RTS praised (weight 0.04): Some consider the game brilliant and original, even calling it the best RTS of the year.
- Game has potential (weight 0.04): Reviewers see potential in the game's ideas, believing it could become brilliant with further development.
- Decent overall game (weight 0.04): Some reviewers describe the game as decent or not bad, offering a relatively enjoyable experience without major flaws.

Common complaints:
- Terrible unit pathfinding (weight 0.2): Units frequently veer off routes, get lost, stop moving, or take inefficient paths. This issue is especially pronounced with groups of three or more units and causes units to die quickly.
- Low unit and faction variety (weight 0.18): There are very few units, buildings, and only one faction, leading to repetitive gameplay and limited strategic options.
- Clunky controls and UI (weight 0.15): Controls feel outdated, stiff, and difficult, while the UI is confusing, impractical, and unfriendly. Micro-management is particularly cumbersome.
- No multiplayer mode (weight 0.14): The game lacks any multiplayer or co-op option, offering only single-player story and skirmish against AI. This makes the game boring for many players.
- Poor AI behavior (weight 0.12): The AI is lackluster, unfair, glitchy, and uses repetitive rush tactics regardless of difficulty. It offers no interesting challenge.
- Boring and uninspired story (weight 0.11): The story is bland, standard, and does nothing to engage players. It lacks personality and feels like a waste of time.
- Poor voice acting (weight 0.08): Voice acting is amateur, wooden, and emotionless, detracting from the experience.
- Game feels unfinished (weight 0.06): The game appears incomplete, as if development stopped midway and was abandoned by the developers.

Gameplay feedback:
- Classic RTS Gameplay (weight 0.35): The game is widely described as a classic real-time strategy title with base building, unit production, and a style reminiscent of 1990s RTS classics like Command & Conquer and StarCraft.
- Unit Customization Options (weight 0.16): Units can be customized with various weapons and loadouts, and some feedback mentions roughly ten different weapon types per unit.
- Skirmish and Campaign Modes (weight 0.11): Players highlight the availability of both a story-driven campaign and a skirmish mode against AI opponents, offering two distinct ways to play.
- Tower Defense Missions (weight 0.09): Several campaign missions incorporate tower-defense-style segments, adding variety to the RTS formula.
- Only One Faction (weight 0.09): The game features a single playable faction, and the enemy uses the same faction, limiting strategic variety.
- Campaign Mission Variety (weight 0.07): The campaign offers diverse missions with branching objectives and different ways to complete them.
- Base Building Core Mechanic (weight 0.07): Base building and defense are central to the gameplay, requiring players to construct and protect their structures.
- 2014 RTS with Modern Graphics (weight 0.05): The game is an old-school RTS originally from 2014, updated with modern HD graphics.
- Narrative and Ship Exploration (weight 0.04): Between missions, players can explore their ship and converse with crew members, adding a narrative layer to the RTS.
- RPG Progression Elements (weight 0.04): The game includes RPG-like features such as skill point allocation, hero leveling, and experience-based ability unlocks.
- Unit Cap Limit (weight 0.04): There is a unit cap that restricts the number of units a player can field, with a default cap of 15.
- Indie Sci-Fi RTS with RPG (weight 0.04): The game is described as an indie futuristic sci-fi RTS that incorporates RPG elements and a solo campaign.
- Linear Story Campaign (weight 0.04): The campaign follows a linear storyline with progressive missions, typical of old-school RTS games.
- AI Builds and Attacks (weight 0.04): In skirmish mode, AI opponents actively build bases and launch attacks, providing a challenge.

