Установить Steam
войти
|
язык
简体中文 (упрощенный китайский)
繁體中文 (традиционный китайский)
日本語 (японский)
한국어 (корейский)
ไทย (тайский)
Български (болгарский)
Čeština (чешский)
Dansk (датский)
Deutsch (немецкий)
English (английский)
Español - España (испанский)
Español - Latinoamérica (латиноам. испанский)
Ελληνικά (греческий)
Français (французский)
Italiano (итальянский)
Bahasa Indonesia (индонезийский)
Magyar (венгерский)
Nederlands (нидерландский)
Norsk (норвежский)
Polski (польский)
Português (португальский)
Português-Brasil (бразильский португальский)
Română (румынский)
Suomi (финский)
Svenska (шведский)
Türkçe (турецкий)
Tiếng Việt (вьетнамский)
Українська (украинский)
Сообщить о проблеме с переводом
Тема закрыта 
Правила обсуждений
Пожаловаться
That is quite literally what it's trying to emulate -- the technical term is "extrinsic motivation"; it gives you a goal that justifies doing all these boring chores because you get that drip-feed reward to make them "worth" it.
It's a design philosophy most commonly seen in Gacha games, roguelikes/lites and slot machines; but at least there's a logical reason for it to exist in them (more activity = more income for those games in the case of gacha's and slots; for roguelites the extrinsic motivators keep the player engaged and make them want to start a new run even after they've just lost everything.) In a game like Satisfactory, it's just a lazy way to artificially extend the "player engagement time" and make the game look more interesting and engaging than it is.
Coffee Stain have created a game that entirely relies on the Number go Up addiction to keep players hooked; which is why those of us who aren't actually addicted to making the number go up find it so dismally boring. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of games where making the number go up is lots of fun... it's just that Satisfactory has made its devotion to that goal so blatant and so transparent that it stops being interesting. There's no clever tricks you can use to make the number go up faster, there's no exponential growth and nothing complicated to sink your teeth into -- how much the number goes up is just a boring, basic linear function relative to how much time you're prepared to spend on making it go up.
As someone who has limited time available and a lot of experience with patterns and basic algebra, none of that is an interesting proposition. It gets doubly unattractive when you realise that the devs have consciously decided to double-down on adding chores as a form of "progress gating" instead of using any of the more interesting alternatives (e.g. adding challenges that require a solid understanding of the game mechanics, rather than mere brute force, as the progress gate; or requiring the player to produce a certain PPM of product rather than simply a set number; or having progress gates with multiple possible solutions.) There are lots of relatively-easy-to-implement alternatives out there that would actually result in a more engaging game; but the devs have fallen down their own rabbit hole -- they got hooked on watching their own Number (player count and time spent playing the game) go Up, and they've mistakenly concluded that it was the bloated and padded-out "progression" path of the game which caused that spike in player interest. In reality, it was simply their good luck at being the only first-person 3D factory game at the time which focused on graphics and managed to capture a lot of interest in a moment where lots of people had a bunch of free time on their hands. Only a small fraction of those players have stuck around to cheer for the addition of more and more chores; but the ones who played to while away their Covid lockdown boredom have moved on and dipped without bothering to mention that actually the chores only seem fun when there's nothing better to spend that time on.
Satisfactory is fun. The idea of trashing the place instead of doing super efficient factories is part of the fun.
Now, Dysan Sphere Program -> that is a number go up game. They have challenges/achievements tied to making the numbers go up. So, yes, I see what you're saying. However, many of us like this game as is. Because it is fun to spaghetti a factory/build together and then dump all the excess into the Sinks.
Or realize, ah no - I actually needed that.
Why does the Sink exist?
The Sink exists to destroy excess production
Why do we destroy excess production?
Because storage containers are finite, and saturating downstream logistics causes the upstream factory to stop production
Why are those problems worthy of the Sink solution?
Some by-products are produced and saturated the downstream so fast that the upstream shuts down before any useful amount of primary item is produced, shutdowns are just an annoyance, building a trillion storage containers is cheese and building a ∞:1 ratio factory to deal with the excess is a burdensome task, those solutions would turn off a lot of people.
The easy but boring solution is to let players feed excess into a machine that destroys it, but we can make it fun and balanced by assigning value to items that is exchanged for useful & fun unlocks at an increasing price.
If you want any useful amount of coupons, you have to build an efficient factory producing high value items. Sinking your overflow ore, by-product or low complexity items isn't getting you enough coupons fast enough.
Letting the intentional-waste-as-a-mechanic machine drip-feed rewards for poor design isn't fun, it's a stop-gap to prevent the original drip of extrinsic rewards from clogging up. The idea to make it into a separate drip-feed reward line is just desperate attempt to recover from a critical design limitation. The devs built their whole game around the concept of infinite growth and forgot that not only is there no computer in the world with infinite processing power to run that game; but also that nobody actually wants to infinitely repeat their factory. Even the most die-hard Number go Up addicts eventually hit the point of total stagnation; and that's where the true addicts separate from the people who just got temporarily enthralled.
You seem to forget that you're talking to someone who has broken down the available data and done the math. If I want to unlock all of the "important" coupon rewards, I can do it without ever building a single assembly line -- there's plenty of mid-tier components scattered around the crashed pods, and I can pick up alien biomass along the way. Alternatively, a group of 10-12 portable miners (about how many you can manage to constantly cycle until you hit "by the time you empty the last one, the first one has filled up again") being emptied into containers, which then flow directly into Sinks, is also a surprisingly effective way to generate coupons and uses no power -- sure the ore is worth barely anything; but when you have multiple sinks being constantly fed at 120PPM (because that's the best belt you can get at that point) and it's all fed by portable miners, you're looking at maybe 2 hours tops to get it all set up and then another hour or so to unlock 200 tickets (yes, really.) If we're limiting the "useful unlocks" to only things that have a clear function (ladders, a handful of building shapes, alternative mounting points, the factory cart, etc.) then that's plenty of tickets, and it works out at a similar amount of time to setting up a dedicated assembly line for motors (which are the most cost-effective thing you can sink at the point that you unlock the sink.) It's only when you're trying to unlock all of the cosmetics and the obviously "this is just to get the player to sink a bunch of resources" rewards like the statues that the tickets actually get expensive enough to need dedicated lines of high-end production.
The sink exists because the devs couldn't come up with a better idea for how to handle the problem of "infinite production does not fit into a finite factory"; and they're too deep in their investment into building a game that's all about infinite growth to admit that the whole idea doesn't really work, and go back and change it. They've decided to listen to the handful of cultists of infinite growth who cheered them on, rather than the people who noticed the glaring issue at the core of their design; and now that they've alienated the people who would like to play a real engineering game they can't afford to walk back any of their Number Go Up ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ lest they also lose the cultists' approval.
The devs created the Sink because they'd backed themselves into a corner design-wise. That's all it is. There's no grand plan for it, there's no "clever way that it ties together the different mechanics of the game"; it's a quick fix that became a permanent structural support for the game because as any engineer will tell you, there's nothing more permanent (or more difficult to remove and replace) than a quick fix. And any engineer who takes a moment to understand this game will take one look at the Sink and go "ah, so that's how they resolved their Infinity problem. They stuck their fingers in their ears, put up a facade around it and moved on."
If your intricately woven conveyors stop moving because something has filled up, then it's a poor design. The Sink in that context is a crutch for poor design; but the devs are leaning on it too and thus the whole game is kind of built around the assumption that overall production numbers won't neatly balance. It's the same effect that manifolds have -- ever since the devs started leaning on manifolds as the answer to "how will I balance these weird numbers?" (and again, manifolds only work consistently if there's a Sink somewhere to handle overflow), all the math goes out the window and it's most sensible to just build manifolds everywhere.
The thing about building pleasing-to-look-at factories is that if I'm looking at a factory and seeing it's just a big repeated patch of the same basic system over and over and over, that's a "logically ugly" factory no matter how visually pretty it might be. What I see when I look at that factory isn't a neat arrangement of machines and conveyors; it's a focus on aesthetics over function that ultimately creates a design that simply will not work without crutches and duct-tape slapped all over. Sure, it runs 24/7 but most of that uptime is not producing anything useful -- it's creating a tax write-off that's gonna be traded in for something that should be available as part of tier progression; but has been hidden away behind the tax write-off credits just to encourage the player to go down this endless-production-even-if-it-means-wasting-the-output path.
