Meridian: Squad 22 Review Summary

Visually impressive with excellent audio and an engaging campaign, this solid old-school RTS disappoints with a short playtime, limited replay value, and no multiplayer.

Impressive visual quality: Many reviewers praise the graphics as beautiful, amazing, and visually appealing. This is one of the most frequently mentioned positive aspects.

Solid old-school RTS: Players describe the game as a good, solid, and fantastic old-school real-time strategy title. It appeals to fans of classic RTS gameplay.

Engaging story and campaign: The story is described as interesting, decent, and well-presented, with a fun campaign. Its pacing is reasonable and avoids unnecessary filler.

Excellent audio and music: Sound design, music, and voice acting are repeatedly praised as outstanding, top-notch, and epic. The soundtrack is well-chosen and enhances the experience.

Generally positive gameplay experience: Players find the game fun, captivating, and enjoyable, with good gameplay. Many simply say the game is nice or great.

Short playtime and low replay value: The game is frequently described as very short with little replay value, leaving players wanting more content.

Missing multiplayer mode: Reviewers consistently note the absence of any multiplayer option, which limits the game's value for those seeking competitive or cooperative play.

Short and forgettable campaign: The campaign is criticized for being short, with a forgettable story and only nine basic missions.

Poor pathfinding: Pathfinding is frequently mentioned as bad, causing units to get stuck or take inefficient routes.

Slow and boring gameplay: Several players find the game slow, unfair, and overly simple, leading to a boring experience. The pacing and challenge balance are criticized.

Old-school RTS core: Players repeatedly describe the game as a classic, 90s-style real-time strategy title with base building, unit control, and traditional RTS mechanics. It is a single-player-focused experience that stays true to the genre's roots.

Base building and tactics focus: The gameplay emphasizes base building and advanced tactical combat, requiring players to manage resources and units strategically.

Campaign length and structure: The game features a campaign with a set number of missions, though reports vary between 4 and 9 missions. Some players note it is relatively short.

Choices affect story outcomes: Decisions made during missions have consequences that shape subsequent missions, the campaign narrative, and the ending. Tactical choices and story decisions are intertwined.

Conquest and squad modes: Beyond the campaign, the game offers a conquest mode with skirmish battles against AI to take over territories, and squad missions that provide single challenges with limited units.

Random crashes and freezes: Players report random freezes and crashes to desktop, sometimes causing the game to stop responding. These stability issues are consistent across multiple reports.

Cutscene and cinematic stuttering: Cutscenes and cinematics frequently stutter or lag, disrupting the viewing experience. This issue is mentioned in several reviews.

Performance improvements in new version: Some users note that the new version brings an increase in FPS. The game also runs at 60 fps on high settings for some.

Smooth and great performance: A portion of players report that the game runs great and smoothly, indicating a positive experience for some configurations.

Good performance on old hardware: The game runs fine on medium settings on a PC from 2010, showing it can perform well on older hardware.

Worth buying for RTS fans: Many reviewers recommend the game specifically to real-time strategy fans, including those who enjoy classic base-building, single-player campaigns, and nostalgic titles like Command & Conquer or Red Alert. It is frequently described as a must-have or solid choice for genre enthusiasts.

Positive general recommendation: Several reviewers give a straightforward positive recommendation without specific caveats, encouraging others to try the game or buy it on curiosity. Some simply say 'highly recommended' or 'go for it'.

Good value at full price: Several reviewers state the game is well worth its asking price, with some explicitly recommending it at full price and noting it offers fair value for its quality. One review even suggests it is worth more than the listed price.

Negative reviews and refunds: A minority of reviewers strongly discourage purchase, with some having refunded, removed the game from their library, or downvoted it. These opinions cite poor value even on sale and overall dissatisfaction.

Wait for a sale: A recurring sentiment is that the game is only worth purchasing at a discount, with multiple reviewers advising to buy on sale or at a very low price. Some mention a small amount of content as the reason to avoid full price.

Community fair range: $5.00 - $10.00.

Game completion: 10.0h.

Story completion: 6.5h.

Reports mostly describe an easy-to-pick-up RTS that is fun from the start for players with prior genre experience, though some find the tutorial-like progression slow and the waves repetitive.

Friction: Bad tutorial that does not help much; Slow, tutorial-like timed missions; Repetitive respawning enemy waves; Low unit population cap; Limited unit and faction diversity.

Old-School Single-Player RTS Loyalist: Plays scripted campaign missions, builds bases, and uses familiar old-school RTS unit compositions. Motivation: To relive classic base-building RTS campaigns with a strong single-player story. Stance: buy.

Multiplayer-Focused RTS Player: Seeks skirmish or competitive multiplayer and skips titles that are campaign-only. Motivation: Competitive or social multiplayer RTS matches rather than a single-player campaign. Stance: no buy.

Accessible RTS Newcomer: Plays at a relaxed pace and values low learning curve and campaign clarity over deep competitive systems. Motivation: An easy-to-learn strategy game with good presentation and a story that does not overstay its welcome. Stance: buy.

Solo developer project: The game is developed by a single person, Ede Tarsoly, with some help for sound and voice acting. Many reviewers are impressed by the scope of a one-man project.

Sequel to Meridian: New World: Reviewers frequently mention that this game is the sequel to Meridian: New World, continuing the story and building on the original. Some compare it favorably or unfavorably to the first game.

Compared to StarCraft: Reviewers compare the game to StarCraft, often unfavorably, calling it a foolish imitation or worse than SC2. Some note similarities in resource collection and worker control.

Early Access status: Many reviewers note that the game is currently in Early Access, with one stating it is more stable than many fully released games. Frequent updates during Early Access, including almost weekly improvements based on player feedback, are also highlighted.

Compared to Command & Conquer: Reviewers often compare the gameplay to classic Command & Conquer titles, with some noting it as a classic RTS in the vein of early C&C. Fans of C&C and Red Alert are likely to enjoy it.