Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
El autor de este tema ha marcado un mensaje como la respuesta a su pregunta.
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
See how you overeact? how easily you dismiss everything I could say?
Did I denied anything you said? I merely stated that a lot of things you said depended on one's own opinion and that my own opinion wasn't the same.
And I'm part of the problem when clearly the haughty one who don't want to hear anything isn't me, but you?
Yes, I don't think this DLC is bad. It's inferior to other DLC but it's not bad at all. what are you going to do? throw me off a cliff for my difference in opinion?
And again, i'm not the only one who think that, just like you're not the only one thinking what you think.
btw It's true that a majority of people believing something make it right?
Why is it so difficult for people to not be arrogant prick and stay civil is beyond me. you see?
Cool! It is indeed pretty rare to see an opinion like that this days. I am more than willing to make this constructive.
And yes, admitting the obvious thing here, I am "a bit" annoyed by some comments up to this point and it shows - sorry for that.
Would you be so kind to answer a few questions then? I'm trying to get your perspective, or one from the "other side" so to speak.
1) Design. Do you consider it a good game design decision to remove/shrink one of the core gameplay mechanics - Book of Laws? We can't influence the laws reliably, we can't revert the laws we personally don't like or that are not optimal, when we get it back it's past early game so barely relevant anymore.
2) Narrative. Do you think it fits well given all the lore up to this point? New London being on the verge of collapse after we saved it from great storm. It being unable to help itself with a generator, while an outpost surviving in -60 C even without it? The whole "colonial" theme of New London being abusive / exploitative and the "independence" plot. Does all that feel genuine to you?
3) New mechanics. How do you feel about trade the way it's implemented? Is it a good addition? A meaningful one?
4) Settlements with all morals and choices of thereof. Do they sit right with you? Did you find your decisions of any impact concerning them? Were you faced with tough choices? Found their stories beleivable?
5) Quality assurance. Were you encountering any issues during your gameplay? Crashes? Achievements bugged? If yes, do you think it''s a good idea to release content without polishing it?
Honestly, no trolling here. I'd be so happy if everyone who chose to make this thread personal took their time to answer these. Not only to me but themselves mostly - I often see people writing that what I posted provoked some thoughts on their part and inspired their entries, sometimes even threads of their own.
1) I had access to book of laws just after Extended Shifts (2 laws).
So I had no problerm with it at all.
2) Where do you have that WE saved New London from the storm?
It's completely different secario and completely different NPC overseer in New London.
How did you become Overseer in Fall of Winterhome? Because previous one was cast away.
The same case may have caused problems in New London.
3) Trade is mandatory for the scenario and also gives SOMETHING to do in endless mode besides hunting for relics.
4) Almost all of the ingame choices are only about discontent / hope value. In previous scenarios there was one option to help outsiders or not. If we call it a moral choice then in this DLC there is the choice to help London or not (after consulting with settlements).
5) From the beginning (base game) my game crashed from time to time when opening economy panel. Now it did not crash. Lets call it coincidence, but still I cannot say anything bad about quality.
The 1st 3 scenarios were interesting, there was some challenge. There were some minor bugs, some OP things like scouts (who works 24/7 for a weak or more, carrying 500-1000 units of resources), little to no lore... But in general, as a gamer, I was very satisfied. And I hoped that, based of the reviews, on which devs will make a conclusion, the story will continue with new power.
When they released the Fall of WH, my hope was... crushed? Not quite, but close. There were nothing new. All the old issues were there. Nothing new. Zero replayability. Even Endless mode.
So, when they announced The Las Autumn, I was somewhat skeptical. Thank the Universe, I was wrong. TLA was great in many aspects. New strats, building, laws, new challenge. Truly a marvel. But there were some issues too. Old bugs, new bugs, little to no lore again... Still, screw the bugs, I thing everybody were satisfied 2.
When they announced OTE, I had high hope again. I had expected something great, something... but not THAT. This time my hope was totally crushed.
In a short, the idea was good, but the execution was... beyond redemption. All their big talk about new great experience and whatever was... Did they even believe themselves when the posted all the baits?
So my conclusion is:
1. Devs didn't expect FP to be so popular, so they didn't plan to make any DLC in short perspective. So they spend little to no time to test and fix all the obvious bugs. Or they exhaust their ideas. Or both.
2. On the popularity of FP, they managed to gather up and make one brilliant DLC, TLA.
3. Then, the point 1 happened again.
They could postpone the release of DLC, rethink, cancel it... I don't know what else... But I know for sure, in my humble opinion, this is... unforgivable...
2) The narrative fit well in my opinion. we don't know if the storm damaged or not buildings and/or the generator. and taking our perfect run in "a new home" as a reference isn't probably a good thing.
