Reviews
[Review] Survival-Action Shooter ‘Remnant: From the Ashes’ Doesn’t Live Up To Its Initial Promise
Remnant; From The Ashes is billed as a soulslike third-person survival-action shooter, with a focus on co-operative gameplay and replayability. Which of these things is it? Well, unfortunately, none of them. What it does seem to be however is akin to a cash-grab that’s fine to while away a few hours in. A game that isn’t terrible, but certainly doesn’t live up to the developers own hype, which is a shame considering the same studio brought us Darksiders 3.
Remnant takes place in a not too distant future, where Earth has been invaded by an evil force known as The Root. Instantly this conjures up fantastic images of varied, perhaps disgusting, or otherwise unconceived monsters. Let’s go and kick some otherworldly butt.
In the interest of fairness, I’ll start off with what I enjoyed about the game. The introductory cutscene did a good job in setting the scene, creating mystery and intrigue as to the problems and origin of this world. The sounds of the Root monsters, hidden and shrieking at you from around corners certainly adds tension. Hearing a pained, gnarled inhuman scream and wondering what grotesque creature you’re about to face definitely excites me in the right places.
Unfortunately, that is where most of the positives ended. Starting off, the graphics aren’t great. The in-world textures are mediocre at best, a throwback in the graphics departments to yesteryear. If Half-Life 2 had these graphics in 2004, I might have been a bit more impressed. The cutscene dialogue animations are mostly awful, not only out of sync, but we learned a long time ago that humans do not simply move their mouth up and down to speak. It seemed a bit, well, Terence and Philip, albeit in a nicer wrapper.
It did have a promising start, after the tutorial I was looking forward to seeing how the gameplay unfurled and how the intriguing story relating to the invading Root developed. However, it doesn’t take long to work out that the content of this game simply isn’t there. ‘Lore’ hidden throughout the world appears in the form of documents; reading through 10 pages a time seems a really bad way to add extra depth to a story, almost as if it was an afterthought.
One of the first things you learn in Remnant is that you have to smash crates to obtain ‘scrap’, a material used to upgrade your weapons and armor, which by the games own admission you need a lot of. I’m not against grinding for gear, especially if the grind is enjoyable, what I am against is despite advertising this mechanic that it feels incomplete; there’s only one type of object that is smashable. After ramming my melee weapons into pretty much everything for an hour in the faint hope of discovering secrets (or being able to write a comprehensive review) I felt I had wasted my time a little. I really don’t feel it’s a big ask to skin a different breakable object and place it in the world.
The worlds themselves are very linear, and not overly impressive. Sewer levels? It’s nigh impossible to get lost, even without using the minimap for direction there isn’t a lot of room for maneuver. As of yet, I have found no off-map secrets which would have made for a more fun exploring experience, something the game encourages you to do. I feel this would have added an extra level of intrigue and stopped the world feeling so flat and empty.
Combat wise, the shooting is fine. It works well, it feels good. Whilst not the main focus of the game, the melee combat I found to be poorly-optimized and clunky, certainly annoying for the few times you run out of bullets early on. The timing between the mouse click and the reactive swing of the Scrappers two-handed ax seemed mostly spot-on, however, the supposedly lighter and faster hatchet of the support role still seemed far too slow. In Remnant, there are 3 classes each with their own melee weapons and firearms. Oh, but you can buy the firearms from the different classes incredibly early on. And there are only about 10 weapons overall. Admittedly, much past the first hour into the game, I didn’t really see the point of having different classes, the main differences seeming based on physical appearance only.
There are also ‘ultimate’ skills, in the form of weapon mods, which become charged through engaging in successful combat. These weapon mods vary from extra damage on enemies to creating a healing pool. Nothing original, but again appear to be present in all classes. The skill trees, or traits as they are known, don’t seem particularly varied either, although you do unlock a few more as the game progresses. The choice of traits doesn’t particularly matter either, there are the general health boosts, but nothing that makes a huge difference towards building your character or adapting playstyles. An experience boost trait, once unlocked, was all I piled my points into for obvious reasons. Out of nowhere, I was leveling up very quickly, which I feel spoils the sense of victory and progression that a title billed as a soulslike should absolutely have.
The biggest thorn in my side in Remnant was that the sprint action is a toggle, whilst push to sprint is my preferred playstyle and may not be annoying to everyone it just compounded my frustration with the game. Controller support is present, should you wish to use it, and I found no huge difference or disadvantage from using either input mode.
