attack-titan-vr — Image courtesy UNIVRS

‘Attack on Titan VR’ Launches ‘Complete Edition’, Including New Chapters & Co-op Mode

By

-

Dec 26, 2024

Attack on Titan VR: Unbreakable launched into Early Access on Quest back in July, offering up a single mission (‘chapter’) and a few unlockable blades, releasing the first drip of content which was promised to expand in the following months. Now, developer UNIVRS has released the ‘Complete Edition’, which now includes four chapters.

When we went hands-on in July, we noted the game felt very much like a tech demo; while it included a good slice of core gameplay, it was limited to a single chapter in addition to a infinite wave mode with obligatory scoreboard.

Now in its Complete Edition, Part One players can jump back in to experience chapters three and four, the Epilogue, and battle it out against an Armored Titan boss.

You’ll also get a chance to play co-op for the first time, letting you experience all chapters together.

With the release of the full game, UNIVRS has also teased a ‘Thunder Spear Unlock Event’ coming in January, which the studio calls a “global challenge.” A free update is also planned in 2025, according to the game’s webpage.

22 Great VR Games for Relaxation & Meditation on Quest, PC VR, and PSVR 2

Although we noted the game felt “rough” in our initial hands-on earlier this year, the game seems to have resonated with fans. At the time of this writing, Attack on Titan VR: Unbreakable has garnered a solid [4.5/5] user rating on the Horizon Store.

If you purchased the Early Access version, you’ll need to purchase Part 2 to play, as it is a paid DLC to Part 1. If you’re just jumping in the first time, you can buy Part 1 separately for $8, Part 2 for $12 (Part 1 required), or the Part 1 and Part 2 bundle for $20. The game supports Quest 2, Quest 3/S, and Quest Pro.

Update (Dec 27th, 2024): A previous version of this article assumed Part 2 was indeed included in the Early Access release, however this isn’t the case. Part 2 is a paid DLC for all players, which you can find over on the Horizon Store. We’ve corrected this in the body of the article above.

Thanks to Daniel Fearon for the correction!

Andrey

If you purchased the Early Access version, you’ll see Part 2 as a free download.

Straight up lies. Do I really need to make a screenshot of my pruchase of the game on July 23 right after it's EA release and then "Chapter 2" page that still wants me to buy it for 12$? Really? And why all those other people are upset about this whole situation then? Why developers are "sorry for the misunderstanding" in their responses to some of the 1/2* reviews (which is a great example of their hyporcritic behaviour in itself – being selective in their responses to ALL critisism is very mature thing to do)?

Also, the game released in EA with two in-game chapters and 10 missions in total (5 missions in each), it wasn't "limited to a single chapter".

Part about "high rating" and that "game resonated with fans" is also hilarious. I just took my time and literally counted it – based on last 100 reviews, it's rating is 3.1 (29 5*, 19 4*, 8 3*, 10 2* and 30 1*). Do I need to clarify that the closer we are to today, the more 1/2* rating there are? That 90% of all those low ratings are about UNIVRS being scammers who sold a product in EA for one price and then changed it's name to Part 1 and then tried to sell Part 2 for almost 3 times more of the original price? And that all 5/4* ratings from last days are from oblivious people, who either still didn't realized what happend (because there are many reviews that say that they changed their rating from 5/4* to 1/2* when they noticed it) or generally from people who doesn't care much about anything just because "It's Attack on Titan!!11"?

Previously I said I was disappointed, but now it's a whole other level. Shame on you RtVR for covering for scammers' shady practicies.
- John Doe
  
  This is a website that constantly say they don't have the capacity to cover "everything", yet at the same time they call themselves:
  
  "Founded in 2011, Road to VR is the world’s leading independent news publication dedicated to the XR industry."
  
  Just face it. All existing VR "journalism" is a quarter-time hobby in exchange for sponsored trips to various events, getting paid for sponsored reviews and ads, and just a way to shove affiliate links for extra income.
  
  Just look at their Pimax coverage. RTVR is just infomercials website.
  - Ben Lang
    
    Listen, you can't come on here and spread literal slander. Maybe other sites work the way you're imagining, but ours does not.
    
    If you continue to do this you will not be welcome here in the comments.
    
    I didn't start this site in 2011 because I thought it would be a get-rich-quick scheme. The VR industry literally didn't even exist at the time (Oculus hadn't even been founded). I started this site purely out of passion and interest for VR and what it might mean for the future of humanity.
    
    Nearly 14 years later we're still here working very hard at what we do with a tiny team. We have passed up countless opportunities to make more money in order to protect our journalistic independence.
    - NL_VR
      
      keep up the good work. your supporters may be more silent but we are here.
    - XRC
      
      There are many of us who really appreciate your work, and thoroughly enjoy visiting your website for news and hys comments where the community can interact.
      
      As someone with numerous published articles for the Skarredghost, it's really tricky treading a fine line between an honest review and pissing off a company PR where they blacklist you.
      
