Info about Meridian: Squad 22:

Official game description:
  
Humanity is in peril. The first colonization attempt of mankind has failed and the colonist crew is missing. The leaders of the United Earth decide to send a highly trained specialist squad to planet Meridian to find the crew and bring them home safely.  
Meridian: Squad 22 is a single-player science-fiction real-time strategy game with a focus on base building and advanced tactics. Every single choice, every tactical decision you make, shapes the outcome of your story. Will you take the offensive route or stay on the defensive? Will you consider the lives of your crew a priority or will you sacrifice them mercilessly to gain the upper hand?  
Ede Tarsoly, the lone developer behind Elder Games has teamed up with Hexany Audio, the award-winning sound design team, to bring you an experience like none other with unparalelled fidelity.
Key Features
------------
*   Control the fate of Squad 22 and the colonists in the 10+ hour story-mode campaign  
*   Vanquish your foes on planet Meridian in over 100 procedurally generated missions in Planetary Conquest  
*   Polished, dynamic and fluid unit control  
*   Over one hour of immersive music  
*   Fantastic sound effects brought to you by an award-winning sound design team

Release date: Aug 11, 2016

Categories: Real-time Strategy, Base Building, Resource Management, Single-player Campaign, Tactical, Sci-fi


- Hardware Profile: No data
Feature extractions:
- Community Price:
  - Community fair range: $5.00 - $10.00
  - Reasoning: The reviews consistently treat deep discounts as the right purchase condition: one reviewer caps fair value at $5, several say to buy only on sale, and full-price purchases are repeatedly called a poor deal. At the same time, $9.99 is explicitly described as great value, while $14.99 is rejected as not worth it. These anchors place the community's fair base-game range around $5 to $10, with $10 as the upper end only for a polished or content-rich release.
- Playtime Metrics:
  - Game completion: 10.0h
  - Story completion: 6.5h
  - Session length: N/A
  - Endgame: N/A
  - Reasoning: Two reports place the campaign/story at roughly 6-7 hours, so storyCompletion is set to 6.5 hours. One report says about 10 hours was enough to finish the campaign and test other modes, so gameCompletion is set to 10 hours as a practical finish-plus-mode-sampling figure. A separate report claims the campaign takes about an hour, which is a strong outlier and lowers confidence. No review gives a reliable typical session length or a separate endgame duration, so those metrics are null.
- Time-to-fun:
  - Summary: 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.
  - Stance: Fun immediately
  - Anchor: N/A
  - Time to anchor: N/A
  - 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
  - Unlock drivers: N/A
  - Conditions: Prior RTS experience makes the learning curve nearly zero; Preference for single-player RTS missions rather than multiplayer; Players seeking multiplayer are unlikely to be satisfied; Tolerance for repetitive enemy waves; Tolerance for a short campaign and limited faction variety; Tolerance for slow tutorial-like mission pacing
- Player Archetypes:
  - Old-School Single-Player RTS Loyalist (buy)
    - Motivation: To relive classic base-building RTS campaigns with a strong single-player story.
    - Playstyle: Plays scripted campaign missions, builds bases, and uses familiar old-school RTS unit compositions.
    - Experience: veteran
    - Purchase stance: buy
    - Labels: RTS fan(addict)
    - Reference games: Command & Conquer; Red Alert
  - Multiplayer-Focused RTS Player (no buy)
    - Motivation: Competitive or social multiplayer RTS matches rather than a single-player campaign.
    - Playstyle: Seeks skirmish or competitive multiplayer and skips titles that are campaign-only.
    - Experience: familiar
    - Purchase stance: no buy
    - Labels: N/A
    - Reference games: N/A
  - Accessible RTS Newcomer (buy)
    - Motivation: An easy-to-learn strategy game with good presentation and a story that does not overstay its welcome.
    - Playstyle: Plays at a relaxed pace and values low learning curve and campaign clarity over deep competitive systems.
    - Experience: newcomer
    - Purchase stance: buy
    - Labels: N/A
    - Reference games: N/A
  - Polish-Demanding RTS Critic (no buy)
    - Motivation: A bug-free, challenging, and well-paced RTS that respects the player's time.
    - Playstyle: Evaluates AI behavior, balance, pacing, and stability, and holds off until patches improve the experience.
    - Experience: familiar
    - Purchase stance: no buy
    - Labels: N/A
    - 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:
- Impressive visual quality (weight 0.44): 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 (weight 0.38): 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 (weight 0.38): 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 (weight 0.35): 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 (weight 0.32): Players find the game fun, captivating, and enjoyable, with good gameplay. Many simply say the game is nice or great.
- Big improvement over predecessor (weight 0.3): Reviewers note significant improvements in gameplay, campaign, graphics, and animations compared to the first Meridian game. The streamlined mechanics make it much better.
- Well-designed and smooth (weight 0.16): The game is well designed and plays smoothly, with functional gameplay. Reviewers note it looks good too.
- Good strategy game (weight 0.13): Reviewers consider it a decent and quite nice strategy game. It offers a solid strategic experience.
- Intuitive controls (weight 0.09): Controls feel good and become intuitive after a short learning period. Players find them responsive.
- Balanced campaign difficulty (weight 0.09): The campaign has a good and balanced difficulty, providing an appropriate challenge without being frustrating.
- Enjoyable tech tree (weight 0.09): The tech tree is well thought out and enjoyable to progress through, offering meaningful choices.
- Meaningful choices add replay value (weight 0.09): Decisions made during missions affect subsequent ones, providing replay value. Every tactical choice shapes the story outcome.
- Conquest mode with AI skirmishes (weight 0.09): Conquest mode offers skirmish battles against AI on different territories. The difficulty scales from Easy to insane, providing replayability.
- Camera zoom and rotation (weight 0.08): The addition of camera zoom and rotation is a welcome feature that improves the viewing experience.
- Includes air and naval units (weight 0.08): The game features both aerial and naval units alongside land troops, adding variety to the battlefield.
- Impressive solo development (weight 0.08): Reviewers are impressed that the game was developed by a single person. This adds to its commendable nature.
- Collectible cards and achievements (weight 0.08): The game includes collectible cards and achievements, adding extra goals for players to pursue.
- Stable and bug-free (weight 0.08): Players report encountering no bugs during their playtime. The game runs smoothly without technical issues.

