Dead in Antares

A sequel that mostly delivers on its own terms

Dead in Antares is the latest entry in Ishtar Games' "Dead in" series of survival-management RPGs, moving the crew-and-resource formula of Dead in Vinland into a science-fiction setting. Reviewers familiar with the earlier games are the most vocal group in the review base, and their overall read is that the sequel refines rather than reinvents. "If you've ever played Dead in Vinland, this is a (in my opinion) much more refined version of that game. Many of the systems from Vinland are back but expanded and given more depth," one reviewer wrote, adding that the game "is harsher in many ways, but it doesn't feel bad because the game gives you a lot of tools for how to deal with the adverse effects." Another returning player kept their assessment short and direct: "Nice game, Dead in series spirit is well preserved here. One more day (turn) syndrome present!!!"

One of the more detailed reviews frames the sequel through a lens borrowed from outside the genre entirely. "Sid Meier, the designer of the legendary Civiliziation series, once said the following when talking about making sequels: 1/3 of the sequel must be exactly the same as the prequel, so that returning players would feel right at home. Another 1/3 must be improvements. Better UI, better graphics etc... And the final 1/3 must be completely new features," the reviewer wrote, using that framework to judge how well Dead in Antares balances familiarity against evolution. For newcomers, the pitch is more straightforward: "this entry is a survival/resource management game with RPG elements and tactical combat," as one first-time player summed it up, describing themselves as immediately hooked a few hours in.

Praise built on production value and tighter systems

Where reviewers land most consistently in the game's favor is on presentation and the reduction of frustrating randomness. "The production value and polish is very high and the overall survival mechanics are rather well balanced and in a good way very complex," one critical reviewer conceded even while scoring the game down for other reasons — a notable admission given that the same review goes on to list several complaints. Longtime fans specifically call out the reduction in RNG-driven frustration as the single biggest improvement over the earlier games, with multiple reviews independently noting that resource yields and status effects feel more predictable and controllable than in Dead in Vinland, letting players plan rather than gamble.

A narrow, railroaded story and slow, frequent combat

The most serious structural complaint concerns how much actual freedom the game gives players despite its survival-RPG framing. "Being a 'survival RPG' the game is actually a point and click adventure with notification that you made error on day 15 and because of that on day 30 you are in point of no return," one reviewer argued, going on to describe how limited crew-assignment slots create artificial bottlenecks: "You are pushed down a narrow path of 'survival', there is no alternative as game locks you on all available paths." Another reviewer distilled the same frustration into two words: "Illusion of choice."

Combat pacing draws its own separate, equally pointed criticism. "I really, really want to like this game but I can't - it's just so SLOW. I didn't enjoy the combat, which is a shame because it's so frequent. Every time you enter combat, the story grinds to a halt and it's a slog till it's over," one reviewer wrote, describing item pickups during expeditions as needlessly repetitive on top of the combat slowdown. A separate reviewer zeroes in on a related mechanical complaint about crew management: "The decision to limit how many people can be on stations, combined with the inability to delay new crew members waking up, means you're saddled with extra mouths to feed. The action economy isn't right," they wrote, capping the point with a blunt question aimed at the developers: "Did they play-test this at all?"

Bugs and a wider structural critique

Beyond pacing and narrative-freedom complaints, one detailed negative review lists a cluster of launch-window technical and design problems together: "Hosts of problems - Many early game breaking bugs destroying lots of players saves Devs balance changes towards minority hardcore preferences, not even linking to difficulty level Any idea of choice is in fact a hidden and nonsensical railroad," the reviewer wrote, tying save-corrupting bugs to the same railroading complaint raised elsewhere. That combination — real technical instability at launch layered on top of design disagreements about freedom and pacing — is what separates Dead in Antares' negative reviews from simple genre mismatch; these are specific, reproducible complaints from players who otherwise know the series well.

Not every critical reviewer walked away hostile, though. One of the more even-handed negative write-ups opens by conceding the game's strengths before detailing its problems: "I don't write reviews. I'm a huge fan of Dead in Vinland. I'm probably going to enjoy the gameplay of this game. This negative review is solely because the absolute first thing this game does, not even one click or title screen in, is ask you for your e-mail address. I'm against needless data collection," the reviewer wrote — a launch friction point unrelated to the actual gameplay, but one that colored their initial impression regardless. Meanwhile, a returning fan who still recommended the game against the grain of some criticism didn't mince words either: "Keeping it a 100: Its not as good as it is supposed to be. Dead in Vinland was a once in a century game for me. Dead in Antares kinda sucks ngl," before going on to praise the production values anyway.

The verdict

Dead in Antares lands as a Mostly Positive sequel that clearly refines the mechanical backbone of Dead in Vinland — less punishing randomness, deeper tactical combat, and higher overall production value are real, widely-acknowledged improvements. But a meaningful share of its review base, including longtime series fans, describes a game that constrains player choice more than it should, slows down its own pacing with frequent unskippable combat, and shipped with save-corrupting bugs that undercut its polish. It's a title that rewards patience with its systems and forgiveness for a rocky launch; players expecting the freeform survival tension of earlier "Dead in" entries may find themselves boxed into a narrower path than the marketing suggests.