Eskil Steenberg Made Love

Beautiful and weird co-op combat and settlement-building MMO Love has been released. After months of furious development, one-man studio Eskil Steenberg has finally brought his project to completion, and it’s one of the most individualistic, esoteric experiences in gaming. It really is not like other games, and as such it’s my opinion that you should probably try it for yourself. Love is a challenging thing, but worth investigating. (And in the game! – RPS joke-o-matic.) It’s €10 for a month, and you can download the test client to make sure the game runs on your machine, before you buy. All the details are here, while Eskil’s Twitter records the vast catalogue of changes he’s made in the past few months.

Go take a look. (Also forum help and basic tutorials here.)


  1. Ian says:

    I shan’t be playing this but I can’t wait to see what people who do think of it.

  2. Fatrat says:

    When i tried this a few months ago (beta i think it was, or demo) i spent about 20 minutes ingame and found it utterly confusing. There seemed to be AI (acted too stupid to be players surely) who ran around trying to shoot me and there was no floorspace in most places so i couldn’t get anywhere.

    I read the forums which told me the co-ordinates for bases and such but just couldn’t get there. I was looking forward to this until i managed to try it, i may look again but it would have to be a whole lot more friendly to the new user if i did. I don’t even consider myself that noobish and i had a hard time of it!

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      It has certainly improved since the beta. There is a little waypoint thing in the HUD that points to the nearest settlement, too.

    • HexagonalBolts says:

      @Jim Rossignol

      Will you guys be doing a review of the full thing any time? I’ve heard so many mixed opinions from the beta

    • heartlessgamer says:

      Also worth mentioning is the addition of anti-griefing tools and the removal of friendly fire.

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      Possible. I might drag Quinns in for a verdict.

    • the wiseass says:

      OH yes, please do a review of this one. I think the game deserves it and it might convince people to shell out 10 bucks for an otherwise amazing game.

  3. Skurmedel says:

    Is that €10 a month? Hmmm… about 100 SEK. I don’t know, I like the impressionistic graphics, but I thought WoW was quite expensive and the fees are not that much higher. Perhaps this is less of a grind fest than WoW though.

    • RagingLion says:

      No start-up fee for an initial boxed copy, of course, so that makes it a somewhat lower barrier to entry.

    • Skurmedel says:

      You are right about that. Anybody know the bandwidth requirements?

  4. The Pink Ninja says:

    I’ll give it a go, just a month to start with.

  5. DeliriumWartner says:

    I’m going to give it a go too. Should we try and start up a referal daisy chain? (ugh, bad images) I don’t know if it’d be a bit dodgy, but it would result in much RPS love (hah!) and a bit of free time all round.

  6. Forak says:

    Can’t help but think the pricing model is completely wrong here- Wouldn’t a game like this be better suited as a free to play model with benefits for signing up? I can’t imagine many people will be trying this out for 10 euros a month..

  7. Tei says:

    The game is obscure for no reason. I say… add another render, one withouth the nose shader and shadowed flat surfaces, and let me choose the render.
    I say.. add something like a “scoreboard” that shows pressing TAB, with a list of all players, position wen available (with a tiny arrow) and assigned town.

    It could also be good that wen you die, your “soul” float up, so you get a 11.000 foot high view of the map.

    And since the interface of the game will never be that good, move that stuff to a web interface. Let people link code (vouches?) to nickname/emails in a web interface.

    Yet another interesting feature could be something like a “history mode”. I don’t know, anything will work. A map with the height changes in a tiny gif movie. A chat log. Something to connect the world you played with the world you are about to log-in:

    ” It is impossible to step into the same river twice. A jerk has move the river, and the mountain and the outpost” Heraclito.

  8. WTF says:

    Yeah…interested but 10 euros a month is just too much for a niche indie game like this. It would need to be at least half that before I would try it out.

    Shame…looks interesting =(

  9. brkl says:

    I guess I’m not wealthy enough to play indie games.

  10. Sobric says:

    I think taking out a loan for this game is a litte exteme! 10 € a month isn’t that steep is it?

    • Sobric says:

      Aww spam was deleted, so witty reply now looks bizzarre.