New london being harsh to it's colony isn't that surprising, we're comunicating with an administrator, not the captain or anyone with social skills. And we could say that it is how our citizen feel toward us when we make decision that rise discontent a lot. They probably don't know why we make such decision.
Maybe it's because I've been in a history course in uni, but it doesn't feel that out of place.
The other camps give some hint about the outcome of the other scenario so it was cool.
HOWEVER, I agree that I would have liked more details about the state of new london right after the storm to have some hint on what could have gone wrong instead of wondering if the storm damaged the generator by pushing it too far or if it had a problem from construction.
3) I expected the trade to work like that, considering previous scenario's, but I do feel like a depot working like in "the last autumn" could have been great.
is it meaningfull? I would say that yes, since you can't complete the scenario without it. It's basically the same system as in the arks and winterhome, which already felt weak at the time, meaning that I don't put the blame on this particular DLC. 'cause it was already more or less like that before. we just didn't got anything in return for sending things.
4) I feel the stories of each settlement to be believable, what I have a problem with would be that there is no real conflict if you chose to always disapoint them...
I do have a problem with our own settlement and new london though. not enough interaction and it felt like people of our outpost don't have anything to say... ever.
5) I didn't had any problem, bug or anything else while playing, right after it was released. so, I have no complain here. I guess it depend a lot on your own computer. While I agree about polishing a product before releasing it, it's unrealistic to expect things to run without any problem.
Overall, There is ovious bad points, but there is also several good points. I think people tend to remember bad points more easily than good ones. It's not bad. it's good even. Not great though. I would say easy to forget, but enjoyable.
I feel like people put too much expectation into this one.
The devs can't remake the entire game for one DLC and we have to keep in mind that the main scenario is still "a new home".
I know being disapointed is kinda bad, but we should keep calm and see the DLC for what it's worth. not a great one, sure. but not a bad one at all.
That's how I see things.
Thanks for speaking out at last then! That's a very enlightening and thought-provocative post that expresses some ideas of mine indeed better than I would myself - giviving a slightly different perspective. Some parts I particularly want to reflect upon:
Indeed, Frostpunk is really New Home and Last Autumn for me. Both have their own stories. Both have their own books of laws, showing the paths your society could take. Both have internal conflict and explore the theme of survival. Both provide moral dilemmas, choices that matter and replayability factor.
I think we're getting to the roots of the issue here. New Home was the story. Last Autumn was the "prequel" to the story and basically mirrored New Home in terms of scope, epic-ness, amount of options, choices, narrative etc etc. It was a New Home-grade experience. Therefore, for "Reclamation" / OTE, as a "sequel" to New Home, many of us (myself included) expected another experience on par with New Home and Last Autumn.
There was indeed much to explore, lore to explain, other scenarios to reference, the whole rebuilding theme to feature, new tech previously undiscovered to showcase etc. Long story short - lots of potential. And fans expected them to deliver.
Exactly! Not only they ended up failing to deliver, but they also did everything to raise hype and foster expectations from the playerbase. Posting things they perfectly knew were not true.
If OTE was just another DLC like Rifts it would be no big deal, but what they did is:
1) Failed the ending to the story, did not deliver upon the expectations of the fans, leaving a bad aftertaste on Frostpunk as a whole.
2) Pushed out a weak, rushed DLC, which shows they are basically done with Frostpunk at this point and couldn't care less anymore.
3) Hyped the game and gave false statements to make people buy, which shows they didn't care if the community would find out that lie and there would be discontent. Probably thinking, why does it matter, they bought they game anyway.
I think 11 bit is a studio that makes small, niche, unambitious games. That's just stating the fact rather than anything. This War of Mine shows that.
Frostpunk, however, was accepted so well that they did not expect that - and, more importantly, were unable to accomodate for that with their resources - it's like asking an small indie to produce AAA content consistently because their game turned out to be a hit.
This War of Mine, at its core, is a very simple game. Find food, upgrade your house, survive through moral dilemmas. Frostpunk is also a simple game design-wise - build a city, develop your tech and economy, take care of food and heathcare and you're good. Well, you would be, if not for those conflicts like Londoners or Workers&Engineers.
I think they never expected the need to expand on this formula, hence going wild with the DLCs, which mostly look like challenges to me:
Arks - New Home but all automatons and little workers, also need to keep up heating
Winterhome - New Home but you have a badly planned city and need to work around that
Refugees - New Home but you have both little workers and little food, best of luck to survive
On the Edge - New Home, but you have no control over laws and can't produce a lot
Rifts - New Home, but the map is small islands you gotta build bridges around
Hence Last Autumn is the only "its own thing" here, being more than "New Home but build a generator" by sheer amount of content and love put into that.
