Recent reviews by Rellom

Path of Exile 2 is shaping up to be an outstanding ARPG. While it has flaws, the exceptional combat, atmospheric design, and gameplay depth make it highly enjoyable. With updates addressing key issues, the game continues to improve the more I play.


Core Gameplay:

• Combat Mechanics: 9/10 - Combat feels exceptional, with impactful abilities, smooth animations, and satisfying feedback. The strategic depth and moment-to-moment gameplay create an engaging experience that stands out in the ARPG genre.
  
• Build Diversity: 7/10 - While the passive tree and skill system offer great potential, certain limitations with chaos resistance, unique items, and ascendancy issues restrict truly free build experimentation.
  
• Core Progression: 6/10 - The foundational systems are solid, but over-reliance on RNG, limited crafting options, and accessibility issues slow down natural character development.

Endgame Systems:

• Content Variety: 6/10 - While the mapping system and mechanics become more engaging at higher tiers with proper investment, the extreme time investment required for pinnacle bosses limits complete endgame access. After 115+ hours, the core loop remains engaging but gated.
  
• Accessibility: 4/10 - Better than initially assessed but still problematic. SSF players face a daunting ~500-1000 hour journey to complete all content, with each pinnacle attempt requiring approximately 50 hours of farming.
  
• Reward Structure: 5/10 - Endgame mechanics become more rewarding with optimized builds and proper investment, though the risk/reward balance still needs tuning.

Quality of Life:

• UI/UX: 6/10 - While the core controller combat feels great, significant QoL issues persist. The lack of copy/paste functionality and text input options for controller users forces keyboard switching. The Atlas interface lacks crucial information about waystone tiers 16-18 and encounter-specific point unlocks. Missing tooltips and unclear zone identification compound these issues.
  
• Performance: 8/10 - Well-optimized engine with stunning atmospheric effects and stable performance. Visual clarity in combat could use improvement.
  
• Trading Systems: 3/10 - The outdated trading mechanics feel particularly restrictive with modern controller support. The lack of an in-game system significantly impacts gear progression.

Player Experience:

• New Player Journey: 5/10 - While the early game offers a stern but potentially rewarding challenge, the difficulty curve and systems complexity may prove overwhelming without extensive research.
  
• Long-term Enjoyment: 6/10 - The gameplay loop proves more engaging than initially assessed, with 115+ hours of sustained interest. However, the constant vigilance required due to on-death effects and the extreme time investment for completing all content may deter many players.

These issues feel systemic and may take significant time to address—or may not change at all.

• Pinnacle Boss Accessibility: Content is effectively unreachable for solo self-found players and most casual players. The combination of rare Fortress spawns, currency requirements, and one-attempt limitation creates a system that caters to the top 0.1% of players. This creates a negative feedback loop where the most skilled players can further optimize their atlas passive trees, widening the economic gap in trade leagues.
  
  
• Ascendancy System: Trials are overly difficult for their level range and filled with unfun mechanics. The third trial is particularly frustrating, with punishing interactions for minion builds and unnecessary penalties.
  
  
• Death Penalties: The endgame death system feels excessively harsh. Losing hours of XP progress to unavoidable one-shots or hidden mechanics, combined with the "one portal per waystone" system, creates a frustrating experience. This is especially problematic in large maps that can take 30+ minutes to complete.
  
  
• Map Design and Navigation: Areas are often too large and empty, leading to tedious backtracking. The "mouse and cat" gameplay of tracking down rares and bosses adds unnecessary time. The lack of checkpoints in waystone maps compounds these issues.
  
  
• Combat Clarity: While build optimization and chaos resistance help manage most content, the abundance of on-death effects demands constant, exhausting vigilance even during routine mapping. This design choice undermines the otherwise excellent combat system.
  
  
• Progression Systems: The endgame proves more rewarding than initially apparent, but the estimated 500-1000 hours required for SSF completion feels excessive. Each pinnacle boss attempt requiring ~50 hours of farming creates a particularly daunting challenge for solo players.
  
  
• UI and Information Clarity: The game fails to explain crucial systems. Encounter-specific Atlas points lack in-game explanation, and higher-tier waystones (16-18) have no clear indication of their tier level. Controller players face unnecessary hurdles with text input and searching, lacking basic features like copy/paste or saved search terms.

• Difficulty Curve: Campaign balance is uneven, with Act 1 being extremely challenging for new players while Cruel difficulty feels unusually easy.
  
