Search for games

Type three or more characters to start searching

Links

Steam

Playstation

Twitch

MONSTER

Moons of Madness

Name: Comprehensive Review and Analysis of Moons of Madness
Item: Moons of Madness
Author: MonsterCritic Editorial Team

2019

GenresAdventure, Action, Science Fiction and Futuristic, Horror, Puzzle and Logic, Single Player, First Person Perspective

AvailableOct 22, 2019

PlatformXbox One, PC, PlayStation 4

DeveloperRock Pocket Games

Overview

Moons of Madness throws the player into a unique, first person, psychological horror game, combining Lovecraft influence with hard sci-fi.

Elsewhere

5.7

Game analysis

Monster Scorecard

EXPAND ALL

Story and Narrative

Expand for full analysis

TL;DR

Moons of Madness dazzles with atmospheric Lovecraftian horror and psychological tension but falters under derivative tropes, fragmented storytelling, and uneven pacing, leaving its ambitious themes stranded between brilliance and missed potential.

SCORE DISTRIBUTION FOR STORY

Story Score

Positive Reviews (80-100)

12%

Mixed Reviews (50-79)

71%

Negative Reviews (0-49)

18%

Based on analyzing reviews that specifically scored or critiqued the story and narrative.

The story of Moons of Madness receives praise for its atmospheric immersion and thematic ambition, particularly in its Lovecraftian horror execution. Critics like The Digital Fix highlight the game’s strong writing, deep lore, and supplemental materials that enhance its sinister atmosphere, while Xbox Tavern commends its cinematic structure and environmental storytelling, noting how it effectively conveys dread through Shane Newehart’s descent into madness. Adventure Gamers and GameSpew appreciate the focus on isolation, tension, and cosmic horror, with the latter praising the game’s use of astronomical phenomena to amplify its eerie atmosphere. The narrative’s slow-burn approach and emphasis on psychological horror also resonate with some reviewers, who find the exploration of madness and existential dread compelling despite its flaws. However, the story faces widespread criticism for being derivative, unoriginal, and lacking in depth. Digitally Downloaded and Gameblog.fr argue that the game superficially employs Lovecraftian themes without capturing their complexity, comparing it to clichéd tropes seen in other horror titles. GamePro Germany and Meristation note the predictable linear narrative and reliance on familiar horror mechanics, while GamingTrend and Softpedia criticize its fragmented storytelling and unresolved plot threads. The pacing issues are also a recurring complaint: Push Square laments the poorly paced narrative that shifts between thriller and existential nightmare without cohesion, and XboxAddict points to disjointed storylines that fail to coalesce into a meaningful whole. Many reviewers, including IGN and Vandal, acknowledge the game’s potential but feel it squanders its ideas through inconsistent execution and underdeveloped characters. Overall, critics are divided between appreciating Moons of Madness’s atmospheric ambition and Lovecraftian themes and criticizing its lack of originality and narrative cohesion. While some praise its immersive world-building and psychological horror elements—such as TheXboxHub’s acknowledgment of its intriguing premise and GameSpew’s admiration for its tension-driven storytelling—the majority feel the game falls short in delivering a satisfying, cohesive experience. The consensus leans toward a mixed reception, with the narrative’s strengths in atmosphere and setting overshadowed by predictable tropes, fragmented plotlines, and pacing issues. As IGN notes, the story has moments of brilliance but ultimately struggles to maintain focus, leaving players with a sense of missed potential despite its thematic richness.

TL;DR

story and narrative

Gameplay Mechanics

Expand for full analysis

TL;DR

Moons of Madness nails clever puzzles and atmospheric survival but crumbles under repetitive chores, clunky mechanics, and a rigid design that kills tension, leaving its horror ambitions stranded in a "walking simulator" rut.

