How to Win: Season One

Absolutely fantastic game. Really sharply written satire with a silly sense of humour that refuses to pull any punches, and is packed from start to end with genuinely very funny jokes and really nicely drawn characters and scenes. Had a lot of fun playing through it, would thoroughly recommend. Can't wait to see what season 2 has in store!

[h1]Before I played How to Win, I had a small pp, no friends, no gf, depression, and no life. These things havent changed, but the game is pretty good[/h1]

Пойдёт, ради идеи и прикола можно поиграть

I'm not sure if this is meant to be a serious critique of the underlying tenets of capitalism, a la Elizabeth Magie's [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Landlord's_Game]Monopoly[/url], or just memes. Gameplay-wise, it's mainly a renpy-style VN. I think [url=https://ncase.me/projects/]ncase's educational games's[/url] are better done overall, but there's definitely plenty of room for more content in this space. The second round was kind of dreary; it spent more time making fun of accents than pointing out that Thatcher systematically dismantled northern industry (because they weren't gonna vote for her anyway, so caedite eos), and New Labour hasn't exactly done anything to redress the situation.

Both fun and thought-provoking. Look forward to Season 2

[quote][b]Note: Dead PvP game[/b] This game contains no meaningful single player content. There are no available servers and no player population. This game cannot be played as intended.[/quote] This dead online adversarial multioplayer e-book (ugh, what a terrible idea) failed badly due to a weak premise implemented badly... low quality presentation did nothing to help the terribly weak premise of a multiplayer "make your own rules" CYOA experience. How to Win: Season One is a dead PvP game. Why did it fail? [i]Almost every PvP/multiplayer exclusive game on Steam fails.[/i] Only a tiny proportion of them "go viral". This game failed for many of the same reasons those others fail. The chief of which is the developer thinking that their game will "go viral" without actually creating any reason for it do so. Competition amongst multiplayer centric games is extreme, and there's only a finite player base to appeal to. This game failed to reach any kind of critical mass and died as a result. Let's go into some of the reasons this particular game failed to appeal to gamers, despite the zero up front cost. Without a huge community of players or single player content to add a lasting value to the game, the game dies. Developers must learn that other players are not an acceptable substitute for adding content to a game. The graphics aren't great. That's understandably be turn off for a lot of gamers, and it's a big contributor to the failure of the game to attract gamers despite having no up-front cost. Gaming is a primarily visual medium, and if developers want to succeed, they must understand that it's not an area for compromise. You deserve better than compromises. It's free... now, but it wasn't before. The developer was charging $9 USD for this. Optimism, or delusion? Price barriers, especially on low quality products, can be a direct cause of failure. It's a nice gesture for the game to be given away for free, but it also tells us that the game wasn't good enough to succeed as a paid product. Even though this is "free", it failed to appeal to the 120 million+ gamers on Steam. SteamDB showed the game peaked at only 6 concurrent players... this is a dismal public reception. This was so bad they couldn't even give it away. Bearing in mind that free games don't add +1 to your game collector count, should you bother adding this to your library and downloading it? Not this time. This isn't worth downloading. While this won't cost you any money, you get what you pay for, and sometimes, even when the game is free, it's still not enough.

Such a charming game. I found out about this game years late from replaying the psychological horror SHUT IN, and this experience retains that one's humor. Which I appreciate, because I seriously couldn't stop laughing the entire game.. except for when the insane, zany plot twists and strangely emotional beats slap you across the face. A fun-tabulous (still feel a little bad I was rooting for the opportunity throw him in with the Sharktigers, sorry Funbo) game, certainly, with likable characters and AMAZING dialogue peppering the honestly still-relevant issues plaguing our world today. Neat takes on different perspectives and political stances; I found myself sucked in to the story and characters at 4 am, too absorbed in this wacky world and these ideas and adventures to go to bed. It felt like a game that knows the rules and how to break them. I don't add many games to my favorites list on Steam... but this one was exceptionally fun and imaginative, and I'm sure I'll be replaying it in the near future. Now, the real question is, if life had an objective, what would it be? How would *I* win the game of life?... I'm not sure, but I'm definitely not getting flung into a volcano anytime soon.