Surviving the Aftermath

About

"Surviving the Aftermath" is a post-apocalyptic city-builder game. Rebuild your shelter, manage resources, and protect your colonists from threats such as raiders and environmental disasters. Plan and build your colony's infrastructure, including housing, food production, and technology research, to ensure your survival in a harsh world.

Genres & Tags

Play Modes

Single-Player Play through the game's story or campaign solo

+10

70%

Audience ScoreBased on 2,419 reviews

gameplay99 positive mentions

grinding88 negative mentions

Engaging gameplay with a mix of city building and survival mechanics.
Variety of challenges and catastrophes keeps the game interesting.
The world map exploration adds depth and allows for resource gathering.

Poorly optimized with performance issues, even on high-end systems.
Lack of clear tutorials and UI can make the game frustrating to navigate.
Repetitive gameplay and limited replayability once the main quest is completed.

gameplay
394 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
25%
64%
11%
The gameplay of "Surviving the Aftermath" is a mixed bag, featuring a blend of city-building and survival mechanics that can be engaging yet frustrating. While some players appreciate the depth and strategic elements, many criticize the slow pacing, lack of clear tutorials, and numerous bugs that hinder the experience. Overall, the game offers interesting mechanics and a compelling premise, but it suffers from execution issues that detract from its potential enjoyment.
- “It combines traditional city-building mechanics with a deep research tree, but without the need for excessive micromanagement.”
- “This game offers a rich and engaging experience that combines challenging mechanics with a compelling storyline, allowing players to truly immerse themselves in a post-apocalyptic world.”
- “The gameplay is interesting and ultimately fun, but it is presented in such a way that the learning curve is really frustrating.”
- “The only reason most of my citizens died is because this game failed to explain its most basic mechanics. Seriously, what do I do with the heating? I’m sorry, this game gets a 2/10 for me.”
- “Gameplay is mediocre and repetitive to the point of 'oh my god, give me something to break up the monotony and not just the speed up button.'”
- “The gameplay is very slow and tiresome while the graphics are just below average.”
story
322 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
19%
75%
6%
The story aspect of the game has received mixed reviews, with many players noting that while there are interesting elements and a variety of quests, the overall narrative feels sparse and repetitive. Some players appreciate the engaging mechanics and the potential for emergent storytelling, but others criticize the main quest for being tedious and lacking depth, often leading to a sense of monotony as they wait for objectives to complete. Overall, while the game offers a framework for storytelling, it struggles to maintain player interest due to its repetitive nature and insufficient narrative development.
- “Loved the story and through all the difficulties reaching for the better life for my little toons in the game.”
- “The story unfolds in a way that is both intriguing and immersive, pulling you deeper into the game's world with every mission and objective completed.”
- “This game offers a rich and engaging experience that combines challenging mechanics with a compelling storyline, allowing players to truly immerse themselves in a post-apocalyptic world.”
- “The game started off strong with some story elements, but quickly forgot about telling any sort of interesting story.”
- “The main quest line is very easy, and honestly just very time-consuming to finish.”
- “After a few hours of play, everything becomes boring and repetitive, and all you have to do is wait for new specialists to arrive so you can advance in the story.”
graphics
166 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
36%
55%
10%
The graphics of the game receive mixed reviews, with some players appreciating the aesthetic and detail, while others criticize the visuals as dated and underwhelming for a 2021 release. Many users note performance issues, stating that the game demands excessive resources without delivering high-quality graphics, leading to frustration. Overall, while the art style and thematic visuals are praised by some, the lack of variety in building designs and the overall graphical fidelity leave many feeling disappointed.
- “What sells me on a game is the random events that pop up in the game and cut scenes, along with nice visual graphics.”
- “The graphics are nice, the catastrophes pose interesting issues, and the ability to recruit specialists spices things up.”
- “The graphics are great, performance is inexplicably terrible, and the music is pretty good too.”
- “Halty performance, except the graphics aren't that good/inspiring, just lots of lines all crammed together on top of each other, predominantly trees swaying, which is unnecessary, and doesn't help make the map more readable.”
- “For a game from 2021, it looks graphically bad even on high settings.”
- “The graphics are awful, and the setting is boring.”
grinding
89 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
3%
99%
Overall, players find the grinding aspect of the game to be tedious and repetitive, particularly in the mid to late game where tasks become monotonous and lack engaging challenges. Many reviews highlight that while the early game can be enjoyable, the lack of meaningful progression and the need for excessive micromanagement lead to a frustrating experience. The exploration and resource management systems are often described as cumbersome, contributing to a sense of boredom and diminishing enjoyment as the game progresses.
