this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
219 points (93.6% liked)

Games

32743 readers
883 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 80 points 1 year ago (8 children)

"We absolutely cannot have ten years of Cities Skylines 1 content done" for the launch of the sequel, Colossal Order CEO Mariina Hallikainen says in the latest issue of PC Gamer. As a result, the studio decided to focus on "those things that we feel should have been in the original Cities: Skylines, but we didn't have the time or manpower."

Anyone that's not a fucking idiot already knew this, because we understand how temporal reality works. But the whiny "everything sucks and is bad" Stephanie Sterling crowd won't care.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But it looks like they did incorporate DLC into the sequel; it just isn't obvious. The current implementation of extractive versus value added industry looks better than what they did with Industries. The quantity of different transit types also feels like an equivalent to a couple of DLC for the original game. I also feel like the sequel's approach to power would also be most of a DLC for the original.

It isn't perfect, but it looks like Collosal Order at least implemented a lot of lessons learned from the original game. It doesn't seem as empty as C:S at launch.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I've played enough CS1 to know that I can't play it any more, no matter how much content it has. Its absolutely braindead traffic AI destroys my enjoyment of if the game once a city gets sufficiently big.

The traffic AI fixes were all I needed to see to be interested in CS2.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 67 points 1 year ago (6 children)

This is a trend that I have recently started noticing. PAYDAY 3 came out with basically nothing included after PAYDAY 2 had literally 10 years of continuous content/80 DLCs pumped into it. As another example, The Sims always comes out with a new release that has every feature removed so they can sell you all the same DLC again and again.

In some cases this would appear to be a (corporate) success, but it seems it's actually been part of the downfall of recently-released PAYDAY 3. As of this moment in time, the rolling 24-hour peak of player count in PAYDAY 3 is 4,699. The rolling 24-hour peak of PAYDAY 2 is 37,399. Why would players who have a fully finished game with all DLC already available want to play your new barren game?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I feel really bad for the people working on these games. PAYDAY 3 will eventually reach success in a niche, but will likely be hated by those same people.

The objective behind a game like this, or Sims, or FIFA/FC, is not to create a great gameplay experience. Sadly, they make a passable game, that will help them leech money sustainably for a considerable amount of time, through endless DLC. Paradox will inevitably make Colossal Order do the same with C:S2, despite them claiming that it'll be fewer but larger DLC.

There are very few studios I will refuse to show respect for, and the one behind PAYDAY is one of them. Just like what remains of Maxis

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think there ie a middle ground as a rule but a lot of games use dlc as an excuse to sell the game for more.

Sims is a great example. It costs over $1k to buy everything for Sims 4 and the Sims 4 stans will defend it going "you're not SUPPOSED to guy every pack". Sims 3 vs Sims 4 is something as well. Sims 3 didn't get as much dlc, but each one had so much more content and gameplay than Sims 4. 9 years and like 50 packs later, Sims 3 STILL has more content overall. The game was just poorly optimized and badly coded and is only now becoming playable in terms of load times and lag. A lot of the Sims 4 packs don't even work that well together, or the opposite where they release a feature and you need another pack to fully utilize it. (The goats and sheep in the horses dlc don't do anything without cottage living. And they already didn't do much WITH it)

The Weather expansion with Sims 2 made sense at the time. Weather was a mechanic that not many games had and quite the milestone, it was groundbreaking for the time. Weather dlc for Sims 3 you could begrudgingly forgive, since it's such a big thing and the base for Sims 3 was so big. But Weather being sold as an add on for Sims 4 was just unacceptable. The game was barren, weather is a base feature for every single game within that kind of genre. It feels like they remove the feature to sell it later. And you see this with the pets packs too. Sims 3 you had cats, dogs, horses, and small animals. With Sims 4 you have cats and dogs, my first pets stuff, cottage living (for the small animals, it does FINALLY add SOMETHING new with the cows/lamas and chickens), and horse ranch- for the same experience Sims 3 pets gave - and even THEN there is less gameplay and features. No unicorns, no wild horses, no pet jobs (I think) since you can't control them, no nothing. Sims 4 still doesn't have fairies somehow but there's rumbles that they might be the next occult and they could bring unicorns but... you won't be able to do anything with the unicorns without horse ranch.