Performance notes:
- Frequent crashes and instability (weight 0.22): Players report constant, random crashes, including during startup, gameplay, and saving. Some crashes produce error logs or occur after a short playtime.
- Game fails to launch (weight 0.17): Many users cannot start the game at all, encountering black screens, indefinite loading, or processes that run in the background without displaying a window. Issues occur on both Windows 10 and 11.
- Poor performance and optimization (weight 0.16): The game suffers from severe FPS drops, stuttering, and low frame rates even on high-end hardware. Optimization is widely criticized, with performance worsening as unit counts increase.
- Windows 10/11 compatibility issues (weight 0.07): Multiple reports indicate the game does not function properly on Windows 10 and 11, often failing to start or crashing due to an abandoned engine.
- Runs smoothly on some systems (weight 0.05): A few users report smooth performance on lower-end hardware like a Core i5 laptop, and fast loading times, indicating the game can run well in certain configurations.
- Startup crashes with specific errors (weight 0.05): Some crashes are linked to specific errors such as System.OutOfMemoryException during audio initialization or Microsoft XNA related errors, and may require installing XNA redistributables.
- Cutscene and input issues (weight 0.04): Cutscenes sometimes fail to load or lag, and mouse input fails on a laptop when the mouse is not plugged in.
- High system requirements (weight 0.03): Graphics hardware requirements are higher than expected, and the game struggles on older GPUs like the GTX 770.
- Crashes linked to audio or hardware (weight 0.03): Specific crashes are attributed to a 5.1 sound system or occur when loading certain missions, suggesting hardware or driver conflicts.
- Troubleshooting often unsuccessful (weight 0.03): Users report that attempted fixes, including installing third-party libraries, do not resolve crashes or launch failures.
- Demo works but full game does not (weight 0.02): One user noted that the purchased full game fails to run while the demo works flawlessly, indicating a possible distribution or installation issue.
- Lag when interacting with buildings (weight 0.02): Clicking certain buildings causes lag spikes, impacting gameplay smoothness.
- Minor frame rate skips at high settings (weight 0.02): At highest settings, the frame rate occasionally skips slightly, though this is less severe than other performance issues.
- Low graphics ensure compatibility (weight 0.02): The low graphics requirements mean almost everyone can run the game without lag or crashes, according to one reviewer.

Recommendations:
- Recommended for RTS fans (weight 0.22): The game is strongly recommended for fans of real-time strategy games, especially those who enjoy classic RTS titles. Casual or non-RTS players may not enjoy it.
- Worth the price (weight 0.19): Many reviewers find the game worth its price, often highlighting value on sale. However, some consider it overpriced, indicating divided opinion on cost.
- Not recommended (weight 0.17): Several reviewers advise against purchasing, citing poor value and waste of money. Some even caution against trusting positive reviews.
- Command & Conquer nostalgia (weight 0.1): Fans of Command & Conquer and similar classic RTS games are likely to enjoy this title. It evokes a familiar feel for veterans of the genre.
- Highly recommended overall (weight 0.07): Many reviewers give strong positive recommendations without specific reservations. They encourage others to buy the game.
- Strategy fans enjoy it (weight 0.07): General strategy game enthusiasts, beyond just RTS fans, may find the game enjoyable. It appeals to those who like strategic gameplay.
- Indie RTS appeal (weight 0.06): The game is recommended for fans of indie and old-school RTS games, especially at a low price. It offers a classic experience that may appeal to niche audiences.
- Wait for full release (weight 0.03): Some reviewers suggest waiting until multiplayer is released or the game is further developed. Buying now may not be advisable.
- Prefer other RTS games (weight 0.03): Some reviewers recommend playing other RTS titles like Starcraft 2 or classic Command & Conquer games instead. They find those games superior.
- Fair price and playable (weight 0.03): A few reviewers find the price fair and the game playable, implying a recommendation. They express love for the game despite its flaws.

Other player notes:
- Classic RTS inspiration (weight 0.23): The game is described as a pure old-school RTS reminiscent of Command & Conquer and similar classics.
- Solo developer project (weight 0.2): Multiple reviews highlight that the game is essentially made by one person or a very small team.
- Compared to StarCraft (weight 0.16): Reviewers frequently compare the game to StarCraft in combat style and overall strategy feel.
- Early Access title with ongoing development (weight 0.13): The game is sold as an Early Access title and is still in development, so limited content is expected but more is planned.
- Unfavorable comparisons to RTS giants (weight 0.12): Some reviewers compare the game to C&C, Supreme Commander, Warcraft, and StarCraft and find it lacking.
- Developed by Elder Games (weight 0.06): The game is developed by Hungarian studio Elder Games and published by Merge Games and Headup Games.