  
• Missing Features: No death recap system makes learning from mistakes difficult. The lack of stash tabs in waystones and slow quest map load times impact gameplay flow.
  
  
• Endgame Content: While boss fights are excellent, there aren't enough of them. Current endgame mechanics often encourage clearing maps before engaging with content.
  
  
• Build Limitations: Chaos resistance availability restricts build flexibility. Unique items often feel underwhelming due to negative modifiers.
  
  
• Specific Mechanics: Rituals and Breach events are particularly awkward for summoner builds. Delirium's fast-moving mobs create management challenges.
  
  
• UI/UX: While controller combat feels great, inventory management remains clunky. Atlas interface lacks crucial tooltips and environmental information, making zone identification and unique feature discovery unnecessarily difficult.

Path of Exile 2 delivers a strong foundation with exceptional combat, atmospheric design, and engaging progression systems. After 115+ hours, the endgame loop proves more compelling than initially assessed, though several core issues persist.

The game's most significant challenge remains its accessibility. While dedicated players can eventually overcome most obstacles through optimization and persistence, the extreme time investment required for SSF completion (potentially 500-1000 hours) and the constant vigilance needed due to on-death effects create unnecessary barriers to enjoyment.

Despite these ongoing concerns, PoE2 demonstrates its ability to maintain player engagement over extended periods. With proper investment and build optimization, previously challenging content becomes manageable. However, the game needs significant improvements in both user interface design and accessibility. The lack of clear information about endgame systems and limited controller support features show that while the core gameplay excels, the supporting systems need substantial refinement to match modern gaming standards.

Brilliant.

I like the mechanics, I like the Act progressions, I like the meta progression unlocks, I like the amount of possible builds, I like the Slay the Spire Layout of the map, I like the Auto battling, I even like the art work (which is sort of pointless in a game like this.)

If there is a negative, I'm yet to find it, beside some very minor UI thing, which overall, also is absolutely fine.

A F2P PvP auto battler without NFT or other P2W, is already a win.

Add to that - the game in its early access, is fairly complex, addictive, got both live and asynchronous play styles (big fan of both modes), so the only thing missing, is more players to keep it alive, and the development time it deserves.

FM23 was disappointing, with a big promise midway through of a better match engine in the 2025 edition, so no one had any expectations for FM24’s features to be worth a buy - We were wrong.


First headline feature, which by all means, is good news for anyone who wished to continue a save for ages. Personally not something I’ll be using much, as I play thousands of hours, and rarely find myself at the end of the cycle, with a save worth continuing over toward the new game.

8.5/10 headline feature score in my eyes.


By far the best thing, possibly even the best upgrade from one edition to the next, we ever had. It is extremely surprising to see such a big leap forward, within the match engine here in 2024’s edition, but everything from deflections, players movements, lighting, how the different tactical approaches and player instructions is shown within the engine, is far better than ever, and I can’t understate this enough - If you play on an older version of FM, and wonder if 24 is worth it, when 25’s promises a new engine,it absolutely is, as this version is light years better in the match engine already.

9.5/10 feature.

Goes hand in hand with the Match day experience. The new inverted full backs is a great addition, taking advantage of real life tactics, such as Man City or Tottenhams, that can be replicated to an extent where it is believable to showcase “copies,” that play out how you expect it.

In the past, it could sometimes be hard to tell what one instruction did, or how it was shown within the match engine itself. Generally speaking, this is a lot easier to spot now, and by that, also easier to understand both your own tactic, and the opponents. Leading to a more rewarding playstyle if you love to deep dive into comprehensive watching and making tactics.

8/10 feature.


FM23 had a similar headline feature, and I do not believe it was at all improved - Hopefully, AI and everything under the hood will feel better now - Though after many hours in the (cough cough beta) I’m not feeling it.

3/10 feature - As I’m confused, and don’t see or feel them being smarter.


Always nice to see new leagues become playable and licensed.

7/10 feature.


Second biggest and most interesting feature for this edition, long overdue, but finally remade, is the set pieces system. Question is, is it any good? Well, it is better than what we had before, but it is by no means perfect.

• You wont notice it at first, but the defensive routines are very limited in how you can set them up, and often you will see many of the same tactical problems within the match engine, no matter how you try and tweak it.
  
• Example:
  Defensive coroner, where your defenders deal with the initial kick, and heads it out of the danger area - sounds good? It is, but that is where the problem starts.
  
