endzone vs surviving the aftermath with the last massive updates

[spike86]

title, really.

since nowadays games never finish development, vs threads never gets old.

now, given the massive updates both games got recently, I'm again on the fence to buy one of them (endzone is discounted on steam, and for surviving the aftermath I've 10€ discount on epic, bringing both about the same price)

what are the difference between them now, after so many updates?

prosperity update seems to add some "End game" novelty on endzone. what about surviving the aftermath? does it have some form of goal like that? (for instance surviving Mars has the terraforming thing as end game)

how are the maps now? I've read in the past that StA had a boring world map, but I've read changes on that in the last patches, how it is now?

what about endzone map? being just one how does it feel? there's any wow in the discoveries there?

etc, things like that

[ApricotMigraine]

I enjoyed playing Surviving The Aftermath and I did not enjoy playing Endzone at all.

Surviving The Aftermath has it's limitations, specifically there is no endgame goal - you just survive, forever. There comes a point where you have discovered the entire map, you're trading with everyone, you've got surplus and you've figured out how to clear out bandits.

All of that does not come at once, however, mid-to-late play the game still throws things at your that can really shake you up, primarily via catastrophes.

Starting isn't easy, but not impossible. It feels like life is rough but people are... surviving. You have to manage resources, colonists' health, fight off bandits every once in a while, plan for and survive catastrophes - it took me 30 hours with intermittent save loading to grow my colony to 100+ on pretty high difficulty. I considered that as my victory conditions and stopped playing. Now that the number of colonists is up to almost 400 I'm going to play it again. The other thing they reworked was resource management: from what I can tell it's basically harder. Best items can no longer be produced inside the colony and have to be created in outposts, which are more important now.

Surviving The Aftermath is a fun, albeit brief distraction.

Compared to that, Endzone was like getting drowned in diarrhea while getting punched in the nuts, while the game is laughing at you the whole time, but that's just me. I couldn't get the colony started. Seasons don't make sense, it's arbitrary numbers and lengths that don't make sense to us (i.e. days, weeks, months) humans that have lived on this planet. Your colonists mature way too fast and then die, because the developer assigned arbitrary time periods that only make sense in their sadistic brains. Your crops take half a human lifespan to grow. By the time you've figured what you need everyone is dead, because colonists also will only make kids in specific conditions, so you have to keep building more houses, and keep building, and keep building, until you're out of resources and oh by the way you have no more food or water and everyone is dead.

[spike86]

wow, pretty negative on endzone eh? :)

your review is in line with what I've read so far (endzone more difficult) however on another forum they're telling me the exact opposite, Sta more random and challenging and endzone more casual/easy...

that's quite confusing :D

one more thing, I've read in the devs logs that the gate doesn't serve anymore as defense for balancing purposes. that's mean enemies will just "pop up" directly in the colony.

how does it feel?
I've seen several let's play where enemies were at the gate, which was cool, how does this modification feel?
they did it for balance, I know, but doesn't it feel awkward?

[andrew.ch.]

For me, "Surviving the Aftermath" has more game mechanics than "Endzone". But in "Endzone", if you are not prepared for a disaster, your settlement can completely die out (I love that in-game).


If I don't dress the townspeople in Endzone in time, they will all die from the impending radiation. If I don't stockpile food and water in the Endzone, my citizens will die from the drought. If I do not control the birth rate, my settlement may grow old, or vice versa, a high birth rate can lead to a faster expenditure of food supplies, all of which can lead to the death of your settlement. I love that about Endzone.

There are more disasters in Surviving the Aftermath (I like the variety), but they don't affect my settlement as much. My settlement lived quietly in winter weather, moving around naked. I think this is a matter of customization of the game, "Surviving the Aftermath" is still in Early Access, the game has yet to make these changes. I hope that such changes will appear in "Surviving the Aftermath", and I'm really looking forward to it.

[JcTraya]

how about the performance on both? Endzone had fps issues when you have a big settlement.

[andrew.ch.]

Originally posted by JcTraya:

how about the performance on both? Endzone had fps issues when you have a big settlement.

I cannot give you an answer to this question. It depends on the specifications of your computer. I had no performance issues. In "Surviving the Aftermath" there is a limit of 400 settlers.

[Reinier dash]

you can die ♥♥♥♥ fast in endzone with water and food here you can come back from the brink

[mikeydsc]

For one, I hope you love paying thru the nose for non-stop DLC, parts of which should be in main game. Since Paradox is publishing, you are gonna be a sucked dry of cash for stuff like 5 portraits for $8.99, a questline dlc will cost you $15. Many folks run away when they see Paradox attached to any game. Wait 3 or 4 years and then buy the complete edition.

[spike86]

Originally posted by mikeydsc:

For one, I hope you love paying thru the nose for non-stop DLC, parts of which should be in main game. Since Paradox is publishing, you are gonna be a sucked dry of cash for stuff like 5 portraits for $8.99, a questline dlc will cost you $15. Many folks run away when they see Paradox attached to any game. Wait 3 or 4 years and then buy the complete edition.

reality is very far away from what you say.
I've several paradox games and only a couple (of the older ones) are like that.

modern ones are buy what you like.
free and frequent content updates are not free to make.
if someone agree to pay for portraits supporting game development in the process, it's a good thing for everyone, including people buying only the base game

[mikeydsc]

When you make a game and is very basic, but charge for items that should have been in base game, the total to buy the whole package is often 300 or 400$. I played all the early Europa Universalis games until the BS started. The old Victoria games, been there done that before I joined steam. Now other studios are starting to copy this practice even for poor quality pixel gfx games. Customers should have rejected that marketing strategy straight out to prevent the industry picking up its ideas. Its a close semblance to the way corporate america raided the coffers legally and no one cared.

