Let's just pop this.

Not a roguelike.

* roguelite * check
* procedurally generated * check
* pixelated graphics * check

Sounds a bit like sci-fi Rogue Legacy, which would not be a bad thing. Wishlisted.

Yeah, it's more in the same "indie" style as so many others, but an uncompressed audio soundtrack does help stand out for me. I wish other indie (and larger) games here would have this, instead of only mp3.

Meh, killing again...

Sorry, déjà vu... good luck with their devs though! Still a public for those!

Although it's not my cup of tea...it looks fun. I miss Demos... =\

Well, it has graphic above my minimal standards, so that's already a pass.

Looks gorgeous, Hope it sells like hotcakes once it's fully released!

unless Demos is a game, i assume you refer to having demos we can play to see how the game plays?

if you wonder why no gamedemo:

https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/0/1621726179581238916/

ka-ching, seems its too 'expensive' to upkeep bla bla and more nonsense like that, game demos were the main reason we bought games , " but we have videos" true but a video is not same as the real experience a proper game demo gives.

LOL Nope, I wasn't talking about a game named "Demos".

And that reply is complete BS (the one at $team, not yours).
Creating a Demo is NOT that difficult unless you're a pretentious developer aiming at creating a super-duper Demo for your game. Which isn't necessary at all. If you lack the resources for a dedicated team working at it you just need to cripple your game to allow for only a taste of it and that'll be better than no Demo at all. And if you're smart enough to create a complete videogame...then I'm pretty sure you know how to tweak some things here & there to build a my-game LITE.

IMHO the only reason devs choose not to release Demos anymore is because most games are crap and they know giving people a chance to try a crappy game is not good when you're also trying to sell it to the masses.
If you have a good game you shouldn't be afraid of making a Demo for it.

I can't tell you how many games I didn't bought because they had no Demo available. But I'm sure it's a pretty big number. And the opposite is also true.
Good game with Demo > Bad game with Demo > Good game without Demo > Bad game without Demo
(yeah, I bought "bad" games in the past only because I had some fun playing their Demo LOL)

And this is especially true for indie devs. They're the ones that should be making Demos like there's no tomorrow. Ironically that's rarely the case though. And that's a bummer.


Edit: to fix typos.

Thanks for the reply, and yes it is complete BS and the smaller independent developers should be ashamed.
If they can't build a limited demo , i don't mind they release a full one time limited if needed, expires after 1 hour like Bigfishgames does with many of its demos( and wrapped by a nasty wrapper) , i liked the 'lazy' devs from the late 80s and early 90s that gave a full software with activation ٩◔‿◔۶ because they weren't clever enough ( or maybe to lazy) to release a limited one, in levels that is, as for 'wrappers' ≖‿≖ also lovely stuff the old ones that is, full of 'holes' solutions easy Goolged ^‿^

Anyway today ( year 2000 and up) we are tied to nasty clients and many are bound to the account like Steam has (+_+), many old games don't have that so thats why i usually buy the old ones if the games are what i'm looking for. I have many games that run independet of the client once installed ^‿^, always buy them at a huge sale at > 1 euro if possible, to check if they can run without the client, when i am sure they can i tend to buy the new games at release... if they start to make it tied to the account, i stop buying and add them to my personal blacklist in my text file, hide the games ( ignore) to prevent then from showing up, they will show but darkened, this makes browing for games much easier and faster, if Steam would add w away to ignore all games by dev/company name that would be excellent, will save lots of time :D