Common complaints:
- Short playtime and low replay value (weight 0.32): The game is frequently described as very short with little replay value, leaving players wanting more content.
- Missing multiplayer mode (weight 0.25): 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 (weight 0.23): The campaign is criticized for being short, with a forgettable story and only nine basic missions.
- Poor pathfinding (weight 0.17): Pathfinding is frequently mentioned as bad, causing units to get stuck or take inefficient routes.
- Slow and boring gameplay (weight 0.14): Several players find the game slow, unfair, and overly simple, leading to a boring experience. The pacing and challenge balance are criticized.
- AI shortcomings (weight 0.1): The AI has linear attack patterns and pathfinding issues, often leaving units behind and reducing challenge.
- Units lack visual distinction (weight 0.1): Units appear visually indistinguishable and handle too similarly, making it hard to tell them apart during gameplay.
- Conquest mode repetitive (weight 0.1): The Conquest mode is considered boring and repetitive, with little variation from match to match.
- Unpolished and rushed feel (weight 0.1): Players feel the game is unpolished and rushed, indicating a lack of finishing touches.
- Unit balance issues (weight 0.1): There is an imbalance between unit types, leading to unfair advantages and reduced strategic depth.
- Abrupt story ending (weight 0.1): The story ends abruptly, stopping mid-way and leaving plot threads unresolved.
- Only one playable faction (weight 0.1): Only a single faction is available to play, limiting variety and replayability.
- Repetitive enemy waves (weight 0.1): Many maps feature nonstop waves of enemies appearing from off the map, making gameplay repetitive quickly.
- Bad cutscenes (weight 0.09): Cutscenes are poorly executed and detract from the overall experience.
- Illogical controls (weight 0.09): Controls are sometimes illogical and need improvement for better usability.
- Inaccessible explorable terrain (weight 0.09): Some terrain appears explorable but units cannot actually go there, causing confusion.
- No Russian language support (weight 0.09): The game lacks Russian language support, which is a drawback for Russian-speaking players.

