|| besides faffing about using your in-game avatar to visit other zoos.
Wait we can do that? I want to do that! Let me visit the pretty zoos and steal their ideas! And pet their animals!
||Pandas have become virtually mythical
I bought one for 500 CC pretty recently, to use in my cute-animal-zone (the Fluff Zone!). Building a cute shrine for them today! Far from mythical. They're not cheap, but they're cheaper than grizzly bears right now.
|| highly susceptible to disease, tiny, incredibly short-lived, or even completely infertile
Guy has a point here. The first page at the very least is always infertile animals. Even a broken clock, and all that... Honestly, if you can't release it to the wild (which is the case for infertile animals) you should not be able to put it on the markets either. You messed up and got inbred animals, they're your responsibility now.
|| Well, apart from the time I spaffed 400 hard-earned CC on a sterile antelope, because I didn’t read the listing properly. That was a blow.
Did that with a tiger, put him up for sale, someone else's problem within 10 minutes! I think I even made a profit on the tiger.
Seriously did this guy even play the game or is he just making up random stuff? Because half of that stuff is pure warthogshit.
Especially the notion that the current economy reminds more of the downfalls of animal trade than the spirit of conservation (look at all those posts regarding baby factories just to pump out CC for better animals. Gameplay incentives to mimick real world behaviour).
It surely isn't the message Frontier had in mind but i nevertheless welcome it.
Franchise Mode is a wonderful idea gone horribly wrong. Being able to purchase animals not only from a simulated animal shop, but from other real players is a great idea. The other day, I bumped into somebody on r/planetzoo who bought one of my cheetahs. It was great.
The problem is that it was immediately ruined by price gougers.
A good example: There's 10k conservation credit limit on selling animals (meaning that you cannot sell an animal for more than that much). In the game's offline market (Challenge Mode, with no online elements), the store refreshes every minute or so with a new batch of animals. More expensive animals might be as high as 1,200 CC. For gold-quality (the highest tier of stats available), you can expect to pay around that much even for rare animals, like Bornean orangutans or African elephants. Maybe upwards of 1,600.
Contrast this with the live market. Frontier puts out cool, conservation-based community challenges. The last one was to breed lowland gorillas. Prior to the event, gorillas ran about 1,250-1,400 CC for a gold-quality breeding gorilla. After the event? Price gougers bought all the gorillas on the market, and bumped their prices up to 4k for elderly, infertile gorillas, which are a dead investment. High-quality ones that could still breed, and therefore earn your credits back, began at 6,000. These animals are not worth that much, because they're slow-breeding, long-living animals. But the gougers held them hostage if you wanted to participate. And the people who listed gorillas for a reasonable price to help others out found that they were being snapped up by gougers, and re-listed for exorbitant prices.
Frontier themselves drop animals for fair prices into the market, but it's so infrequent and in such limited quantity that it's not at all a viable way to obtain animals. You're completely at the mercy of the player market, which means new players are railroaded into spending 10 hours farming cheap animals before they can afford anything they actually want, which sucks.
And the thing is, you don't NEED to gouge prices to be incredibly wealthy in the game. I have two or three hours logged in a separate zoo that just breeds and sells lions at fair prices (or releases them to the wild -- a guaranteed way to make CC) and I already have more CC than I'll probably ever spend.
Now you might be thinking "why play Franchise mode if there's an offline version where you can avoid all this?" My answer to new players is yes, definitely do that. Avoid Franchise until Frontier steps in and starts policing the market. The problem is that Franchise mode connects all your zoos, and allows you to trade animals between them. This gives you the opportunity to buy head starts when starting a new zoo, a bit like NG+. But you can't do this in challenge mode... at all. So players want the benefits of playing Franchise, but the market is ruining it. It really, really sucks.
It's super unfortunate that a game which is supposed to be about conservation, education, and a love of animals has become a game of turning animals into cryptocurrency.
I feel like this just isn’t the experience tbh? There are spells where the market has no cash animals for long periods but usually, refresh for a minute or so and you can get a healthy slew of ungulates, tapirs, monitors/komodo dragons, macaques, and the odd flamingo. Occasionally you even see hippos, mandrills, and saltwater crocs for $.
It’s not a highway to lions but you can definitely make steady progress with starter animals that still feel like a real zoo.
I’ve also had only one purchase in 65 hours of Franchise play which has said ‘too slow’ after I tried to adopt - and my connection is average at best, I took three hours to download the damn game 😅.
Funny article but definitely not the reality of franchise.
Too many game journalists look like political correspondents trying to write a sports article, they just don't have a clue. I've seen far too many start with things like "I can't stand fighting games, so here's my opinion of Mortal Kombat..."
I really do hate seeing that - I do game reviews sometimes but I would never do one in a genre I know I don't get on with as it means there is inherent prejudice from the off. It's probably more down to the editors giving them those games than the individual writers but still.
I've had a very similar experience. I find almost no animals for cash and have had to basically play a mini-game of warthog/peafowl pregnancy ballet for babies that I can try and sell on the market. My zoo is extremely efficient but I have barely enough to buy two new non-starter animals with CC.
I am in the same boat as you. My franchise zoo has $1m+ at the moment but my CC were so low I couldn't afford a female giraffe after buying a male one.
My male Buffalo died and i couldnt even afford a new one as they were all expensive and there were no cash ones.
I saw a YT video about starting a breeding zoo, so i did that (its called 'Farm') and am finally starting to see some CC come in with Wild Dogs, Timber Wolves and Peafowl. Might have to add some Warthogs by the sound of it.
I would have been willing to buy a giraffe for $50k, maybe even $100k cash or if they were available but there are no cash listings.
CC is my biggest frustration at the moment with the game.
1. It's entirely based on a brief period where there were no cash listings, probably on the back of franchise server issues and no longer even relevant at the time of publication.
2. "For anyone starting a game right now, that’s pretty much all you can expect to see in your zoo for a good, long while" - Simply not true, but will put people off. Even without cash listings.
3. "Grinding out millions of them is currently the best hope of you’ve got of getting other animals" - Incorrect. Buying low and selling high is better, and can be done from the start.
4. "So almost immediately, players stopped selling animals for cash" - Yeah... no. Cash listings are from Frontier Zoo only. There isn't a shortage because people are selling for CC only, you can ONLY sell to others for CC.
5. "Frontier attempted fiscal stimulus, pumping cash-sale animals into the game from their own market presence" - They didn't start, this is how everyone got their first animals.
6. "Those who had got in early on endangered, prestige or hard-to-breed animals are now hoarding them, only selling them for wild sums." - I'm certainly not hoarding them, I can't sell them fast enough. I don't know a single person that hoards them, what would be the point? The more I sell, the more others can breed and put animals on the market, reducing prices.
7. "A market dominated by dozens of pages of the same creatures, dotted with the occasional chimp or elephant" & "scrolling through pages and pages of dying mutants, desperately seeking something that won’t horrify your guests, and might have a chance of breeding" - There are filters, I feel as if he's just sorting by lowest priced animals and clicking to move to the next page over and over!