When the bugs in the base game are ignored thru the whole dev cycle even after all the DLC is made, and the original bugs from the very 1st offering are still there, that tells me money over quality. The customer service on their website is mostly absent except hey we got more dlc, come get you some....... it not right. Ive been around this studio many many years.

Do I have grudges over companies making money? Nope, thats why they opened their doors in the beginning. I just dont like being looked at like a money farm.

There are a ton of quality games much better than this and that have made lots of EXPANSION packs that would include all this stuff for 35 or 40 bucks instead 150. They separate the content into chucks to squeeze you. Other studios often made 1 and sometimes up to 3 expansion packs and you typically had 100 invested in game instead 300 or more

[ElPrezCBF]

I got StA at launch but didn't play for very long due to forced worker productivity loss as they randomly go on breaks during work hours. Now I get that games try to simulate reality for immersion in some aspects but not when this conflicts with gameplay. You could have workers stop working when they go to sleep at night but not during work hours since productivity is critical in a game where survival depends on adequate resource production and scavenging. You could instead allow shifts to be set but as long as they are working, there should be no random productivity loss. What's the point of strategy when productivity during work hours is random? I also didn't like how the time mechanic worked on the world map during scavenging because it wasn't clearly presented to the player. Having stopped playing StA for quite some time now, I hope these issues have been patched since then. Otherwise, it'd be a waste of time to go back to this game.

Originally posted by mikeydsc:

When you make a game and is very basic, but charge for items that should have been in base game, the total to buy the whole package is often 300 or 400$. I played all the early Europa Universalis games until the BS started. The old Victoria games, been there done that before I joined steam. Now other studios are starting to copy this practice even for poor quality pixel gfx games. Customers should have rejected that marketing strategy straight out to prevent the industry picking up its ideas. Its a close semblance to the way corporate america raided the coffers legally and no one cared.

When the bugs in the base game are ignored thru the whole dev cycle even after all the DLC is made, and the original bugs from the very 1st offering are still there, that tells me money over quality. The customer service on their website is mostly absent except hey we got more dlc, come get you some....... it not right. Ive been around this studio many many years.

Do I have grudges over companies making money? Nope, thats why they opened their doors in the beginning. I just dont like being looked at like a money farm.

There are a ton of quality games much better than this and that have made lots of EXPANSION packs that would include all this stuff for 35 or 40 bucks instead 150. They separate the content into chucks to squeeze you. Other studios often made 1 and sometimes up to 3 expansion packs and you typically had 100 invested in game instead 300 or more

Games developed by Paradox (not just as a publisher) tend to follow the trend you described. Those with Paradox only as a publisher also do it but there are exceptions like Surviving Mars where you sometimes get free quality of life updates, although I think these should have come much earlier instead of three years after the game's launch. Tbh, games that give you tons of content at $40 are rare unless sold as an ultimate bundle years after release. Sometimes, it could simply be a matter of unplanned future content. Or it could be deliberate milking. We don't know for certain but what matters is how the player is ultimately treated.

While I share your sentiments, complaining won't help as long as players continue to buy regardless of such practices and all you can do is adjust your expectations and act accordingly. For example, it's common for season pass bundles to get a poorer discount than the ultimate edition bundle. I simply refrain from buying the season pass until its discount is comparable to that of the ultimate edition. The reason being I find it unacceptable that new DLCs in the ultimate bundle are priced much lower for players who did not support the game from the very beginning. I'm not asking for preferential treatment as an early supporter of the base game (though that would be most welcome) since I agreed to pay full price at the start but rather equal treatment over the price of new DLCs. Until that happens, I support other games that treat buyers with more respect.

[mikeydsc]

Ahh yes, Surviving Mars, the game that just got a brand new dev team which made 2 dlcs that totally blew everyones game to shreds to which Paradox said "It would be too much trouble to have some one issue a rollback on steam to a previous working version" and until this day, they have failed to totally correct the damage done. Umm isnt Paradox pushing this as well?

Game been dead and all the mods authors except a couple have moved on meaning broken mods. Choggi and another modder been issuing fixes so people can play. Another nail. Thanks

[mikeydsc]

Originally posted by mikeydsc:

Ahh yes, Surviving Mars, the game that just got a brand new dev team which made 2 dlcs that totally blew everyones game to shreds to which Paradox said "It would be too much trouble to have some one issue a rollback on steam to a previous working version" and until this day, they have failed to totally correct the damage done. Umm isnt Paradox pushing this as well?

Game been dead and all the mods authors except a couple have moved on meaning broken mods. Choggi and another modder been issuing fixes so people can play. Another nail. Thanks

EDIT - To be fair, the first dlc was a modder that paradox gave permission to add a few buildings.