- “The main loop of expanding the colony, harvesting nearby resources with specialists, and advancing technology is fun and not tedious, even though it's a bit repetitive.”
- “Grinding in this game feels rewarding as you see your colony grow and evolve with each resource you gather.”
- “I love how the grinding mechanics are integrated into the gameplay; it keeps me engaged and motivated to progress.”
- “The story and exploration mechanics are interesting at first, but balancing between real-time city-building mode and turn-based exploration mode quickly gets very tedious.”
- “It quickly gets tedious and I can’t see much replayability since all that would be different is different patterns of soil fertility and arrangement of resources and world zones.”
- “The overworld doesn't have an auto-explore for scouts or auto-scavenge/research, which makes it tedious to have all these specialists but having to direct nine of them at the same time.”
replayability
65 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
31%
55%
14%
Overall, the game's replayability is generally viewed as low, with many players expressing that once the main content is completed, there is little incentive to return. While some appreciate the initial fun and challenges, they often note a lack of diverse scenarios or mechanics that would encourage multiple playthroughs. A few players mention that customization options and random elements can enhance replayability, but these features are not enough to significantly elevate the overall experience.
- “It adds a layer of depth and replayability, making each playthrough unique.”
- “This post-apocalyptic Sim City has kept me hooked for the last two weeks and I foresee myself doing multiple playthroughs and trying different approaches to the game, so it has great replay value.”
- “The randomness of the game is good for replayability.”
- “Almost complete lack of replayability, uninteresting late game except for achievement hunting.”
- “Once you have seen most of it, you will find it to have a rather low replay value.”
- “There is also the issue of no replayability once you've beaten the main quest, defeated all the enemy outposts, built every building, got all the achievements, collected every last resource, made outposts for every repeat resource, filled out all specialist slots, finished the tech tree and seen every disaster, at least unless you're going to play a harder difficulty.”
optimization
53 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
13%
47%
40%
The game's optimization is widely criticized, with many players reporting significant performance issues, particularly in late-game scenarios where frame rates drop to 30-50 FPS. Despite having appealing graphics, the game struggles with bugs, UI clunkiness, and excessive resource demands that hinder gameplay fluidity. Overall, while there is potential for improvement, the current state of optimization detracts from the overall experience, leading to a lack of replayability and enjoyment.
- “Optimization is also good.”
- “Game needs some optimization, but other than that, a very nice experience.”
- “I stuck it out and at the end of the day the only thing good about the game I would say are the graphics, the optimization letting my computer handle a few hundred colonists, and the narratives that pop up on the screen.”
- “The performance chugs in the late game, which I guess is somewhat typical in these city management type of games, but still noteworthy.”
- “Technically speaking, it's a bit of a mess, starting from performance issues - CPU and GPU aren't maxed but FPS rarely goes over 45-50 and it's very variable all in all - and going on with gameplay issues: panning the screen over the edges stops working every now and then, depending on what you click on the HUD/objects.”
- “The game can barely hold 30-40 FPS once the map is busy and there is a lot of stuttering and lag.”
music
47 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
45%
49%
6%
The music in the game receives mixed reviews, with some players praising its excellent soundtracks and atmospheric qualities that enhance the gameplay experience, while others find it repetitive and annoying after extended play. Many appreciate the variety of "radio stations" and the ability to change music, but some feel that the in-game music can detract from the overall experience, leading them to seek alternative soundtracks. Overall, while the music is often described as good or even fantastic, its repetitiveness and occasional technical issues have left some players dissatisfied.
- “I think the soundtracks were the best part of this game.”
- “Excellent soundtracks, implemented like radio channels in the game.”
- “An extensive economy shared between both keeps the game grounded, while the euphoric music keeps it jubilant.”
- “You just chill at 3x speed, watching little NPCs run around... if it weren't for the musical accompaniment, disasters, and random events, I wouldn't have endured this tediousness.”
- “- there's an option to select a 'radio' but the radio is only one song looped so it's super lame listening to the same thing all game.”
- “It's like the most depressing elevator music I've ever heard.”
stability
46 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
4%
96%
Overall, the game's stability is a significant concern, with numerous users reporting frequent bugs, glitches, and crashes that severely impact gameplay. While some players note improvements in performance and reduced bugs in recent updates, many still describe the experience as frustrating and unstable, particularly in the late game. The consensus suggests that the game is currently not fully playable and requires further development to address these issues.
- “It's not buggy, never crashes, and the gameplay menus are awesome. The developers are constantly improving and updating things.”