8. "Even getting a single breeding pair of galapagos tortoises" - Waiting for a return on these when you're low on CC and sorting through dozens of ostriches, warthogs and peafowl would indeed feel like hell. Just buy a buffalo for 50cc and sell it for 2000. For goodness sake.
Agreed. It seems like this guy doesn't like management sims, played for about 15 minutes, and then wrote a review based on the misconceptions that he had about it.
I've got almost 100 hours in now but I experienced basically none of the "issues" they claimed to have.
After playing the Beta, I could immediately tell the shared market was going to be an issue. I just don't see why they included it at all to be honest. They could have had the entire market offline and that would be fine, but forcing some sort of pseudo-economy was bound to fail in some way.
It was a high concept idea of trying to replicate how zoos develop in real life and how they share and trade animals for breeding purposes. It’s a good idea, it’s just a little broken at the moment. Some people are over exaggerating at the moment as well, I’ve spent about 6/7 hours in franchise mode and have breeding Bengal tigers and saltwater crocodiles. It’s not a 30/40 hour grind. Once you’ve got one breeding pair of rare animals you’re good, as they produce great amounts of CC compared to warthog spam.
Even if you try and stop to think about other ways to fix this, this all sounds like a system doomed for failure.
For example: I tried to imagine that, well, if everyone is actually just treating every zoo like a swine farm for butchery purposes, then clearly the game should have a method of limiting how many visitors your zoo gets in the first place. You wouldn't visit a meat farm, so why would you go to these zoos if it doesn't have animals different from all the other zoos in the world.
Then, just a mere ten seconds later it hit me: New players would then be completely locked out of good species to grind with before they can afford the better ones. Because all the already rich players would have access to different species that newer players don't, and thus they hold the Monopoly on breed variety and visitor count.
Every little thing that would be a macro attempt to fix this will invariably turn back to failure. Any change would just alter what are the specific ones, but Players will all go back into breeding just a couple species out of optimization or, but mostly AND, necessity.
Im the end, the solution is don't do it.
I’m wondering if you could set the CC value for animals to a fixed amount. So you could sell someone a lion for however much cash you wanted, or for a predetermined amount of CC. Not only would this prevent outrageous inflation, I think it’s more realistic to what CC is supposed to represent: Conservation Credits.
CC should be like your reputation. You earn reputation for breeding and preserving endangered animals and spend it to acquire other exotic species. You can’t exactly “demand” reputation, it’s a measure of how the general public views you, which is something the game makers control.
They seem to make gorgeous 3d painting tools. Jurrasic World Evolution, Planet Coaster, Cities Skyline and Planet Zoo. They're all the same, really shallow with no proper depth aside from making things look pretty. Hell, Elite Dangerous is a gorgeous, brilliant game I'd absolutely reccomend, but there's not really much to it (though they are slowly getting better).
You've no idea what you're talking about, just trying to get some free karma from the regulars at /games because "Frontier=bad".
Tell me in detail what features Planet Zoo is missing to make it a "real game", what gameplay or management aspect do you feel is lacking?
I played enough of Planet Coaster and of the Planet Zoo beta to be able to form my own opinion irrespective of this sub, thanks. In fact, I only jumped into this thread because it was specifically about Planet Zoo.
You want an example? How about the example in this very article, the poorly thought out system to purchase animals from other people's zoos. It's yet another example of where Frontier make a beautiful game but remember at the last moment to attach a game to it. I mean, the animal models are stunning. That's what got me to pre-order the deluxe version. But, like Planet Zoo, I realised that the graphics and creation tools can only conceal so much.
Planet Coaster was far too easy. Beautiful park builder, but wafer-thin management. It was far too easy to make money.
It was a great tool for creative types, and I got a fair bit of time and enjoyment from PC, but there wasn't enough to keep me coming back.
>You want an example? How about the example in this very article, the poorly thought out system to purchase animals from other people's zoos.
That's not a good example of why the game is supposedly not a proper 'game'.
The animal, staff, economic, research and guest management - the actual gameplay aspects - are just completely irrelevant in your consideration because of a completely optional online marketplace that's only in 1 out of 4 game modes?
If you did play the Beta, as you claim, why not give an example of how any of those features are lacking? What gameplay and/or management do you feel is missing?
I'm pretty convinced you never play planet zoo in your life, everything you say as an argument is base on your experience on planet coaster (which i do agree with, it was way too easy and had almost no management) and clearly a bunch of reddit thread.
the trading system is only in ONE of the game mode call franchise mode. They didn't failed it, player abused the system like they always do. There is indeed a real game because the engine and most props where already made, they had way less stuff to develop and way more time to produce. also the management is very present maybe even too intense for some people. The only thing it has in common with planet coaster is the super sandbox with asset and it's shitty path tool.
I don't know a single person who bought this game and didn't enjoy the crap out of it, i do however know a lot that didn't enjoy coaster.
>I don't know a single person who bought this game and didn't enjoy the crap out of it
You do know you're making this comment under an article where the author is talking about how they're not enjoying the crap out of it and how it's worse for newer players.
Regardless of how lacklustre you think the management aspect is, that doesn't make Planet Zoo any less of a game.
Like, it's a game, it's weird how that seems to be up for debate.
And besides, play sandbox or challenge or career, this animal-purchasing-problem is gone.
This is actually fucking dope. It makes it seem like a real zoo but I'd like some sort of "expedition" feature where you can send off people to different continents and have a chance to bring back a rare animal(s) at least then you aren't totally behest to the economy.
>It makes it seem like a real zoo
I mean the article was hilarious but how is this like a real zoo lol?
Maybe I should count myself blessed that none of the zoos I have visited are populated by nothing but warthogs and ostriches
I feel like if they wanted to make it more like a real zoo they should model it after the ones I went to in our rural area as a kid. Just add a lot of maimed eagles and prairie dogs that breed like rats. Add some rats too, why not. Feed them to your zoo’s random common snakes.
Then one day turn around and trade it all for a tiger or something.
Holy shit this was a funny write-up of a wonderfully bizarre situation. By the time I reached the part
Since you can only sell animals as adults, I was faced with regular population explosions of unshiftable young peafowl. As a result, the colony was regularly ravaged by plague, starvation and injuries due to brutal peckfights.
Let's Game it Out is so fantastic. Every video he makes it pure gold.
For anybody who doesn't know about him, I highly recommend a binge, but especially watch his Satisfactory videos. The game was practically *made* for him.
If Frontier handles this the same way they handle Elite: Dangerous, they’ll simply nerf warthogs and force the community to rely on a different exploit. Maybe they can add tour buses that are very lucrative for 6 weeks, then play whack-a-mole with the best routes.
The one thing I don’t get about this article, and maybe someone who plays the game can help me out, is why do the warthogs have any value at all at this point? They sound easy to breed on your own, so once you have a dozen or so would you ever need to buy more?
Animals like warthogs, peafowls, and african dogs all give birth to multiple babies at once instead of one at a time like high value animals like mandrills and giraffes, have a short gestation period, and these animals young mature rapidly meaning much less turnover time. They can also be kept in large groups making breeding large amounts very easy.
