I was recently invited into the writing staff at nerdy news website Geeks With Wives.
My first assignment was to review Invisible, Inc and I thought my fellow GOGlodytes might like to see what I had to say.
You can check it out here.
I hope it helps people decide if this game is worth their investment.
If you have any opinions on the game that you'd like to share, either leave a comment on the article itself or share your thoughts here in this thread. Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to read it! ^_^

The whole game really reminded me of the boardgame "Infiltration" from FFG publishern in the Android/Netrunner universe. Similar but yet different, of course (and Invisible inc. could be completely adapted into a live boardgame on his own, theorically)

Anyway I am surprised you described the game as being "short"...

Indeed, one full run is "short", 72h, maybe 10-12 missions (yet in the options you can make any game/run being longer)... oh, and the plot twist at the end of a game is hilarious :). But the game cannot be reduced to "one playthrough and voila !"

I humbly think you may had underlooked one point: it is strategy game with procedural generation. So the replay value is rather huge, and that makes the game very long, indeed, to be able to unlock and experiment the difficulty modes and the additionnal starting agents or incognita programs that really change totally your way of playing. If you reduce the game to only one playthrough, well, you only will see a small portion of the whole game.

Notice that at the end of a game run you get "experience" score for your whole game profile/installation. With this experience comes unlockables. Each run is different, many run may end into a dead end (or very difficult compared to initial playmode difficulty). But each unlockable radically change your way of playing.

After my first run in beginniner mode, i got two little things unlocked: parasite firewall breaking routine, that i could choose instead of good old fashionned "lockpick 1.0", and agent "Banks" (that saves you a lot of time with the security doors). And in fact, the parasite completely changes my way of playing, even if i restarted yet in beginner mode. One has to combine Internationale's wireless scanning/hacking with parasite to plan ahead the whole moving path of agents.

So, no, it is not that short. One game is by default of short length but one run doesnt make the entire game. By the time you will have unlocked at least half of the agents and incognita routines and at least tested experienced mode and experienced+ or regular "hard" mode, it will take many hours.

It is a bit the problem with reviews (no offense intended) nowadays, the game length is appraised and evaluated through short sighted criterias. Take "Life is Strange" for example... Through, most episodes can be rushed in 1h30 / 2h each. But then, to fully explore every paths, and also enjoy the little details all around that are not essential to the main story, and then after you devoured one episode, pause a bit and realise which of the choices from one episode carries within itself or toward the next or even the one after... Then do a new run to either polish your initial way of choices, or to change it radically. So far i am at 23h spent on it, and i know i only discovered half to 2/3rd of the whole content...

Thanks for sharing your input, Djaron!

Don't get me wrong, I understand that the game is meant to be played over and over, a fact that I mentioned in my review. However, I don't feel that the gameplay really lends itself to that many play-throughs without getting repetitive. I had access to Agent Banks on my first playthough and unlocked her and another agent, as well as two Incognita programs (Parasite being one of them), when I finished the campaign, but I didn't feel that those variable do enough to change the overall dynamic of the game.

As I stated in my review, there are people who enjoy playing through a game over and over to see every little tweak and bit of content, and they will really enjoy this game. However, there are also people (myself included) that will only do this for a select few games that really "wow" them, and this was not one of those games for me. Had I known before playing it that it was a game designed for repeated play, I might not have bothered. This is why I mentioned it in the review while keeping it separate from the review at large.

All things considered, the game is beautiful, atmospheric and fun to play up to a point. The variable is in where that point is for each individual gamer. Is it in Hour 5 or Hour 50 or Hour 500? That makes a world of difference with a game like this.

I hope that, with what I've shared above, you will reconsider labeling my review as short-sighted. I played through the game once fully and half again before the lack of variety started to dampen my enjoyment. While I didn't take the time to unlock every single bonus item and alternate agent, I am confident that I saw enough of the game to give the opinion that I did.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and for taking the time to read my article. I really appreciate it! ^_^

Ok so you made one full playthrough and half another ?

And it was enough to bore you then ?

