Do I really need to transport goods next door by rail?

[phik]

I have (for example) a Copper Mine and a Wire Coiler. They're right next door. They share a station!

But it looks like the Coiler won't just... use the Copper?

I have to make a train that picks it up, moves a square, and drops it off? Surely not...

[The Haney]

It's literally a train puzzle game, bud.

If you want a full-scope logistics game, there's options out there. This is a train. game.

[0x143]

Is that why you guys are calling it a puzzle game? Because it does not have belts and inserters but instead trains and stations?

Because if so, Sandbox Mode is not going to change that. Railgrade is still trains based.

[The Haney]

Being a puzzle game isn't a bad thing.

Sandbox mode might well change that perspective, but right now the game centers around individual smaller missions with specific goals. Many missions have set disadvantages, like being unable to build raised tracks. Many missions start with required buildings already in place.

Again, these are not negatives. It's a design choice and it's a good one. It works great and it's well-built. But ultimately these are very curated levels with very focused goals that must be met at very specific times, and that leans towards the style of a puzzle game.

If the missions were larger and longer, with no pre-constructed buildings and more open-ended goals, it would be more freeform rather than puzzle. I imagine that's how the sandbox will be.

[0x143]

Well, then I suppose my thinking is that by this standard Command & Conquer is a "puzzle" game.

Granted, I cannot think of a better description to communicate "it is not sandbox, but it is the gameplay of sandbox in structured form". So I understand why players are using the term, but I do think it is misleading.

For me, it calls into question the effort we made to craft the smooth learning curve. The campaign has giant missions, with large maps, and few pre-placed buildings. But we wanted to ease players into the experience and avoid players feeling lost. Upon reflection, I think we oversmoothed. Players I think want to see a level of complexity beyond their immediate grasp, and I failed to incorporate that into the design of the campaign.

Of course, I think Sandbox is the chance to let the entire gameplay shine. I actually balanced the core loop by playing on a sandbox myself. Everything is designed for sandbox flow, but we went and structured it for the campaign.

[Syiss]

Originally posted by 0x143:

Well, then I suppose my thinking is that by this standard Command & Conquer is a "puzzle" game.

Granted, I cannot think of a better description to communicate "it is not sandbox, but it is the gameplay of sandbox in structured form". So I understand why players are using the term, but I do think it is misleading.

For me, it calls into question the effort we made to craft the smooth learning curve. The campaign has giant missions, with large maps, and few pre-placed buildings. But we wanted to ease players into the experience and avoid players feeling lost. Upon reflection, I think we oversmoothed. Players I think want to see a level of complexity beyond their immediate grasp, and I failed to incorporate that into the design of the campaign.

Of course, I think Sandbox is the chance to let the entire gameplay shine. I actually balanced the core loop by playing on a sandbox myself. Everything is designed for sandbox flow, but we went and structured it for the campaign.

Being like 10-12 missions in (not including bonus missions), I'll agree that I think you guys may have "oversmoothed" the curve a bit.

Most missions feel as if there one central "problem" to solve, and once you figure that out its just a waiting game while the resources flow in. Maybe its terrain, distance between resources, lack of resources, limited initial funding, limited space, or something else, but generally when I load into the map and look around for a minute or two I can usually go "okay, X is the major problem I need to work around in this map and then I'm good." I can envision exactly how to get from the start point to the end goal before I've built a single rail. A good example is the "Up Hill Both Ways" mission where you have to transport a multiple resources up (and the finished product down) the large hill which has fairly limited space due to the map edge and cliffs. But once I figured out how to get the rails to fit in, the rest of the mission was just 20 minutes of waiting for money to come in and adding new trains to the existing tracks.

I understand that, especially in the early levels, the short missions and very targeted objectives are to help introduce the player to new mechanics, but it feels like maybe things were broken down into too small of pieces.

The closest analog to this game that I've played is probably Transport Fever 2, and I would definitely call that game much closer to simulation than this game. It also has a campaign, but there's only 18 missions and they are substantially longer than the missions in this game. Each mission tends to have a few major objectives that follow a theme, but they aren't always related or even build off each other. This allows the game to have larger more sandbox feeling maps, and to introduce different and more complicated concepts without the player having to start from scratch every time.