They are worth very little but can always be released into the wild which I believe has a minimum value you will always get even if the market is flooded.
That's kind of what this article is about. The progression of this game is supposed to be you buying low tier animals that arent super attractive to guests, but some people gamed the system early and now have basically unlimited funds to buy up every high tier animal like elephants and orangutans, set up factory farms, and now release a very slow supply for max cost while buying up all competition making it impossible for new players to actually play the game if they dont grind out 40 hours of breeding crap.
These factory farmers also unironically quote trickle down economics as to why what theyre doing is a good thing on the planet zoo sub too. It's fucking stupid and I honestly cant think of a way to prevent this.
I have a decent zoo going now after 50 hours and being able to buy a few prime animals at launch prices before one idiot posted a guide on factory farming on the sub and tanked the economy overnight. I started with giraffes and have expanded to lemurs and mandrills (as far as I can tell im the only mandrill breeder) and I can't place a single female on the market of any of them without it selling within two seconds. Doesnt matter if it's 100cc or 10000cc I honestly believe these people are running scripts.
Due to these people I cant even tank the market because they buy up everything and hoard it right away. I've placed around 300 female lemurs on the market for 50cc each and yet the amount of sellers never went up. It's a fucking joke. My goal is to completely bottom out the lemur market while using my profits to move on to others and make it so regular players can actually play the game but this is just ridiculous.
If anyone wants to buy this game for the online portion: dont unless you want to play an american economic simulator.
> some people gamed the system early and now have basically unlimited funds to buy up every high tier animal like elephants and orangutans, set up factory farms, and now release a very slow supply for max cost while buying up all competition making it impossible for new players to actually play the game if they dont grind out 40 hours of breeding crap.
I've seen this somewhere before.
So the rich 1% are using their money to make even more money, while the rest of the players are struggling to just get by.
I'm kind of amazed at how fast this all happened, and how illustrative it is of today's market.
\> These factory farmers also unironically quote trickle down economics as to why what theyre doing is a good thing on the planet zoo sub too
\> unless you want to play an american economic simulator.
This pleases supply-side jesus
To avoid inbreeding, which produces less attractive/valuable offspring.
Tbh, that's my biggest issue now (other than glitches and UI issues). As your park expands, you get more and more species to keep track of to avoid inbreeding. It's neither fun nor challenging, just busywork and should be possible to automate.
Endangered animals are worth significantly more CC. You also get more CC for their immunity and fertility (which you can breed for). Warthogs will get you about 10 CC (releasing into the wild) and high-value animals are selling for thousands on the player market.
Well, there are still new players who need warthogs to start a healthy breeding stock. And apparently a lot of the warthogs being sold have severe genetic issues so healthy ones are going to be worth at least a little more.
Read this earlier and it's pretty funny, but I'm not sure what the benefit of having this shared market is. If you play offline you get an AI controlled version of it which, if you didn't know any better, plays the exact same way as this online version - except without the crippling problems.
>unsure of the reason for it
Haven't read it but does the article mention that this was going to be the ONLY way to play? When beta released, the outcry was so large that Frontier had to promise an offline mode was going to be a thing about 24hs into it. They wanted it to be online-only for god knows what reason.
Praised be the beta participants, it could've been so much worse without them.
The thing you have to understand about Frontier is they don't know how to develop video games. Or, they don't know how to balance things at all, and everything they do that requires any level of balancing is either completely broken or completely pointless. Or both.
They are absolutely phenomenal at developing toys. But the distinction between a toy and a game is a set of rules, obstacles, and goals, all of which need overcoming and structure. Without those things, you're not really playing a game. Frontier is bad at all those things. Their games are more like toys.
Despite Frontier being bad at all those things, *they still insist on shoving attempts at them into their games*, even if those attempts barely work on paper and are- within mere *minutes* of playtesting- obviously not working in actual execution, either. Look at Planet Coaster and the various thing added to it post-launch, none of which actually *work*, and are so broken that they're completely optional. Security guards, for instance. Turning them on suddenly floods your park with hundreds of pickpocketing attempts per day, which your incompetent security guards will probably fail to solve. And you can turn the entire thing on and off- so it's obviously not balanced to align with gameplay in the first place. It's for show. Likewise, the entirety of *staff management in the first place*- staff having different levels of training, demands for wages, all that stuff- completely optional as well, and when enabled, you're bombarded with an endless onslaught of complaints from staff, easily solvable by mindlessly training them all to level 5 and mindlessly upping their wages, which won't hurt your bottom line because the rest of the game is so trivial you're never actually *trying* to make money...it just sort of happens.
I have heard some conflicting reports that Planet Zoo actually functions as a video game outside of being a pure creative sandbox experience with some ultimately meaningless and effortless numbers to pretend to keep track of. But I haven't played it, and cannot comment for sure on if it's just as trivial overall as Frontier's other games.
But it does have this- Planet Zoo's example of this kind of bad game design is this online animal marketplace. It's a thing you do in the game, and boy howdy does it require you to click on stuff, but it's not gameplay, it doesn't work, it's entirely optional, and 5 minutes of playtesting would've told the devs it didn't work, but they tossed it in there anyway...because Frontier does not know how to develop games with meaningful gameplay.
Sorry to reply to an old comment, but I just wanted to ask if you think it's a bad thing that they attempt to do those things? As a writer, I would rather that people attempt more ambitious things and fail than do something safe and succeed. Yes these things may break the game, but it's better that Frontier tries to hopefully one day make a better product, no? Just wanted to pick your brain since I don't really vibe with "silver bullet solution" stuff.
I do think it's bad. It's sloppy. Like imagine a cake. You advertise it as a layer cake. But it's not. But people still like the cake part well enough. And it's very pretty.
The layer cake is actual serious gameplay.
But then as people still like your cakes you start tacking on gaudy plastic decorations. They don't make the cake taste worse but the experience is kinda soured. They're optional though, so you can take them off... But that ruins the frosting and you know there could've been good decorations there instead. Then they add some cookies, but the cookies don't taste very good. Hell, there's a few fake strawberries in there too. They can't be eaten so you just pick them off... It's still the same tasty cake but the whole experience is soured by picking off fake fruit, removing decorations, and messing up the frosting... And yet you know those things were there and that they were disappointing.
The underlying cake isn't awful but you thought you were getting a layer cake and then it's got all this other stuff trying to make up for how it's not a layer cake and none of the stuff looks right or tastes good or is even actual food...
It's the reason a mcdonalds hamburger is totally fine food, but that doesn't mean an actual burger from a big steakhouse isn't objectively a more complex and satisfying meal. If the game was billed as a mcdonalds hamburger, fine, it's a mcdonalds hamburger. But it's billed as a steakhouse burger, and it's not, and then they put fake lettuce and watery ketchup on it to try and make it look more like one but you still know it's not and can tell the difference.
You can look no further than elite dangerous.
An online space ship game where you can play in an instanced world with no penalty at all then go online with that same character.
What should have been a highly immersive eve online with real time combat is a highly immersive "do the same thing" game. I'd still be playing it if we could Do half of what you can in eve though.
