Grey Goo

 PC
User Score
7.4

Mixed or average reviews- based on 214 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 127 out of 214
  2. Mixed: 56 out of 214
  3. Negative: 31 out of 214

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. Dokkodo
    Feb 1, 2015
    4
    A very slow paced RTS game with horrible English voice actors and poor optimization.

    The AI is incredibly dumb, the overly abundant tutorial tips freeze the game for no apparent reason and it is ultimately dull. It has a lot of potential, some pretty graphics and an interesting concept...it is too bad that it ultimately falls short and dissatisfies. I think most the positive reviews    A very slow paced RTS game with horrible English voice actors and poor optimization.

    The AI is incredibly dumb, the overly abundant tutorial tips freeze the game for no apparent reason and it is ultimately dull.

    It has a lot of potential, some pretty graphics and an interesting concept...it is too bad that it ultimately falls short and dissatisfies. I think most the positive reviews are because people are so starved for a decent RTS that they'll accept this game, it is hard to be subpar when there's not a lot of par around.    … Expand
  2. Yosa
    Feb 1, 2015
    1
    The first thing I will point out is that this is a game designed around rapid unit spawn and hardly about strategy, as so many of these sorts of games do; the units are limited in function and variety to create an artificial level of difficulty, I would play star craft the original over this.

    What I played of the campaign was poorly designed game play forcing you into ye ol zerg style    The first thing I will point out is that this is a game designed around rapid unit spawn and hardly about strategy, as so many of these sorts of games do; the units are limited in function and variety to create an artificial level of difficulty, I would play star craft the original over this.

    What I played of the campaign was poorly designed game play forcing you into ye ol zerg style mass producing unit crap.

    To be fair, I always hated that style of game play, its arcadish at best and should only be tagged as RT
    minus the S, and elaborate lane shooter at its core.    … Expand
  3. Cdsmasher
    Jan 30, 2015
    2
    I do not understand what people enjoy from these rush based "strategy" games. It feels like a whac-a-mole game than a RTS game. I miss my my Red Alert 2. If that's what you are looking for also, FORGET this game, as it's just trash in my book.
  4. Malten
    Feb 5, 2015
    4
    Sadly a game that only works in single player, in multiplayer, the maps is to small. So goes too fast to cross the map.
    Many maps are close combat, where range has no point whatsoever to have.
    I find the game to lack strategy, but with bigger maps maybe 10 times bigger, like in Red Alert, and more open space it could be alittle more fun to play. But better play starcraft or something    Sadly a game that only works in single player, in multiplayer, the maps is to small. So goes too fast to cross the map.
    Many maps are close combat, where range has no point whatsoever to have.
    I find the game to lack strategy, but with bigger maps maybe 10 times bigger, like in Red Alert, and more open space it could be alittle more fun to play. But better play starcraft or something like that...    … Expand
  5. Sharpnessism
    Feb 4, 2015
    0
    The game is buggy and has weak AI (poor single player experience for anyone used to this style of RTS).

    Gameplay is mediocre; there are few tactics/strategies. The unit interactions are overly simplistic. The game really has no redeeming features over past RTS titles except that it has better graphics. It might be worth a look if you are new to RTS games and you want shiny graphics.    The game is buggy and has weak AI (poor single player experience for anyone used to this style of RTS).

    Gameplay is mediocre; there are few tactics/strategies. The unit interactions are overly simplistic.

    The game really has no redeeming features over past RTS titles except that it has better graphics. It might be worth a look if you are new to RTS games and you want shiny graphics. Otherwise, I don't think it's worth the money. I'd give it a 4.5/10 but because every positive review is a 9 or 10 (despite its glaring flaws) I'll put down a 0.    … Expand
  6. Dethstar
    Apr 9, 2015
    2
    What one might call " a gilded Turd".

    Looks very nice, has high production values etc but it is extremely generic, and it has no real usp. It is very similar to other similar games but its been done a million times before and better. This is mainly because it is linear to the point that after a short while I didnt see the point in my being there as it obviously wanted to be playing a    What one might call " a gilded Turd".

    Looks very nice, has high production values etc but it is extremely generic, and it has no real usp. It is very similar to other similar games but its been done a million times before and better. This is mainly because it is linear to the point that after a short while I didnt see the point in my being there as it obviously wanted to be playing a certain way. The strategic choices are very limited. Basically its boring, very generic. No bugs, no issues, performance is fine, its just dull and lifeless.    … Expand
  7. Avadon
    Jan 31, 2015
    3
    The king of mediocrity. Very low unit variety, and most of these units are highly specialized. The game on higher difficulty is just a mind numbing tug of war with endless streams of units clashing until one of the players comes out on top with the most successful tech switches, due to the fact that you can automate all production. The campaign suffers from the same problem and the storyThe king of mediocrity. Very low unit variety, and most of these units are highly specialized. The game on higher difficulty is just a mind numbing tug of war with endless streams of units clashing until one of the players comes out on top with the most successful tech switches, due to the fact that you can automate all production. The campaign suffers from the same problem and the story and characters are an absolute snoozefest (cool cutscenes though). It also runs like a dog on my 4790k, 16g ram, 780 Ti. When maxed, it all starts well at 144 FPS, but even with just 2 players, as soon as they hit around the 150 supply mark, the frame rate just plummets to below 40 (even while there's no active battle going on, the number of units on the map seems to break it anyway) and the choppy scrolling is migraine inducing. It doesn't even look that good, the colors look washed out and I can't even tell if the unit models are detailed because they are small and look virtually identical to each other on each faction. I think, hands down, Forged Alliance looks better than this game and it's a billion computer-years old. Completely inexcusable. Multiplayer is whatever, noone will be playing this in 6 months. 46 euros for this? No,no,no...and no. Wait till it's 10$ and it might be worth it just so you can listen to Frank Klepacki's cool pumping soundtrack.

