Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Neither game is without flaws (both objective and subjective) but I haven't played MGT 1 in more than one year, simply because last time I played it, it just seemed like a watered down version of this game. Still a good economic simulation, but the sequel beats it at most things.
And just like following trends, matching engine to genre/platform or matching your games to your publisher, it was a way for the players to feel like they had to do something that was entirely optional, which in the long run could be harmful to new players, who may be dooming themselves without knowing why. Example: Making and maintaining twenty different engines, and then wondering where all their time and money has gone.
Anyhow, here's the actual answer to the thread's question, courtesy of the game developer:
In short, not counting "Victory conditions" for multiplayer and outsourcing, everything in that list are things that weren't in MGT 1. Consider just how many of those things are things you want to see in a game of this kind, and you'll know which is the better MGT. Unless you're one of the trollish few that whine about nothing having changed just because they're farming for jester awards. ;)
I actually liked this little addition as well but I also agree with KT.
With employees already having additional traits/features, having them also have a favorite genre could lead players into a 'Pokemon' experience of wanting them all focused as you brought up. This is fine (and even potentially fun) for experienced and late game players but could be detrimental for inexperienced players falling into that 'trap' of thinking it's necessary or even just that feeling of being guided in that direction.
But for "old players" this can also create undocumented "challenge modes." Ever tried to play the game with everyone being a scientist? It can be fun, if you like struggling and making the best out of what you have available.
The sequel has its own trap of that kind ("this looks cool so I probably need to have a lot of this!") though: Legendary employees. They're not worth their cost until a point in the game when you don't really need their one semi-unique perk anymore. For new players who are in the early part of the game (1976-1996) and playing above Medium difficulty, hiring a non-zero number of Legendary employees can slowly but steadily kill their company. "Been there, done that."
(^▽^)☆
It sounds like, all around, the sequel added a *lot* of both fun and functional features. I enjoyed Eggcode's Mad Tower Tycoon (a fun throwback to Sim Tower), so I'm looking forward to playing this one next!