A few weeks ago, I heard that AButton would be attending Gamescom. The game they have been developing, 'Zeus: God of Insolence,' is known to be a fairly conventional Korean MMORPG—and as we know, that is synonymous with a title aimed at the domestic market rather than overseas. Because of this, I initially wondered if they were bringing 'Zeus' to Gamescom.

Soon after, however, other news emerged: the title AButton would be presenting at Gamescom was a completely new, previously unannounced project. Thus, 'Guns and Dragons' was revealed—a strange game with a completely different vibe from their previous work.

From here on, I will focus solely on 'Guns and Dragons,' regardless of the developer's background or other titles. Since the currently open playtest build only allows for the first stage, my observations are limited to that. What is the first impression of 'Guns and Dragons'?

On the Shooter 'Guns and Dragons'

'Guns and Dragons' is fundamentally a roguelite FPS. For some reason, it includes base-building elements, but at its core, it is a typical roguelite shooter where you grow with each run and refine your build through varying rewards—much like 'Gunfire Reborn,' 'Roboquest,' or the 'Ziggurat' series.

Let’s first discuss 'Guns and Dragons' as a shooter.

The FPS genre is surprisingly difficult to get right. While the first-person perspective offers a higher level of immersion than any other, it also means there are that many more elements to account for. From head-bobbing during character movement, appropriate field-of-view, and movement speed, to visibility that allows for a clear view of the battlefield and the visual and auditory indicators that let players instinctively grasp enemy positions—a vast array of elements must be seamlessly integrated.

Because of this, FPS is a genre where 'experience pays off.' Given this, the level of polish in the test build of 'Guns and Dragons' is about a 70 out of 100. The 'FPS basics'—such as hit effects, sound, and sense of speed—are not bad at all for a test build. While there are some minor issues with visibility, they do not pose a significant problem.

However, I have to be honest: the level design is disappointing at this stage.

Like other roguelite shooters, 'Guns and Dragons' incorporates elements of an arena shooter. Simply put, enemies appear in specific sections, and you must defeat them to progress. In shooters with this flow, the layout of the 'potential battlefield' where enemies appear is a crucial element.

In a FPS, the camera is locked to the character's perspective, making it impossible to instantly check your sides or rear. In situations where you must keep your eyes on the enemy, players use their spatial awareness to understand the battlefield structure and utilize it through tactical movement. The 'Doom' series has long excelled at this; when you play it, you never hesitate in your movement. You can grasp the terrain at a glance and visualize what is behind or to the side, allowing you to move with maximum efficiency while dismantling enemies.

In contrast, the battlefields in 'Guns and Dragons' are mostly narrow and quite complex. There are many paths with cliffs on both sides, and the terrain is cluttered with environmental obstacles and significant elevation changes. Since backpedaling is essential in a FPS to avoid enemy attacks, I often found myself retreating into unknown areas because the terrain wasn't clear, or having to navigate narrow bridges while backpedaling, which was quite frustrating.

In summary, while 'Guns and Dragons' has the fundamentals down, its level design as a shooter leaves something to be desired.

On 'Guns and Dragons' as a Roguelite

Shifting perspectives, let's talk about 'Guns and Dragons' as a roguelite. In Guns and Dragons, you can obtain perks (chosen from a random selection) through checkpoints called 'Animo.' On top of this, there are 'artifacts' that only take effect during that specific run, as well as choices gained through leveling up.

In short, there are three distinct growth tracks during a single run.

Playing the game, I wonder if it was necessary to divide the tracks this much. In particular, the 'Level up' choices only affect the character's unique skills (dash, grenade, ultimate skill) regardless of the weapon, and these choices rarely feel compelling. Perks from 'Animo' are quite attractive—such as adding ricochet to weapons or intuitively increasing reload speed—and 'Relics' have their own charm, like significantly increasing item pickup range or skipping reload animations. While having a lot of content isn't bad, it makes the game feel unnecessarily complicated.

While the growth choices through 'Animo' are generally satisfying, there are some shortcomings. Fundamentally, Guns and Dragons works by granting you one perk each time you choose an Animo, with weapons being unlocked based on the attributes of those perks. For instance, collecting one red perk unlocks the Magnum, while collecting one purple and one blue perk unlocks the 'Bullet Drill' assault rifle.

The idea that collecting more Animo perks grants higher-tier weapons is not a bad design, but the problem is that the number of weapons you can use in a single run is extremely limited. You end up using relatively weak weapons for too long before you can collect enough perks. Based on the test build, a full run takes about 25 minutes, during which you can unlock at most two weapons.

Since the character grows stronger through relics and level-ups, there isn't necessarily a problem with the combat power curve. However, a more fundamental question arises: 'Why play a roguelite FPS?' Isn't a roguelite FPS supposed to be a game where you pick and choose from a vast array of weapons, experimenting with different playstyles?

In 'Roboquest,' you obtain weapons randomly during the game, and in 'Gunfire Reborn,' while you have to unlock them initially, once unlocked, they appear randomly in subsequent games. This means you utilize many different weapons in a single run to find the optimal loadout.

However, in 'Guns and Dragons,' although the character grows incrementally, the fun derived from the 'weapons themselves' is not very significant. As it is still in the testing phase, there is plenty of room for change, but in the current build, I felt the core joy of a roguelite FPS was lacking.

It's still a test; who knows what the future holds.

There is a possibility that 'Guns and Dragons' could improve. Only one character is playable in the test build, but the title image suggests multiple characters will be included. The presence of multiple characters adds variety, and if paired with a proper growth system and a wider range of weapons, it could lead to much richer gameplay.

However, it is clear that there is still a long way to go. 'Guns and Dragons' has a very interesting aesthetic, but there are many aspects of the game that need refinement. While it has secured the basics of a FPS, the level design is disappointing, and as a roguelite, the random choices lack appeal and weapon variety is insufficient. It feels like it needs more substance.

Of course, this doesn't mean the future is bleak. The purpose of testing is to identify these issues, and 'Guns and Dragons' is currently 'under test.' If the developers can clarify what kind of fun they want to provide to players, I believe 'Guns and Dragons' can become a highly competitive game.