So, it's not even than Sims 4 costs more than 3, you are getting an objectively worse and more barren experience even when you do buy everything. The dlc for Sims 3 made sense and added so much, barring maybe the weather one as an arguable one. Almost none of the dlc in Sims 4 makes sense to be sold to the player instead of in the base game. City living, island living, cottage living, the vacation one... for that's about it really. But becausethey are supposed to bring new content and gamellay experiences. But the dlc for Sims 4 was just such an obvious money cash cow that they are like "what pieces of the same dlc can we upsell as separate packs?" They barely add anything new.

I have no problem with dlc like how it is with Witcher 3 was with new stories, gameplay experiences, quests, etc, rather than selling base features of a game for morr.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’ve been playing Sims since 2006. Sims 4 feels like an insult. I want to like it, and aesthetically it is pleasing, the build tools are nice. But game play wise I need so many mods to make it enjoyable. The packs don’t really integrate with each other and the relationships feel very shallow in vanilla experience. I have Sims 3 and Sims 2 and I love both of them, I used mods but I also it was a fun vanilla experience. I never felt robbed when I bought dlc for them, but at this point with sims 4 unless the dlc is on sale I will not buy it at all. Every sims 4 thing I have bought except base game has been sale. It didn’t even release with pools or toddlers.

I am interested in Life By You from paradox games just to see something different in the genre, it helps that Rob Humble is on the development team. I also keep an eye on Paralives to see how that grows. I just want something new in the life sim genre.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

If not for mods, I would not play 4 at all. It's just bland. It has no soul. And don't get me started on how broken the few recent expansions were. Not just "egh, an occasional bug that would prompt a restart", straight up irreparable damage to your save, and broken features that are still not fixed

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

CK3 was the last straw for me. It's been years, and the DLC released is both expensive and lacking in the mechanics of CK2.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Tb0n3 43 points 1 year ago (10 children)

And then you've got absolute mad men like Concerned Ape making stardew valley 10 times better with free updates for years and years. Showing these money hungry companies how it's done.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The scale is just a little bit different here, isn't it. One guy (maybe a few more) and an indie sensation that makes a ridiculous amount of sales vs. a company that needs to pay wages for 30 people.

We can have a discussion here, but comparing standard run rates vs. a massive exception isn't a great starting point.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

Yeah it’s also one guy who got so rich off it he never has to work again if he doesn’t want to. Haunted Chocolatier isn’t because concerned ape is a game dev now and needs money, it’s concerned ape wants to make a new game. He clearly loves stardew valley and that’s part of why he keeps updating it.

Terraria is a better exception to use but still an exception. I’m not asking for every game to give free unplanned massive expansions, though I will continue praising those who do such things and absolutely add them to my list of “buy their next game if I’m remotely interested”.

What I want is games that feel like they’re trying to give everyone a fair deal. A base game that’s good on its own and doesn’t feel like a downgrade from the previous game. A few expansions that are good, reasonably priced, and make the game further into its best version of that iteration of the series. And a reasonable number of non expansion dlc that add something and ideally don’t leave me trying to decide what ones I want to get. And by the end of life the game can be not quite the cheapest but full, good, and complete. That way when the next iteration of the series is dropped I’m not left thinking it was because they just wanted to sell me the same things over again. Civilization does this excellently.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, companies with 30 employees are, in fact, money hungry because that's how the employees fucking eat. One person's recurring costs are nowhere near the recurring costs of dozens of people. WEIRD HOW MATH.

Stardew Valley, Undertale, Braid, all of these one-man (mostly) shows generated enough revenue to effectively retire their creators overnight but if they had to pay 30 motherfuckers with the proceeds... yeah, not so much.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've worked for those (sized) companies and employee pay is not as much as you'd think. Not to mention higher sales don't equal more pay (for the actual workers.)

Source: just shy of 20 years in gaming.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As much as I like C:S, the thought of getting a relatively barebones game with $200 in DLC over the next 5-7 years to make the city feel complete makes me feel depressed.