Emotions:
- Frustration (weight 0.27): Players are frustrated by severe technical issues, including frequent crashes, launch failures, and poor optimization, which often make the game unplayable. They also highlight broken unit AI and pathfinding, clunky controls, and unfair difficulty spikes that require excessive micromanagement. Missing features like language support, key configurations, and tutorials further compound the frustration.
- Disappointment (weight 0.23): Disappointment stems from the game failing to meet expectations, with many citing shallow gameplay, limited unit variety, and the absence of multiplayer as major letdowns. Technical problems such as poor pathfinding, clunky controls, and crashes also contribute to a sense of wasted potential. Some reviewers feel the game is unfinished and inferior to classic RTS titles.
- Satisfaction (weight 0.05): Players express satisfaction with the game's solid RTS mechanics, good graphics, and smooth performance. Many appreciate the balanced gameplay, intuitive controls, and the game's ability to run without major issues, especially for an Early Access title. The overall experience is seen as fun and worth the price.
- Enjoyment (weight 0.04): Enjoyment is derived from fun and challenging gameplay, a solid campaign with interesting twists, and a nostalgic old-school RTS feel. Players also praise the beautiful visuals, great soundtrack, and varied missions that keep the experience engaging.
- Boredom (weight 0.04): Boredom arises from repetitive and uninspired gameplay, a lack of unit variety, and a story that fails to engage. Missions often feel like a chore, and the absence of multiplayer further reduces long-term appeal.
- Annoyance (weight 0.03): Annoyance is caused by restrictive camera controls, slow movement between missions, and tedious micromanagement. Inconsistent unit behavior and bugs that frequently block progress also irritate players.
- Admiration (weight 0.03): Admiration is directed at the impressive achievement of a single developer creating a visually stunning RTS with detailed models and atmospheric environments. The dedication and talent evident in the game's graphics and design earn high praise.
- Anger (weight 0.02): Anger is fueled by the perception that the developer knowingly sells a broken game, with missing features and unresolved bugs. Issues like unchangeable hotkeys, broken troop queues, and extreme difficulty spikes add to the outrage.
- Regret (weight 0.02): Regret is commonly expressed by players who purchased the game expecting a good RTS experience but instead encountered clunky gameplay and numerous problems. Many feel they wasted their money and wish they could get a refund.
- Excitement (weight 0.02): Excitement comes from the game's fast-paced combat, unit customization, and strategic freedom. Players are also enthusiastic about the commander leveling system and the potential for future content and online play.
- Nostalgia (weight 0.02): Nostalgia is evoked by the game's old-school RTS mechanics and visual style, which remind players of classic titles like Command & Conquer and Warcraft. The resemblance to 90s RTS games brings back fond memories.
- Dissatisfaction (weight 0.02): Dissatisfaction stems from one-dimensional strategy, poor unit selection, and dull graphics. Missing basic features like camera rotation and zoom, along with bad AI and mission design, make the game feel unpolished.
- Appreciation (weight 0.01): Appreciation is expressed for the game's solid old-school RTS design, deep customization, and consistent developer updates. The nostalgic feel and explorable command center are particularly valued.
- Enthusiasm (weight 0.01): Enthusiasm is high for the game's addictive and fun gameplay, good storyline, and extensive features like weapon customization and map editor. Many consider it a great value and the best RTS of the year.
- Dislike (weight 0.01): Dislike is mainly due to the game's genre not aligning with some players' preferences, as well as micro-heavy requirements and overly fast pacing. Simplified tactics and tower defense missions also detract from the experience.
- Confusion (weight 0.01): Confusion arises from technical issues like the continue option not appearing and difficulty finding language settings. Some also question the disparity between negative reviews and their own positive experience.
- Hope (weight 0.01): Hope is centered on the game's potential for improvement through future updates and additional content. Players believe the developer can finish the game and add wanted features like multiplayer.
- Interest (weight 0.01): Interest is sparked by varied campaign missions, gradual unit unlocks, and innovative systems like weapon upgrades and commander abilities. The story and challenges keep players engaged.
- Mild disappointment (weight 0.01): Mild disappointment is felt due to graphics not reaching AAA quality, a fixed camera, and limited faction/unit variety. Story and localization issues also contribute to a slightly underwhelming experience.
- Mild frustration (weight 0.01): Mild frustration is caused by lag when clicking buildings, lack of zoom, and cumbersome micromanagement. Performance and control issues hinder a smooth experience.}