• You can have two players on the edge of the area, no more. You can also have some players lurking further up the pitch for counters, but you lack some control of where they are on the pitch, when your defenders clear the ball.
  
• 9/10 times, when your defender clear it, it end up at the feet at an opponent, or vica versa, if you have a corner, and their defender clear it, which then lead to 8/10 times, that player picking up the second ball, playing it back to the original corner taker, who will make a new cross to the far post, where the defending team is not ready, and already in a transition phase, which 7/10 lead to an open header at the far post, when a defender clear the ball.
  
• If we had more control over where our defenders are, this would not happen so often. There is no option to tell them to track short kicked corners, or mark a man further outside the box area, or anything like that - Which lead to many of the defensive actions on corner routines becoming somewhat similar, leaving me with a sour feeling, on top of an otherwise great match engine and base idea for set pieces.
  
• The general control with free kicks and especially throw ins, both defensively and also offensive speaking, leaves a lot to be desired.
  
• Leaving me with the final point, for the new set pieces system, which is that it feels like a better tool overall then the old version, and has potential with further improvements to become really good, but in its current state, is it half baked (much like last year's Squad planner, which did also see small improvements this edition.)

6.5/10 feature.


Half baked? I’m honestly not sure. In theory, I like it, but I’m not sure how these targets, and in theory - reverse promises the players make to us, impact in any real game play, outside of role playing. It seems to have a very small effect on morale, but that is about it, no matter if it is training or in-match targets.

5.5/10 feature, but with potential to impact more areas in the future, such as contract negotiations, player time, likelihood of them becoming less upset in the future, etc etc.


To me, the third best feature. Both unexpected, works really well as it is, and with potential for custom Date bases from modders being easier to implement too. Using the Real world database, with all the transfers happening when they should, was simply put, excellent to watch in my first early save.

9/10 feature.


A much better match engine than the previous edition. Better performance on the simulation (not a headline feature, but worth a mention for those with potato PC’s) A new set piece system, which the community asked for. New game modes are also something not to be sniffed at for a large amount of the playerbase.

I will categorise this release and features, as the best since 2009 with the 3D match engine … Yes, I would call this the best FM improvement in 15 years, and I don’t think many of us had high expectations.

7.1 - Overall score is what I will give the new features.

It goes without saying (hopefully,) that FM as a series, and the game as a whole, would receive a much higher score, but make no mistake, 7.1 is a high score for new headline features imo, if we were to compare it to previous headline features and impact they have on the game edition to edition.

I did not expect the base game to be enjoyable, without mods, performance issues & missing content - At least, that was my expectation, but I was wrong.

The game do have a lot of issues, some like those above, I'm not too worried about, as mods will be released soon enough, performance optimizing will get better, and DLC with more content will expand the game down the road.

I'm worried about the bugs, such as water not diapering after terraforming, terrain that clip through tunnels, winter is not disable in settings (that white screen is no go for me, but at least two base maps will never have snow,) as snow is on top of being annoying also is missing a ton of texture and mesh, there is a never ending road massacre accident - Which are just some of those, that might take time before fixed (if ever, as some of those was also issues in CS1.)

As of now, my biggest complaint, is that some things either is rushed poorly to release the game, or deliberately not working how it was communicated. Garbage & mail is broken, while also the overall simulation and calculation of all products import/export, is not dynamic as of now. Which was one of the selling points of the game, and something a simulation game should arguable nail.

So, why a positive review? Very simply put, I enjoyed 72 hours, ALL of them. Not only is this game, with all its issues and broken promises, a much better base game then CS1, I also found the whole experience of learning all the new mechanics a pleasant surprise as a experienced CS1 player, that normally only enjoyed heavily detailed & modded playthroughs.

This game will only get better, and it was already a fairly good 7.5/10 kind of experience, which I predict will be 9/10 in 6 months.

Edit: Latest development, or lack off, is moving this toward a negative review. While I enjoyed the first 72 hours, the game feels like an empty shell, that do not have the tools or polish I need to create cities I wish. This honestly comes down to missing mods & assets, as that would likely fix 95% of all my issues with the game. There is no reason to even consider playing the game, until mods & assets is on par with CS1.

RPG took a leap forward.

For the most part, Iv'e disliked the heavily story driven games, and always fancied the mechanics over graphics, immersion, voice acting or any sort of cheap tricks triple A nonsense have thrown at me the past 15 years or so. It just never felt right, until now.