I am not talking about some 100% completionnist maniac thing, ok ? But i still think that 1.5 playthrough may be a bit harsh to consider you had seen most/all that the game had to offer. Tested another difficulty mode ? tested to launch a custom parameter campaign ? Was lucky enough not to face some sort of near deadend situation leading to startover ? (i know, this one may be frustrating, happened me twice... the joyces of full procedural generation)

I know i may myself be a bit too enthousiastic about the whole theme and universe (always liked cyberpunk stuff, netrunner CCG, and video games with some decent hacking or compunerd stuff and stealth infiltration) yet i feel sorry about how you just bury this game in deep grave so fast...

When i was speaking about short sighted criterias, i was speaking in a general way about nowadays reviews one can find here and there on the net (even many from "professionnal" game journalists), you seemed to had taken it personnal... Yet you use extreme example such as 5 - 50 or 500 hours... It is rather caricatural; lets say that one could chew the game tasty for at least 10 hours and in fact it would be already on par with many eyecandy empty AAA games released nowadays. Price is a bit high too i admit, even if i liked it, i would advise someone to wait for it to be below 10 bucks. But hell, yeah, ithe ratio time/price is already better than a movie (and many praised games are rather more interactive movies than games with some decent mechanics...) but 5x more expensive.

Anyway it is your review, i guess people who are already used to your site and other reviews know you better than i do, know what kind of games you already liked or disliked before and it is coherent and make sense when looking on a global scale. Maybe i'm a bit of a turn based strategy alcoholic myself (wont confess how many hours i already spent on the xcom/enemy within reboot...).

So if i had something to say out loud in complement on your review (like some small different point of view) would be that you can chew it at least for a couple more run than you did and yet discover new ways to enjoy the game. My 2 cents.

I played through my first campaign on Beginner and only had to Rewind once in the endgame mission. During the course of that campaign, I lost Internationale in the second mission, rescued Internationale and got Agent Banks right near the end of the time limit. Aside from forgetting to close a door behind me in the last scenario (thus needing the Rewind since that simple oversight caused half my team to die), I got through that campaign with minimal issue.

The second playthrough was on the Experienced difficulty level, with the two agents I unlocked (Banks and Shalem 11) and the two programs I unlocked, but it just felt like more of the same. Understanding how the game played and operated made going through missions a lot quicker, but it was quickly losing its fun-factor. By that point, I figured I had experienced enough of the game to form an opinion on it.

Playing the game on Expert or on Endless doesn't appeal to me anymore. Heck, finishing my second playthrough barely appeals to me anymore. But, again, that's just me and that's all I can be. Reviews are just opinion pieces, so some people will agree with my summation and some people will disagree. I tried my best to make it clear that this game wasn't for me, but that it was for someone. It seems that you are one of those someones, and that's great. You must be loving this game and that makes me happy, and I'm sure it makes Klei Entertainment happy, too. Who could ask for anything more?

The review should recognize the 'type' of game that is being reviewed, and review it accordingly. A game should not be reviewed as if it is a different type of game.

For example, one would not review an open-world first-person shooter as if it was a platform game; where you'd then see things noted such as 'not enough jumping and climbing'. Instead it should be reviewed as an open-world shooter, and rated on things like how 'open' is it really, or how much is there to do when you go 'anyplace' (as well as its combat and other shooter stuff)

In the case of Invisible Inc, it is (I'm no 'game expert' here so this may not be 'precise'), it's a 'rogue-like' strategy turn-based RPG, and deserves 'measure' in those terms.

Other rogue-likes that are similar (in they have short 'generated' campaigns, and unlock 'more stuff' each playthrough) examples (that I am familiar with personally, as I don't have a ton of experience with 'rogue-like' types of games) are:

Din's Curse
Faster Than Light (aka FTL)
Sword of the Stars - the Pit
Xenonauts

I feel this review, although it acknowledges that Invisible Inc is a 'repeat play-through and unlock more stuff' game, doesn't seem 'familiar' with this type of game and thus 'dings it too hard' for that aspect. The review didn't fill us in on you felt this 'rogue-like' stands up against others. It felt more like a 'I didn't realize this was a rogue-like', or 'I didn't know that there's a "type" of game like that' review, and you were surprised by that at the end: Even though you gave it an overall good score and review, it feels like it's missing a 'proper accounting' for the 'type' of game that it is. And while it was noted that one can shorten the campaign, it wasn't noted that it can also be lengthened - which gives it quite a different play-through as 'all things escalate' well beyond what one sees on the 'normal length' (72 'game' hours) play-through (lots of more-and-more tricky challenges with your more-developed team).

