If higher intellect is what you’re looking for, I will simply demonstrate my bilingualism, which is, as I’m sure you are familiar with, is rather unfortunately uncommon in these great United States of America. In addition, I might like to point out my proper use of capitalization and punctuation, Mr. Steve.
If we are being honest here, though, I understand that the footage was only early alpha, but still, the graphical style doesn’t quite suit me, and if I’m not mistaken, their necks were slightly breaking due to divergence of the vertebrae whenever they got shot at/exploded/dead-ed. In other words, it looked like their necks were getting longer/heads were about to pop off when they died. Also, though, I do like the fact that they are trying to break off of the tiled mold of TBS games, but it just doesn’t look like it works well in actual combat. I know that Rome II has the same movement mechanic, but that’s only for the campaign map, and it is well-made and polished. Also, there was truly a complete absence of overarching objective. I mean, it makes sense if they are trying to make an overhead “Worms” types game (maybe?), but it just doesn’t float my boat without it being based on that same type of deathmatch-y gameplay, where the only objective is to win. If it’s going to have any sort of success, it is probably going to need additional objectives, like a flag/base/zone to protect, perhaps, or maybe a VIP to keep from dying?
Anyway, pardon my (sort-of) wall of text, but there is my “higher intellect-based” analysis of this game.
One more thing – it might have helped to have put about 2-4 more weeks of work into it before they tried to open it up to the public? I mean, as has been mentioned several times, even if it is shown to be an incredibly early demo, any sort of buggy showcase can lead to a bad rep, and it might have helped to have made a slightly more-finished product to show off.
P.S. – Why are “deathmatch” and “gameplay” not real words in the HTML dictionary yet?