Most upsetting part is that they CAN make content like Last Autumn, they already showed that to us.
Another limitation is the engine itself, there are caps on population, buildings, steam cores and the engine won't handle any more than that.
This, obviously, is a limiting factor in what they can do about the game - they can't make it more ambitious then they wanted to.
Fun thing though, is the fact I write this means I understand it, so I could certainly relate and not be as harsh in my judgement. But the fact they treated their community like that makes me deeply upset.
Isn't that ironic, them showing to us how lying, even in the name of the greater good is bad and will have consequences (Winterhome), only to end up doing it themselves?
And what was their greater goal then, getting some money off the DLC that wasn't even priced that high to begin with?
Last Autumn - 77% positive reviews.
Rifts - 52% positive, even with all of its issues, mainly nonexistent new content.
On the Edge - 40% positive, all time low and the worst rated DLC out of the lot.
Meaning that yes, it is bad, and even worse than Rifts which is saying a lot.
Practically, out of 10 people 6 didn't like it. As for other 4, at least 2 more are giving a positive, yet their reviews are full with issues and concerns over this DLC, suggesting they recommended it out of support for the game/devs rather than anything. This leaves us with the minority with expectations low enough to enjoy everything they're fed.
Some hours ago I posted my reviews on OTE and the game as a whole. Shame I didn't do that a week ago - they got 5 awards over the course of several hours.
This leads to one simple conclusions. People who are attacking me in this thread are either:
1) agree with that I said but disagree with HOW I said it, therefore they are making this personal, ignoring what the thread's all about in the first place;
2) just willing to "defend" the devs and avoid a feeling of having made a bad purchase - those would frankly say anything while being unable to argue their points.
My personal impression of positive reviews so far (including those in this thread) - some are mixed at best - they talk about its strong points, but same time can't help but talk about weak points, of which there are many, and others are simply unimpressive a-la "I liked it, prove me wrong".
If even a positive review talks about the dlc's flaws - it is by its own a sign that there are problems. By all means they would be better not to have OTE released at all - postponed, redesigned or scrapped indeed. Because in this particular case it would be better for everyone if OTE never existed to begin with.
Why? Because there would a chance for us getting a decent ending to the story.
While studying the reviews, I discovered a popular comment, that 11 bit in fact had an idea for a very impressive scenario, but they decided to use it for sequel so they get to earn more from it. And so we were stuck with OTE instead.
Another concern that comes to mind - with OTE and Rifts both being unimpressive at best and failure at worst, Last Autumn becomes the only redeeming thing for Season Pass as a whole.
OG game? It is kinda just sad small grid based city builder.
It is the storytelling and environment that made it amazing.
On the edge is no different. It is a set of mechanics. And quite an interesting one when you think about. But the storytelling is the failure.
Take tabletop rpgs. If your GM only in battle says... does a 17 hit..... take seven points of damage. In a monotone voice and doesnt roleplay it etc, your game is going to pretty dull. But you get the exact same game in the hands of the critical role people? Completely different.
They essentially committed the Matt Mercer effect on themselves.
People that consider this dlc worse than the rift have some thinking to do in my opinion....
AND to reevaluate what they consider "bad" 'cause that's a joke.
The fact that a certain person consider defending the dlc as "trying to get off the feeling of a bad purchase" say a lot....
I'm a pen and paper RPG GM for over 20 years and I completely agree.
Frostpunk is primarly not about game mechanics but about the presentation.
In good storytelling you do not need to have everything given on a plate and when you end the session not fully satisfied crave for more.
They did a good job. Not amazing, but decent.
Sure...
Changing things up in a new scenario is certainly a good idea and as for the Book of Laws, in my playthroughs the only edicts I accepted from New London were emergency shift and extended shifts, so that wasn't really a problem.
Yes, I think that narrative fits quite well actually, given the circumstances. You, as the captain have left to supervise Outpost 11 and as we know, leaving New London in the hands of a bunch of supervisors is a recipe for disaster, since without your hand on the wheel, things can go very badly, very quickly.
Trade is fine and works very well. You have steel and cores, while Hot springs has food and the Convicts have lumber.
The meaningful exchange though isn't the exchange of goods, but rather the trade in developing the other settlements up to a point were they are loyal and self supporting. At that point, they will repay your help by being able to supply New London with the quotas New London needs to survive in the end game.
I found all of their ethics credible and while they did not fit with my outpost's ethics, that did not matter. I showed respect of their values to each of the three settlements and did not force my ethics upon them. By doing so I achieved the ultimate aim which was their loyalty in the end game.