This has to be the most pretencious r/gatekeeping post I've ever seen.
"Frontier games=toys because I don't feel challenge" is not only stupid but blatantly untrue. What about the myriad of other games in the marketplace that don't offer challenges?
Are pokemon games not games but toys because there isn't challenge?
What about every old game from the atari era - N64 era that didn't really have a challenge? Are they toys too?
Get off your high horse.
I think you are somewhat putting words in their mouth. They didn't say they weren't games at all, but they were "more like" toys.
And the reasons were more numerous than JUST challenge. Clear goals and objectives are also somewhat weak or missing from many game modes. Minecraft might also be considered a toy in many ways, similar to lego. It's common in sandbox games.
Pokemon certainly lacks challenge, but does have two clear goals: become the champ after fighting gym leaders, and (arguably not a goal) complete the pokedex.
If there was a Pokemon game that was just a wide field of Pokemon you could catch, I'd probably also say it's more like a toy than a game.
Of course they are all literally video games and by extension are games in a sense, but from a design perspective, the lack of a win condition or clear objectives or ending screen all contribute toward it feeling "more like" a toy.
I think it's like comparing these games to MS Paint, yes you can make pretty things and take joy from that, but those aspects don't add up to a game. That aspect is more like a toy. Toys can be good or bad, and it's not about the lack of challenge. Sounds like they think the toy part of planet coaster is very good, but the game part is very bad.
Pokemon has win conditions, fail conditions, and things that matter towards those conditions. They aren't well balanced and the games are trivially easy but they're at least there.
A game like Planet Coaster is on another level- its balance is so fundamentally broken that those aspects of play literally *do not matter*, which is where I draw the distinction. It attempts to be a game and fails so hard that it is more akin to a toy. That is why I used the phrase "Their games are **more like** toys". On a spectrum between toy and game, Frontier's games fall closer to toy.
Plenty of games fall in various spots on that spectrum. Frontier's games lean heavily towards the toy end. Pokemon is farther towards it than the game end, too. Competitive pokemon is towards the game end. It's not entirely about challenge.
It is not gatekeeping to define concepts. Game has a definition. Toy has a definition. Both are types of play. One has rules and structure. One does not. Defining those things is not gatekeeping. Saying a game leans more towards one than the other is not gatekeeping.
This person’s been ragging on Frontier games for *years* now, using multiple accounts. They were around to complain their way through the PlanCo launch in 2016 and they’re still going for Planet Zoo now, apparently.
Either that or there’s a shockingly huge number of people who crop up on dozens of Frontier-related posts spouting the exact same points, visiting the exact same subreddits, and writing in the exact same style.
>Either that or there’s a shockingly huge number of people who crop up on dozens of Frontier-related posts
A quick glance at the ED subreddit will show you that people have known that frontier are terrible at game design for years
I have, I was pointing out that it's counterproductive to think one person in particular has it out for Frontier when it's simply not the case. Almost every feature they've added to ED post release has been a half-baked mess, and there's a subreddit with a large group who agree with that statement.
Oh give it a rest, what it is is a bunch of people with the same issues who feel burned and want to make it clear what people can expect beyond the bells and whistles.
The similarity in problems identified is because they are a consistent issue that many people pick up on. There isn't a conspiracy.
People are totally good to voice their issues, there’s plenty with all of Frontier’s games. I adore PlanCo and even I’ll admit that it’s full of glaring issues, and I won’t touch Elite or JWE with a barge pole based on what I’ve seen.
What I’m saying here is that *this particular user* has come up over and over and over again to rag on Frontier games, and this is like their 5th account now. They post on the same Sims/Nightvale/gaymer subs every time using the same language, like it’s blatantly obvious who they are, and their criticisms are usually extremely hostile and gate-keepy in nature. If you want a good, honest opinion, look elsewhere.
I've had similar accusations levied at me because I'm outspoken and have been on the ED forums since the beta, though dropped out along with many other detractors and now it's just those who are willing to overlook the problem. Needless to say, they're false, and people are very quick to miss their own confirmation bias
It's not overly hostile, it's just uncompromising. A clear message meant to convince, not placate. I don't blame them, I would warn anyone else of the same before investing both a lot of time and money on developers who seem to just.... Not get it. Or do get it, but make heavy use of psychological manipulation to manipulate players with their gameplay loops. Similar to many mobile developers, or games like destiny.
And it's not nice to be accused of astroturfing or w.e because of it.
>I've had similar accusations levied at me because I'm outspoken and have been on the ED forums since the beta, Needless to say, they're false, and people are very quick to miss their own confirmation bias
Well in this case that person is right, because it's in fact the same user.
Said user has been banned from /r/thesims and other game subreddits on a dozen accounts because of their toxicity, they got banned from /r/PlanetCoaster because they wouldn't stop harassing the developers for months. If you frequent those subreddits, you can tell it's the same person because everyone eventually recognizes them due to their incessant posting and they only last a few weeks/months before they're banned. Then suddenly a new account pops up that uses the same ~4 subreddits and acts exactly the same, doesn't take a genius to connect the dots.
They are. I remember seeing a post of theirs once with a pic of their room setup irl, which I only remembered because the decor and colors were very distinct. Low and behold, this user has pics of the *exact* same room in their history.
I don’t disagree with their points even, that’s the thing, but I’ve seen when they were being rude to members and admins I have respect for, over and over, and it really irks me that they keep coming back from being banned to inevitably do it again. I would never levy an accusation of behavior against someone if I wasn’t 100% sure. Check my post history, pretty much all of my stuff is just silly nonsense, I’m not one who’s on here to just be a dick to others for giggles. *shrug*
Games are toys. Some people want creative expression in their games, just look at how stupidly popular Minecraft and Skyrim are despite the mechanical difficulty being easy as hell. Feels like the Timmy, Johnny, Spike dilemma all over again. Not everyone is a Spike.
> Games are toys.
The definition of game, and the decades of discussion on what that definition is, explicitly begs to differ. The distinction is in the goals, challenges, rules, obstacles, and structure. Every attempt at defining "game" involves these core concepts. There is a distinction. A ball is a toy. Catch is a game.
>just look at how stupidly popular Minecraft and Skyrim are despite the mechanical difficulty being easy as hell.
Minecraft and Skyrim have goals, obstacles, rules, challenges, and structure.
Minecraft creative mode is not a game, it is a toy. All other minecraft modes are games.
I don't know why people on r/games- a subreddit about games- named after games- have so much trouble with this. A game is a concept. It has a definition. That definition on an objective level relies on the concepts of rules, goals, and structure.
Every single discussion and attempt at defining what a game is through recorded history emphasizes the rules, goals, and structure. They are what makes the distinction between play and game. A baseball is a toy, baseball itself is a sport. The distinction is not an unclear one, though it is a spectrum.
On that spectrum, a video game where the balance and function are so badly handled that they don't matter, and everyone plays in a free-for-all mode anyway, is closer to a toy. That is my point. That is all there is to be said on it and I am done trying to convince people who can't comprehend the distinction between a baseball and the sport.
