Metal Thunder: a 1.0 announced with a campaign mode that is not in it

One player tells the following story, and it is the best possible summary of this launch.

He thinks the game looks great in the trailer. He buys it. He reaches the main menu, and finds a campaign mode alongside a note from the developer explaining he was injured while making it, and promising the campaign is coming soon. In the meantime, enjoy Survival and Zombies modes.

"Ok. Fine. It's Early Access I guess," he writes.

Except the game went to version 1.0 on 29 October.

What the game offers

You operate the guns of an AC-130, the gunship that circles above an area and pounds the ground from the sky.

The battlefield is ever-changing, with dynamic environments and unpredictable enemy tactics. You choose your weapons, customise your loadout, deploy tactical manoeuvres. You upgrade your aircraft with advanced weaponry, armour and systems.

And there is a reference everybody has in mind. One player writes it directly: do you remember the fun of earning an AC-130 killstreak in Modern Warfare 2, the 2009 one, not the bad remake? Then Metal Thunder is what you need.

That is an excellent niche. That sequence is one of the most memorable in shooter history, and nobody had built a full game out of it.

The problem

616 reviews, 56 per cent positive. Mixed, and the lowest figure in this week's batch.

The complaints are specific and they are not about the idea.

Performance. An otherwise sympathetic player explains that the developer is very active and updating at an impressive pace, that this will be a really cool game, but that right now there are performance issues, particularly once the guns are upgraded.

Missing content. The absent campaign cited above is not an isolated case, and it poses a genuine contract problem: you do not sell a full version while pointing at an apology in the menu.

Length and repetition. One player completed all the maps in five hours, finds only one gun genuinely usable, and describes a play-once-and-forget game. He adds, not without humour, that if you are fast enough you might finish it inside the refund window.

And a three-word review captures the general mood: "steam needs a meh button."

What should be said in its defence

Because there is a defence, and it is argued.

One player explains that this is a nice little arcade snack game, that the single developer is very active and adamant about bugfixing and improving, and he asks the right question: at this price point, what exactly were people expecting? It is not a simulator. You go on a sortie, get points, upgrade your weapons, and go again.

He is fundamentally right. 8.63 euros, one developer, an unapologetically arcade loop: this is not a game you judge like a publisher's production.

And several players note the developer replies directly to reviews, including the negative ones.

Where it lands

Metal Thunder's problem is not its quality, it is its label.

In early access at eight euros, with a campaign announced for later, this game would have had a far better and entirely deserved reception: a good niche idea, a present developer, an honest loop.

As a version 1.0, the same product gets judged as a finished product, and a finished product whose main mode is not there yet does not survive the comparison.

That is the second time this month I have written this, after Battleplan. The early access label is not a shame, it is a protection, and studios keep denying themselves it to their own cost.

My advice: if the AC-130 sequence stayed with you, wishlist it and wait for the campaign. The developer looks like he wants to deliver it, and the game will then be well worth its eight euros.

Got a specific memory of the 2009 AC-130? Everybody has one, tell it on the InsertCoins Discord.