And like, the alternative is a simple switch. Not the "shut the whole grid down" master switch; but a per-machine setting where you can set it to either produce a set number or a repeat loop. Hook them all up to a central control in the HUB so that you can turn your machines on remotely (and of course, add a way to name the machines so that you can easily navigate the remote-activation menu), and you're able to have a fully modular factory that you can reconfigure the outputs of -- all you need to do is set the recipe for the final machine in the line, and then turn on the appropriate machines to supply its inputs. Not every belt will always run; but there will always be something moving through the factory and the ultimate output belts will always run. The only product moving through the system will be genuine production; there won't be any "fake" production that's destined for the shredder. Change the recipe in the end machine, toggle some of the machines producing its inputs (e.g. less screws and more plates, or whatever you need), and churn out a new product using the same factory infrastructure. No messing around with building a whole new line and tapping new nodes just to produce a part that's only a slightly different ratio of what you're already providing.
And best of all, for those "everything must run constantly!" cultists, that option would still exist! Just set everything to loop endlessly, and play exactly like the current paradigm. For people who are just happy to see belts flowing and numbers going up, that's covered.
However, this change would allow everyone else to also enjoy the game their own way -- and would in fact open up a lot of potential to add depth to the game quite easily; because once you have that really basic kind of logic (you are, after all, effectively just setting a certain number of bits in each machine) you can then add a simple "counter" that reads the number of parts flowing through a conveyor belt and then switches the machines off... boom, you have fully-automated computing! No need to add separate logic gate systems -- the machines themselves become gates -- but if those logic systems were also added separately then it would be easier to build impressive and complex systems by combining them with the "basic" logic functions built into machines. Players who like their designs to have a point, who like to develop things and push the limits, will have effectively infinite possibilities to do so. People who just want to avoid unnecessary grinding, and make the most efficient designs they can come up with, will likewise had the chance to do so -- and it will be an intrinsically rewarding system to play around with. There will always be potential to refine the systems; and some players will doubtless spend thousands of hours on refining their clever little logic circuits. So for any "engagement time" from pure chores that goes away from this change, it's easily credible that at least as much extra engagement will be created among a different set of players (and in many cases, the players who aren't interested in "chores for the sake of chores" will have very different feelings about play cleverly and be rewarded for it")
But here's the best part: for the "average" player, who isn't at either extreme end of the scale, the choice of how they want to solve each problem is available. They can try an elegant solution; if that gets to be too fiddly they can switch to the brute-force solution instead. They can mix and match however they see fit! I'm gonna be honest here: as much as I hate the idea of manifolds being always the default best option; if you give me some viable alternatives I'm going to start using manifolds and "loop endlessly" mode quite gladly where they do make sense (e.g. having to feed the never-ending demand for screws -- especially since it would make sense to feed any overflow into storage rather than just waste it; since it would be possible to have the storage act the same way that batteries do to temporarily boost power output, giving an extra bit of production when it's needed if something else goes down or the downstream demand increases.) That is a much more engaging design space than just having a single answer for every problem!
Oh, and a little bonus on the side: if not every machine has to run all the time, it becomes possible to build much larger factories and activate them in sections to avoid hitting the performance wall. It's theoretically possible to do that now with master switches; but absolutely not worth the effort -- you have to manually monitor the whole show and throw the switches at the right time. If that could be handled automatically based on logic, though, then welcome to your new end-game meta! It becomes obviously beneficial to go absolutely wild maximalising the number of parallel lines that you can call upon at once, knowing that you can move the production (and power usage, and your computer's processor usage) through the various stages as-needed rather than trying to keep everything running at once.
And all that it would take to make that version of the game a reality is a single change in perspective -- accepting that not every machine has to be running constantly for the factory to be productive.
So, yes, I did consider that some people just like to watch the belts run, and the number go up. It's just that I concluded that to be an absolutely boring and asinine viewpoint, underpinned by values that I find contemptible, and a sad lack of creativity + curiosity. It's so easy to make the game so much more interesting (and, for those who like the process of solving puzzles and not just "having solved them and looking upon the solution", much more fun!) You could easily re-phrase that as "I'm more interested in the journey than the destination"; especially when the destination ("look how big my ♥♥♥♥ number is!" is frankly quite 1-dimensional. And besides, Cookie Clicker already did it better. If I only cared about getting a big number, I'd go play a game with less pointless chores designed to artificially delay the time to reach the big number. What I want(ed) from Satisfactory is an interesting story of how we get to the big number. The satisfaction isn't just in the 'having done', it's supposed to be in the doing -- and that process of doing should not involve intentionally added tedium in a shallow attempt to make the end result "more meaningful." Sure, maybe some people are satisfied by just taking the lowest-common-denominator answer and repeating it endlessly... but most people aren't.
Fortunately, nothing is forcing you to participate in the tax write-offs if you don't like them. The AWESOME shop doesn't have anything you need to complete the game. And in update 8 you even have a toggle in the advanced game settings with which you can unlock everything without ever sinking a single item.
And where will all of these endlessly produced items go? Storage is finite and the milestones and project phases ask for finite amounts of items. Are you asking for a sink with a different coat of paint? Like shipping the items to space, never to be seen again, instead of shredding them?
What's preventing you from enjoying the game your way? You don't have to build a single sink, since you can complete the game without touching the AWESOME shop.
Yeah, logic circuits would be nice. I would use them to control trains so I can use the same train station to receive multiple materials without needing a sink to prevent clogs. But as much as I dislike using a sink as a means of clog prevention, I'm completely fine with having something to dump true excess production into.
Why do you feel that's not possible now? Buffer storages are a thing - just build a storage container between production and consumption and connect the belts.
Can't you already do that, by not using any sinks? Eventually all the storage containers, transport lines and internal buffers will fill up and the machines will stop.
Okay, I guess you still have to work on accepting that other people like to play in different ways than you do, and treating them and their values with respect.
Maybe look into some other factory games. There's Factorio of course, with an absolute ton of mods if you don't mind the simpler graphical style. Personally I think it's a much better game for making refined production lines. I've even seen a video where certain mods are used to build a factory which produces and item it's asked for using only a single assembling machine. Maybe that would be more of your cup of tea?
A friend of mine has been playing Captain of Industry recently, and it's apparently really good, but also complex and hard. Here's a video, with some comparisons to other factory games: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiTuZKBbGKk
I'm also aware of are Dyson Sphere Program and Techtonica, but haven't played them (the latter will open for early access in about two weeks). Satisfactory is the game where I build pretty things, so I can accept simpler game mechanics.
I'm really getting sick and tired of people who only read to reply, and not to understand.
The point I was making was that I don't want infinite production. This is a game ostensibly about achieving a goal ("project assembly"); I want to complete project assembly in a direct and efficient manner without having all of the QoL features and miniscule efficiency improvements locked behind tedious side-quests. I don't want the whole game to revolve around an "optional" mechanic that isn't actually optional. I don't want to have to choose between having my machines simply be on or off/idle; I want to be able to use something that approaches SMED like a real factory (and if we're in a virtual world where real-world rules need not apply, there is NO REASON to make change-over of recipes be anything less than instantaneous with the change of a setting.)
Yes I'm aware of Techtonica, Dyson Sphere, Factorio, and a dozen other factory-esque games with varying levels of "factory" (from "you have to build a factory that makes sense" a la ShenzenI/O, Shapez and Opus Magnum; to more on the "lite" side of the genre like Mob Factory or Core Keeper where the factory elements aren't the whole story to the game loop.) I've mentioned most of them already in this thread!
The drum that I've been banging for this whole thread is that these other games make the factory-building part inherently fun. Whether it's Factorio giving you multiple ways to arrange inventory and get it flowing; or Core Keeper making the automation an integral reward that either drastically reduces or eliminates chores (and does so relatively early, so that you can enjoy the fruits of that automation throughout the rest of the game!)... all of these other titles have made the factory building process inherently enjoyable.
Satisfactory just makes it needlessly repetitive and stuffed full of needless chores.
Other games in this genre have a goal for you to work towards, and they make each step of the goal a self-contained reward loop. In Satisfactory, each step towards the over-arching goal gives you the reward of "more things for your to-do list"; all of the QoL rewards are tucked away in side-branches that can only be accessed by yet more grindy chores and not made apparent when they become useful. If you follow the tiers in the HUB rigidly, you won't be prompted to find Caterium until tier 4; even though it can be used (and is useful) as early as tier 2! You might stumble across it, but in most of the start locations the nearest caterium is behind an obstacle that you need an unrelated tech (most often nobelisk) to bypass. Considering that smart splitters are a core component of those "belts that never stop (because they overflow to a Sink)", you would think that the game would put that key ingredient up-front and centre!