That was the bummer in the original game. Only two ways to deal with trash, unless you bought $30 of DLC. I'll be waiting to see if the game is good or not, or if they totally gimped certain parts of the game like bridges, ports and transit to resell back as a la carte DLC.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't understand this attitude that the new game needs to include the DLC of the old one that's never been a thing in games. New versions of an old game never previously included the DLC for the old game apart from anything else because it wouldn't make sense because they've changed so many systems.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

I think the difference now is that DLC adds features, and so people are upset when the new game is missing features from the old DLC. Where in the past, say with Oblivion or Skyrim, it was just more story, maybe some new skills, in one case there was a new feature (house building) and their newer games do include that feature. But people don't expect the story line from the DLC in the new game.

Features in DLC feel different these days. In the past DLC had a more limited scope, and you looked forward to the new game for new features. But now if the new game comes out with less features it can be a bummer for people used to the old game. There isn't really a great solution because I don't think it always makes sense to add all the DLC features in the new game.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (4 children)

If the rumors regarding the performance for the sequel are true, they won't even have a working game on launch.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (9 children)

This is the classic problem with all paradox games that I don't really have a solution for. Like as players we want them to support the game for a long time and keep updating it, but unless that's through dlcs then they can't really do that without getting paid somehow. The other alternatives are just not doing any updates and releasing a full new game every couple years which would probably have less features added compared to doing dlcs. Or having a subscription that you pay to get new updates which while I'm personally fine with I know a lot of people aren't. So that just leaves the current strategy of constantly doing dlcs and every once in a while releasing a new game and bringing over as many dlc features as they can to the new one while not making the development time unreasonable.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

There's one other option:

They could make games outside newer versions of the same game. Game studios used to (and many still do) make a game, put it out, then get started making a whole different game. Even with the modern ability to update games,

  1. Put game out

  2. Update game to deal with unforeseen bugs found once the masses have access

  3. Maybe put out 1 DLC if you want

  4. Make a new game now. A different game.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

To be honest, I’d prefer for them to keep expanding a game I like. That’s what kept me playing SC1 for the past 65 years (or however long it has been since the game has been released).

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

But they point the comment above is making is that the years of support add a bunch of features that wouldn't exist otherwise. Sure, they could just not. Why would they do that though if they have a team who knows how to work on a thing and people willing to pay for it.

For example, BG3 exists because the studio continued to make games in the same style in the same engine for a very long time. They became absolute experts in it, and continuously improved their tools and techniques. You don't get that by constantly making new different games.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (15 children)

I haven't played Cities: Skylines in years, this looks great but hopefully they fixed the stupid traffic AI. I hated that when you built a wider road to decrease congestion half of the cars would ignore the opened lanes and still pile up in the original ones.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That is one of the areas of the game they specifically worked on to improve. There's dev diaries about how they improved it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Widening roads is never a good answer in game or real life, it induces new demand and will eventually become more congested. Need to build a train line instead

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I understand what you're getting at, but even cities with lots of public transit get choked with traffic in CS1. The traffic AI is abysmal.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why not? The constant updates are what kept me playing for so many years!

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think the developer meant they can't have a decade of C:S DLC included in vanilla C:S2.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

100%, the comments have been infuriating to read. This is the obvious interpretation.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From what I've seen the road building is far better and basically incorporates all the "retired" mods

I'm sad that zoning is still essentially the same as how SimCity did it in 1989, as I really want mixed use, but that's a minor quibble

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Cities skylines 2 has mixed used, or at least the mini trailers and dev diaries says so

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm planning to try and build an offset hex grid city

Basically there's one hex pattern for car traffic, and an offset hex pattern that's for pedestrians and cyclists, and where there's any intersections between the two, the car traffic gets raised to give pedestrian traffic an underpass.

Also every car intersection is a roundabout, and I'm considering doing alternating one way lanes with every pair being bracketed by transit only lanes.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That sounds like an absolute nightmare to realistically navigate but I would love to see it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Lolz, send me a link when you've released your first video!

There's no way you can do all that meticulous work without also having the patience to make a video about it. 😉

load more comments
view more: next ›