- “It looks great, runs great, and is very entertaining at times.”
- “Once you're out of research and there are no easy research nodes within 2-3 zones of your colony, the game freezes more than my fishermen in a winter storm.”
- “The game is not playable after 2 hours of gameplay; survivors and buildings become buggy as hell, people die of starvation with tons of food in storage, vitals workshops are not producing even if every requirement is respected.”
- “The beta was a buggy mess and the v1.0 is just messy.”
atmosphere
20 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
60%
25%
15%
The game's atmosphere is widely praised for effectively conveying a post-apocalyptic setting, with many players appreciating its immersive graphics and music. While some critiques mention a lack of polish compared to similar titles, the overall ambiance and character of the environment are seen as strong points that enhance the gameplay experience. However, technical issues like frequent crashes and limited autosave options detract from the overall enjoyment.
- “This game is a good survival city builder with a pretty unique atmosphere.”
- “It does convey that desperate post-apocalyptic atmosphere well enough to make you actually care, and want to rebuild a tiny bit of the lost civilization for your survivors.”
- “Amazing atmosphere of apocalyptic world.”
- “Nothing about this art direction creates an atmosphere of 'a bunch of survivors scraping by in a hostile world'.”
- “It didn't add to the atmosphere of the game.”
- “Positive things are graphics, possibility to build so many different buildings and I really like this post-apocalyptic atmosphere, what I don't like is the music; it is really bad. Also, no mini map, the world map feels empty, many characters look the same, can't interact with storage like delete something, etc.”
humor
9 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
The humor in the game is described as both hilarious and engaging, with players finding amusement in absurd scenarios such as children glowing from radiation and the ability to sell pollution to other towns. The comedic elements are highlighted by the ridiculousness of the colonists' actions and the chaotic mashup of apocalyptic events, although some players note that the story lacks depth and can be offensive. Overall, the game successfully combines dark humor with entertaining gameplay mechanics.
- “The story is relatively interesting and some of the events in the game are genuinely hilarious and engaging.”
- “I found it hilarious that you can sell off your pollution to the other towns just like any other commodity.”
- “+ your colonists are hilariously stupid and lacking in knowledge; the meta-story is clearly that somehow, the people who need labels like 'desiccant, do not eat' or 'do not try to stop chainsaw with hands or genitals while engine is running' survived several years past the apocalypse and founded a colony...”
monetization
5 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
20%
80%
The monetization strategy of the game has drawn significant criticism, with many players labeling it as a "greedy cash grab" that heavily relies on a continuous stream of DLCs while the game remains plagued by bugs. Users express disappointment in the lack of quality and innovation, feeling that the developers prioritize profit over player experience, and some have raised concerns about privacy issues related to the game's installation and data collection practices. Overall, the sentiment is that the game's monetization approach detracts from its potential enjoyment.
- “Would be a good game if it didn't fall right into Paradox's monetization scheme.”
- “Just another Paradox cash grab, low quality unfun game for a quick buck.”
- “I've always loved Paradox games but I'm deeply disappointed that they would half-assedly re-skin an indie game for a cash grab.”
emotional
5 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
100%
Players express a strong emotional response to the game's harsh consequences of decision-making, with some experiencing deep sadness over the fate of their towns and characters. The juxtaposition of dark humor, such as children affected by radiation, alongside poignant survivor stories creates a complex emotional landscape that resonates with players, though some feel that the emotional impact is undermined by systemic issues in the game.
- “Given its brutal nature, even on the easier difficulties, making bad choices can lead to the ruin of your town, which made me cry.”
- “The stories are nice, and some of the little tales of the survivors are heart-breaking.”
- “It was really funny having children run around glowing green from radiation and also infected with a virus, and then watching them go to sleep on the ground touching other dead bodies before dying.”
character development
2 mentions Positive Neutral Negative
50%
50%
Reviewers emphasize that meaningful character development requires a compelling narrative, personal growth, and inherent risks. Without these elements, characters feel static and unengaging, reducing them to mere gameplay mechanics rather than individuals players can invest in. The lack of a dynamic story undermines the potential for players to form connections with the characters.
- “If you want us to care about the characters at an individual level, then there really needs to be a narrative, there needs to be growth, there needs to be risk. Reference XCOM for character development if the goal is character development without a story. If specialists really don’t matter, then don’t make them any different than colonists with extra benefits. As they are now, they are just elements of a non-existent story, and they are a constant that never change, and that is boring.”