People have a problem with it because you're literally making shit up to prove your opinion on what is considered a video game. You're cherry picking parts of that wiki article and just ignoring the parts that prove you wrong, like the first definition listed there.
The most hilarious part is there is even a genre for the types of games we are talking about, they're called sandbox games and theyve been around for decades.
> like the first definition listed there.
You mean this one?
>A game is a structured form of play
Or the next one?
>Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction.
You probably mean this one:
>Wittgenstein argued that the elements of games, such as play, rules, and competition, all fail to adequately define what games are. From this, Wittgenstein concluded that people apply the term game to a range of disparate human activities that bear to one another only what one might call family resemblances.
Which doesn't say those things are not elements of games, but that they are not enough to define it properly. And also,
>As the following game definitions show, this conclusion was not a final one and today many philosophers, like Thomas Hurka, think that Wittgenstein was wrong
It's regarded as wrong in the first place.
Meanwhile, the rest of them:
>a game as an activity that must have the following characteristics: Governed by rules
>no goals are associated with a plaything, it is a toy. (Crawford notes that by his definition, (a) a toy can become a game element if the player makes up rules, and (b) The Sims and SimCity are toys, not games.) If it has goals, a plaything is a challenge.
>"A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome."
>"A game is a form of art in which participants, termed players, make decisions in order to manage resources through game tokens in the pursuit of a goal."
>"A game is an activity among two or more independent decision-makers seeking to achieve their objectives in some limiting context."
>At its most elementary level then we can define game as an exercise of voluntary control systems in which there is an opposition between forces, confined by a procedure and rules in order to produce a disequilibrial outcome."
>"A game is a form of play with goals and structure."
>"to play a game is to engage in activity directed toward bringing about a specific state of affairs, using only means permitted by specific rules, where the means permitted by the rules are more limited in scope than they would be in the absence of the rules, and where the sole reason for accepting such limitation is to make possible such activity."
>"When you strip away the genre differences and the technological complexities, all games share four defining traits: a goal, rules, a feedback system, and voluntary participation."
**All** agree with me. Every single one.
You're the one who looked at the top definition, willfully misinterpreted it, ignored the part that says it's regarded as wrong, and then pretend that **every single other definition on hte page** didn't agree with me, when, in fact, they do.
>they're called sandbox games and theyve been around for decades.
Planet Coaster and Planet Zoo are not Sandbox games.
You know what's peak Reddit? Peak Reddit is going on a thread about a video game on a subreddit about video games and finding a far too lengthy and, frankly, ridiculous comment chain that is *entirely*, and has been from the very start, about arguing *semantics*.
That's all this is. Stop acting like people have to agree with what particular parlance you choose to use to refer to a sandbox game. This entire thread could've been avoided if you had just said the simulation aspects of Planet Coaster are extremely lacking, and that Frontier isn't very good at implementing meaningful and challenging simulation gameplay into their games - which, by the way, is an almost universally agreed-upon opinion.
>This entire thread could've been avoided if you had just said the simulation aspects of Planet Coaster are extremely lacking, and that Frontier isn't very good at implementing meaningful and challenging simulation gameplay into their games
You mean like this?
> The thing you have to understand about Frontier is they don't know how to develop video games. Or, they don't know how to balance things at all, and everything they do that requires any level of balancing is either completely broken or completely pointless. Or both.
>It's a thing you do in the game, and boy howdy does it require you to click on stuff, but it's not gameplay, it doesn't work, it's entirely optional, and 5 minutes of playtesting would've told the devs it didn't work, but they tossed it in there anyway...because Frontier does not know how to develop games with meaningful gameplay.
If you guys could hold off on your heated gamer moments long enough to parse comments as a whole instead of picking out individual sentences and absolutely refusing to understand the entire comment, maybe this would be easier for you.
I wonder if you all are discussing different things here. Would you agree that Minecraft Adventure Mode and Minecraft Creative Mode are both *video games*? The thing that will drive many people crazy, including me, is the idea that a more toy-like or exploration-driven game (ie, *Gone Home*) is not a video game.
Whereas considering the historical concept of "game" and "toy" is really a different subject where you aren't necesarily wrong. It just might not be helpful to talk about the subject in those terms (games or not games) because it's a really loaded term in the video gaming world over the last 10 years or so.
You found *Planet Coaster* to often be fun to play, but didn't find it challenging in terms of strategy and planning.
Planet Coaster doesn't have a proper failstate, but (in the early game) it is possible to get broke enough that a park becomes unsalvageable, which is for all intents and purposes a fail state
Even if it didn't, it's still a fucking video game. As is gone home.
> but (in the early game) it is possible to get broke enough that a park becomes unsalvageable
While technically that failstate exists, if I wanted to tank my park economy, I'd need a 150 page strategy explaining me how to actually do that. No matter what you do, money just keeps flying at you at speeds Jeff Bezos would be jealous of.
> I really hope people aren't so dense they think I'm claiming Planet Coaster is not a video game.
People make claims like that all the time though, that's why I mentioned this. People will literally claim that *Dear Esther* isn't a video game. I mean, even TotalBiscuit would sometimes say stuff about needing to have goals or "fail states" as required to be considered a video game. So, I think people really are not understanding that you are essentially making an academic point here.
>But it's a toy video game. Not a game video game.
And this isn't a term that gets used, and I think it's causing more confusing than you intend. Just google "toy video game" and see what response you get. Terms like exploration game, simulation games, and creative games are terms that are going to make more sense to the average gamer.
Like, if you had said that Planet Coaster is a fun creative game, but a terrible management game, no one would really be arguing with you. Well, except someone who thinks it's a good management game. But we wouldn't be having this toy-vs-game discussion.
You seem really concerned about words being used in a specific way ("toy" vs "game"), but you are using language that is confusing and not standard in the video game world.
I've read this whole thing, and it's following the trend of every other argument on the internet everyone has ever had about concrete categorization of things which clearly fall on a spectrum.
You make an interesting point about things having toy-like characteristics, and you get to have your opinion on where the line should be drawn. You don't get to be the sole arbiter of what is a toy and what is a game in video games. It's approximately as accurate as deciding where the line is between red and orange on the rainbow.
Are you using multiple accounts to make this argument? All I see in your post history is a link to wikipedia in your account history which doesn't really back up your assertion (as pointed out by others).
With respect, we are not all idiots here who cannot understand what you're trying to say.
>which doesn't really back up your assertion
The page is absolutely covered in information about the definition of "game". It features several entries about different people throughout history and their attempt at defining "game". All those definitions share the same specifications that I've repeated are the definition of "game".
You link to Wikipedia as though it authoritatively proves your beliefs to be objective truth while failing to point out that the article contains multiple definitions of what a game is, some of which are far less rigid.
I thought this article was hilarious and it made me want to buy this game, but hearing how there doesn’t appear to be any working challenge, makes me not care for it. Ala cities skylines, seemed like I could never run out of money.
> but hearing how there doesn’t appear to be any working challenge, makes me not care for it. Ala cities skylines, seemed like I could never run out of money
That's pretty standard for all of Frontiers sim/park building games.
