I was surprised to see a Harvest Moon clone on the PC. Iwas delighted by the game but the more I play it my feeling is that where the game exceeds Harvest Moon FOMT in breadth it lacks depth. People criticise some of the graphical choices. Some of those criticisms stand and have been fixed by an immensity of mods. Rather than superficial improvements the devs should look at what modders have changed and make some changes standard. Most annoying for me is one reaches a certain plateau of 'can I be bothered?' I managed to put my finger on why this is: the character interractions are functional rather than immersive. I dislike the term 'sandbox' but given that there is no real ending, the mistakes one makes on the way are quite irrelevant. Why can't you see the fish in the ponds and thus waste time waiting for them? Could the devs concieve of a sequel that is focuses on depth and choices instead of quantity? Grammar note: I am sharing my RATING, not my 'rate'. They are two different words.
Don't be disuaded by the cartoonish graphics, this is a tough and complex survival game. The learning curve is not too steep until a point, then you will need to learn from your mistakes. You receive XP and watching the bar reach a certain level and earning a new character is so satisfying.
The quests can just 'go wrong' and you neither fail nor achieve them, essentially you break the game. There are other recurring bugs which ruin what could have been a great game. This is why more testing makes GREAT games (think of anything Nintendo produces) rather than mediocre. The other reviewers are completely dishonest and almost certainly work. I do not believe that real gamers can just overlook glaring bugs. Why not employ people to repair the bugs in THIS game, rather than to write positive reviews and code sequels to a POS? So much potential is evident in this game that I will gladly do bug testing at minimum wage. That is the UK'S MINIMUM WAGE. Open?