The good stuff
- Disarming enemies makes weapons part of the tactical puzzle
- Co-op supports genuinely coordinated plays
- Environmental hazards and animated replays make good turns satisfying
The rage fuel
- Recent reports of desyncs and runs ending prematurely
- Card art and effect displays make planning unnecessarily awkward
- Limited locations and a shorter co-op offering
The best weapon is occasionally somebody else’s
The fighting combines a deck of actions with positioning on a cramped grid. A useful turn depends on more than drawing damage: where people stand, what they threaten and what the environment allows all matter. That is what makes the formula appealing. A good sequence feels like solving a small action scene rather than merely comparing attack totals. Supporters praise the satisfaction of using a whole hand effectively and then watching the resulting violence play out. The animations give a successful plan an entertaining payoff without requiring action-game reflexes.
The weapon changes are a worthwhile addition. Enemies carry items you can take away, and those weapons can modify the attacks available to you. Getting close to a dangerous opponent can therefore change the shape of the encounter instead of only removing a health bar. Agent 11’s procurement department appears to operate by asking whether the current owner can still resist. Environmental hazards create further opportunities to make positioning pay. These are concrete improvements to the puzzle, even if the wider game remains recognisably close to its predecessor.
Co-op is the selling point and the largest qualification
Up to three players can coordinate actions within a shared turn. Looking at teammates’ hands and arranging complementary moves gives cooperation real substance. You can help someone create an opening, exploit a changed position or accidentally undermine what they intended. The attraction is planning together rather than playing three separate deckbuilders in the same room. Several players specifically bought the sequel for that opportunity, and enthusiastic accounts describe a satisfying new layer on top of the already effective combat.
Unfortunately, connectivity is not a footnote. Reviews spanning the Early Access period, including recent feedback, report desynchronisation, softlocks and lost runs. Other players have completed multiplayer sessions without those problems, and some updated accounts describe improvements. Do not invent a universal failure rate from either experience. The purchase implication is still blunt: a group game that can lose the group’s progress is a risky recommendation. The best coordinated turn in the world cannot compensate for a session that stops before anyone gets to finish the plan.
A tactical game needs information you can actually read
The interface attracts recurring criticism for making important information less immediately visible than it was in the first game. Players describe unclear card artwork, effects that require extra inspection and objectives that are harder to monitor. One detailed comparison uses Power Sink as an example of an effect whose full benefit is not clear at a glance. A tactical game should make the difficulty come from choosing between good options. Hiding what a card is currently doing adds a different, much less useful kind of uncertainty.
Power Sink should be helping you absorb a hit, not testing whether you remember the contents of a tooltip. Multiplayer adds a smaller but persistent irritation: another player’s action can interrupt your selection, requiring the card and target to be chosen again. Camera limitations and weak explanations of symbols also receive complaints. Tough starting positions, including ambassador scenarios, divide players between enjoying the challenge and feeling given no useful answer. Better information would help distinguish a mistake in planning from a situation that needs balance work.
A promising sequel still needs enough sequel
The content is the remaining reason to hesitate. Players describe repeated locations, limited routes and a co-op skirmish offering shorter than the single-player experience. A recent account still asks for campaign play with friends. That matters when building a deck only becomes interesting shortly before the run ends. Veterans recognise the enjoyable core but disagree over whether the current changes justify a separate purchase. Newcomers can have a good time too, provided they buy for the tactical encounters available rather than an imagined finished campaign.
Development has changed some details already: older complaints about fixed starting decks sit alongside an October report of custom deck creation, and another player enjoys the newer draft mode. Those improvements deserve credit without promising that every earlier weakness has disappeared. The action, weapons and replay presentation provide a strong foundation. The next useful gains are clearer cards, more varied encounters and dependable sessions. Until then, treat this as a developing tactical game with a particularly interesting co-op idea, rather than the obvious replacement for everything the first game did well.
Worth your time?
Wait if dependable co-op or a substantial campaign is the reason you would buy it. The underlying combat is good enough to recommend to tactical deckbuilding enthusiasts who accept a developing game, especially solo players interested in the weapon changes. But the feature that most clearly distinguishes this sequel needs to work reliably. Check current multiplayer reports before organising a group around it. Existing Fights in Tight Spaces fans should also compare the available content with the first game rather than buying on the assumption that a sequel is automatically a fuller package. There is a very enjoyable tactical game here, still wearing some conspicuously unfinished clothes.