[quote][b]Note: Dead PvP game[/b]
This game contains no meaningful single player content. There's no online matchmaking or servers and no players. This game cannot be played as intended.[/quote]
This is somewhat of a joke game... a 2D multiplayer (local only) PvP arena survival game where you're ingredients on a pizza and you have to run away from various threats based on the game mode... chiefly giant mouths that take bites off the edges and ants that chase you around. Be the last pizza ingredient standing on what's left of the pizza.
Now this is a terrible idea implemented terribly, but before we get into the basic design screwups, I think I have to ask the obvious question... have the developers ever [i]seen[/i] pizza before? I don't think they have. Pizzas aren't blue. Carrot is not a pizza topping. Hell, pineapple is a more appropriate pizza topping than carrot. And also, only absolute psychopaths eat pizza from the crust first. What were these guys smoking???
And you know, to clarify that pineapple thing, it's a contentious topic... My stance is that pineapple does not belong on any pizza with the single exception of the Hawaiian style ham and pineapple pizza. How's that for fence sitting?
This is a dead PvP game. Why did "Life On A Pizza" fail? Time for a video game autopsy.
[i]The vast majority of PvP focused games on Steam are failures.[/i] Most fail because developers assume just because the game project code completes a successful build, the game will instantly and magically "go viral" just for existing. There's nothing in this to appeal to gamers that hundreds of other PvP games are already doing better.
PvP games face extreme competition, PvP gamers have plenty to choose from and they gravitate to where all the other players are. This game didn't offer anything to peel those PvPers away from the PvP games they're already invested in. It had no upfront cost, but gamers still rejected it.
There is no real single player content here. The developer thought other players could replace actual storytelling and level design. That was a bad bet to make, and yeah, the developer lost. Hard. Without a player base or meaningful solo content (storytelling, narrative, you know, what makes games like GTA famous), the game has nothing to offer. Other players are not a substitute for doing the job of a developer and creating meaningful game content.
The developer of this game couldn't figure out how to add proper online networking, so they expect players to all drive to one house and sit next to each other in the same room. Using Steam "Remote Play Together" is just a band-aid for that huge technical failure here. Not having online matchmaking for a game that requires other players is a sign of incompetence and it makes this valueless... no wonder it failed.
Despite not being in Early Access, it's obvious this is an incomplete product. Developers have an obligation to deliver complete, not partially done products to gamers, that shouldn't be controversial. Whatever the excuses may be, it does no service to gamers for incomplete products polluting Steam like this. It makes it harder for gamers to find complete games, and it makes it harder for ethical developers who do the right thing to find their audience.
On the topic of visuals, the weak looking 2D retro assets seem like they'd be more at home in a browser game or a mobile app. 3D graphics accelerators hit the mainstream of PC gaming in the mid 1990's with cards like the ATI Rage and Voodoo3D, there's no excuse for such poor 2D graphics in 2026. That alone is enough to disqualify this for recommendation.
This game is fairly dated at 5 years old... and even back then it looked old and busted compared to contemporary, professionally made 3D games of the same period. It looked bad then, it looks worse now.
Now on to pricing and value for gamers.
This is "free" enough (not every "free" game in the "free" section is truly free, there's usually some hidden price tag), at least you won't be expected to spend any more money after you download this, but just because something is free doesn't mean it's good, and the cost of a game is more than just financial, your time is valuable too.
In terms of public reception, the "free" price tag didn't help. This peaked at a handful of players and then immediately cratered. With a peak count of less than 50 gamers (out of over 130 million gamers and over 40 million daily logons), it’s safe to say the PC gaming community has collectively decided to ignore this, probably because of the reasons supplied in this review.
All other issues aside (any of which would disqualify this from being worth your time), this is a game that relies on other players for it to be viable, and because there's not enough players, it's not viable. I can't recommend anyone downloads this, it's basically dead.