As part of the games intended difficulty, resting at checkpoints to refill health and save progress also resets all the monster mobs in the world, in an effort to enhance levels of replayability. Certain story arcs can only be unlocked through a particular class. Unfortunately, this got dull quickly and seemed a very obviously cheap way of trying to squeeze out some more hours from the base content.
According to the developers, your choices matter. I was most excited for this aspect, I love dynamic worlds, if this concept can be integrated correctly it adds to an incredibly vivid and varied gameplay experience, with positive replayability the developers have touted. Unfortunately, it takes a bit more thought than adding a choice of two dialogue options. Remnant is not a visual novel, no, but it would have been nice for even a third, or the feeling that this hadn’t been shoe-horned in afterward in an already created linear story, almost as some attempt to justify the price-tag. The character development, player progression, storyline, and rewards just don’t feel sweet or varied enough, which is hugely disappointing. In a gaming world currently geared towards grinding, this feels almost like a very basic and mostly impossible mistake to make.
Despite the game taking place in a twisted alternate world, I didn’t feel the mobs embodied this setting, with there being little to no sense in monster creation. Sometimes, ‘just because’ is absolutely fine, but I really feel a little more care and attention to detail would have improved my enjoyment of this game. None of the mobs particularly grossed me out or got the jump on me, considering the huge scope that the setting of a dystopian world provides it’s a really big shame, and again, could have provided an extra element of excitement to Remnant.
On the positive side, playing with friends is fun. There aren’t many games that aren’t fun with friends, this is certainly no exception. Despite there being no overwhelmingly huge difference in the classes, facing bosses together was fun. The game seems mostly optimized and geared towards co-op, with progress promised to be shared between your single-player campaign and any co-op games you play. This mostly works, there is a slight irk with the host not saving progress and you all instantly falling back to the main menu and losing everything you’d done together.
So why did I describe this as a cash grab? Despite making huge promises, Remnant falls flat, with certain elements described as being included at an absolute base level that just isn’t appropriate for a game or studio of this size. Lots of the complaints or niggles I have pointed out could have been easily rectified with just that little bit more thought into the production, and it would have made for a different experience and I would have happily given the game a higher rating. The developers have rightly tried to push the co-operative elements of the game; friends banter can mask a lacking experience for only so long though. The solo aspect of the game isn’t as much punishing as it is overly repetitive and dull. No, nobody expects an exact clone of Dark Souls, but the difficulty doesn’t scale quite as much as the developers would like you to believe.
Overall, Remnant isn’t a bad game. It’s just an unoriginal one that doesn’t feel particularly well polished or well thought out. If you and your friends are looking for the next co-op adventure, I could recommend it from that avenue; although given the total playtimes of those that have completed it I would wait for it to come down in price.
Remnant From the Ashes review code for PC provided by the publisher.
Remnant From the Ashes is out now on PS4, Xbox One, and PC.
Reviews
‘Hungry’ Review – Finally, a Film Brave Enough to Call Out Hippos for the Monsters They Truly Are
When it comes to the animal attack subgenre of horror, there’s a hierarchy of sorts with the wildlife in question. Killer shark movies are easily the most ubiquitous, while alligators/crocodiles, dogs, bears, and snakes probably lead the rest of the pack.
It’s often worth paying attention, though, when a filmmaker targets a more atypical animal threat, including the likes of Jonathan King’s Black Sheep or Juan Piquer Simón’s Slugs. A new contender rumbles its way onto the screen this month, and while we all grew up thinking hippos are rotund cuties, the truth is far more frightening – this hippo is Hungry.
Sistine (Madison Davenport) and her best friend, Hannah (Olivia Bernstone), are enjoying a vacation in New Orleans, hoping to drown out their troubles back home. They sign up for an early morning bayou tour known for its alligator sightings and are joined by four other tourists and the boat’s skipper, Rodrigo (Michel Curiel). An uneventful trip sees Rodrigo take the group off the beaten path, but when an animal in the water capsizes their boat, the group finds themselves trapped in the swamp by something unexpected and deadly.
It’s a hippo. There’s a hippo in the bayou, and it’s not happy about all these pesky people.
