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
That's exactly what I'm afraid of. While I own and enjoy CiM 1 and 2, I prefer Transport Tycoon and Industry Giant over the CiM any day. They feel like full-fledged business simulations while CiM is more of a logistical puzzle.
i also play openttd from time to time and even still got the original TT on 2 3.5" disks from back then =)
would be nice to have a new game that could reach the level of TT but i dont think this will be it, as i already disliked train fever :/
That's what I can't comprehend as well. Why do devs feel the need for 3d in such game???
This genre is tailor-made for 2d. There are plenty of modern examples that use 2d for great results (Parkitect, Hearthlands...). A clean, crisp HD version of 2d classics is so much easier to control than any 3d environment.
So overall from the looks of things, ya TPF is going to be the successor to TT.
take a look at this picture:
http://imgur.com/gallery/lefr4
its a collection of some of my old TT junctions. in a game like transport/train fever or any other 3d remake of TT, it will always be totally impossible to create anything just slightly similar to this. thats the reason why prolly no game will ever take the throne from TT or why i cant accept a game like this to be called a successor of TT. it only shares the basic game concept, but many other games already tried that (and most if not all, failed).
I agree, that though creating similar junctions with the same functionality was quite difficult (and annoying, because of the bridge pillar spacing issues, while trying to make fly-overs), it was still possible, even though they would have required a lot more space in TF.
Since a lot of these annoying tracklaying issues seem to have been addressed in TPF, it should be easier to do so. And probably end up looking a lot better and more impressive. And you can have fly-overs over fly-overs over fly-overs, and similar when it comes to dive-unders.
what they do for the network is to ensure that every incoming train has a direct route to the wanted exit without crossing any other (or as few as possible) tracks, resulting in no jams and/or no waiting time. and if you have routes where it is impossible to avoid any crossings then you need to have long enough tracks so the standing/waiting trains dont block the other tracks.
everyone who created a full train network over the whole map had to work/bother with such big junctions to ensure that a train can get from point any point on the map to anotherone on the fastest possible way. just the most efficient network which is still sharing the same main tracks.
it takes quite some skill and alot of time to create and manage such networks and junctions and the beauty of TT was that you could do it this way if you wanted, but it wasnt needed to still create a profitable network. its just pure perfectionism, but thats what im looking for in those games and so far TT was the only game where this was possible (in such scales).
I'm really curious how Transport will play out in this case. I'm still pondering if my first game will be a sandbox one, or a campaign one though... decisions, decisions...