TLDR: The overall-positive review short-changed the game a bit by not recognizing what type of game it is.

@martek:
thanx, you explained my whole point better than i did. at least i feel less alone and not as stupid as if i was babbling nonsense like some sort of lunatic in the street :)

As the reviewer stated, the game is rather unforgiving sometimes, when just one forgotten door can lead to total screw up in short time ! in fact it is one part of the thrill i found in this game (and getting thrilled by a slow paced not action oriented turn based stuff is rather a good achievement, if you ask me). I too had my share of "oooops we are screwed" time in Invisible inc, and some "jesus, hell broke loose by the end but we managed it finally on the razor edge". That what makes good gaming memories, to me...

One point in which i would rather agree with OP though, is about being too short but not for same reasons. As it was introduced in the beginning cinematics, i really though that the aim of the game was to 1st manage to find back up power supply for the IA, as an introduction, THEN rebuild the whole agency slowly (with some deeper management mechanics for the whole thing, such as finding a new hideout base camp, managing protection and security perimeter, going out to gather more influence, assets, hardware AND clues against the corps) then ultimately take the corps down from your new found lair. A bit like some sort of XCOM with hacker/stealth flavor... (i confess xcom is one of my favorit). That would have make a rather longer campaign. But in fact the surprise plot twist at the end of the yet "short" campaign" makes sense, lorewise and on a logical point of view... and then it suits the goal of a game that can be played through shorter playthroughs. Would such reasons had been written in the review, it wouldn't had triggered me the same :)

But, i acknowledge it must be difficult to review a game that goes against one's gamer dna, especially when you notice about it afterwards/too late... i dont think i would have the tools and possibilities to review the kind of game i know i'm not appealed to or that are out of my range of gaming genres. (anyway, as we saw last few years, procedural rogue like is now rather a style of game mechanic rather than a game genre, as we see rogue like tactical rpg, rogue like hack and slashs - obviously - roguelike platformers...)

Anyway, OP, your review was well written, structured and rather exhaustive, despite the cultural clash between the game and your own tastes. if you can at least take that for what it worths... I think that if i had been "caught off guard" by a game turning out to be the kind i'm not at all appealed with, i think i would in fact had given up reviewing it or publishing the review for various reasons, while you had the courage to keep on going with it.
I dont know if you maitain your website alone or if you are a group of people dealing with various reviews; but the small ezine i worked in more than a decade ago had a small idea regarding that: main review was sided with very short counter or backup point of view from two other members of the staff. That way, readers could manage to figure out a better overall about the game.

This game brought me something beyond just the computer gaming aspect, but that is rather out of topic. As a former table and paper rpg gamemaster (and having mastered cyberpunk campaigns) i always had trouble managing to keep my players entertained on an equal ground when there were "action/stealth oriented characters" and one "decker" in the team/ The complete and abstract difference of speed scale between cyber world and real world always was a pain to manage at the table. So whenever i see a video game that displays some clues or ideas to borrow in this regard, it always have my attention. I liked for example the kind of mini puzzles of "hacking" in deus ex human revolution for this specific purpose too. Sorry for the off topic.

Martek:

The game is not advertised as a rouge-like, nor is it advertised as a "repeat play" game. It is advertised as a Tactical Turn-Based Strategy game, which, while it is the latter, is also the former. As Djaron mentioned, the introduction gives you the idea that the game will be longer than it actually is. I thought I would be zipping around, rescuing lost agents, gathering money and equipment, etc. with the 72 hour clock ticking down DURING the missions. Instead, the clock ticks down BETWEEN the missions, thus revealing that the point of the STORY is just to frantically grab anything within reach and sprint to the endgame with whatever you have in your pockets.

