Key art for Monsters are Coming!

Game review

Monsters are Coming!

5.5 / 10

Developer
Ludogram
Publisher
Raw Fury
Released
20 November 2025
Platforms
Windows
Genre
Tower Defense / Roguelite
Monetisation
One-time purchase, with paid expansion content already released post-launch
Players
Single-player

The short version

Monsters are Coming! is Ludogram's self-described "Tower-Survivor," a mashup of tower defence and Vampire Survivors-style horde combat with a genuinely distinctive twist: rather than defending a fixed base, players protect an ever-moving city as it travels across the map, gathering resources and fortifying defences on the fly. Published by Raw Fury and released 20 November 2025, its premise and art direction draw real, consistent praise, and a specific minority of dedicated players who pushed through its harder difficulties describe the eventual mastery as genuinely rewarding.

A larger, detailed and specific majority of the review corpus pushes back hard on the game's launch state. Recurring, independently written complaints describe upgrade choices as shallow flat percentage boosts without meaningful synergy, a difficulty curve that spikes unfairly between normal and harder modes, a meta-progression grind offering only marginal gains for hours of repeated runs, and crashes in longer sessions with no mid-run save, wiping hours of progress at once. A paid DLC announced shortly after launch drew specific, pointed frustration from reviewers who felt the base game wasn't yet developed enough to support add-on content.

Biggest strengths

  • A genuinely fresh premise sets Monsters are Coming! apart from typical tower-defence and horde-survivor games alike, tasking players with protecting a moving city rather than a static base, giving runs a real sense of forward momentum most genre peers don't have
  • Art direction and visual presentation draw broad, consistent praise as colourful and appealing, with several reviewers specifically crediting the game's look as a strong first impression
  • A dedicated minority of players who pushed through the harder difficulties describe real long-term engagement and satisfaction, with some logging 30 or more hours and defending the game's difficulty as a deliberate, rewarding design choice rather than a flaw

Biggest weaknesses

  • A specific, heavily repeated complaint describes upgrade and tower choices as shallow, offering only flat percentage stat increases without meaningful synergy or build variety across runs, leaving successive playthroughs feeling largely interchangeable
  • The difficulty curve draws sustained, detailed criticism as spiking unfairly between normal and harder modes, with several reviewers describing a jump from easily clearable content to apparently unwinnable runs with little middle ground
  • Meta-progression is repeatedly described as an excessively long grind for marginal, low-single- digit-percentage gains, with reviewers arguing the systems meant to soften later difficulty spikes are themselves a significant time investment for very little payoff

Who it's for: Fans of tower-defence and horde-survivor hybrids who enjoy a genuinely challenging, currently under-polished roguelite and are willing to accept real balance and stability issues in exchange for a distinctive core premise, ideally after checking recent patch notes for improvements.

Our recommendation: A genuinely interesting premise let down at launch by shallow upgrade synergy, a punishing and inconsistently tuned difficulty curve, and stability issues serious enough to lose entire runs — worth watching for further patches rather than an easy buy today, though some reviewers report meaningful improvement since launch.

5.5 / 10

Defending a city that won't stay still

Monsters are Coming! is developed by Ludogram and published by Raw Fury, released 20 November 2025. Its pitch mashes together two genres that don't usually share space: tower defence's methodical base-building and Vampire Survivors-style horde combat, with a specific structural twist that sets it apart from either — the "base" players are defending is an ever-moving city, travelling continuously across the map rather than sitting fixed in one location. Runs task players with gathering resources, placing towers and defences on the fly, and personally fighting off hordes of monsters as a controllable character, all while making sure the city's path forward stays clear. It's a genuinely distinctive structural idea for a genre that's grown crowded since Vampire Survivors popularised the horde-shooter format, and reviewers across the spectrum credit the concept itself as fresh even when they're deeply critical of its execution.

A concept reviewers like more than the game underneath it

The praise that recurs across Monsters are Coming!'s review corpus concentrates specifically on premise and presentation rather than systems. Reviewers consistently describe the moving-city hook as genuinely novel, and art direction draws broad, repeated credit for being colourful and immediately appealing — several reviewers specifically note the strong first impression the visuals and core concept made before deeper issues set in. A meaningful minority of dedicated players who pushed through the game's harder difficulty tiers push back directly against the broader critical consensus, arguing the difficulty is a deliberate, rewarding design choice rather than a flaw, and that reviewers describing a lack of player agency simply haven't engaged deeply enough with the game's actual systems. One detailed review, written after fully completing the game's achievements and tower unlocks, argues explicitly that the negative review corpus is skewed by players who wanted their hand held through a genre built around genuine challenge.