It is hard to explain exactly why I care about BG3 over many other similar titles. In the end, I think it comes down to a combination of high quality in many different areas in the game. It all feels, 9 out of 10, or 10 out of 10. No matter if we talk about the combat mechanics, the voice acting, the graphics, the scope of the story, the music, the overall immersion feeling, just the fact that I do get immersed and care about each character and explore each little area, read all the books, is no small achievement.

To me, this is not going to be a question of people talking about this as game of the year ... it clearly is. No, the question is, will this game be considered game of the decade?

Easy top contender for best paradox DLC in any of their games.

Obviously it focus more on adding to the RPG aspects, then the traditional strategy 4X mechanics, but the travel system is exactly what this game needed moving forward as a story telling sandbox game. There are a lot of small nuanced changes to both the DLC and the free update itself, that add up to a much more coherent and natural game play.

Out of all of these new changes, and how they interact with rest of the game, I only noticed one thing that I believe could be problematic to some extend, and that is the amount of events during Grand Tours & in general while traveling. Paradox seems to double down on the RPG here, and it might be overwhelming for some players, who favors mechanical fast paces play style, to have 10 events within a span of 3 months while traveling. I'm okay with it, and applaud the direction for the game, but it do possibly alienate a minority of the player-base, and I hope Paradox will consider a settings option in the future to reduce the spam of events, for that player-base.

There are only 3 (true) negatives to all this. But those will always be the case, no matter if the DLC is good or bad, which is of course the heavily inflated price - It is what it is. Along with bugs, which need to be addressed over time, and a complete broken workshop for the modders to deal with.

Incredibly underrated little gem.

Take this with a pinch of salt. But FM23 is as close to a step down as any previous edition was.

The decline in headline features, and impact they have on the game, is staggering this edition, and have been declining for over a decade if everyone wore to be honest about it.

Right, with that doomsday opening, let me explain what I mean - Sports Interactive delivers a game each year that is already quite good, so to improve on it or changing anything, is both a risk and unnecessary from the viewpoint of a developer, as FM constantly outsell previous editions.

FM22 sold more than FM21, and 21 more than 20, and 20 more than 19. Everything shouts - Do no changes, steady on.

Furthermore, FM has no real competition, unless we talk of mobile managers and FIFA’s scuffed career mode, which is hardly worth a mention to begin with. FM also got an audience and core playbase that are old, at least old to what is to be considered normal for most games, which means, people with limited time to play the game duo to (responsibilities,) but also not limited by the youths' small pockets. The core player base happily pays 40 to 60£ each year, it is after all just a grab in the pocket, compared to many other things in life, for those middle aged audience.
What they buy, means less, then what the feeling of playing the newest edition gives them in quality. I include myself in that ridiculous sentiment, as like clockwork, I am one of those old sentimental fools.
What I'm trying to say, I or other, and possibly you, are the minority, loud and proud playing thousand of hours. But the majority, will be happy with what they buy, since the game is already great, so they rarely speak up.


If I was asked, what is the best thing about FM23 compared to FM22, I would say, the small animation changes and slight fluidity improvements the match engine seems to have. Though I have said that for 5 years in a row now.

But the graphics that showcase the mechanical changes, still look like something from 2002, arguably even worse graphics now than 10 years ago, and if you start comparing graphics to other new management games, we really start to wonder why FM is not allowed a new engine. That said, it was still the best upgrade in FM23.

The entitlement is strong, I demand a new engine, not now, not next year, but for the love of God give me a new Engine and something that actually feels like a new game when it comes to graphics, even if it comes with an extra cost, and waiting years for it in development … just let me know, that something is coming, something we can look forward to in maybe 3 or 4 years while it is getting developed. Trust me on this, I will still buy the next 3-4 games anyhow, but give me what I want, and the information that it is coming.


Dynamic manager timeline - Is not a headline feature, but SI call it that. It is more or less, information that already was represented in the game on another page, and making it look a bit more fancy and pretty.
I do not know how long it took to make, but it looks like something I personally could make in a couple of days, including all the background coding for links and pictures locations, and what have you now. My point, calling this a headline feature, is absolutely idiotic from any standpoint of trying to sell a new game.

AI manager improvements - Still too early to really make a call on the AI manager improvements they have made. If it works how I think or hope it will, is this easily the biggest improvement this edition, but I have seen these types of hidden mechanics being oversold by SI before.
Please SI, I hope this is where the effort was made. Anything that has to do with AI behaviors in many aspects, is exactly what makes a good game in my opinion.