I think another thing that contributes to the puzzle feel of this game is the time based objectives. It immediately puts you into the mindset that there is a "right" way to accomplish the mission goal in order to achieve that S rank, and your purpose is to figure that out. Compare this to Transport Fever 2 where you can generally just do whatever you want as long as you don't run out of money. I often spent a lot of time in the campaign maps not following the objectives at all, playing around with the different mechanics, testing different theories and strategies, figuring out how to optimize the different transport networks above and beyond whats required for objective completion, etc.

To put it simply, I find that in more "simulation-y" games, the problem the player is trying to solve is how to achieve the goal at all - you are plopped into a scenario with various tools that may or may not be helpful, and its up to you to figure out what to do. Whereas in this game, the goal and how to achieve it is either stated directly up front or fairly simple to deduce, and the problem the player is trying to solve is how to do it most efficiently, which lends it a more "puzzle-y" feel.

I could go on but I feel like this is turning into an essay. I don't want this all to sound negative either. Even though I was expecting something a bit different, I am enjoying the game so far, and if the missions continue to expand in scope and complexity later on as I'm expecting, I'll be very happy with the game overall.

[cardzy]

I would compare this game more to Train Valley 2 than Transport Fever 2. It is just more in depth and 'feels' more sandboxy than Train Valley 2 and less sandboxy than Transport Fever 2, which is a good thing in my opinion. It is different enough to be it's own thing. And once the sandbox mode is added in update 5 along with all the other additions and enhancements along the way, it will stand out even more as it's own thing in my opinion.

[The Haney]

A considerable number of missions have *very* specific terms. The Interchange, CO2 Warning, Runaway Train and Rooting out the Route are examples of levels that remove *things you have already learned* for the sake of solving a puzzle. And there's many more. The first level that felt like I could really play with all my pieces was Luxurious Vistas.

Command and Conquer's campaign falls into that same category, for sure. But it also shipped with multiplayer and AI skirmish mode (it was the first RTS to have competitive multiplayer, which made quite a few waves back in '95). When the sandbox for this game releases it renders the whole issue moot.

[phik]

Sorry, I didn't mean for this to become a philosophical debate about game design and the nature of human fun. 😆

I just think these tiny trains being used to move product between literal neighbours are quite ridiculous, so I wanted to find out if I was missing something.

Or maybe this was entirely intentional, an homage to the famous Bayside Canadian Railway?

Unfortunately for train lovers and lawyers everywhere, the world's all-time greatest legal loophole may sadly have been quashed: https://maritime-executive.com/article/judge-rules-that-canadian-rail-scheme-violated-the-jones-act

[0x143]

Originally posted by phik:

Sorry, I didn't mean for this to become a philosophical debate about game design and the nature of human fun. 😆

I just think these tiny trains being used to move product between literal neighbours are quite ridiculous, so I wanted to find out if I was missing something.

Or maybe this was entirely intentional, an homage to the famous Bayside Canadian Railway?

Unfortunately for train lovers and lawyers everywhere, the world's all-time greatest legal loophole may sadly have been quashed: https://maritime-executive.com/article/judge-rules-that-canadian-rail-scheme-violated-the-jones-act

It is actually a game design choice, to make Trains the center of everything. You'll notice a similar decision with Power, which is transported in batteries on train cars and not overhead wires.

[Shakajolt]

Originally posted by 0x143:

It is actually a game design choice, to make Trains the center of everything. You'll notice a similar decision with Power, which is transported in batteries on train cars and not overhead wires.

Or water, which is more efficient to run through pipes than via train. Or the way you can pump water for money while working on oil in some of the earlier missions... not that far in, but loving everything so far. Definitely feels puzzle-y, similar to Factory Town.
Not sure if "puzzle" is the right category, as other said- old RTS games do a similar "here's the tutorial, here's a few missions with everything unlocked, and now here's the challenges with limitations set in" thing.

10/10 so far.