> seemed like I could never run out of money.
I can assure you, it is very easy to run out of money in Planet Zoo. Doesn't mean that the game is very hard, if you know how to do your job and you pay attention to the details, such as ticket pricing, attractions, animal needs, you won't run out of money, but if you make a mistake, it can lead to losing your money quickly.
> it is very easy to run out of money in Planet Zoo
That was a problem until I had about 1000 visitors in Franchise mode. Since then, I haven't even looked at the Finance screen, solved every issue by throwing more personnel at it, and sitting at over a million cash right now. Waiting for offspring to be born after receiving the message? (generally takes a month or so) BAM somehow I have another 10k in the bank.
It started out great, and thought they finally managed to make the management challenging, but that took about 5 hours of playing and it evapored. I have no idea where the money is coming from anymore, but it keeps piling in now. One decently popular animal in your zoo and watch it skyrocket.
You know, I think the money itself shouldn't be the measure for management. Most tycoon games have the same issue, you reach a "break point" where you suddenly are making enough money to never care about it again. But PZ at least has the animal welfare thing, and I think the management "difficulty" is supposed to come from there, not from making money. And I'm ok with that.
That was Planet Coaster's problem, too. I hate Planet Coaster. I have 150 hours in it, I've built tons of neat stuff in it, it's very pretty, but I absolutely 100% cannot recommend Planet Coaster. It is a terrible game. Fun toy, terrible game. **EDIT TO CLARIFY: I AM AWARE PLANET COASTER IS A VIDEO GAME. I AM USING THE TERM "GAME" TO REFER TO "A MEANS OF PLAY REVOLVING AROUND STRUCTURE, RULES, OBSTACLES, LIMITATIONS, AND GOALS. I AM NOT TRYING TO CLAIM PLANET COASTER IS SOMEHOW MAGICALLY NOT A VIDEO GAME.**
And what's worse is Frontier's been messing this up for ages. They messed up Rollercoaster Tycoon 3, too, with the same issues- no challenge, no meaningful gameplay mechanics.
I haven't managed to figure out through youtube videos yet if Planet Zoo is the same or not. It sure sounds like it is, or at the very least what's improved is only barely improved. All I know about its gameplay is that animals apparently die obscenely quickly and nobody's happy about it. Otherwise, no clue if they actually finally figured out how to make a game or not.
Planet Zoo is by no means a difficult management sim.
However, there are definitely ways to "lose." Especially in the early portions, money management is key and you will spend time making small adjustments here and there to keep the numbers climbing. Such as getting your staff better training so they can work harder/longer instead of hiring additional heads. Or notching your ticket costs up as your zoo's popularity increases to cover increased land taxes and facilities' running costs, but making sure they stay low enough to not deter new guests.
And if you don't properly manage your animals they will get upset and tank your Zoo. There is definitely a level of planning involved if you want to keep your animals' gene pools healthy, such as getting rid of older animals and swapping out offspring for those from other zoos. For example: can you afford to drop CP to add a grizzly bear to your zoo, or should you use those points to replace your aging komodo dragon pair instead?
On the flip side, there is definitely a point in the game where money starts growing faster than you can spend it, and it's not terribly far in (10-15 hours of gameplay before my zoo got there). Also, the animal management quickly reaches a point where it is more annoying and repetitive than high-stakes. Once you have an established breeding colony of the lower value animals, they pump out babies fast enough to steadily inch your CP count skyward.
At the end of the day, it's definitely more complex than Planet Coaster or Jurassic World Evolution, but far from being as fine-tuned or nuanced as something like Anno, Zoo Tycoon, or Roller Coaster Tycoon.
You know, I started out trying to care about inbreeding, but there's so much population management going on that I just can't, and it really doesn't seem to affect things that much anyway.
I've got an Indian peafowl habitat and they breed like crazy. Every 10 minutes I have to sell off most of the adults. Same goes for a lot of the exhibit animals and some of the grazing mammals. When you add up all the animals, I probably spend half my time unpaused culling my exhibits & habitats. I could give them contraceptives, but that costs money, and selling hordes of unwanted, inbred animals is part of what's keeping my zoo afloat.
I dunno, I'm enjoying the game, but it definitely needs some balance or additional tools to deal with animal population.
Yeah. I only worry about inbreeding on the higher-tier animals. My peafowl probably have 3rd eyes and glow in the dark by now... But that 15cp for releasing those genetic monstrosities to the wild is definitely the main funding for most of my other animals.
>100% can not recommend Planet Coaster. It is a terrible game.
I think your being a bit harsh on it. There is more game modes than challenge mode, which I admit is *far* *far* too easy. Almost mind numbingly easy. Especially when compared to RCT2. This is coming from someone who beat all of the campaign missions, so I know exactly how terrible it is. But to judge the entire game off its financial and management side isn’t really fair, since the majority of the community who makes the beautiful parks and rides to be put into the workshop do it in sandbox mode. The games management aspect wholeheartedly deserves to be criticized, but to completely brush aside the creative aspect and not recommend it is a disservice to the amazing creative and sandbox aspects. Sometimes people just want a toy, and that’s completely fine. Look at Minecraft creative mode. Would you not recommend Minecraft if the only thing someone wanted to do was build? No, because it’s just a different way to play the game. In Planet Coasters situation, it’s flawed and sandbox becomes the best way to play unfortunately. Which is why I’d recommend but only with a disclaimer that if you want it for the financial and management side, don’t bother, but if you want to just build a great park (like the ones the workshop is filled with) 100% go and buy it. Being a “toy” is not always a bad thing. All video games are just toys. So yes, Planet Coaster is extremely flawed in the challenge department, but not everyone cares about being challenged. I know for a fact there are plenty of people who picked it up and completely ignored the money modes. A game doesn’t have to be challenging or have goals to be fun. The fact that you put 150 hours into it kinda proves my point.
Although I really wish the game ran better
You also said that it’s a terrible game. Games are toys. Why can’t you recommend it for the toy aspect? The very fact that you said “100% can not recommend it” contradicts you saying it’s a fantastic toy. You quoted me saying I’d 100% recommend it for being a sandbox game, which I said because you made it out that even though it’s a good toy, nobody should buy it.
No there's very distinctly a difference. Games have rules and challenges and are occasionally frustrating. They serve different needs. When you get out a box of legos and build whatever you want it's fun and you can get amazing things, and it's wonderful. But it has no system, it has no challenge.
While games can be frustrating as fuck. Sometimes games aren't fun, at least not the sort of fun of toys. Sometimes games have an hour or two hours of banging your head against a wall, because you're not correctly grasping the systems and using them to your advantage.
.games are toys, not all toys are games. A game is a set of rules that facilitate play within constraints a toy is fully player driven. The difficulty level of Frontiers games is so low that you have to make your own challenges making them closer to toys than games.
Why does it matter though? Wether or not you call it a toy or game doesn’t mean that it’s not going to be enjoyable or fun. Some people aren’t looking for a challenge and will buy a game regardless of if it has any or not. Look at the Minecraft creative mode community. It’s still the same game, just another way to enjoy it. I’ve already said that there is countless people who bought PC and completely ignored the money modes, and they got their own type of enjoyment out of the game.