      Anyway, I think that I’ll give this a go. As I said €10 for one month of play is about what I’d pay for any indie game really (and a lot of indie games only amuse me for less than a month).

      Any RPSers want to set up some sort of impressionist complex? Perhaps with a nice bridge over a Lilly pond?

  11. Sagan says:

    Jim, where is the image at the top of the post from? I want it as my desktop background.

  12. DeliriumWartner says:

    Well, if anyone craves to refer someone, I’m DeliriumWartner in the game.

  13. SpinalJack says:

    I think 10 euro is fine but I’d like a free trial or something…

  14. Jacques says:

    Been following the game since the open alpha, if people want to start a referral chain for extra free playtime, I’ve made one over on the unofficial forums.

    link to

  15. Wulf says:

    I have mixed feelings about this game, so I’ll split them all up so this post doesn’t get too confused.

    The game’s art aesthetic is very beautiful, of this there can be no doubt, and pretty much anyone looking at videos or screenshots tends to agree. The breathtaking view of the world gave the game early potential, there was so much it could have been, and it conveys a sense of wonder.

    The gameplay didn’t at all live up to the graphics. I’ve found all I was looking for in this in Minecraft, which really embraces allowing the player to have fun with the environment, in both its modes. I suppose I was hoping for more a creative buildy-thing in Love, but what it allows you to do in this regard is very limited, and it’s more of a shooter. I’m very disappointed by that.

    A monthly price is never a good idea for an indie setup, because there just won’t be enough there to justify the price against bigger MMOs, especially when there are similar massively multiplayer games which are free, or have a one off price. In fact, the one off price games tend to be my favourites (like Minecraft and Guild Wars), whereas I’m not so fond of monthly costs. There’s a problem with monthly costs, for one, the developer has to keep the player-base addicted so they’ll keep paying, for two, the player base is going to expect constant content updates. A monthly charge is going to come back to bite him in the bum, I think.

    So at the end of the day, this isn’t for me. I think some will enjoy it but I hope he changes that payment system. And I think the early love I had for Love will forever be unrequited as Eskil’s vision for the game is so different to what I would’ve hoped for.

    • HermitUK says:

      Did spend some time in the beta, and it was definately the Minecraft comparisons that killed it for me. Minecraft thrives on simplicity – I can teach anyone how to play it in under a minute and they’re off building things, or exploring caves, or farming in /indev/, or whatever.

      By comparison I found manipulating and building things in Love to be very fiddly. This may well be by design, but it was frustrating knowing exactly what you wanted to do but struggling to recreate it on screen.

      The noise filter was a bit of a pain for me, too. It looks lovely, but I found it very difficult to focus on anything. Especially a problem when trying to pick out laser fire or enemies in the noisy fog.

      Still, it is an impressive accomplishment for one man, especially given the difficulty for small indie devs to set up the required infrastructure. And the MMO genre is desperately in need of some more indie creativity instead of more WoW clones.

    • Wulf says:

      I agree with that entire post.

      What would fix it all for me–I think–is if he had a creativity set of servers as well, which worked differently to the main MMO. It would mean:

      – A greater focus on building, with resources far more widely available.
      – Enemies being a nuisance, rather than a thread to survival.
      – Mechanics redesigned to focus on allowing freeform building and terrain control.

      That kind of thing and perhaps a different approach to the payment model (I’m not sure if I want to get involved in monthly subs again) could really draw me in. Otherwise I’ll stick with Minecraft and just appreciate it from a distance as something quality that other people can enjoy.

  16. Persus-9 says:

    Well I have to take my hat off to Eskil for not charging money for the client when you have to pay to play the game. There are quite a few MMOs I’d have tried if it weren’t for the fact that they wanted me to effectively pay stupid money for the first month. Sadly I don’t think I’ll have time at the minute. I hope it proves popular enough to keep the servers ticking over until I get enough time to give it a try for myself.

  17. Mistabashi says:

    Yeah I think complaining about 10€ a month for an MMO (with no initial cost) is a little bit mean. Indie or not, servers cost money, plus I expect the game to continually develop and evolve for some time.