Squad planner - A fancy notepad, the problem is, that it is half baked. It has potential, don’t get me wrong, but it feels strict to use. To me, they are forcing it down my throat, with hard-coded views. No statistics views (what the F?), and even more stupid, why would they make us plan for the future, but forget to put in looking at the past, to actually see how the players developed over time?
I’ll likely use it, since it is better than notepad (barley), but also 100% feels a half baked desgin.
Hopefully it will be more customizable in FM24.

Recruitment nonsense - I do not know how many times the recruitment center, and how they give us information on players have changed over the years. One thing I do know, is that the mechanics behind the recruitment, and how the AI handles it, is exactly the same.
This is the definition of a repack. It is shown in a new way, wrapped all up, and looks arguable better, and is more coherent. I’ll give them that, but again, is that a headline feature?

Agent improvement - It makes sense to talk to agents before anyone else when negotiating contracts. My worry is that there will be a cookie cutter text to click, like almost all other AI interactions in the game, that will make it feel almost pointless. Hopefully, they are starting to make it more dynamic, but I doubt it.

Supporter confidence - Yes, the Board V2.0. Is it dynamic? If not, who cares about it then?
If it doesn't change over time with how the club develops, then why even implement it?
Again, the AI both in terms of the board and now the supports interact with with the rest of the game, seems to be nonexistent. You can lose 10 times in a row, and the supporters still hope that your gegenpressing tactic will work for today's game. What a load of absolute **** AI coding.

This could have been awesome, hopefully will be in a couple of editions, but the lazy designs, and going down the same route as how the Board is working, is leaving me with the feeling, that this is it. This is what we can expect.

UEFA License - Okay. Just okay. Headline? Probably not, but alright, it is what it is.

Final thoughts - Is it okay to pay 60£ each year, when the changes, or lack of, is neither quality or quantity compared to other games?
The answer is of course, yes. If you chose to do it, you chose to do it. But that does not mean, that you can't want more from the FM series. I could even say, entitled to want more.

I'm disappointed, but not angry, that this is where FM is, in 2023 edition. I expected it, but hoped for more. In many ways, the game is giving me the same now, as it did back in 2003. That is both positive and a negative, as I could easy imagine how good it could be 20 years down the line, but also I could not have foreseen how many incredible hours the game would give me, since the core game is great.

Opening FM03, the core mechanics haven't changed, it is the same game in many aspects. There are improvements, but not worth 20 years of improvements. I'm disappointed, not be course it cost me 60£ 20 times since then, but be course I'm left with the feeling, it might be one of the last editions that FM can give me those positive amount of enjoyable hours, if this is the path SI is continuing down.

EDIT: 28/6-2023 (I'm changing my review to a thumbs up, after the blog update from Miles as of this day (The Future of Football Manager.) FM23 is a good game, but my points is still valid, as it is a disappointing set of new features compared to its previous peers, which Miles also acknowledge in the blog. Furthermore, and most important is the clarity of receiving news of a new Unity engine in FM25, which I would I have liked to see earlier announced, but better late then never, both in terms of the news, and the Engine itself.

Credit where credit's due. I hope for even more transparency in the future.

Absolute one of the better Deckbuilders on Steam. Hard to argue with that.

More forgiving then Slay the Spire, but more complex then Monster train. Arguable the only other two titles, that would be better or on par with it in my opinion. They all have there unique mechanics and rules, but have the same high standard and vibe to them.

Where Vault of the Void is different, is hidden within the balance of all the mechanics. The purge system, is good, but hardly that alone makes it good. It more so the complete set of mechanics, within the complex system of cards, artifacts, spells and stones.

It is well polished when it comes to Graphics, UI and UX,

It is a game that rewards players for their good tactics & strategies, rather then punish us for being unlucky. Though luck will always exist in these games, more often then not, my own mistakes and deckbuilding capabilities is punished rather then my luck.

Again going back to the balancing, and it not being to tight or loose, especially on higher difficulties. The balancing act of luck vs crazy synthesizing builds, is really hard to master for developers while maintaining it to be fun. This game is very close to perfection in that act,

While it might lack the fantastic modding community of Slay the Spire or Monster Trains unique multilayered combat, along with (insert: Multitude of great things to say here,) it easily slots into the top 3 in its own right.