RTC3 at least had animals and waterparks, plus graphics that didn't crash non-high end computers, and actual CSR/CTR. I have thousands of bits of CS from various websites, and fond memories of the Arati forums, and looking at what people made. Which is, still to this day, even better than PC simply because of the custom rides, tracks, scenery, and other bits.
I love RCT3 in general but its animals were just props, they had no management whatsoever and you could mix them in any numbers however you wanted even if it made no sense. Great decorative icing on the cake for a theme park but it wouldn't satisfy anyone wanting a zoo simulator.
> I hate Planet Coaster. I have 150 hours in it, I've built tons of neat stuff in it, it's very pretty, but I absolutely 100% cannot recommend Planet Coaster. It is a terrible game. Fun toy, terrible game.
I hate this mentality that I see more and more on gaming subreddits. You played it for 150 hours but you hated it? Why did you play it for so long then? There must've been something there that was interesting enough to keep you hooked for so long.
What's the difference between a toy and a game? A game is just a toy, it's something for entertainment. Why do you get to be the gatekeeper of what is and isn't a game?
In this case, he doesn't actually hate Planet Coaster.
I know exactly what he means. when it came out it was a technical marvel. And it still is. It's by far the most detailed and disgustingly beautiful theme park builder that has ever existed. Shit just works. And it is staggering to see what is possible with the tools. And I'm not exaggerating here. What they created is astounding. You can easily lose hundreds of hours in just building pretty shit.
What he hates is that the systems that would make it a proper game (failstates, objectives, purpose) are all nonexistant or extremely lacking. And he is 100% correct there. In planet coaster, you never have to actually manage your park, people, personnel or anything whatsoever. Money is abundant, and you have to actively try hard to end up in the red.
So what he means is he hates the game aspect of Planet Coaster. And as a game, it utterly fails. There is no challenge, failstate or any meaningful gameplay. Therefore, Planet Coaster is a really bad game.
But it IS a brilliant tool. A tool where you can easily spend hundreds of hours building the most amazing things. Not to mention workshop support that helps those like me who aren't very creative. On the workshop, every existing coaster on this planet has been remade and shared, and is even more pretty and spectacular than their real world counterpart. Not to mention the countless new coasters that have been designed and built by players.
In short, I agree with your comment, Steam reviews with 100+ hours hating on the game are extremely common. But in this specific case, this person doesn't hate Planet Coaster. He hates the game aspects of Planet Coaster.
When you spend money and time on something, you try to justify that money and time by spending further. Sunk cost fallacy is as ral as your fallacy of assuming people only make good decisions before taking a course of action without prior knowledge. And it's clear OP found no challenge and lost ther enjoyment and progressively tried to see if they could bleed something out of that stone. It was still a stone, but they didn't know until they tried.
I have asolutely played games I'd never recommend to completion.
> There must've been something there that was interesting enough to keep you hooked for so long.
Some things take a long time to work through, so what may seem like a long amount of time really isn't. There is also often a desire for a thing to be good, so you stick with it to see if your initial feeling is wrong.
I know it isn't a popular opinion, but I really don't like Breath of the Wild. That said, I still spent over 100 hours on it for my play-through. That game did a great job of making it feel like a payoff was coming without actually delivering me a payoff. Some of the shrines and areas were really good. The trouble is that a lot of them weren't. As I'm playing that first time, I've got that little bit that I loved as bait keeping me going even though I'm not actively loving a lot of it. In retrospect it becomes a bit easier to see that I spent a lot of time working through stuff that I wasn't enjoying to find the bits that I did.
> What's the difference between a toy and a game? A game is just a toy, it's something for entertainment.
A game is a toy but a toy is not necessarily a game, similar to how a dog is a mammal but a mammal isn't always a dog. Movies are also for entertainment, but that doesn't make them toys or games. I think for most people it is about how you engage with the entertainment. For a lot of people, rules and fail-states are important criteria for a game to feel engaging.
There's the whole sunken cost fallacy thing which makes people spend more time to try and "recoup" their purchase or justify it. Or there are at least some things that are interesting, but in the end you realize the negatives outweigh the positives. Kind of like a shitty relationship.
Also some people aren't actually "legitimately" hooked on the games they play, could just be procrastinating or indulging in escapism, or could be part of a deeper issue like depression or addiction.
Seriously. That's fucking 6.25 **days** of playtime.
That's 18.75 full 8-hour shifts. Almost a month's work of time spend working for a full-time worker in the US.
That's a lot of time spent on a single game.
For the same reason people hate on an entertainment product like Game of Thrones after watching hundreds of hours of it.
Certain games, like strategy games, have a slow build up. You only know if the games mechanics actually pay off in the end, once you put in the time. So enjoyment also just comes from the expectation of what your actions are gonna accomplish.
People also arent machines that have a constant per hour rate of enjoyment when it comes to entertainment, its fluid and varies
I can't speak for all their games, but Frontier also did Elite Dangerous, a game I put 150+ hours into and hated. How does it manage this you ask?
Well, the first bit is that it's full to the fucking brim with "wait" timers. In Elite Dangerous, warping around from place to place in system takes a long time. Anywhere from a minute or up to 30 minutes for the longest jumps. What are you doing during that time? Well, nothing really. You're basically just keeping your mouse pointed at a little aiming reticule to make sure you stay on your target. And you have to do this A LOT. Probably a solid third to maybe even half of my play time was just spent waiting for jumps to complete. That massive inflated my playtime, but it wasn't enjoyable or meaningful interaction with the systems.
The other thing Frontier is GREAT at is creating little skinner boxes with a little bit of a lure that the real "fun" part of the game is just ahead.
"Your ship is tiny and shitty now, but if you grind enough, you can get the BIGGER ship and that'll open up your ability to do the fun stuff!"
"Okay, I got the bigger ship, can I do the fun stuff now?"
"Well, no, but now you actually are capable of farming at the level you need to be able to access the actual BIGGER SHIP! And that'll totally let you do the fun stuff!"
"...fine. Okay, I've done that, can I do the fun stuff NOW?"
"Well, no. If you actually used the big ship, something could happen to it and then you'd be back to square one. So you actually need to be able to buy TWO of the big ships. Get back to grinding!"
Rinse and repeat until you finally just stop playing the game or if you're masochistic enough, you actually get to that "end game" and realize that there actually isn't really any fun stuff at all because everything is terribly balanced and you just spent a couple hundred hours working your way to the top of a completely meaningless chain.
I can understand what happened, but what I can't quite understand is the decision to keep on going for 150 hours. Sure you didn't actually "play" for 150 hours, but you "spent" 150 hours in this game.
The way you described the game is that it has grind, then more grind, then grind some more, a bit more grind, grind again, and so on. What I don't quite get is why you continued grinding for 150 hours if you didn't actually enjoy the grind? To me, this game is basically made for people who enjoyed grinding. If you don't enjoy it, why did it take you 150 hours before you stopped? Is 20 hours of repeated grinding not enough to give you an idea of what the game is like and to make you stop because that's what the game offers?