I suffered no bugs, no crashes and I had no problem gaining the achievements.
Thanks. Good experience to see an opinion from the other side. I'm mostly looking for counter-arguments so to speak - some are very common but it is possible for something unique to appear, making me think "hey, maybe it has indeed some redeeming features to it?"
I look at this DLC from the perspective of a game as a whole, judging from the experience of other scenarios. Early on, even before it was released, someone dubbed it as "anti-dlc". Why? Because it rather removes stuff than adds it. This goes for book of laws, the ability to produce goods to be self-sufficient, generator, automatons. Yep, Last Autumn limited us somewhat too, but it offered options that were good enough replacement, such as Two Shifts and convicts - unique to that scenario.
Another issue, and that is from my extensive experience looking at threads here at the forums - moral aspect is very impotant for many. Nothing amusing here, with how it's been one of the core themes of the game. There are posts on how people are unable to play with child labour, because they consider it immoral, inhumane and cringy law. Similar posts about sawdust and how it disrupts the internal organs. And child labour, sawdust and snow pits are all among the laws you can get from new london without knowing you'd get them, without being sure you'd get them because of favour mechanic randomness and without the ability to revert this laws after you gain independence later.
Therefore, I'm not with the "anti-dlc" camp, but nevertheless I consider it a weak game design of removing stuff from the game and restricting the player.
This is something I've read about before. That we are the same person from New Home. This finds support in law reactions but those are copy/pasted from New Home, so could be as well written off to lazyness/assets reuse.
But otherwise, the "captain" being OTE protagonist doesn't find support in the narrative. It is not directly mentioned anywhere in the story. And it makes no sense for captain being treated like that - it would be HIM to order new london around, not another way around. And it absolutely doesn't make any sense in the slightest if we ended New Home as Glorious / Divine Leader, Protector of Truth and all those monikers.
Therefore, even if I hear this assumption a lot, it is just not beleivable for me. Consequently, the whole narrative about new london's sudden disaster and it being unable to survive with malfunctioning generator, while an outpost perfectly can in -60 C with no gen at all. Too many corners cut and plot holes.
When I heard about trade, I thought it would be cool because it would open up different strategies to us. Imagine that we are able to focus our tech and building at a sole resource and than trade it for other things we need.
Instead, their implementation of trade is just creating bottlenecks. You need to wait for shipment from convicts to build a couple of bunks, then for another one to build a couple more, and another, and another. This stalls the gameplay and makes it a yawnfest.
Without book of laws and moral dilemmas FP is stripped to a regular city builder like Caesar or Zeus. But I feel this old games from 20 years ago handled trade and diplomacy better. You could "set it and forget it" with your trade routes, which would work automatically. If you lacked some resources they were never either critical to your survival or stalled your gameplay.
For example, in Zeus there would be situations you didn't have enough food to expand, so you'd have to import it. Yet you'd always have a source of your own, be it wheat, fish, game or something else. Trade would be needed if I wanted to expand, build advanced housing or temples.
Trade is OTE is indeed like what you described, more like a barter to develop other settlements. End of the day, my issue with trade is that even if it's well-developed standalone mechanic, it doesn't bring anything meaningful to the game, just creates bottlenecks and stalls the gameplay. Probably means this feature was never intended to be a part of FP.
Up to this day I like the outposts mechanics from New Home, Winterhome and Refugees more. Purely because of the automated nature. Also, those were meaningful in a way that say coal outpost gave you more than an adv coal mine would per day. But in OTE, you can leverage your favour and ask for "a lot of" coal which turns out to be just 200. A lot of coal is 2000, not 200. This makes as little sense as sending 100 steel and 2 cores for 30 food.
Buuut, was it meaningful for your gameplay? Any difference between loyal and distrust outside of their help which is only valid if you chose to save new london? My experience was constantly picking between logical, rational and practical things and what those silly people want instead. And if you don't pick the latter you are somehow deemed "slave driver" by the game.
Lucky you! But after all, I get your take. If you weren't sufficiently annoyed by any of the points, if you just played through it without feeling a need to stop and think "hey, does this even make sense?" you might as well dismiss those points as nonexistent, because this was the case for you.
Yep! This is a good point I already read a couple of times. The fact they reused assets from New Home makes little sense for the DLC.
Your people came straight from New London, the "bastion of strongest, toughest and most obedient people" (from what I've seen from intro videos etc, Order is pretty much a canon thing). They survived the great storm of -150 C. They are seasoned survivors as opposed to those freshly arrived from a dreadnaught in New Home.
And yet, they still complain about 24 shifts, soup, child labour all over again like they've never seen it before - and in the same verbage, too. Really takes away from the immersion.