Gameplay feedback:
- Old-school RTS core (weight 0.52): 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 (weight 0.33): The gameplay emphasizes base building and advanced tactical combat, requiring players to manage resources and units strategically.
- Campaign length and structure (weight 0.32): 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 (weight 0.21): 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 (weight 0.17): 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.
- Three tech trees (weight 0.17): The game includes three distinct tech trees for combat, economy, and defense, offering strategic depth and progression options.
- Sci-fi strategy with story (weight 0.17): It is a story-driven science-fiction strategy game that combines real-time tactics with narrative elements and a research tree.
- Resource gathering like Starcraft (weight 0.1): Resource collection mechanics are similar to those in Starcraft, involving harvesting and managing resources to fuel base building and unit production.
- Unit orders and control (weight 0.09): Players can issue move and command orders to units, allowing direct control over their actions on the battlefield.
- Multiplayer presence debated (weight 0.09): Some reviewers mention the game has multiplayer but see no reason to purchase it for that mode, while others claim it lacks multiplayer entirely. This inconsistency suggests the multiplayer feature may be limited or poorly implemented.
- Offensive or defensive choices (weight 0.09): Players can choose between offensive and defensive approaches in missions, allowing for different tactical styles.
- Cutscenes enhance campaign (weight 0.09): The campaign includes cutscenes that help tell the story and provide context for missions.

Performance notes:
- Random crashes and freezes (weight 0.1): 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 (weight 0.1): Cutscenes and cinematics frequently stutter or lag, disrupting the viewing experience. This issue is mentioned in several reviews.
- Performance improvements in new version (weight 0.09): 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 (weight 0.06): A portion of players report that the game runs great and smoothly, indicating a positive experience for some configurations.
- Good performance on old hardware (weight 0.05): The game runs fine on medium settings on a PC from 2010, showing it can perform well on older hardware.
- Decent multi-threaded performance (weight 0.05): Users observe decent multi-threaded performance, suggesting the game utilizes multiple cores effectively.
- GPU overheating issue (weight 0.05): The game causes the graphics card to overheat according to some feedback. This could lead to hardware stress or damage.
- Nvidia driver requirement (weight 0.05): Nvidia users need to update to a newer driver or the framerate stays low. This is a specific fix for optimal performance.

Recommendations:
- Worth buying for RTS fans (weight 0.54): 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 (weight 0.34): 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 (weight 0.27): 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 (weight 0.25): 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 (weight 0.23): 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.
- Enjoyable despite rough edges (weight 0.22): Players note that the low-budget presentation and rough aspects can be overlooked for the fun it provides, especially for a low cost. It is seen as a decent, unpolished RTS that offers hours of entertainment.
- Recommended for single-player focus (weight 0.17): Reviewers highlight the single-player campaign and story as the main draw, recommending it to those who prefer solo play. The lack of multiplayer is acceptable for this audience.
- Good entry point for newcomers (weight 0.16): The game is described as a good starting point for players intimidated by more complex RTS games, with a manageable learning curve. It is recommended for those looking for a decent, accessible strategy experience.
- Avoid until further fixes (weight 0.13): Some reviewers advise against buying in its current state, recommending to wait for fixes or improvements. A few suggest getting the first Meridian game instead and waiting for this one to be patched.
- Appeals to fans of earlier games (weight 0.09): Reviewers who enjoyed Meridian: New World or older RTS titles are likely to appreciate this sequel even more. It is specifically recommended to players of the earlier game.
- Not for multiplayer seekers (weight 0.05): One reviewer explicitly warns that players interested in multiplayer should avoid this title, reinforcing its single-player orientation.
- Support indie development (weight 0.04): One reviewer encourages purchasing to support a one-man project, indicating that the game is a solo developer effort.
- Fair price on Steam (weight 0.04): A reviewer notes that the game is available in English on Steam at an honest price, suggesting good accessibility and value.

Other player notes:
- Solo developer project (weight 0.41): 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 (weight 0.31): 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 (weight 0.26): 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 (weight 0.24): 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 (weight 0.24): 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.
- Disappointment vs original (weight 0.2): Several reviewers express disappointment when comparing this game to Meridian: New World, feeling it is a step back. However, a few consider it an improvement over the first game.
- Visual comparison to StarCraft/Red Alert (weight 0.19): The visual style is compared to StarCraft and Red Alert 3, and also to a mix of Halo Wars and StarCraft. Some also mention a unique sci-fi style.
- Campaign structure (weight 0.17): The campaign has 9 missions and takes about an hour to complete, with some missions taking five minutes or less. There are also short squad missions and challenge maps after finishing the campaign.
- Price concerns (weight 0.16): Some reviewers feel the price does not match the amount and quality of content, though others consider it acceptable for a low sale price. The game is priced at 15 euros on Steam.
- Technical issues and lack of guide (weight 0.15): Some technical issues are noted, such as crashes that may be fixed by changing resolution, and there is no manual or user guide. The game is only available in English with no German voice-over, but supports Hungarian.
- Small scope and playtime (weight 0.14): The game is described as having a small scope with short playtime and little replay value. Not recommended for hundreds of hours, but still solid for what it is.
- Lacks skirmish mode (weight 0.13): The game lacks a true skirmish mode, partly due to the huge tech tree, though it includes a planetary conquest mode made of skirmish games.
- Standard systems, not innovative (weight 0.13): The game's systems are described as standard rather than innovative, which can be seen as mediocre. It offers a familiar RTS experience with few new ideas.
- One-man project visuals praised (weight 0.09): The world of Meridian looks and sounds amazing for a one-man project, with sound design by Hexany Audio.
- Low Steam review average (weight 0.06): The game had a low positive review average on Steam that rose only slightly from 51% to 53%, indicating mixed reception.
- World conquest mode (weight 0.06): It features a world conquest mode with over 100 battles, adding significant playtime beyond the campaign.
- Unique take on classics (weight 0.05): The game is not entirely inspired by classics and offers its own unique take, blending elements from various RTS games.
- No mod support (weight 0.05): The game does not support mods, limiting community content creation.