I am willing to take some of the blame for this game not meeting my expectations, but there is definitely some misrepresentation going on on Klei's part. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, is beside the fact. I did my best to judge the game more on its merits than on its faults and I stand by the score that I gave it. The technicality of the game (graphics, sound, story, etc.) was excellent and the gameplay mechanics were great, but the innovation was limited which is what really brought the overall score down. Still, rounding up, it's an 8/10.

Djaron:

As I stated above, I totally agree with your reasoning for why the short length of this game is detrimental. In a rough version of my review, I did point out the flaws you mentioned and that I shared in my comment to Martek. However, I felt that my review was lengthy enough as it was, so I cut it out. Also, to really gripe in that way, you have to talk about plot-related elements and I wanted to try to keep that to a minimum. In my opinion, a review should be as spoiler-free as possible. This is also why I didn't talk about the ending. I thought the ending was great, if a bit too DLC or sequel baiting.

I enjoy playing Strategy RPGs and I do enjoy rouge-likes from time to time as well. I just felt this game didn't make it clear that it was both. Kinda like how no one knew that Brutal Legend was going to be a Tower Defense game until they actually started playing it. But, as I said above, I did my best to not judge the game too harshly for that while still mentioning it in case it was a deal-breaker for someone. Also, thank you very much for your compliment in spite of disagreeing with some of my points. I appreciate that. ^_^

Our website has about 40 writers creating content for the site. While we don't typically have a single game being reviewed by multiple people, our staff and our readers are able to post in the comments section of the article. In fact, two of my fellow writers have already done so and are still excited to play the game in spite of the detracting factors I shared.

To The Both of You:

We may not see eye to eye, but there's nothing wrong with that. No matter what, I thank you both very much for taking the time to read my review and for sharing your thoughts and opinions here. If you feel so inclined, please continue to do so.

That may be true; unfortunately I can't check right now because both their websites down with 'database' errors:

http://www.invisibleincgame.com/
http://www.kleientertainment.com/games/invisibleinc/

I'll check again later. If so, then I agree with you - they should note the 'rogue-like' element.

Note that I'm not observing how GOG advertises it. GOG does not mention the rogue-like element - but then they also fail to mention it in 3 of the 4 others I linked in my earlier post. I'll make a distinction between what GOG advertises and how the game developer/distributor advertises it. You may be correct that Klei doesn't say it (and that would be a valid point) -I'll check their website later when it's back up.

Cheers

[edit]: I see that the wiki page does mention in its first sentance 'incorporating elements of roguelike gameplay' - so at least someplace does note it - hopefully the article got that from the Klei website (since it would not be reasonable to expect customers to always first read a wike article to find out), but I don't know atm (due to Klei site being down)..

"Incorporating elements of a rougelike" doesn't tell you that you're meant to play a short game over and over. I would take "elements of a rougelike" to simply mean procedurally generated levels. That aspect of Invisible, Inc did not bother me at all. Are most rougelikes short games that you play over and over? I'll admit I haven't played many, but the ones I have played have not done that. The Mystery Dungeon series, the Evolution games on Dreamcast and GameCube and Torneko: The Last Hope on PSone are all rougelikes, but they have a clear beginning, middle and end which does not require you to replay them 12 times to see all the content. If I've somehow only played the small handful that don't do this, then I will admit defeat, but my current perception doesn't tell me that a rougelike is a game that requires repeat play.

anyway, i am still enthousiast at Klei, because in only 3 games this studio managed many good achievements i would like to see more often, especially from indie scene:

1) strong identity (their titles have indeed a "klei touch" that can be recognized now, both in the graphic style and the overall gaming experience)
2) tried to broaden their catalog in term of variety in game mechanisms: don't starve, mark of the ninja and invisible inc. are in fact very different game genre. Usually some dev studios are skilled in one, or two genres but usually fail to venture outside of their confort sphere. So far Klei seems to be able to provide rather different stuff from title to title.
3) games that are overall rather fun to play, deep in mechanisms (for at least some appropriatly targeted audience) and also innovative enough.
4) games that do not require thousand buck computer to run ! I explain this just after...

So after those 3 titles, even if i'm not yet a complete Klei fanboy at all, i am rather eager to see what kind of game they will be able to provide next ! It is the kind of example i like to see, and if possible more often, in the indie scene !