    I do think it would be a good idea to have some kind of free trial period or some free week events to allow people to try it out, although by the looks of the game a standard 14-day trial period probably won’t be long enough for most people to get to grips with it.

    I’m still on the fence myself, it looks gorgeous and I like the fact that it breaks free of almost all gaming conventions, but I’m not sure if I’ll actually have the time and inclination to really get into it, and dipping in for short sessions doesn’t look like it’ll be that much fun. I may well slap some money down and take the plunge anyway though, if only to spend some time wandering around such a unique environment.

    • Skurmedel says:

      It’s not mean at all I think. Regardless of the reasons to the price, one has to decide if they think it is worth it or not. I’m not running a charity, and he’s not either.

  18. heartlessgamer says:

    Is it still $10 for 30 days of access or just a monthly subscription? In beta if you bought in, you got 30 days of play time, not just monthly access. Example: if I paid for 30 days in beta, if I only played 24 hours in a single month, I still had 29 days left of paid play time.

    IMHO anyone interested in indie games and procedural content needs to check this game out for a month.

    • Wilson says:

      @heartlessgamer – Good question. I payed for some beta time, have I lost that now the game has been released properly? Because I wouldn’t mind trying it again now, but I didn’t find the beta that amazing, so I don’t really want to pay again in case it hasn’t changed that much.

      On a separate note, I never really got on with the graphics. I think it was just me, but I found it really hard to track the people and AI moving around due to all the swirling/noise whatever it was. I think I prefer a cleaner graphical style (though I commend him for doing something different, it just didn’t work for me).

    • Jacques says:

      Effectively it’s a monthly sub. 30 days is 30 days real time, not game time.

    • RedFred says:

      @heartlessgamer: I wish more MMOs would employ a system like you said of paying $30 (or whatever) for gametime not actual time. For example if you have a busy month and you don’t get to play much you have effectively given money for nothing.

      Like a proper pre-pay system.

  19. Adrian says:

    i dont know 10 € a month seem a little much for an indie game…. no matter how lovely it looks

    • Adrian says:

      just finished reading the informations on his homepage and

      + Friend Name / Pass: This is a secondary accont that you can give to a friend who you would like to play with. This account is only usable when your main account is online. Anyone using yourfriend account will automaticaly join the same server as you.

      this i actually pretty awesome :)

    • Wilson says:

      @Adrian – Depends on how much you play it right? You might pay for a month, really enjoy it for that month, then never feel the need to go back, in which case you’ve done very well. Or you might get hooked, and keep paying for several months, which is not quite as great but obviously not bad since you don’t mind paying repeatedly. Or you pay, don’t like it at all, and you’ve wasted your money .

      Though a free trial would be nice I think, especially since it’s such an unusual game. It’s a gamble I guess.

  20. AVarotsis says:

    I just tried this properly on the UK 2 server – we had a great time! It’s damn good fun :)

  21. Heliocentric says:

    If i could pay for a single player version with no network capacity i would, but as it is i have no interest in paying a monthly fee for any game when there are so many without fees to play. Sorry love, no dice.

  22. Sobric says:

    €10 for 1 month is perfectly reasonable IMO.

    Firstly, it’s an MMO, meaning the there is a constant running cost for the servers. Just because it’s an indie game as well doesn’t mean that monthly fees are completely unreasonable.

    Secondly, a Free Trial could kill the game. People swamping the game on the Free Trial would strain the servers, leading to connection issues for players, leading to people disliking the game and never buy it due to said connection issues.

    Anotherly, I don’t think that Love could effectively pull off an initial-charge but free-to-play payment model. To make that cost effective you need to sell a lot of copies (a la Guild Wars), or charge enough for copies of the game that you need comparatively less sales to fund the server costs. Love’s niche gameplay (not to mention Indie status) means it probably wont succeed on the first, while people will complain it’s too expensive on the second point (just look at Solium Infernum).

    I’d also like to reiterate that just one month’s play is often what you get out of an indie game anyway, so if you just play for a month, you shouldn’t really feel shafted. If you end up playing for more than one month, however, it’s a little different – but then monthly costs might not bother you if you love (ha!) the game.

