There is so much heart in Wargroove 2. Soul, even. It's clear the developers wanted to do right, by everyone. They wanted to do right by the characters. They wanted to do right by the setting. They wanted to do right by the fanbase.

The storytelling on display here is, for lack of a better term, very socially-conscious. You have a very diverse cast, navigating emotionally-charged arcs and relationship dynamics. It's clear the game was written with the intent of not glorifying armed conflict. Aurania continues to feel like a real, tangible place. We can almost see the nations slowly rising and falling as events unfold. There's a very strong geopolitical narrative being established.

All that, and the game is a very humble $20 MSRP. No paid DLC, no microtransaction nonsense. Everything gamers claim to want, in a perfectly inexpensive little package! Sure to be a hit! Right? ...Right? ...Sigh...

Alright - what happened? For starters, it released in 2023 - given how strong of a year for gaming that was, that's already a disadvantage. But what about the game itself? Well... I can talk about my own experience.

When I started playing Wargroove 2, the first several hours were spent feeling... kind of icky, and often frustrated. Wargroove 1 ends with everything in a pretty good place, so the first order of business, narratively, is to muck that up. I'm probably more averse to this than most - I often couldn't stomach the "bad guy arcs" in Blizzard RTS games back in the day - but if you'd asked me how I was feeling a few hours in, I wouldn't have a great answer for you. I also couldn't believe you're still relying on a single checkpoint to revert bad moves - something as simple as mis-clicking a single unit can completely ruin a push. So a single level could take hours to complete if you wanted three stars, which wasn't great. Then I discovered that I had to go back and play Wargroove's 1 DLC to know who some characters were, ended up playing the co-op campaign solo which was a real hassle, then returned to Wargroove 2 once that was done.

But I did finish Wargroove 2's campaign, at which point I was feeling... fine...? Honestly, it ends on a bit of a downer note. So I tried Conquest mode, but the story there is a really confusing interquel type of story, and it's way too hard for how much fun you're getting out of it. So maybe try multiplayer? Well, a lot of the community seems to have stuck to Wargroove 1... Yeesh.

So, yeah... If all Wargroove 2 needed to be was "the next chapter of a story" it'd be great. But it's a videogame, and videogames are supposed to be fun. Wargroove 1 told a pretty simple story: Solid protag, immediate stakes, surprise villain, climactic battle, roll credits. Wargroove 2 gets a lot more complex and nuanced than that, and leaves things ominously open-ended instead of tying them up with a neat bow. Which is fine if the multiplayer has been improved on enough for the community to switch over, but Wargroove 1 was so well-balanced and playable after the DLC, why would they leave without a good reason?

Which leaves us... where, exactly? Conducting a post-mortem, I guess. I really hope Chucklefish takes another swing at this franchise. There are good bones here, but you need more than that to stand out in today's market. From an armchair quarterback's perspective, I would say to really focus on multiplayer and QoL with the next installment - the scope of the game feels, let's say, more than large enough at this point without packing more factions and units and buildings into it. But that's just the opinion of some internet rando.

All that said, do I still recommend Wargroove 2? Yes, absolutely. You should play Wargroove 1 first... and the DLC... And maybe try the Arcade mode... So, uh, yeah, after doing that for 80 hours, pick this game up! Hoo... boy. I'm sure that aspect doesn't help, either.

[h1]A tragic game[/h1] There is so much [i]heart[/i] in Wargroove 2. Soul, even. It's clear the developers wanted to do right, by [i]everyone[/i]. They wanted to do right by the characters. They wanted to do right by the setting. They wanted to do right by the fanbase. The storytelling on display here is, for lack of a better term, very socially-conscious. You have a very diverse cast, navigating emotionally-charged arcs and relationship dynamics. It's clear the game was written with the intent of not glorifying armed conflict. Aurania continues to feel like a real, tangible place. We can almost see the nations slowly rising and falling as events unfold. There's a very strong geopolitical narrative being established. All that, and the game is a very humble $20 MSRP. No paid DLC, no microtransaction nonsense. Everything gamers claim to want, in a perfectly inexpensive little package! Sure to be a hit! Right? ...Right? ...Sigh... Alright - what happened? For starters, it released in 2023 - given how strong of a year for gaming that was, that's already a disadvantage. But what about the game itself? Well... I can talk about my own experience. When I started playing Wargroove 2, the first several hours were spent feeling... kind of icky, and often frustrated. Wargroove 1 ends with everything in a pretty good place, so the first order of business, narratively, is to muck that up. I'm probably more averse to this than most - I often couldn't stomach the "bad guy arcs" in Blizzard RTS games back in the day - but if you'd asked me how I was feeling a few hours in, I wouldn't have a great answer for you. I also couldn't believe you're [i]still[/i] relying on a single checkpoint to revert bad moves - something as simple as mis-clicking a single unit can completely ruin a push. So a single level could take [i]hours[/i] to complete if you wanted three stars, which wasn't great. [i]Then[/i] I discovered that I had to go back and play Wargroove's 1 DLC to know who some characters were, ended up playing the co-op campaign solo which was a real hassle, then returned to Wargroove 2 once that was done. But I did finish Wargroove 2's campaign, at which point I was feeling... fine...? Honestly, it ends on a bit of a downer note. So I tried Conquest mode, but the story there is a really confusing interquel type of story, and it's way too hard for how much fun you're getting out of it. So maybe try multiplayer? Well, a lot of the community seems to have stuck to Wargroove 1... Yeesh. So, yeah... If all Wargroove 2 needed to be was "the next chapter of a story" it'd be great. But it's a videogame, and videogames are supposed to be [i]fun.[/i] Wargroove 1 told a pretty simple story: Solid protag, immediate stakes, surprise villain, climactic battle, roll credits. Wargroove 2 gets a lot more complex and nuanced than that, and leaves things ominously open-ended instead of tying them up with a neat bow. Which is fine if the multiplayer has been improved on enough for the community to switch over, but Wargroove 1 was [i]so[/i] well-balanced and playable after the DLC, why would they leave without a good reason? Which leaves us... where, exactly? Conducting a post-mortem, I guess. I really hope Chucklefish takes another swing at this franchise. There are good bones here, but you need more than that to stand out in today's market. From an armchair quarterback's perspective, I would say to really focus on multiplayer and QoL with the next installment - the scope of the game feels, let's say, more than large enough at this point without packing more factions and units and buildings into it. But that's just the opinion of some internet rando. All that said, do I still recommend Wargroove 2? Yes, absolutely. You should play Wargroove 1 first... and the DLC... And maybe try the Arcade mode... So, uh, yeah, after doing that for 80 hours, pick this game up! Hoo... boy. I'm sure that aspect doesn't help, either.