    Edit: It's worth noting that the final campaign mission is pretty much impossible on anything other than easy difficulty, and even then it's hard, because your enemies spawn epic units OFF MAP, so any damage you do early on to production facilities or harassment is completely pointless. I actually managed to eliminate the humans (even completed the optional objective to do so), and ten minutes later while I was trying to fight off the Beta, the game notified me that an Alpha epic unit is caressing my face back home, which came from nowhere. Tedious as hell campaign that ends on the cheapest note possible. Well done.    … Expand
  8. MichaelBjerking
    Jan 25, 2015
    1
    Can't recommend - It crash very often!

    I have played the first four mission, and the game is good, except that It crashes and gives "Blue screen of dead"
  9. saulot
    Jun 21, 2015
    2
    Crashed in first 5 minutes and the 1st cut scenes was not in English. The English in the game missions is god awful. Maybe would have rated higher but refunded after the crash.
  10. Gamersince1994
    Feb 2, 2016
    3
    Played about 2 dozen multiplayer games. If you memorize and deliver the right tricks, you'll probably win. If you try to play straight up, build an army and beat the other army while growing your base, you'll probably lose. I won and lost, but ultimately a silly game poorly designed where gimmick "strategies" rule supreme.

    also bland, single player and multiplayer.
  11. theirrelephants
    Mar 7, 2016
    4
    Well polished with decent mechanics and balanced factions, Grey Goo manages to still be completely unappealing as a RTS to me.

    Distinct lack of units, only one resource type to gather, and the factions - only one of which is distinct from the other two are bland.

    You're better off playing chess.
  12. Ramael_86
    Oct 31, 2016
    2
    I have been playing Grey Goo some time now, and being playing RTS games since the time of C&C and Warcraft (the very first one). Through the years I have seen how RTS games have evolved from those early titles to the new generation RTS games people are playing these days (e.g. SC2, Sins of a Solar Empire, CIV6, etc.). I have to say that Grey Goo started really good, with a seeminglyI have been playing Grey Goo some time now, and being playing RTS games since the time of C&C and Warcraft (the very first one). Through the years I have seen how RTS games have evolved from those early titles to the new generation RTS games people are playing these days (e.g. SC2, Sins of a Solar Empire, CIV6, etc.). I have to say that Grey Goo started really good, with a seemingly well-rounded story and 3 (and later on 4) different factions to play.
    All boded for a very good game. Instead we have a title that copies a lot (think about base construction or what how many similarities there are between the different factions and the ones from other recent games....mmmh, fishy) from other titles, has an under-developed story-line and offers a very basic multiplayer.
    This all makes me think two things:
    - Grey Goo could have been a very good title if it was released 5 years ago or so.
    - The game could have used some more depth (story, faction diversity, gameplay), but probably developers had to rush it into stores. Whether it is true or not, it certainly feels that way after playing a few ours.    … Expand
  13. GameJoin
    Mar 18, 2019
    4
    Man... is... this... a... slow... game... or... what?!
    Don't buy if you're interested in classic RTS games like Starcraft/Warcraft/C&C... Grey Goo is super slow, with a termendously stupid AI. Tha campaign is well-made when it comes to cutscenes (art and voicing) but the missions are very uninspired.

Awards & Rankings

99
#99 Best PC Game of 2015
59
#59 Most Discussed PC Game of 2015

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
77

Generally favorable reviews - based on 45 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 34 out of 45
  2. Mixed: 10 out of 45
  3. Negative: 1 out of 45
  1. COGconnected
    Jul 16, 2015
    80
    Anyone who is a fan of this type of game will surely enjoy this, and the online play and DLC components it makes it even better.
    Read full review
  2. ZTGD
    Jul 16, 2015
    75
    Grey Goo, if you’ll excuse the pun, oozes originality. It’s a refreshing take on a classic style of real-time strategy gaming.
    Read full review
  3. IGN Spain
    Jun 30, 2015
    75
    Grey Goo can be considered the sleeper of the year (strategy game). It is a good game overall, taking classic elements and adapting to changing times, but rather lacking in depth.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »