Farthest Frontier vs Patron?

[CountessaNera]

Both are incoming, both are city builders, both look astonishing and in some ways comparable. In Patron, devs mention social system and managing entire society alongside individuals. Farthest frontier, on the other hand comes from Grim Dawn creators - no need to say anything further. Just got Ostriv today and will play that for a while, but next one will definitely be one of these two (potentially both really :) )

[PrinceXavieR™]

Thank you for this, added Patron to wl xD

[Vedo]

Just from looking at screenshots, Farthest Frontier looks better.

[Xan84]

Originally posted by PrinceXavieR™:

Thank you for this, added Patron to wl xD

Haha, same here. I guess that's one way of finding out about games :)

[Northwind]

I think farthest frontier looks better as well. I would actually consider manor lords to be something more of a competitor to this game than Patron.

[^7ja^1co]

Originally posted by Toxic Man:

Just from looking at screenshots, Farthest Frontier looks better.

Exactly, patron looks generic.

[Narkulus]

Patron currently has a playable demo, I'd hoped this one would too during this Steam event.

[Buntkreuz]

I think Patron is solid, but generic in comparison to what already is available.
I ever ask myself the same question, why would i play this over Anno?

Honestly, it appears to be exactly what Banished provided, just better looking.

However, Farthest Frontier brings combat, medieval city building, trade, deeper crop growing and i assume a lot of fun and interesting deseases.
All in all, Farthest Frontier doesnt sound super interesting at first as its not bringing anything super new to the table, but it seems to bring its own twists to what already exists.

I would play Farthest Frontier as it brings something i dont necessarily get from other strategy and management games, but Patron appears to be like the next two dozen games that already exist.
I wouldnt play it while i can play any of the superior games out there.

[CaPY]

Why not both?

[^7ja^1co]

Originally posted by CPY:

Why not both?

Valid question, however you have to look at the whole industry. There are a TON of games out there. Our lives are busy as it is, work, kids etc. I think its safe to assume we have a limited amount of time to play games so we need to be careful not to waste our time on garbage games.

For example, I have over 1100 hours in Grim Dawn, it was a great investment - yes I could have instead played dozen mediocre games but that would be a sub par experience and would cost me more. So I not only had more fun but also spent less money.

[Buntkreuz]

Originally posted by CPY:

Why not both?

Im pretty sure you dont have family to take care of by saying that.
The question when it comes to a hobby like videogames is not the cost of money, but time.
Time is more valuable than the money i pay for a game.
With limited time you have to select what game is worth it and which isnt, and some games will just be dismissed when compared to other titles.
Why waste time playing two extremely similar games when there are games providing a fresh experience?
I see no reason to spend time with Patron while there are games out there that simply outclass it in every way.
Farthest Frontier still has to prove itself, but considering its premise it actually fills a gap and tries to bring something fresh, while Patron is providing what we have plenty of already.

[CaPY]

Patron comes first, play that, after Frontier release play that. Time management ftw. You don't have to spend 1000h in one game. You don't have infinite amount of time. Why not experience more.
If one sux then fine don't play game that sux, but why not enjoy more great games but not for as long.