SCORE DISTRIBUTION FOR GAMEPLAY

Gameplay Score

Positive Reviews (80-100)

Mixed Reviews (50-79)

76%

Negative Reviews (0-49)

21%

Based on analyzing reviews that specifically scored or critiqued the gameplay mechanics.

The gameplay of Moons of Madness receives mixed praise, with several critics highlighting its strengths in puzzle design, environmental storytelling, and survival mechanics. The Digital Fix commends the game’s focus on survival elements like oxygen management and science-based puzzles, noting that varied set pieces keep players engaged through environmental threats. Similarly, TheXboxHub praises the puzzle design as rewarding and creatively challenging, while Xbox Tavern appreciates the mix of action and problem-solving in restoring the Martian base. Some reviewers, like GamePro Germany and GamingTrend, acknowledge the game’s attempt to blend simulation elements (e.g., repairing equipment) with horror, though they note that these mechanics sometimes feel underdeveloped. The early hours of the game are particularly lauded for their puzzle-oriented challenges and environmental engagement, as highlighted by Screen Rant and Adventure Gamers, who find the initial stages effective in building tension through spatial puzzles and procedural tasks. However, the gameplay is frequently criticized for its repetitive structure, lack of innovation, and uneven pacing. Gameblog.fr and Gaming Age describe the experience as tedious, with menial tasks like "space-chores" and overly simplistic puzzles undermining immersion. Critics like Softpedia and IGN label the game as a "walking simulator" with minimal challenges, citing issues such as clunky controls, repetitive QTEs, and forced exploration. TheXboxHub and Multiplayer.it note that while some mechanics are functional, others feel underdeveloped or out of place, such as awkward stealth sequences or unbalanced Quick-Time Events. Additionally, the linear progression and lack of improvisation—highlighted by LevelUp and Meristation—are seen as limiting the game’s potential, with many reviewers criticizing its reliance on scripted paths and filler content that disrupts tension. Push Square and GamingTrend also point to a disconnect between the game’s ambitious design and its execution, particularly in action sequences that feel uninspired. Overall, critics agree that Moons of Madness has promising ideas but struggles to deliver a cohesive or engaging experience. While some praise its early puzzle design and survival mechanics (e.g., The Digital Fix, Xbox Tavern), the majority criticize its repetitive tasks, uneven pacing, and lack of innovation. The game’s reliance on linear exploration and forced mechanics—such as the "space-chores" criticized by Gaming Age and the clunky stealth sequences noted by Gamer.no—undermine its potential to create a truly immersive horror experience. Despite some positive remarks about environmental storytelling and puzzle variety (e.g., TheXboxHub, Adventure Gamers), the consensus leans toward disappointment, with many reviewers feeling that the game’s mechanics fail to fully realize its narrative ambitions. As IGN succinctly puts it, Moons of Madness often feels more like an "interactive movie" than a compelling video game, leaving players frustrated by its repetitive structure and underdeveloped systems.

TL;DR

gameplay mechanics

Graphics and Visual Design

Expand for full analysis

TL;DR

Moons of Madness dazzles with atmospheric Mars vistas and Lovecraftian horror, but technical hiccups and a monotonous palette undermine its visual impact.

SCORE DISTRIBUTION FOR VISUALS

Visual Score

Positive Reviews (80-100)

40%

Mixed Reviews (50-79)

60%

Negative Reviews (0-49)

Based on analyzing reviews that specifically scored or critiqued the graphics and visual design.