Regarding system requirements and such... One of the things i like in some indies is that they can provide games that are visually appealing even without resorting to AAA games 3d eyecandy engines. I mean nowadays, most of the people choose some paths i'm uneasy with:
1) unity or low spec "3d" because they intend to aim at mobile platforms first (phones, tablets) in addition (or prior to) computer
2) 8bit/retro pixel art.. don't mistake me, i like it too, especially when it's well done. but too often i see that used as an excuse to be lazy on gfx and surfing on geek's nostalgia feeling. Some are sincere in that, but most seems not, to me.
3) in a world where "gamers" are caricaturised with only some archetypals (youth teens going to call of battlefield sumething in cinema surround all in your face stuff kind of game... gee, even the tv adds for those games makes me dizzy and prone to vomit cause it moves too much and too fast...), or casual gamers going candy crush and other very basic gameplay mechanisms on their mobile or sims or "sumething simulator" on their low spec pc...
But here, klei prooves you can provide someone with rather deep/expert/core gamer mechanics, that can be played anyway on low specs desktop or decent laptops. They break the pattern "simple games for casuals on phones/desktop meant for "work", and AAA for coregamers with 1 or 2 thousand bucks of a rig (or 500 buck console)".

That is why i had been so enthousiastic on indie scene those past years: games with mechanics i grew up with as gamer, polished and improved by years of gaming industry experience and standards, but games that can be played by whoever wants to try out and invest himself in, regardless of the machine. That is something "sane", that is an asset for breeding passionnate gamers, feeding them with vital gaming nutriments :)

I concede your point.

Not being a 'game genre' expert, I don't know if there is a name for this type of rogue-like or not. If there is, then it's applicable to this title. I still feel the review 'short-changed' it a bit by not recognizing the 'type' of game it is - but at the same time conceding that you had no way of knowing it was that type of game. So perhaps, in balance, it deserved the 'shortchanging' since its 'type' is inaccurately represented.

And now the Klei websites are back up, I can check them - and yep - there is no mention of the 'replay to unlock more stuff' characteristic. Sure, it mentions that each game is a: But that does not tell one that one gets 'unlocks' as they go along play-after-play. I agree with you that Klei should be more clear on that aspect of the game.

Hmm, makes me wonder if that same 'flaw' is present for the other titles I linked - as they are that same way (more unlocks as you replay). Actually, I'm not positive that Din's Curse or Xenonauts are like that as I haven't 'completed' a play-through yet in those two (but the others are that way).

The length of the 'campaign' is good with me - because it is very customizable. I choose 120 hours instead of 72 hours, and bump the 'level' size up from 10 to 14, and I like that 'length' a lot more. I've also seen a thread on the Klei forum on how to mod the 'game settings' menu to add your own 'length' (and hopefully 'level size' as well).

I do understand the 72 hour 'length' was not the only quibble you had - you were also expecting/hoping for something more than 'fly around to different hotspots until the last hotspot and cutscene'. Maybe they'll add a DLC at some point with 'more' than just that.

Djaron: I totally agree with your latest post. The folks at Klei have proven their versatility by created three very solid and very different games one right after the other. The are definitely a developer to keep an eye on. Their adaptability and aesthetic eye cannot be ignored.

Martek: Thank you for hearing me out. I definitely agree that we need some kind of sub-genre description for games that make repeat play a part of their design. If this game had some sort of multi-player aspect, either co-op or PvP, I could forgive the repeat play mechanic a bit more. For a single-player game, you had better hope your gameplay is incredible because, to me, that's a big risk to take. Both Don't Starve and Mark of the Ninja have gotten DLC and/or Special Edition treatment, so if the same happens for Invisible, Inc and that DLC either continues the story and/or enhances the gameplay, then I would definitely have to re-evaluate my opinion.

Thank you for saying this. In my humble opinion, people who've only played the game on Beginner (which is what the review sounds like) haven't played it at all. There are so many crucial gameplay changes compared to higher difficulties that it might as well be a different, far more casual, game. (The changes to guard patrolling alone! Simply the fact that on Experienced and above, guards can patrol between rooms, fundamentally changes the way you approach scouting and exploration and makes the experience much more tense, and the farthest thing from boring.)