The issue here is that Satisfactory isn't just shallow; it's using artificial lengthening (aka pointless chores) to pretend that it's deeper than it really is. As I said in the first post where I brought this up, over a year ago: Satisfactory is a game that challenges your patience, not your creativity.
You talk about "needing to work on treating other players, and the way they want to play, with respect"; but you've clearly missed what I was saying -- what I feel for this "Number Always Goes Up" approach isn't dislike, it's contempt. I think that this mindset is a genuine problem, a social ill that the world would be much better off without. I think that it not only doesn't deserve respect, but deserves active scorn -- it's a bad idea and people who support it should (be made to) feel bad, because supporting such an idea is actively harmful. That may sound exaggerated; but I genuinely believe that the obsession with chasing an ever-climbing metric is a cancer that destroys our critical thinking skills and our ability to recognise forms of value outside of the Number go Up. I'm not saying that all growth is bad, or that we can't enjoy watching the number go up -- but what I am saying is that when we make that number going up the only point, that's when it becomes destructive. What I'm talking about is when people replace actual progress with the appearance of progress; they forget what the metric represents and just focus on pushing it higher (even if "higher" is not actually synonymous with "better" where that metric is concerned.)
I think that designing a videogame around just making the number go up linearly is a colossal waste of time. Even Cookie Clicker does something more interesting than that! (Cookie Clicker is about understanding the relationships between different rates, and figuring out the short- vs long-term payoff for different upgrades; it ends up using a lot of complex math and is a genuine creative challenge.) But the far worse crime, in my view, is that said massive-and-pointless-time-sink game is co-opting the language of the types of games that I actually want to play; and that a small and very loud number of players within the genre are loudly cheering for that outcome.
We've established that there are many other factory-esque games out there. There are many different types of fans of them. Most of us like some combination of puzzle elements/creative challenges, "zen mode", patterns, seeing it all come together, and yes a bit of watching the number go up. The key word there is combination, or you might like to replace it with balance. Satisfactory lacks balance -- it is one big grindy slog; the upgrades and "progress" don't lead to any consistent improvement in your capability to achieve your goals (hell, some of the HUB upgrades don't even do anything meaningful in the time you unlock them!), with all of the "essential" techs for completing large-scale building projects being unlocked via... large-scale building projects! It's a whole game built around the concept of "so, before we let you do the thing you want to do, we're gonna make you do a slower and ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ version of it that takes longer than just doing the thing you wanted to do would actually take." And the whole time, the game is holding better tech and better options in front of your face, constantly putting them just beyond your reach. If you do the grunt work to reach one, you discover that either you need another tech (locked behind a similar amount of grunt work) in order to make it run effectively; or that you've just unlocked the MK1 version of a tech that you really need the MK4 version of.
It's a lot of anti-fun game design, and it all stems from the idea that game content has to be "earned" by making the in-game number go up; and that in turn makes the devs' own goal number/metric (player engagement, measured in "hours played") go up; which supposedly makes the studio's profits go up in turn. In reality, that last step isn't happening -- and so, we have a studio which is wasting money chasing the wrong metric, and a game that's worse as a result of it; and anyone looking at Satisfactory or the factory-game genre (because let's be real here, Factorio and Satisfactory "are" the factory game genre as far as most people are concerned) just sees "wait, we need to spend HOW much money on art and artists, and compete with an average engagement time of 100+ hours??!?" as the take-away here -- even though for most players a good chunk of those 100+ hours is spent away from the computer doing whatever while the game churns out parts; or walking between machines to flip a switch; or circling between a group of enemy spawn locations to get biomass (whether for research/feeding the Sink for tickets, or for production uses)... when you look at the number of hours played, and break them down into how that time was spent, most of it isn't play -- it's chores that are required to enable the play. It's "eat your veggies", except that the veggies have intentionally been cooked in the worst ways imaginable so that they'll take longer to eat (and at this point, the nutritional value is lost anyway.)
And I think that anyone who supports or encourages that design does need to be confronted and made to answer for why they support such a harmful ideology. We're talking about a virtual world with limitless possibility here... why the ♥♥♥♥ are people cheering for it to not only be turned into a boring day job, but an intentionally tedious and pointless one at that?!