The graphics and visual design of Moons of Madness receive widespread praise for their atmospheric depth, cinematic quality, and immersive environmental storytelling. Critics like Digitally Downloaded highlight the game’s "beautiful" depiction of Mars’ desolate landscape, emphasizing its attention to detail in facilities and cosmic themes. GamingTrend commends the intricately crafted Martian environment, noting how lighting and particle effects enhance isolation and tension, while Push Square draws comparisons to Alien, praising the Lovecraftian monster designs and multiple camera angles. TheXboxHub and XboxAddict appreciate the sterile, alien-like aesthetic of the space station, which evokes a sense of dread, and Adventure Gamers laud the crisp 3D graphics that blend corporate sterility with eerie corruption. These reviews collectively underscore the game’s ability to create a visually compelling horror experience through its art direction and environmental design. However, several critics point out technical and artistic shortcomings that detract from the visual experience. GamePro Germany criticizes inconsistent texture quality, particularly in monster designs and dream sequences, while LevelUp notes subpar PS4 performance with frame drops during intense scenes. Softpedia describes the art style as "low-budget," and Games.cz mentions underwhelming visuals despite using Unreal Engine 4, citing optimization issues. MGG points to insufficient graphical details and lackluster character models, while Impulsegamer feels the visuals fail to fully immerse players. Additionally, XBLA Fans and Xbox Tavern highlight that while environments like Martian corridors and flooded greenhouses are detailed, the overall aesthetic is constrained by a repetitive red-and-dusty palette, limiting creative variation. Despite mixed technical performance, the consensus among critics leans toward appreciation for Moons of Madness’s visual identity as a cohesive horror experience. Meristation and Multiplayer.it acknowledge the "oppressive atmosphere" and "clean" visual style that effectively support the game’s cosmic horror themes, even if not technically flawless. While some PC reviewers like Games.cz and Wccftech note underwhelming visuals compared to other titles, many praise the art direction for its ability to evoke isolation and unease through environmental storytelling. The game’s blend of Lovecraftian grotesquerie, sci-fi aesthetics, and atmospheric lighting—though occasionally hampered by technical issues—creates a memorable visual experience that aligns with its narrative goals, as highlighted by Critical Hit and Cultured Vultures. Overall, the visuals are seen as a strong suit, even if not without flaws.

TL;DR

graphics and visual design

Moons of Madness dazzles with atmospheric Mars vistas and Lovecraftian horror, but technical hiccups and a monotonous palette undermine its visual impact.

Music and Sound Design

Expand for full analysis

TL;DR

Critics praise Moons of Madness's sound design for its immersive, tense atmosphere, with low hums, ambient noise, and strategic silence amplifying horror, but the musical score is called unremarkable, average, or lacking originality, leaving some aspects feel generic despite strong audio cues.

SCORE DISTRIBUTION FOR SOUND DESIGN

Sound Score

Positive Reviews (80-100)

27%

Mixed Reviews (50-79)

73%

Negative Reviews (0-49)

Based on analyzing reviews that specifically scored or critiqued the music and sound design.

The sound design in Moons of Madness receives generally positive reception, with several critics highlighting its effectiveness in creating an immersive and tense atmosphere. GamingTrend emphasizes the use of low baritone hums during intense moments, which aligns with the game’s claustrophobic and eerie tone. Similarly, LevelUp praises the ambient music and sound effects for building tension, particularly in isolated or dark scenarios. Gamers’ Temple lauds the sound design as “fantastic,” noting its seamless complement to the visual elements of the game’s atmospheric horror. MGG further commends the use of ambient noises, heartbeats, and string-based tension-building sounds, which enhance the oppressive mood, while also describing the music as “grandiose” during key moments. Adventure Gamers appreciates the believable voice acting and the strategic use of silence to amplify suspense, though they note minor immersion-breaking issues with a single voice actress handling multiple roles. These critiques underscore the sound design’s success in fostering an unsettling environment that supports the game’s horror narrative. However, some critics point to limitations in the musical score and broader audio elements. XboxAddict notes that the review lacks specific details about sound design, focusing instead on voice acting and environmental audio, suggesting the music may be underdeveloped or unremarkable. PLAY! Zine describes the soundtrack as “unremarkable” and failing to leave a lasting impression, while Vandal calls the effects and score “average,” acknowledging their functional role but not their memorability. Wccftech highlights immersive sound elements like slithering noises but avoids mentioning the musical score altogether. Additionally, DarkStation observes that while the sound design contributes to the horror tone, it is “good but not exceptional.” These critiques indicate that while the audio effectively supports the game’s atmosphere, the music itself lacks standout qualities or originality, leaving some aspects of the experience feeling generic. Overall, the consensus among critics is that Moons of Madness’s sound design successfully enhances its horror elements through atmospheric tension and immersive audio cues, even if the musical score remains unexceptional. While reviewers like MGG and Gamers’ Temple celebrate the sound design’s technical strengths and emotional impact, others such as XboxAddict and PLAY! Zine find it lacking in originality or memorability. The mixed reception of the music suggests that while the audio overall contributes to the game’s immersive horror, it does not consistently elevate the experience beyond its atmospheric foundation. This balance of praise and criticism reflects a generally positive but nuanced evaluation of the sound design’s role in shaping Moons of Madness’s unsettling tone.