  23. Karhax says:

    I played a bit in the beta but had to stop.
    The noise made me get a bad headache.

  24. Quests says:

    I WILL play the game if they fixed these things:

    -AI destroying your monolith even if its protected by walls, even if, because of walls, they cannot see it. They would use artillery, do the “T17 Worms” shooting, and i’m done.
    -Levelled a lot of the ground. It was way too randomly generated, i used to fall in holes and i was stuck. I hate jumping all the time, sure, where there’s mountains is acceptable, but i want VAST traits of pure plains. So did Eskil make the world more “realistic” and playable? Did he eliminate all the ground madness?
    -Finding tokens made easier, which remainds to the first problem. IF i have to build up defenses quickly, or the AI will SNIFF my monolith and destroy it, i MUST find the necessary tools quickly, and i will need A LOT of them. So the config tool should be given by default, there’s no doubt about that, and also i should always know where the needed tokens are. I should have a radar in which i just type the name of the token and it puts a vague marker on the map. Vague so that at least i have to “search” in a limited area for the token.

    That is all. The game is GOOD for the base managing gameplay, because you can build terrific cities, even make a nightclub with all sort of entertaininment tokens and deco. It’s not good because you have to run randomly in search of fucking Mario mushrooms, and kill the turtles whatsicalled, the gamgoonza. Whoever appreciates that sort of random boring Sonic-style gameplay is IMO a madman.

    • sad-o-lon says:

      sure if you play alone..its harder but not impossible.

      i mad a base inside a glacier ( you can maipulate ICE without having to have a base there ;) that lasted
      for almost 14 days without turrets.

      pointers to tokens ? whould kill the whole exploration part of the game

      falling into holes CAN be a chore BUT maybe you forgot to use checkpoints while you travel or just picked a bad spot to make a settlement. Lately the “Garden of the colossi” and “sebin ice shelf” seem to be the best places.

      We experimented with other places too such as bases with underwater entrances, pyramids, hobbittowns, freefloating settlements..ect

      i found the game to be a chilling experience but certainly its not everyones cup-o-tea ;)

    • Quests says:

      You didn’t answer any of the questions, tho.

      -Does the AI launch artillery to places they can’t even see? Is wall destroyable? Why does the AI hate a small base? Shouldn’t They hate bigger and hostile ones?

      -Did they make tokens collecting easier or is it a waste of time of wandering randomly like a moron, aka what you call exploration.

      -Is the terrain still completely crazy?

    • Quests says:

      Like other guys here said, the game should focus on the positive, realistic, simulative aspects, and forget its ARCADE heritage of crazy shooting, that’s the WHOLE problem. TRUST ME, if the game fails, it’s because Eskil wanted to keep a strange retro asteroid/gauntlet/pacman feel to this otherwise lovely game, that gives a lasting taste of “fucking queer daiquiri”.

      He needs a person that knows what’s good and what’s bad, because i’m afraid he lacks discernment, which is something needed in everything you do in life. You have to have a REFINED taste for good and bad. Collecting mushrooms is stupid. HE should understand that “attacking enemy bases” is good for some aspects, it’s bad for others.

      good aspects are:

      -knowing the location of the base and its planimetry with a map, knowing where it is from where i am.
      -plan with other players the best tactic of assault, planning waypoints, everything about plan and execution is fun.

      the bad aspects are:

      -random type of tokens given, which feels like stupid Mario hits the brick from below to know what bonus he gets
      -not knowing the above-said planimetry. In any game i wanna know what im doing, where im going, where i am, what’s the distance between places, i wanna see stuff from above, be in control
      -random exploration to find random bases
      -random shooting

  25. Big X says:

    I’ve been in it 20 minutes now and have no idea of what to do, whatsoever. Also, I can’t see whatever ‘tool’ is in my no.1 slot, as the text goes off the window. Damn it’s pretty though.