Part of it was because I really enjoy Space "Economic Tycoon" games.
(The X-series, Starsector, etc.) A lot of those games start out super rough. Once you get over that initial investment though, they open up and allow you to do some crazy shit.
My initial complaints were largely just due to travel time. When you're flitting about in the smallest ships, you had so little cargo space that you barely got to spend any time doing the actual "gameplay" as much as you got to spend time staring at the hyper jump screen to go drop off your 9 units of ore that you mined in 3 minutes before you had to go do a 5 minute jump (as an example).
When you're spending the majority of time staring at what basically amounts to a loading screen, those 3 minutes feel really fucking good in comparison. If those 3 minutes are good, how much better is it going to be when when you have 200 units of cargo space?!
Well, for me at least, the answer was "pretty fucking boring." Turns out that once I had a ship of a size that wasn't forcing me to just be stuck in warp all the time, I found the actual gameplay to be incredibly shallow and rote.
That's the thing few games do well, especially ones with emphasis on crafting/gathering resources. Player should be not be running around hitting trees with axe 30 hours in.
DQB2 does it somewhat well, at one point you just get quests to do stuff to unlock infinite stock of a particular resource. From that point you do not need to worry about it and can build in peace.
Factorio does that EXTREMELY well, you start from manually mining stuff, automate mining and smelting, then automate building the equipment to do the mining, then get to trains to move stuff around at long distances, finally get to robots that can build stuff for you so you can just copy-paste pieces of your factory or build stuff remotely.
Ah okay, at least there's the 3-minute of good times every time you mine stuff. So there's still some element of the game that you enjoyed in that 150 hours, even if it only amounted to maybe around 20 hours.
Sort of, yeah. I'm not saying E:D has no good sides.
The visuals are astonishing and it's easily the most immersive game I've ever played with my VR headset. The combat is fairly enjoyable and it has some really neat concepts like Faction War and the background simulation and the players being able to impact it.
The problem is that there are mind-numbingly vast amounts of tedious busywork that is neither fun or engaging and many of the neat concepts are just so incredibly poorly implemented and unsupported that I can't in good conscience reccomend it.
Some people absolutely love it and good for them, but I'd say it's current implementation really only caters to a niche of an already small niche of players. It's basically the Flight Simulation game of space ship games. If you're not content to basically just "oooohhh and ahhhh" at the gorgeous scenery and get a thrill from little things like turning off piloting assistance and seeing just how far you can push your space-plane. Well...the odds of you not enjoying the game go way up.
Okay, let me give you the tl;dr
tl;dr - 150 hours "played" was way less than 150 hours played, because most of the time, I was just sitting there watching Netflix waiting for a timer to countdown and the game hints a lot of the good stuff being "just around the corner", but never actually pays off on the good stuff. It's non-stop bait and switch.
Just because you don't like a game means your opinion is that of everyone. ED is an extremely popular game. I for one love it for exactly what it is. You can do a crap load of things in Elite Dangerous.
There's a huge story that's been evolving with the players since it was made. They put goodies that LITERALLY take people years to discover, and I'm sure there's more to discover, we just haven't yet.
There's entire societies in real life dedicated to the game because of the depth it has. But you seem to think that it's a timer countdown to the next station.
I have near 700 hours in the game, and love it when I'm in the mood to play it. It's not my most played game ever, not even close. But it's not this horrible slog of a game you seem to think it is.
It's essentially 4 things, starship fighting, starship trading, starship mining, and starship exploring, all with a completely open ended gameplay.
But now lets looks at what's considered a "great game" in today's world. Fortnite, great game right? So much storyline isn't there. You can do so much in it, you fight, you fight, you can build then fight, and then you can fight some more. Yep, that's definitely a great game, but Elite Dangerous, lets see here.
You fly spaceships, buy more expensive space ships, you can fight space ships, discover planets and moons that literally no one has ever see, trade with stations and literally change the economy of a system by doing so, take on missions and ferry people across the galaxy, or go mine on an asteroid belt, breaking big rocks into little rocks and selling those little rocks.
You can find rare materials and craft special gear for your space ships. Repair space stations that have been wrecked by the on-going war with the Thargoids, try to colonize new systems with your faction that you join, or take over previous systems that are owned by other factions to increase your own factions standings. Or work on the new outpost on the other end of the galaxy for the periodic (usually bi-weekly) storyline they have going on.
Sounds like a pretty shallow game to me. I guess I should stick to the deep gameplay that is fortnite.
You don't need to defend a game you enjoy because someone else didn't enjoy it. That person was just sharing their own experience.
Things that don't bother you might make a game unplayable for someone else. The virtues of the game you're trying to extol might not be that compelling to a person with different interests.
Just because you like the game doesn't mean your opinion is that of everyone.
It never hints at anything, just that you can do the same activities with a faster or stronger ship.
Sure the ships are dam expensive, but if you somehow manage to "play" 150 hours without realizing that the game maybe isn't for you then you have nobody to blame but yourself.
> then you have nobody to blame but yourself.
You went from disrespecting people who warn others after a bad experience, to blaming the consumer for falling for skinner box mechanics.
EA must love you.
only because it has tedious micromanagement in the form of population control and trying to stop inbreeding while fighting the interface.
And the time is racing for those poor animals, you dont look for 15 mins and suddenly you missed all the cute animal babies and now they are adults trying to fk their sisters while crying about overpopulation.
Sounds like you should just do what I used to do in zoo tycoon. Spawn all the animals in an open arena, give some dividers, obstacles, and potential homes, and let the animals slaughter, breed, and die as life wills it.
Tedious micromanagement is what some other park sim players call just playing the game. Also if you constantly play at max speed that makes sense, but taking your time and things don't seem to creep up on you quite so immediately.
I don't think the speed complaints are hyperbolic in the slightest. An in-game year at the SLOWEST speed in Planet Zoo is only 18 minutes. Time progresses much faster than in Planet Coaster (8x faster, actually) as well as most other simulation games.
The game seems to have been 'balanced' around mid-late game breeding for 'Conservation Credits' - the currency used to purchase the higher profile animals. If things did not progress as quickly, it COULD be tedious to purchase these artificially expensive animals from the online market. Or they could have just attempted actual balance and made a 'relaxing and accesible' zoo game that didn't require frenetic micromanaging hordes of Warthogs and Wild Dogs to make enough CC to buy 2 insanely overpriced Tigers on the online market.
Thank goodness they added an offline mode after people complained in the Beta. Too bad they seem to be content with the time speeds despite just as many complaints.
But unlike in those games, you measure the lifespans of animals in decades in many cases. If it took much longer, then breeding (and the gestating of) animals would also be a pain in the ass for many people, offline *or* online.
I also don't feel like the game is particularly frenetic when there's a pause button I just use whenever it gives me the notification about a new litter. I move some of them to a holding area where they can take care of the new babies without complaining about overcrowding, tag the ones I want to keep and the ones I want to release by changing their names, and then unpause.