TL;DR

music and sound design

Voice Acting

Expand for full analysis

TL;DR

Voice acting in Moons of Madness is a mixed bag: praised for realism, atmospheric immersion, and strong performances that elevate its horror tone, but undermined by inconsistency, uneven delivery, repetitive voices, and awkward tonal shifts. While some critics highlight its success in creating believable characters and Lovecraftian dread, others call out forgettable lines, lackluster execution, and jarring vocal quirks that break immersion. The result is a polarizing yet pivotal element of the game’s experience.

SCORE DISTRIBUTION FOR VOICE ACTING

Acting Score

Positive Reviews (80-100)

21%

Mixed Reviews (50-79)

71%

Negative Reviews (0-49)

Based on analyzing reviews that specifically scored or critiqued the voice acting.

The voice acting in Moons of Madness receives mixed but generally positive reception, with several critics highlighting its strengths. PlayStation Universe praises the "strong point" of the voice acting, noting that characters sound like real people, which enhances immersion despite occasional lapses in realism. The Digital Fix commends the cast for delivering dedicated performances that maintain the game’s tone and atmosphere, while Xbox Tavern appreciates how the actors bring life to the experience, contributing to its "movie" feel. Meristation acknowledges the convincing English dialogue between the protagonist and radio contacts, and Vandal highlights the accurate English dubbing and quality Spanish translation as positives for immersion. Adventure Gamers also notes the "believable" voice acting and commendable writing that evokes Lovecraftian prose, even if repetition of a single actress occasionally disrupts immersion. These reviews collectively suggest that the voice work effectively supports the game’s narrative and atmospheric goals when executed well. However, several critics point to significant flaws in the voice acting, particularly its inconsistency and uneven delivery. Softpedia describes the performances as "forgettable," ranging from over-the-top to lackluster, while DarkStation and Impulsegamer criticize the dialogue as "inconsistent" and "so-so," failing to fully engage players. Critical Hit notes that David Stanbra’s detached portrayal of Shane prevents emotional connection, despite some immersive details like panic reactions. Cultured Vulteres and Twinfinite highlight abrupt tonal shifts in Shane’s dialogue, which undermine immersion, while Adventure Gamers mentions the repetitive use of a single voice actress for multiple characters. PLAY! Zine adds that certain voices, such as the Russian scientist, come across as "comically awkward," further detracting from the experience. These critiques suggest that while some performances excel, others fall short in maintaining coherence and emotional depth. The overall consensus among critics is that Moons of Madness’s voice acting is a mixed bag, with notable strengths but significant flaws. While several reviewers praise its realism, atmospheric contributions, and localized translations, others criticize its inconsistency, uneven delivery, and repetitive performances. The game’s voice work occasionally enhances immersion through strong characterizations and effective writing, as noted by PlayStation Universe and The Digital Fix, but these positives are often undermined by issues like abrupt tonal shifts (Cultured Vultures, Twinfinite) or lackluster execution (Softpedia, DarkStation). Despite the contradictions, the majority of critics agree that the voice acting plays a crucial role in shaping the game’s horror experience, even if it doesn’t consistently meet expectations.