  26. DXN says:

    Hrmm.. I really want to like this game, played the beta, just payed 10E for a month out of sheer optimism. I can see some improvements since I last played, but… it’s still hard to find any enthusiasm for actually playing it. It still presents itself as an impenetrable, aimless experience — no real guidance is given on the point of the game or how to play it, and although the latter can eventually be learned, for me the former never really materialises. There’s not enough stuff in the world and not enough to do to it, I don’t feel any sense of life or emergence, and there’s no framework to give meaning or importance to achieving anything or finding anything. I could go on, but I guess in short, all this game makes me want to do is complain. And I wouldn’t feel that way if I didn’t think it had such great potential — the visuals, the procedural generation, the atmosphere of the world and the way it changes and ebbs and flows are all great and *could* hold a really great, fun, interesting, *living* world. But it just feels dead, empty and pointless to me. :/

  27. the wiseass says:

    By the way, here’s what Eskil himself has to say on the pricing:

    Right now I have roughly 500 players. Each player costs 2.5 Euro in servers. If I charge 5 Euro that means that i will get 750 Euro per month after tax. I cant live off that. If i charge 10 Euro i will get 2250 Euro per month, that i can live off. As you can see if I charge half, I dont end up with half, I end up with a third. That means that in order to make it viable for 5 Euros I will need to get 1500 players just to be able to scrape by. Also bare in mind that these numbers do not in anyway repay the 3 years of investment I have already made in the game.
    That still leaves no money for a mac version or Linux version. In order to do that I will need rouchly 7500 players paying 5 or a more realistic 2500 paying 10.
    I dont want it to be expencive, I want it to be viable.
    Will I get more players if i make it cheeper? probably, but probably not 3 times as many. I have to be realistic about this and not just say “when I get loads of players everything is going to work out”, I have to look at the numbers I have and make it work. The day I get tens of thousends of players, we can talk about cutting the price but we are not there yet, not by a long shot.

  28. ErrantConstruct says:

    Is the game open for new accounts? I can’t seem to find where to purchase time. It seems interesting and I’m open to trying new stuff out. How else will gaming advance if we don’t give new and crazy ideas a chance.

  29. Chiablo says:

    Well, if you think about it, by having a higher price it keeps out some of the unwanted rabble. Look at some of the cheap subscription games and you’ll see a lot of unwanted player behavior. Wurm, Runescape, etc. have some of the best communities out there, but some of the rudest players in existance (see also RPS’s write up on Wurm a few days ago.) This is all speculation on my part however, but if you love an indie game enough to pay a higher premium for it, odds are you will be playing with a higher quality of players.

  30. Kelron says:

    I was playing a couple of weeks ago and it was very broken. My beta account is still active so I’ve had a quick look and the 2 big problems (lag and a certain crippling bug) appear to be fixed, so I hope I can play the game again once I have time. I really enjoyed it during the alpha.

  31. jarvoll says:

    Ever since finding RPS, I’ve found myself sympathizing so strongly with indie developers, and being so grateful for what they do, that I become compelled to buy their games as a “thank you / I love you” as much as, if not more than, for a good gaming experience. I find even my natural repulsion for MMOs and the doubt that comes with not being able to try before I buy (so to speak) being broken down by loving how different and good-quality and PC this Love thing seems to be. I find reading about the devs’ living situations most compelling of all, and that one above has very nearly pushed me into trying. I have to control myself and realize that, at this point, buying would be about 80% dev-sympathy, and 20% game-interest. This is a very strange situation to be in, and I wonder if I’m the only one.

  32. Llama says:

    That’s 10 euro for 31 days of actual playtime. Your clock doesn’t count down if you’re not logged in. I got my account a month ago and i still have 29 days left!
    So that’s some crazy value right there

    • Llama says:

      This was supposed to be a reply to Skurmedel ~_~
      damn your antiquated reply system RPS!

    • MWoody says:

      That’s the beta. Others have indicated it doesn’t work that way for the actual release.

    • Jacques says:

      Not really how it worked during beta.

      basically, the way the payment model works is:
      You pay 10 Euro, you get 30 days of play time, 30 days in the usual MMO sense, not actual playtime.

      The confusion is probably coming from the fact that during the end of alpha, and during the end of beta, Eskil froze accounts so that they didn’t lose any playtime. You also don’t lose any playtime when the servers are down.