I can "beat" Satisfactory -- the issue isn't that it's difficult. The issue is that it's boring and offers no reason to engage with its (limited, shallow) challenges. When the big 1.0 rolls around (give or take a couple of hotfixes depending on how serious they are), I'm gonna bust out all of the time-saving strategies I've developed and plow through the whole game from the tutorial start to tier 8; just to say "yep, I did that; I finished the full version of the game." The challenge isn't going to be figuring out how to build the factory, or which route to take at any given choice. The challenge for that run is simply going to be maintaining the motivation to actually get to that ending.
Everyone can choose their own way to enjoy it. Some people build sky factories, some people try to blend their factories and pathways into the land. Some people do spaghetti, some people try to be efficient. You can do a lot of different things with this rule set - which they also have improved over several updates.
And clearly, lots of people DO enjoy it. If you don't, then just play something else or make your own damn game. Unsure why you're forcing yourself to begrudgingly finish a game you don't like.
As said, lots of game offer far more tools, systems and goal to keep the player engaged in a interesting way. Satisfactory is more about building stuff than solving problems most of the time, and a lot of people have fun with it. You can disagree with this, and even think that the philosophy of the game is symptomatic of some kind of social disease. Maybe it is, maybe it's the point, or maybe not. Most likely, it's not a game for you.
I certainly don't understand people playing Destiny or Sim City but I won't tell them that they should feel bad about it because ultimately, it's a videogame, you can't really know who play it, for what reason, how does it impact their thinking, what they do and what kind of idea they support in real life. It's not really the place for this kind of critic.
And with this attitude, ultimately, every videogame could be seen as a waste of time, ressource, money and intelligence since you accomplish nothing while using electricity, computer, your time etc... I would not defend one over another.
If you don't want to let a factory run and deposit its output into a giant grinder, you can just shut it down until you need it again. It's not going anywhere.
I literally can't read your posts, not saying thats your fault, I mean yes the entire story-writing part is, but its not your fault I can't read it before Steams UI wants to kill my eyesight.
I however will get a few things out of the way, this game by lore does not want you to have fun, hell when you take damage in the game, it says Damage to Ficsit Property, as in the suit your wearing. The company you work for literally does not care if you go and die off or fail to live up to the quota, because there's hundreds of others that are on the planet, and to further point out that were the 3rd person dropped in the zone we have (AKA The map) that is said to us in the intro if you enable it that survived just planetary entry, says how little the company cares about your well being.
The company does not care if you enjoy your job or not, they literally don't care as yes, as long as their stocks go up, you remain employed and looked after with minor prizes like the greedy company Ficsit is.
The fact they even amuse the workers with rewards for destroying excess materials is designed around the concept that your still buying while being employed regardless of how we look at it, hell if we want we could say the tickets are our form of payment because clearly we dont see any other forms of money in the game
Here's the best part. Yes, it all is 100% grunt work. Your not important to the company, hell Caterium is named after the CEO of Ficsit, Catherian, and her adviser literally says bluntly that he can't tell you whats going on in the sky out of risk of his own families entire lives being put to the gun (or "fired") if you want.
Hell we are given a rifle, were given an upgraded xenobasher, were given literally what amounts to a handheld tactical nuclear bomb, and buggies, so its clear that who were working for has a military-funded backing else I can't imagine they'd give us to those to start with, the challenge here is simple
The Challenge will be added when the game actually releases, we don't know what it is at this time. Factorio is, shockingly, fully released, Dyson Sphere is, mostly released, the developer is now just adding more things to it while the story is in of itself, complete and added in. Techtonica on its own store page notes that there's more mystery to the planet your working on. And what do all of those games have in common? Their not being worked on still to finish the base game anymore, so yes, your mad about something that has yet to be added to a game because its not even out of early access yet. Seriously imagine saying all that you have, while knowing SAM ore, 2 types of artifacts and even messages exist in the game already, clearly challenges to reach them yet not once bringing them up because they don't have a story yet. Oh they exist, the game is not just telling you because the story is not in the game yet.
Actually its more amusing, imagine being mad about an early access game altogether because its not living up to expectations, if you don't enjoy EA games, then don't play them! Its that simple, as other people said, go play those other games then whine here about something thats not even finished being baked!