TL;DR

voice acting

Technical Performance

Expand for full analysis

TL;DR

Moons of Madness stumbles through technical chaos across all platforms—frame drops, glitches, and awkward controls plague its horror core, though PS4 and PC see fleeting moments of stability. A broken experience marred by inconsistency, with polish nowhere in sight.

SCORE DISTRIBUTION FOR TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE

Tech Score

Positive Reviews (80-100)

13%

Mixed Reviews (50-79)

67%

Negative Reviews (0-49)

20%

Based on analyzing reviews that specifically scored or critiqued the technical performance.

The technical performance of Moons of Madness varies across platforms, with some positive notes despite widespread issues. On PS4, Meristation highlights that the game runs smoothly on medium hardware with only minor performance drops, while Multiplayer.it praises its successful porting, noting rare exceptions like a collision bug and long load times. For Xbox One, critics like XboxAddict and ZTGD mention specific glitches, but these are framed as isolated issues rather than systemic failures. On PC, PLAY! Zine and Vandal commend the game’s smooth performance on average hardware, with Vandal noting only minor dips during complex visual effects. These positives suggest that while technical flaws exist, the game is generally functional across platforms, particularly in terms of stability and optimization for mid-range systems. However, the negatives are more pronounced and consistent across all platforms. On PS4, multiple reviewers—such as GamingTrend, LevelUp, and Push Square—criticize significant frame rate issues, especially during intense scenes with particle effects or chase sequences, which disrupt immersion. For Xbox One, XboxAddict points to frustrating glitches like incorrect oxygen resets, while ZTGD notes screen tearing and frame rate problems. On PC, the technical shortcomings are more varied: Cultured Vultures and Gamer.no highlight bugs like invisible keycards and clunky action sequences, while Gamers’ Temple and Games.cz criticize performance dips from particle effects and poor optimization. Additionally, GameSpace criticizes awkward PC controls, further complicating the experience. These issues collectively paint a picture of a game that struggles with consistency and polish across all platforms. The overall consensus among critics is that Moons of Madness suffers from technical instability, though some platforms fare better than others. While PS4 and Xbox One face significant performance hurdles—particularly in frame rate consistency and optimization—the PC version receives mixed feedback, with some reviewers (like PLAY! Zine and Vandal) praising its smoothness despite minor issues. The game’s technical flaws, such as checkpointing problems, graphical glitches, and control inconsistencies, are frequently cited as detractors from the horror experience. However, the fact that several critics acknowledge playable or even well-optimized versions on certain platforms suggests that while Moons of Madness is technically flawed, its core mechanics remain intact for those willing to overlook its imperfections.

TL;DR

technical performance

Replay Value

Expand for full analysis

TL;DR

Critical consensus: Moons of Madness is a forgettable, repetitive experience with shockingly low replay value due to its short 5-8 hour runtime, tedious gameplay, and lack of post-game content or innovation—despite minor perks like two endings or environmental appreciation, these are overshadowed by its glaring flaws.

SCORE DISTRIBUTION FOR REPLAY VALUE

Replay Score

Positive Reviews (80-100)

Mixed Reviews (50-79)

20%

Negative Reviews (0-49)

80%

Based on analyzing reviews that specifically scored or critiqued the replay value.