  33. MWoody says:

    I really wanted to like Love, as it plays like a bizarre love child of Wurm Online and Capture the Flag. In late beta, I tooled around and captured some enemy bases, bringing back the creation tools for others to do… I have no idea. It was an interesting, briefly enjoyable experience, but only in a sense of exploration.

    More than the gameplay, my real stumbling block was the graphics. They make great screenshots, sure. But imagine all that pretty fuzziness jumping around every frame, taking what could be a spartan, old-school flat shaded environment and making it impenetrably bizarre. You DO get used to it after a couple hours, to a point, but having to work to barely tolerate the games’ biggest selling point struck me as a bad sign. It’s possible to do a unique, pretty graphical engine without making my eyes bleed.

  34. Kelron says:

    It didn’t work this way in the alpha, but he froze beta time remaining for the last month before release. I’m fairly sure it’s a standard subscription model now.

    • Kelron says:

      First time replying has broken for me. Was referring to the game time system.

  35. Angel Dust says:

    I played the beta and found the game to be too finnicky and I don’t think twitchy jumping and shooting are the best way to experience such a unique and beautiful aesthetic. Such a waste.

    I will however be hoping for some kind of write-up here on RPS so I can see if they game has changed sufficiently for me to give it another shot.

  36. Shadowcat says:

    my real stumbling block was the graphics. They make great screenshots, sure. But imagine all that pretty fuzziness jumping around every frame […] It’s possible to do a unique, pretty graphical engine without making my eyes bleed.

    I guess that hasn’t changed since the alpha/test thingamy. I was so looking forward to exploring this oil-paint-like scenery, and instead the game launched a painful assault upon my eyeballs. It seems like there’s some great technology driving this thing, but I have no desire to partake of the experience.

  37. KP says:

    Beta was a bad game masked with some art. I don’t suppose it’s changed.

  38. SpinalJack says:

    For people complaining about the fuzzy filter, you know you can turn it off right?

    • Shadowcat says:

      For people complaining about the fuzzy filter, you know you can turn it off right?

      No, I didn’t know that. When you say “fuzzy filter”, you are talking about the infernal flickering, yes? (“Fuzzy” isn’t the description I would have used for it, but I hope that’s what you’re referring to.)

    • Shadowcat says:

      Well I downloaded the client so that I could see for myself, and the only option I could find is “low end mode” which does absolutely nothing to reduce the flickering. It does however make things less fuzzy (which is clearest when looking at the stars), which makes me think that this is the control you were referring to, and you simply misunderstood the nature of the complaint (or I misunderstood the context of your reply).

      I’ve searched the release notes and the manual for appropriate-seeming words, and found nothing about disabling the flicker.

  39. Professor Paul1290 says:

    What makes this game rather unusual goes further than just the gameplay and art style, the philosophy that drives it is rather jarring as well.

    It’s already a given that only a few people will even be interested enough to try the game in the first place. Of those few, maybe half of them of them will probably leave. Some will just see a Minecraft clone and never see past that, never getting to try or even be aware of the game’s other more subtle mechanics. Some will leave because they don’t like being so dependent on others or being required to interact with them so much to be the least bit effective in the game. Some won’t like the game’s lack of focus on them, no character customization and auto-generation of names can feel almost dehumanizing as it can feel like the game is saying “you are not special” straight to your face. Some won’t be able to tolerate the art style and the problems it presents.

    However, what the game does for the remaining fraction of that few that is left is incredible. I’ve rarely seen a collection of random people get along as well as I’ve seen in this game. The game has a strange way of getting its random players to collectively work towards a singular purpose in a way that I’ve previously only come to expect of gaming clans or other more elitist groups. It really starts to feel like it’s you and your little enclave of fellow players against the in-game world. Once you really get into it the game’s name starts to seem oddly fitting.

    Is it a good game?
    I guess that depends on what you’d call a good game.

    If you think a good game is supposed to please as many people as possible then I guess this game would probably fail your test just because of the number of people it rejects both unintentionally and deliberately.
    The fact that he only expects a little over 500 players shows just how narrow an audience the game is expected to take. That would be considered failure for most other online games, but for this game it would be a success.
    On the other hand, if your idea of a good game is one that pleases the people it was made for, then things look a lot better. So far it has already done a lot in that regard that few other games have been able to.

