My Recycling Center 2 Review Summary

Though superior to its predecessor with fun, addictive gameplay and varied new features, it suffers from bugs, crashes, tedious manual play, and an overpriced lack of content.

Superior to predecessor: Many players consider this game more fun and an improvement over the first part. They highlight better graphics, smoother gameplay, and new features as clear upgrades.

Positive overall reception: General sentiment is very positive, with many describing the game as good, nice, or enjoyable. Players express satisfaction and love for the game.

Fun and addictive gameplay: The core loop of sorting waste and building a recycling yard is highly enjoyable and addictive. Players find it relaxing and satisfying, often getting hooked quickly.

New features add variety: Additions like truck routes, solar panels, and new container types bring fresh gameplay elements. These features keep the experience engaging and reduce repetition.

Good graphics and visuals: Graphics are well-received, often noted as better than the predecessor and good for a simulation game. The visual upgrade contributes to the overall positive impression.

Numerous Bugs and Crashes: Many players report a wide range of technical issues, including frequent crashes, game-breaking bugs, and various glitches such as flying vehicles and UI errors. The game is often described as feeling unfinished and in an early access state.

Tedious Manual Gameplay: The core gameplay loop is described as repetitive, exhausting, and lacking depth, with too much manual labor required. Tasks like sorting individual items, driving garbage trucks, and dealing with customer trash become boring quickly.

Insufficient Content, Overpriced: Players feel the game offers far less content than its predecessor, with very few improvements. The high price, especially with DLCs, is deemed unjustifiable for such a simple and short experience.

DLC and Monetization Concerns: The practice of selling features as DLC that should have been in the base game is heavily criticized. Players feel that content is locked behind paywalls, and the overall pricing strategy is seen as a money grab.

Barely Differs from Predecessor: Multiple reviews state the game is nearly identical to the previous installment, with hardly any noticeable improvements or new features. It is seen as a re-release rather than a true sequel.

Recycling yard management gameplay: Players operate and build a recycling facility, sort trash, and manage daily operations. This is the central management loop referenced across many clusters.

Trash collection and sorting: Collecting trash and sorting it into the correct containers is a core activity. Players hold items to identify their proper container and must avoid mixing waste.

Garbage truck driving routes: Players drive garbage trucks through the city, collect bins, and empty containers and bags along routes. Multiple clusters describe this as a primary activity.

Vehicles have loading mechanics: Garbage trucks have load capacities and can be driven with either a fixed or cab view. Modern vehicles feature automatic container dumping, while the MAN truck is a 90s model.

Expansion and progression system: The yard can be expanded and upgraded through expansion levels, with trucks and employees unlocked via progression. Hiring workers and purchasing vehicles are part of the management loop.

Poor performance and stutters: Players experience extreme stutters, lag during tutorial painting, long initial loading times, and overall poor performance. These issues severely impact the gameplay experience.

Frequent crashes and hangs: Multiple reviewers report the game keeps crashing and hanging, sometimes requiring time to run again. This is a critical stability issue that prevents play.

Smooth performance praised: Some players report the game runs totally smoothly with no issues. This positive feedback highlights that the game can perform well for certain users.

Low performance rating given: One reviewer explicitly rated the game's performance as 2 out of 5, indicating significant dissatisfaction. This aligns with other reports of technical problems.

General purchase not recommended: A large set of reviewers advise against buying, either overall or at full price. Reasons range from poor value to calling the game a scam or not worth the money.

Buy only during discounts: Multiple reviewers state the game is only worth it at a lower price or during a sale. This includes recommendations tied to DLC bundles and discount buys.

Refund requests common: Several players requested or completed a refund, indicating significant dissatisfaction. One reviewer warns others to stay within the 2 hour window to preserve refund eligibility.

Strong recommendation for franchise fans: Players who enjoyed the first game strongly recommend this one, often describing it as a natural continuation. It is seen as especially worthwhile for returning fans.

Current state lacks must-have value: Some feedback notes the game is not a must-have right now and suggests returning after quality-of-life updates. This implies potential but an unpolished experience.

Game completion: 7.5h.

Session length: 5.0h.

Most reports indicate the game never becomes fun: players cite repetition, poor scaling, missing worker or co-op support, and early refunds. A few positive comments exist, but they do not link any later unlock event to increased enjoyment.

Friction: Rushed release-day feel and laggy tutorial; Repetitive gameplay with non-randomized items and the same people; Poor progression that does not scale; No option to hire workers or use co-op; Expanded yard becomes too large for one player; Missing multiplayer.

Unlock drivers: Adding AI workers or co-op to reduce running across the expanded yard; Adding worker hiring to address poor progression; Adding multiplayer so one player drives and another handles bins; Improving progression scaling; Increasing item and people randomization.

Co-op Multiplayer Enthusiast: Cooperative play, often dividing roles such as driving and hooking bins, or using AI/co-op to manage larger tasks. Motivation: To share the gameplay experience with others, making tasks more fun and less tedious through cooperation. Stance: buy.

Budget-Conscious Patient Gamer: Cautious purchasing, waiting for sales, and testing within the refund window before committing. Motivation: To obtain the game at a fair price and avoid wasting money on a product that may not meet expectations. Stance: deep sale.

Sequel Loyalist: Playing similarly to the first game, likely solo, with expected mechanics and progression. Motivation: To continue the series they already enjoy, expecting more of the same satisfying gameplay. Stance: buy.

Monetization: The reviews contain no direct evidence that this game sells in-game purchases, paid power, paid convenience, loot boxes, gacha pulls, battle passes, or a real-money shop. Monetization-related feedback is limited to one-time package pricing and DLC value complaints, including a claim that paid DLC features should have been in the base game. Positive reviews also call the price and DLC affordable. Because the evidence is only about DLC/expansion and upfront pricing, the score is capped in the fair range.

Two DLCs sold at launch: Multiple reviewers noted that the game was released with two DLCs available for sale on day one. Some feel this splits content that should have been in the base game.

Improvements over first game: Several reviewers highlight more content, better thought-out mechanics, and improved waste sorting compared to the original. These players find the sequel more fun and polished.

DLCs should be base content: Reviewers argue the two DLCs contain essentials that should have been included in the base game. Genuine innovations are being sold separately as paid DLCs.

New release with updates expected: As a new launch, patches and updates are anticipated to bring improvements. The developer is seen as capable and players hope for continued support.

Overpriced for content offered: Reviewers feel the game should cost around $10, with DLCs pushing the total to roughly 33€. The content is seen as too thin to justify the asking price.