      I've had a designer literally have a tantrum after disagreement with a preview (that we sent as courtesy) causing cancellation of 6,500 word article that took months of hard work (unpaid of course).
      
      please keep doing what you are doing!
      - Ben Lang
        
        Oof… this is exactly why we don't send drafts for any external parties to review, as our standard operating procedure.
      - Sven Viking
        
        Did they have some sort of veto power?
    - Michael Speth
      
      Thank you for sharing the history of the site with us. I believe you are honest and try to provide the information that is out there. While I disagree with your reviews of most VR games, I can understand why you rate them as highly as you do.
      
      As I have mentioned before, those people who dedicate their lives to VR have to accept the reality of the VR market and adjust their minds accordingly. If you didn't, you would have gave up a long time ago. That means giving Mobile Garbage Games like Batman, Metro, Aliens, & Behemoth good ratings because you have already adjusted your mind to meta mobile trash market.
      
      I am happy that you haven't banned me for opposing this mindset and will continue to provide levity to what VR should be not what it has become thanks to Meta losing billions per month retarding VR. I think in your heart you also know what VR should be, can be, but isn't.
      
      It takes guts to continue running a site where most of the gaming public rightfully has rejected VR thanks to Mobile Garbage Game devs not putting in the effort to make a great VR experience.
      
      There are exceptions which keeps me going in VR like GT7, My First Gran Turismo, Horizon Call of the Mountain, Until You Fall, Red Matter 2, & Star Wars Tails of the Galaxy's Edge Enhanced Edition.
      
      There are a few games coming out in 2025 that I hopefully can add to the list like Arken Age & The Midnight Walk.
      - Ben Lang
        
        I don't adjust my ratings based on what I think the industry could or should be. My ratings are based on whether or not I find the specific game fun and whether or not it uses the medium of VR effectively.
        
        You don't have to like Batman, for instance, but I really enjoyed it. And you're entitled to like the games that you like for the reasons that you like to play games.
      - Michael Speth
        
        Fun is certainly subjective. Regarding does the game use VR effectively? That is also subjective.
        
        For the case of Batman, the combat system uses motion to trigger quick-time animations. Is that an effective use of VR? Is it any different than hitting button combos on a controller?
        
        I can see people's opinion on this either way.
        
        I think people that are in the VR business have adjusted their mindset to Mobile VR Garbage – just like people who are in the Mobile Gaming Business have adjusted themselves to the Gotcha mechanic. For instance, Mobile Games will get rated not based on if it is actaully a good game, but is it a good mobile game compared to others. Even though in my opinion, games with gotcha mechanics are 0's/F's because they use gambling mechanics as a primary mechanism to fund the game.
        
        Likewise, Mobile VR has caused people to forget what VR was like prior to Meta Mobile VR Garbage Harware. Now games are rated based on this new scale just like Mobile Gaming Gotcha is how Mobile Gaming is rated.
        
        I understand why you have to shift your mindset in order to keep your sanity and keep motivation going on this site.
      - Ben Lang
        
        Yes indeed, I think Batman's arcade-ified combat used VR very well. I made an entire video about the concept of Instructed Motion which is a design principle that's made for some of VR's best games (including Batman): https://youtu.be/EoOeO7S9ehw?list=PL-h2hIsQQY_iCBLJHrpEbUHngThE0majk
        You could say that more simulation/physics heavy combat like Blade & Sorcery is "the right way to do VR," but I don't actually think there is a "right" answer to which of the two is better.
        
        Even outside of VR, every game falls along a spectrum of simulation <—> arcade, and people have different preferences about where they like their games to fall on that spectrum. Something like Microsoft Flight Sim is loved by many, but for others, the challenging learning curve of controlling airplanes with no assists is not fun.
        
        On either side of the spectrum (simulated to arcade), you can have good execution and bad execution. But simply having a game that falls more on the arcade side doesn't make it bad. The choice for which to use is entirely dependent on the experience the developer wants to deliver.
        
        Batman, for instance, wanted to give players the feeling of being a brawler / kung fu master, with high speed gameplay that revolves around broader meta-gameplay of identifying which enemies pose the highest threat, and knowing how to take them out while mitigating other threats. This is exactly how the original Arkham games feel, but done in a way that's satisfying and fun in VR.
        
        They couldn't have delivered that same feeling to as many people if they went for heavy simulation/physics based combat, because people would be far too focused on where their exact punch was going and how to dodge a specific incoming fist, which would leave little mental headroom for the meta-gameplay of dealing with a room of 20 different enemies.
        
        Again, you don't have to enjoy what Batman VR offers. But that doesn't mean other people can't enjoy it for their own reasons.
        
        TL;DR: There's no right answer to simulation vs. arcade mechanics, people like them in different amounts and they are used to deliver different kinds of gameplay. Having a VR game that leans into arcade-like mechanics doesn't make it a bad VR game.
      - Michael Speth
        
        Does Batman VR offer anything unique over Batman on flatscreen? Batman VR has many limitations due to the target garbage hardware platform the Quest 3 and Quest 3S. Comparing Batman VR to the latest in Arkman series, we can for sure say that Batman VR has retarded the Batman series.
        