    In my opinion its a very niche game that’s still waiting for its fanbase to find it, and hopefully they’re out there.

  40. Turr says:

    Lulz, more pay per month gaming.

  41. Quests says:

    If people feel this game is not worth 10$, imo it’s because they feel that is not “immersive” and realistic enuff.

    And that’s because it still reeks of arcade games, what with its random shoosting, collecting mushrooms, hopping like an idiot.

    So do away with all those things, Mr Eskil, and give us a simulation, then people can’t say it’s not worth 10$

  42. Kommissar Nicko says:

    I plonked down $10 for Flotilla only to realize that I’d get about three hours entertainment, max, so this is probably a leg-up.

  43. SonofRock says:

    Having played this for two days now, I think it’s a pretty amazing thing. The sense of change and evolution in the world is entrancing. I helped build up a base with a bunch of other players, which was probably the most entertaining part of the game, I feel. Even doing a small thing like leveling a patch of ground lets you feel an attachment to the settlement you’re building, like you’re making a meaningful contribution.

    Unfortunately our base was destroyed really suddenly by some enemy artillery, which very disappointing since there was really no fight involved. Everything was just suddenly destroyed and gone, all that work gone to waste with no chance to fight back. What was interesting was visiting the site of the destroyed base later one when it had been partially eroded into an advancing desert. Time keeps moving and I guess the game is just telling you to move on. This is a bit of a pain though, to have your work destroyed so easily.

    I’m optimistic, so I’ll keep playing.

    • Professor Paul1290 says:


      I think the game’s strength isn’t really its artstyle or even its gameplay mechanics at all, though they certainly help.

      What really makes this game is how it somehow gets its seemingly random players to work together so effectively. Again, in most other games you need gaming clans or other such groups to get the kind of cooperation you see in Love, but in Love it happens all by itself.

      From what I’ve seen so far a lot of people go into the game blind, play for a bit, then leave thinking that’s all there is. They end up missing most of the game in the process and are never aware it’s even there.

      Of course, for all we know that might be what has been keeping all the griefers out. The way this game handles a lot of things means it only takes one or two malicious players to screw things up, but somehow there was hardly any of that on release day.

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      I think most players have yet to learn to scout for and actively attack AI. The enemy will artillery your base to dust if they get a chance, so you have to head them off.

    • Jacques says:

      @Jim It seems quite common at the moment. It’s easier for those of us that have been playing for a while, and we’re getting plenty of newer players joining to Eskil’s Teamspeak server so we can help them out, but most people seem to focus on just building up a base using the smooth edit tool.
      There’s an initial rush for grey tokens, but most people haven’t gotten the hang of raiding yet.

      The main thing to do is look for the tokens, everything else is secondary. If you can take an AI base’s tokens, you’ll destroy the base. Taking out AI spawners is useful, but one person can easily take out a small to medium settlement by themself if they don’t lose track of the main target.

      Also, you really don’t want to be caught by artillery when you’ve got no forcefield.

  44. MD says:

    Man, this is wonderful. Honestly I’ll be surprised if I end up renewing my subscription, but by no means do I regret giving Love a chance. It really is a unique experience; recapturing the wonder of discovery that all games used to hold when I was younger is priceless. I have no idea how well it ‘works as a game’ yet, whether it would be worthwhile if stripped down to its basic mechanics. But that’s really not the point, at this stage. You can’t take it as anything other than what it is — maybe the wonder of the unfamiliar will wear off and leave a flawed core, but for now I’m taking it as a whole, and I Love it.

  45. MadMatty says:

    tried the beta, had fun- dunno if it´ll last me that long, but ill probably pay for atleast 1 month to check out the final changes

  46. Michael says:

    I’ve paid my 10 euro and am greatly looking forward to this, whichever way it goes.

    It’s been a long time since I’ve been able to step into a game and have little to no idea as to what to expect.

    This, I think, will be what I used to hope online games were like in 1996 before I had the internets.