Where the systems fall short for most reviewers

That defence is a real, documented position within the review base, but it's a minority one. The dominant, far more numerous complaint describes Monsters are Coming!'s upgrade and progression systems as shallow relative to both its premise and its genre peers. Multiple detailed reviews independently describe tower and hero upgrades as almost entirely flat percentage increases — "+10% size, +20% damage," as one puts it — with essentially no meaningful synergy between choices, leaving successive runs feeling largely interchangeable regardless of what's unlocked. Difficulty draws a related, specific and heavily repeated complaint: several reviewers describe clearing normal-mode content with little resistance, only to hit a sudden, severe spike entering harder difficulties where towers and characters that felt powerful moments earlier become unable to meaningfully damage stronger enemies. Meta-progression, the system meant to bridge that gap over repeated runs, draws its own specific frustration — reviewers describe grinding for hours toward stat increases as small as three to five percent, a pace several call disproportionate to the actual difficulty wall those increases are supposed to help players clear.

Stability compounds these complaints for a specific, vocal group of reviewers. Multiple detailed reviews describe the game crashing during longer sessions, particularly in its endless mode, with no mid-run save feature to fall back on — meaning a crash after two or more hours of building toward a strong run wipes that progress entirely rather than preserving any of it. More than one reviewer frames this specifically as the reason they stopped playing altogether despite otherwise enjoying the core loop. A paid DLC announced shortly after launch drew its own pointed, specific criticism from reviewers who felt the base game's systems weren't developed enough yet to justify asking players to buy additional content so soon, with more than one describing the timing as tone-deaf relative to the game's still-unresolved balance and stability issues.

Genuine signs of improvement, disputed by how much

It's worth noting a real, documented counter-current within the same review base: several reviewers specifically describe the developers shipping meaningful post-launch patches addressing the difficulty curve, reducing the meta-progression grind, and adding the ability to disable specific buildings from a run's random pool to give players more control over build variety. At least one detailed review explicitly revises an earlier negative impression upward after those changes, describing the game as "great" in its current, patched state. That improvement is real, but it isn't universally reflected in the wider review corpus yet — a meaningful number of detailed critical reviews, some written well after those patches shipped, still describe the same core complaints around shallow synergy and inconsistent difficulty, suggesting the patches have helped without fully resolving the underlying design concerns.

Value

At NZ$13.25, Monsters are Coming! sits at a fair price for a roguelite with this much genuine structural ambition, and the specific complaints about depth, difficulty tuning and stability are worth weighing carefully before buying rather than treated as launch-week noise, given how consistently and specifically they recur across a large review base. The Mostly Positive score — 2,277 positive against 570 negative across 2,847 reviews — reflects a genuinely divided reception rather than a uniformly enthusiastic one, split between players who find the moving-city premise and its harder difficulties rewarding on their own terms, and a larger, detailed group who feel the underlying systems needed considerably more development before asking players to invest the hours the genre demands. For players drawn specifically to a fresh premise and willing to accept real rough edges, or to check recent patch notes before buying, this is a reasonable pickup; for players wanting a fully realised, stable roguelite today, the review corpus makes a fair case for waiting.

Pros and cons

Pros

  • A genuinely fresh premise sets Monsters are Coming! apart from typical tower-defence and horde-survivor games alike, tasking players with protecting a moving city rather than a static base, giving runs a real sense of forward momentum most genre peers don't have
  • Art direction and visual presentation draw broad, consistent praise as colourful and appealing, with several reviewers specifically crediting the game's look as a strong first impression
  • A dedicated minority of players who pushed through the harder difficulties describe real long-term engagement and satisfaction, with some logging 30 or more hours and defending the game's difficulty as a deliberate, rewarding design choice rather than a flaw
  • Several reviewers report the developers have shipped meaningful post-launch patches addressing difficulty spikes, grind and RNG control, with at least one detailed review specifically upgrading their verdict after those changes
  • Core moment-to-moment combat and building placement are credited by multiple reviewers, even critical ones, as satisfying and well-paced in isolation, separate from the broader progression complaints

Cons

  • A specific, heavily repeated complaint describes upgrade and tower choices as shallow, offering only flat percentage stat increases without meaningful synergy or build variety across runs, leaving successive playthroughs feeling largely interchangeable
  • The difficulty curve draws sustained, detailed criticism as spiking unfairly between normal and harder modes, with several reviewers describing a jump from easily clearable content to apparently unwinnable runs with little middle ground
  • Meta-progression is repeatedly described as an excessively long grind for marginal, low-single- digit-percentage gains, with reviewers arguing the systems meant to soften later difficulty spikes are themselves a significant time investment for very little payoff
  • The absence of a mid-run save feature, combined with reported crashes during longer or endless-mode sessions, results in complete loss of hours of progress for several reviewers, a stability issue multiple reviews single out as a dealbreaker on its own
  • A paid DLC announced shortly after launch drew specific, pointed criticism from reviewers who felt the base game's content and systems weren't yet developed enough to justify add-on purchases so soon after release

Category scores

Category scores are the reviewer's read on each area. They inform the overall score but do not average into it — the number at the top of the page is a judgement, not a calculation.

  • Gameplay 6 / 10
  • Visuals 7.5 / 10
  • Sound 5 / 10
  • Progression 4 / 10
  • Performance 5.5 / 10
  • Value 5.5 / 10
  • Originality 7 / 10
  • Replayability 4.5 / 10