Structure comparison
Two games, side by side
The structural difference between two games, assembled from published specifications only. Nothing here forecasts a result or recommends either game.
Suck
Microgaming
- Format family
- Cluster pays
- RTP
- Not published
- Volatility
- Very high
- Win cap
- Not published
- Reels
- 6
- Theme signals
- Not published
VS
Wrath of Seth - Split
Microgaming
- Format family
- Cluster pays
- RTP
- 96.25%
- Volatility
- Very high
- Win cap
- 21,000×
- Reels
- 6
- Theme signals
- Egypt, Greek myth
VS
Shark Feast
Play’n GO
- Format family
- Fixed paylines
- RTP
- 96.20%
- Volatility
- Very high
- Win cap
- 40,000×
- Reels
- 6
- Theme signals
- Animals
Reading the difference
Reading the difference
Some dimensions are excluded because one studio does not publish that figure.
Suck vs Wrath of Seth - Split
- Both titles are built on the same format family: Cluster pays. Differences between them therefore come from tuning, not from structure.
- RTP cannot be compared: Suck does not publish one.
- Both carry the same volatility label: Very high.
Suck vs Shark Feast
- Different format families: Suck is Cluster pays, Shark Feast is Fixed paylines. Read each screen with its own rule set.
- They come from different studios — Microgaming and Play’n GO — which is what makes the comparison useful: the same problem, two house styles.
- RTP cannot be compared: Suck does not publish one.
- Both carry the same volatility label: Very high.
Add to the comparison (up to four)