The reviews of Moons of Madness highlight a few minor positives regarding its replay value, though these are overshadowed by broader criticisms. Some critics acknowledge limited incentives for revisiting the game, such as Gamer.no noting that enjoyable environments and puzzles might encourage a second playthrough despite the lack of variation. MGG points out that the game offers two endings requiring trivial actions to unlock, adding slight replayability through 100% completion efforts. Additionally, Meristation and Softpedia mention narrative twists or a flat ending as elements that could theoretically intrigue players, though these are not enough to counterbalance the game’s shortcomings. These positives, however, are framed as exceptions rather than strengths, with most critics emphasizing their limited impact on overall replayability. The negatives dominate the critical consensus, with nearly all reviewers criticizing Moons of Madness for its lackluster replay value. GamePro Germany and Meristation both cite the game’s short runtime (5–8 hours) as a major flaw, arguing that it fails to justify multiple playthroughs. Multiplayer.it and XboxAddict emphasize the absence of meaningful post-game content, repetitive tasks, and unchanging difficulty, while IGN and Impulsegamer describe the gameplay as tedious or artificial, further reducing incentive to revisit. Critics like ZTGD and Games.cz label the game “forgettable” and “linear,” with no innovation or engaging mechanics to sustain interest. Even optional exploration for hidden documents, noted by Multiplayer.it, is deemed insufficient to compensate for the game’s lack of depth or variety. Overall, the critics overwhelmingly agree that Moons of Madness suffers from extremely low replay value due to its short length, repetitive structure, and minimal post-game incentives. While a few reviewers like MGG and Gamer.no acknowledge minor factors that might encourage a second playthrough—such as endings or environmental appreciation—the consensus is that these are negligible compared to the game’s flaws. The majority of critics, including GamePro Germany, Meristation, and IGN, emphasize that the game’s narrative and technical shortcomings, combined with its lack of innovation, make it unlikely to be revisited. This widespread criticism underscores a clear industry sentiment that Moons of Madness fails to deliver a compelling or enduring experience beyond its initial playthrough.

TL;DR

replay value

Overall Verdict

MONSTER

OVERALL SCORE DISTRIBUTION

Monster Score

Positive Reviews (80-100)

19%

Mixed Reviews (50-79)

76%

Negative Reviews (0-49)

Based on analyzing all available reviews that scored and critiqued the game.

The overall reception of Moons of Madness highlights its strengths in atmosphere, storytelling, and Lovecraftian themes. Critics like The Digital Fix praised it as a standout horror experience comparable to Outlast 2, commending its tension through isolation and unique survival mechanics. Adventure Gamers noted strong production values, atmospheric storytelling, and a "unique Lovecraftian horror twist," while TheXboxHub highlighted nostalgic visuals and engaging puzzles. The game’s ability to evoke cosmic dread and create a believable Martian environment was frequently acknowledged, with GamingTrend recognizing its cinematic visual immersion and interactive elements. These positives suggest the game successfully captures the essence of psychological horror, particularly for fans of narrative-driven sci-fi and atmospheric exploration. However, the negatives are equally prominent, with many critics pointing to repetitive gameplay, technical flaws, and narrative shortcomings. Gameblog.fr criticized it as "unoriginal" and "unengaging," while Push Square called it a "boring experience" marred by "dull gameplay" and "technical issues." GamingAge and XboxAddict emphasized tedious mechanics, excessive busywork, and an overreliance on Lovecraftian tropes, with the latter noting "disjointed storytelling" and "inconsistent pacing." IGN and Impulsegamer echoed these concerns, describing it as an "interactive movie" with unfocused narrative and weak enemy design. The game’s reliance on puzzles often felt obtuse or padded, and its short length left some feeling underwhelmed despite its ambitious themes. The overall consensus among critics is mixed but leans toward a balanced view of the game’s potential versus its execution. While The Digital Fix and Adventure Gamers championed its atmospheric depth and unique approach to cosmic horror, many others, including GamePro Germany and XboxAddict, felt it fell short of being a cohesive or innovative experience. The game appeals most to fans of Lovecraftian themes and narrative-driven horror, as noted by Meristation and Multiplayer.it, but struggles with replayability and technical polish. Despite its flaws, Moons of Madness remains a polarizing title that succeeds in creating tension and immersion for some players while failing to fully realize its ambitions for others. Its legacy seems to hinge on whether one prioritizes atmosphere over gameplay or forgives its shortcomings for the sake of its thematic ambition.