Emotions:
- Frustration (weight 0.26): Players are frustrated by persistent technical and design issues. Key causes include buggy unit AI and pathfinding causing units to freeze, get stuck, or ignore orders, along with a poor interface, bad tutorial, crashes, and overly difficult or opaque campaign missions with repetitive enemy waves.
- Disappointment (weight 0.19): Disappointment stems from the game feeling rushed, unpolished, and lacking content. The short campaign, absence of multiplayer and skirmish mode, generic StarCraft-like design, and outdated feel leave players unsatisfied.
- Satisfaction (weight 0.07): Satisfaction comes from improved mechanics, a well-paced campaign, and polished presentation. Players appreciate the beautiful graphics, engaging story, and accessible gameplay, especially for an early access title.
- Enjoyment (weight 0.06): Players enjoy the atmospheric sci-fi style, classic RTS mechanics, and fun gameplay that blends elements from StarCraft and Command & Conquer. The character-driven story, voice acting, and addictive nature contribute to a positive experience.
- Boredom (weight 0.06): Boredom arises from repetitive conquest mode, slow pacing, and simplistic gameplay. Many maps feel like defending against endless enemy waves, and automatic attack options reduce engagement.
- Admiration (weight 0.06): Admiration is directed at the game's creation by a single developer, achieving impressive graphics, sound design, and polished RTS mechanics that rival larger titles.
- Enthusiasm (weight 0.05): Enthusiasm is fueled by the game's innovative approaches, classic yet fresh feel, and polished old-school RTS experience. The engaging campaign, balanced difficulty, and familiar Command & Conquer vibes excite players.
- Annoyance (weight 0.04): Annoyance is caused by specific design choices like short-range, irreparable turrets, awkward camera controls, slow progression with timed missions, and poor lighting in certain missions that hinder gameplay.
- Excitement (weight 0.03): Excitement comes from the compelling story, innovative research system, and great audio. The game loading instantly, optimized HUD, and the desire to continue playing contribute to a thrilling experience.
- Appreciation (weight 0.02): Appreciation is felt for the heart and effort put in by the small studio, the developer's responsiveness on forums, and the impressive voice acting, graphics, and optimization achieved by a single person.
- Amazement (weight 0.02): Amazement stems from the fact that the game was developed by only one person and is polished at early access launch, with an amazing story.
- Indifference (weight 0.01): Indifference is expressed when the game is considered only okay and not worth finishing, or when missing language support does not hinder gameplay.
- Impressed (weight 0.01): Players are impressed that a single developer created a beautiful game with an interesting story and tech-tree.
- Disengagement (weight 0.01): Disengagement occurs because the first mission starts as an RPG instead of an RTS, failing to engage players expecting real-time strategy gameplay.
- Disgust (weight 0.01): Disgust is triggered by bad cutscenes, tutorial, controls, voice acting, and lack of camera controls.
- Relaxation (weight 0.01): Relaxation is provided by less stressful missions, tech-tree research, permanent unlocks, and commander cooldowns.
- Mild disappointment (weight 0.01): Mild disappointment is caused by clunky pathfinding and controls, an uninteresting story, and short length.
- Mild frustration (weight 0.01): Mild frustration arises from illogical controls and enemy reactions.
- Nostalgia (weight 0.01): Nostalgia is evoked by the game reminding players of old-school Command & Conquer.
- Irritation (weight 0.01): Irritation is caused by repetitive respawning waves of units.}