Pirate Software Game Critique

Overview

This video provides a critical review of Pirate Software's indie game and the persona behind its developer, examining both the gameplay and the quality of the underlying code, while expressing strong skepticism about the developer’s expertise and authenticity.

Background on Pirate Software and Persona Controversy

• Pirate Software gained fame claiming extensive industry experience, later revealed to be exaggerated.
• Developer's actual background includes a QA job obtained through family and minor security tasks, raising doubts about claimed expertise.
• Despite questionable credentials, his indie game became a centerpiece of discussion.

Gameplay Content and Quality

• The game contains extremely limited gameplay: three puzzle sections (five puzzles total), one unique combat encounter (repeated for two fights), and two simple mini-games.
• Puzzles lack challenge or options, often being unlosable and requiring minimal interaction or thought.
• Combat is basic and repetitive, lasting only a few minutes in total.
• Mini-games are simplistic, such as basic object matching and a rudimentary dodging game.
• Most mechanics could have been implemented in RPG Maker with little or no custom coding.
• Only one chapter and part of the next are complete after eight years of development, despite receiving $20,000 in Kickstarter funding.

Writing and Story Critique

• The story is described as juvenile, with one-dimensional characters and unconvincing emotional stakes.
• The main plot—motivated by the protagonist’s dog's death—fails to establish emotional investment, due to lack of buildup.
• Moral choices are simplistic and telegraphed, often accompanied by an explicit “evil voice” for bad options.
• Attempts at deeper or more meaningful narrative content are undermined by poor writing and lack of character development.

Code Review and Technical Evaluation

• The underlying code is described as extremely inefficient and poorly structured.
• Use of unnecessarily large switch statements, duplicated logic, and refusal to use basic programming constructs (like for loops and functions) is prevalent.
• Coding style appears intentionally obfuscated or needlessly complex, possibly to create an illusion of technical expertise.
• Many tasks could be simplified greatly, suggesting a lack of fundamental programming understanding.

General Assessment and Final Thoughts

• The developer’s main flaw is presenting himself as an expert despite a lack of basic skill in game design, writing, or programming.
• The game itself is characterized as amateurish and not worth playing, failing to justify the time, funding, or attention it received.
• The reviewer emphasizes the importance of learning and improvement over false expertise.

Decisions

• Game is not worth playing: Determined after thorough review of gameplay, story, and code.

Recommendations / Advice

• Aspiring creators should embrace mistakes and focus on learning rather than projecting false expertise.
• Don’t trust self-proclaimed experts without evidence of skill or results.

Questions / Follow-Ups

• Uncertainty remains on whether the full game will ever be completed or improved.
• Further examination of the game’s code may be addressed in future streams.