TL;DR

Moons of Madness delivers a haunting atmosphere and Lovecraftian dread, praised for its cosmic horror immersion and narrative depth, but falters under repetitive mechanics, technical glitches, and a disjointed story that leans too heavily on tropes, leaving it polarizing between fans of atmospheric tension and those craving refined gameplay.

MONSTER

Reviews

90 reviews found

The Digital Fix

PlayStation 4

Apr 2, 2020

AI-generated summary • May contain inaccuracies • See full review for precise details

Moons of Madness is praised as a standout horror experience, comparable to Outlast 2. It excels in creating tension through isolation, effective scares, and a unique blend of survival mechanics with Lovecraftian themes. The review recommends it for fans seeking a serious scare.

Xbox Tavern

Xbox One

Apr 6, 2020

AI-generated summary • May contain inaccuracies • See full review for precise details

The game is described as a solid, well-made horror experience that successfully captures the feel of a sci-fi movie. It combines a strong story, atmospheric visuals, and engaging gameplay to deliver a memorable horror journey, recommended for fans of the genre.

Read full review

XBLA Fans

Xbox One

Apr 30, 2020

AI-generated summary • May contain inaccuracies • See full review for precise details

Highly recommended for fans of horror and sci-fi, praised for its atmosphere, puzzles, and unique blend of Lovecraftian themes. The game is short but well-crafted, though some mechanics may frustrate players.

Read full review

GameSpew

Oct 25, 2019

AI-generated summary • May contain inaccuracies • See full review for precise details

A chilling blend of horror and sci-fi that effectively uses atmosphere, storytelling, and puzzle-solving. While it has minor flaws like an obtuse puzzle and a lengthy runtime, it successfully captures the spirit of Lovecraftian terror without overtly referencing its tropes.

Read full review

Adventure Gamers

Nov 8, 2019

AI-generated summary • May contain inaccuracies • See full review for precise details

Moons of Madness delivers a satisfying experience with strong production values, atmospheric storytelling, and a unique Lovecraftian horror twist. While not a traditional survival horror game, it excels in building tension and offers an engaging, if short, journey through cosmic dread.

Read full review

Wccftech

Oct 29, 2019

AI-generated summary • May contain inaccuracies • See full review for precise details

Moons of Madness is praised as a well-crafted, varied Lovecraftian experience with a unique tone and intense set pieces. While not as dark as some competitors, it delivers a satisfying conclusion and is recommended for fans of the genre, despite its flaws.

Read full review

Multiplayer.it

PlayStation 4

Mar 24, 2020

AI-generated summary • May contain inaccuracies • See full review for precise details

Moons of Madness is a Lovecraftian horror experience that succeeds in atmosphere and porting quality but falls short in replayability and originality. It appeals to fans of psychological horror and exploration but is limited by its brevity and lack of post-game content.

Read full review

Critical Hit

Oct 29, 2019

AI-generated summary • May contain inaccuracies • See full review for precise details

The game is a solid genre effort with strong atmospheric elements and Lovecraftian inspiration, but it falls short of creating deep emotional engagement. It is recommended for fans of the horror genre despite its flaws and offers around 9-10 hours of playtime.

Read full review

DarkStation

Oct 31, 2019

AI-generated summary • May contain inaccuracies • See full review for precise details

The game offers a unique blend of Lovecraftian horror, puzzle-solving, and exploration, appealing to fans of the genre. However, its pacing issues and lack of replayability may limit its broader appeal, making it a suitable but not exceptional Halloween experience.

MGG

Nov 3, 2019

AI-generated summary • May contain inaccuracies • See full review for precise details

Moons of Madness succeeds in creating an effective atmosphere of isolation and tension through its sound design and narrative, but it falls short in offering true scares, freedom, or technical polish. It is a decent puzzle-driven experience with some unique elements but lacks the depth to be truly memorable.

Read full review