From Joy Houck’s Creature from Black Lake to Walter Hill’s Southern Comfort to Adam Green’s Hatchet, the movies have warned us time and again not to go into the swampy bayous of Louisiana. Those cautionary tales are appreciated, though, as bigfoot, inbred hicks, and undead serial killers are a very real threat. But hippos? In the bayou? Well, that just seems silly.
And yet, Hungry plays its blubbery, big-toothed threat with deadly seriousness, and it’s all the better for it. “But Rob,” I can already hear some of you saying, “just yesterday you reviewed the new shark attack film, Chum, and said it suffered from taking itself too seriously. What gives?” For one thing, you’re misquoting me, but more importantly, the reference there was more of an observation on the animal attack subgenre successes as a whole. The “fun” ones tend to succeed more often than their more serious counterparts, but a dramatic and thrilling time can still be found with filmmakers who know what they’re doing.
Chum may be serious, but it’s also poorly written/performed, lacking in any degree of tension, devoid of personality, and so on. By contrast, Hungry lets its suspense build on the backs of engaging characters, good performances, and believable writing. Only one of its ensemble is obnoxious – a major feat for this kind of film – but even then, their motivations are both well-written and understandable.
The rest of the characters are people you’d be happy to see survive the night, and rather than looking forward to the next kill, director James Nunn and his cast leave us uncertain and nervous about who’s going to go belly up. The nervous business traveler wanting to get back to her kids? The family of three celebrating lost loved ones while on their vacation? Joaquim de Almeida’s Walker, an old hunter, is introduced saying, “The only cute hippo is a dead hippo,” so you pretty much know where he’ll end up.
To that end, the film teases out its hippo’s first appearance until well into the ninety-minute running time. We get ripples and splashes, but it’s only around the midway point that we get our first real look at the beast, and it looks fantastic. Nunn goes on to show the hippo in all its glory, and it’s a convincing antagonist brought to life through practical prosthetic effects and digital work. From the ear twitches to the beast’s giant maw opening wide with awe and malice, the hippo’s presence feels part of the action. There’s a tangible nature to it, something practical effects excel at while digital effects sometimes fail to convince of, and both succeed here with quality work from all involved.
While we get brief exteriors early on and some visually appealing drone shots, the bulk of the film unfolds on what looks to be a highly believable, set-dressed water tank (but could very well be an actual location, in which case, kudos to the team). It’s wholly convincing as a section of the bayou, complete with shoulder-high water and arching, twisting trees emerging into the sky. The film was shot in Malta, which is, coincidentally, where Chum was filmed as well.
Nunn, who also wrote Hungry, is now ten films deep into a fairly interesting career as a genre filmmaker. He’s made four movies with Scott Adkins, three of which are certified action bangers (with 2016’s Eliminators in particular being an underrated gem). He dipped a toe into the animal attack subgenre back in 2022 with the aforementioned Shark Bait, and it’s clear he learned some lessons from that endeavor, as its first hour is an engaging, attractively shot feature that sinks fast as soon as its poorly rendered shark becomes a lead character. Hungry improves on every aspect of that film, with its biggest step up being in regard to the effects.
If there’s an area or two where Hungry lacks bite, it’s in both its gore and its ending. There are numerous kills here, but the nature of the attacks and the choices made by Nunn mean none of them result in gory assaults or outcomes. We’re shown the torn apart corpse of an alligator early on, but most of the human kills see them attacked and dragged underwater, leaving nothing but a blood spill behind. Similarly, while the ending encounter satisfies, it still feels like it should have been a bigger confrontation. Neither of these aspects really hurt the film, but a bolstering of the gore and ending antics would have definitely upped the film’s ultimate entertainment value and rewatchability.
When all is said and done, Hungry is a genuinely solid animal attack film that succeeds in making its creature threat thrilling, entertaining, and, dare I say, educational? Title notwithstanding, the film acknowledges that hippos are vegetarians, meaning the five hundred or so people they kill every year – a true fact! – are slaughtered not out of hunger, but out of spite, self-defense, or a desire to play “land orca” while tossing around us fragile humans like we’re little more than seals in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Characters are grounded and engaging, the film moves well between suspense, character beats, and action, and the effects used to bring the hippo to life are highly effective and never feel like distractions. Drop those expectations of a Hungry Hungry Hippo romp, and settle in for a terrific little survival thriller about an angry, angry hippo instead.
Chomp chomp.
Hungry releases in select theaters today, June 3, before arriving on VOD on June 23, 2026.
You must be logged in to post a comment.