Yet Another Zombie Survivors: three years of early access, a squad instead of a hero, and finally 1.0

The title is a joke about the genre itself: yet another survivors game. There are hundreds, they all look alike, and most vanish within three weeks.

This one lasted three years in early access, passed half a million copies sold, and finally reaches version 1.0 today.

The idea that sets it apart

In a classic survivors game you play one character who fires automatically while you handle movement. Here, you steer a squad.

You start with one survivor and can recruit up to two more during a run. All three fire automatically, and moving the group is the whole of the piloting.

It sounds minor, it changes a lot. Synergies are no longer built between one character's items but across three simultaneous loadouts, which multiplies the possible combinations. And positioning matters more, since a group covers a wider arc of fire than an individual but also presents a more spread-out target.

It is a modest variation on a known formula, but it is well judged and it is enough to give the game its identity.

What works

Runs are short, around twenty to thirty minutes, which is the right format for this genre. You are not committing your evening, you are starting a round.

It is immediately playable. This is one of the rare games in the genre where you do not need to understand the system before enjoying it. You move, the team fires, you pick upgrades, and the power curve does the rest.

The power curve satisfies. Each level you choose from randomly drawn upgrades, gradually turning three ordinary survivors into a screen-clearing machine. That is the genre's central pleasure and it is properly served.

Pacing holds without dead time, and there is enough content in characters, abilities and builds to justify several dozen hours.

What is held against it, and it is structural

Long-term players' criticisms converge, and they are honest.

It does not add much to the genre. It is a good game, well executed, but several players at fifteen or twenty hours say the same thing: solid without being notable. In a family this crowded, being decent is not always enough.

Meta progression is thin. That is the most serious complaint, because retention in this genre rests almost entirely on what you permanently unlock between runs. Too light a progression and you close the game after fifteen hours without returning.

Some upgrades matter more than others. A number of players report that stacking weapon upgrades is enough to win, which hollows out the other branches. If that is still true at 1.0, it is the point the studio will need to watch.

Finally, a rework of the upgrade trees during early access annoyed part of the original playerbase, who saw no problem with the first version.

What 1.0 changes

This is the context of the review, and it is favourable. The studio announces an update it says itself contains enough content to make a game in its own right.

It is also the release part of the community was waiting for in order to start from scratch: many players deliberately shelved the game to return on a clean progression.

It sells for around fifteen euros, slightly above the genre average but reasonable given the volume of content.

What sets the score

It rewards an intelligent variation on a saturated formula, the three-strong squad that multiplies synergies, a perfectly calibrated run length, and accessibility that lets you enjoy it before understanding it. Three years of support and half a million copies also say something about the studio's consistency.

It accounts for meta progression too light for a genre that lives on it, balance where certain upgrade branches crush the others, and a proposition that stays within the genre rather than pushing it.

For anyone who finished Vampire Survivors and wants the same feeling with a fresh angle, it is a good pick. For anyone waiting for the genre's revolution, it is not here.

Do you prefer steering a hero or a squad in a survivors game? The debate is open on the InsertCoins Discord.