        The only unique aspect of Batman is going to be Headtracking (as we already see that using motion controls can easily be replaced by a gamepad). Headtracking can actually be achived on flatscreen thanks to eye tracking tech like Tobii eye trackers.
        
        Imagine Batman VR is simply a flatscreen game + eye tracking targeted on the latest console and PC hardware. How much more immersive that experence would be over the garbage mobile chipsets of the Meta Quests. Or you could do Console/PC head tracking only + gamepad and again it will be just a much better experience than using Wii style motion controls that is in Batman VR.
        
        As for execution, anything on Garbage Mobile chipset is going to be a bad execution of VR because the graphics are simply retarded when compared to PC/Console. Graphics should get a F or 0/10 but agian most VR reviewers don't compare Mobile VR games graphics to modern day graphics (PC/Console). If they did, I think they would go into depression and leave the VR industry which many people did once developers started focusing on Meta Mobile Garbage headsets.
        
        I think many of us want to be a VR headset on and have an upgrade from Flatscreen. For instance, I was playing Marvel Rivals and am very impressed with the graphics and even environmental destruction.
        
        Now imagine going from Marvel Rivals to Attack on Titan VR. You will feel like you are stepping into the PS2/Nintendo 64 era of gaming.
        
        I think Reviewers and online stores should have special tags for games first desigened for Garbage Mobile Hardware and later ported to PC/Console. This should solidify the difference and expectations of the audience.
        
        So for those of us who don't want to even see garbage VR games in our stores, we could simply filter them out. Reviewers slapping this tag on it could more fairly review the game – IE not comparing it to REAL VR on PC/Console.
        
        That way everything is transparent and out in the open. Meta Garbage games are tagged appropriately.
      - Ben Lang
        
        Sorry man I can't take you seriously if you can't acknowledge that lots of people enjoy the content that you call "garbage."
      - Michael Speth
        
        Meta Headsets are indeed garbage because Meta sells the hardware at a massive loss. Meta loses billions per month. The individual components on each Meta Headset are more valuable then when combined. Meta cannot sell the headset at even break even let alone profit. This is the definition of garbage when the company doesn't believe enough in their own product that they must lose a thousand or more on each headset and they are incapable of making back enough from software sales to justify the costs.
        
        Take your article on the HTC Focus Vision that costs $1k USD which would be equavalent to the Meta Quest 3S. Meta is easily losing $800 USD on the Quest 3S while the Quest 3 is more comparable to the Apple Vision Pro which is a wopping $3.5K USD. Meta is easily losing at least 1k or 2k on each Quest 3.
        
        All of this is to say that Meta admits to the world they are selling garbage and they KNOW that if they were to sell the hardware at cost or profit that sales would be extremely low (See HTC or Apple Vision Pro).
        
        That is because the Software that runs on these Garbage Devices is OLD and Outdated when compared to modern Gaming Devices such as PS5, XBox, PC, and even the now old Nintendo Switch. The graphics on Mobile VR is not marketable at the actual/real costs of the hardware because simply put it is garbage.
        
        I hope you now understand why Meta Hardware is Garbage and indeed should be labeled as such.
        
        If we were to hold Software running on Garbage hardware to PC/Console, than indeed people would easily recongize that the software is extremely lacking – a retardation.
        
        VR used to be about the future but Meta has caused it to be the past. This is why the VR industry is on the decline.
Sven Viking

If you purchased the Early Access version, you’ll see Part 2 as a free download.

Not for me at least.
- Sven Viking
  
  Sent the devs an email and they confirmed that Part 2 isn’t free for anyone.
  https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/04417d810d7b5a96d13137d9bf65a1c25da915027b780dae284f5d4869ff2161.jpg
  - Ben Lang
    
    Thank you! We're working on an update to this article.
    - Sven Viking
      
      Just adding that there is a chance the devs intended to explain this from the beginning but did so poorly. I saw a Reddit thread from the time of the early access release where people were asking whether the product wording meant they’d need to pay again for the full version. (And other redditors replied to them saying no, of course not.)
      
      If so, though, it certainly wasn’t obvious. Articles and reviews from the time mention the limited early access content but I haven’t seen one saying the full version would be an additional purchase. The product name was “Attack on Titan VR: Unbreakable – Early Access”, not “Part 1” or similar.
      
      It might be good to see if the Japanese version of the product description was more clear and something was potentially lost in translation, but Meta store pages don’t seem to be compatible with the Wayback Machine.
Michael Speth

The graphics look like PS2 or worse. This game looks like mobile trash.
Andrew Jakobs

Still think it looks awful, more like a zenva game course level.
- Sven Viking
  
  True, though to be fair, large traversable areas for Quest 2 with no culling to rely on seems like it could be challenging for a small team. The gameplay is mostly good.
NL_VR

Graphics looks not the best but gameplay seems fun