Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Karkov]

I wouldn't mind seeing this have combat, though I can understand the plight of those other forum-goers (the main forum for this anyway).  When we get mod support, I wouldn't be surprised that the first mod that comes out is some form of combat implementation.  Other than that, yeah, variety and possibly more strife would probably be welcomed.

On a different note, do you think that it's possibly because most of us were/are DF players at some point, that we're having a simpler time with this than most?  We're pretty used to handling colonies that are a melting pot of trouble while being oppressed by elephants.

[umiman]

Played this for a few hours.

It's quite bad. There's no charm, no personality. It's like it was designed by an engineer who's entire right hemisphere of his brain took a vacation, so all you get left is a spreadsheet and grey + brown + white.

This game is basically Tropico, but Tropico is leagues better than this. Everything is the same, except Tropico does it better in every aspect.

[Dutchling]

I reluctantly agree.

I really wanted to like this game, but it just makes me want to play Dwarf Fortress or The Settlers instead.

[slink]

So far I am loving this game.  No combat, no raucous music, no nasty surprises other than bad weather and stubborn traders who won't bring me any sheep.   

I am amazed at the problems I am seeing on the official forum.  I had no problem installing the game, nor in running it.  It doesn't like to be ALT-Tabbed out of, but lots of games don't like that.

I read the review mentioned above, and all I can say is that if I complained that the print was too small I would be told to go buy a new pair of glasses.  And I have, several times, over the years (both complained and bought new glasses).    There is a button to make the deaths by old age pop up, by the way.  The reviewer just missed that, somehow.  Perhaps when he was being overwhelmed by all the tiny numbers.

For an easier city-building game, people should buy SimCity Societies and play under FreePlay rules.  You don't even have to pay any attention to societal values in that mode and cash is infinite.  Just place your buildings and watch the population numbers roll up.  No critical thinking required.

Feelings for the events in a game originate from within the player, not from the game itself.  I am able to make any game into an RPG.  Banished is not too much different from a graphical DF, but without the ability (yet) to make mods and no way to make in-game water computers or reclaim your lost fortress, er, village.  DF is where I end up whenever I am disillusioned by the eye candy games that other programmers produce.

I am sure I am a niche market.  I hope there are enough people like me that we can encourage this fellow to expand on his game.  Even if he doesn't, I have gotten my money's worth at this point.  I remember paying at least twice as much for Descent to Undermountain, which never was playable by a mage because it had a bug in mana accumulation.  I played it all the way through, once, with a fighter.  I actually enjoyed the game.  Even the bug which caused my inventory to appear in a heap at the top of the descent.    And that was after all of the patches the programming house was willing to part with.

For what it is worth, I am playing the 64-bit version of Banished on a machine bought last December, under 64-bit Win 7 Pro.  I imagine things must be more difficult for people playing on older hardware or under Win 8x.  I am playing on medium difficulty with disasters on.  That was a major concession for me because I normally play DF with invasions off, at least ever since the military got changed so my archers were no longer uber.  Combat is just not my thing, I guess.

Edit: By the way, I accidentally discovered a method to control births in Banished.  Don't build new houses for people who have newly turned adult.  They will continue to live in other people's houses, even after an apparent marriage has taken place, and no children will be born to any of the four people living there.  I am sure it is a bug, but it certainly was convenient for me.

[Dutchling]

Edit: By the way, I accidentally discovered a method to control births in Banished.  Don't build new houses for people who have newly turned adult.  They will continue to live in other people's houses, even after an apparent marriage has taken place, and no children will be born to any of the four people living there.  I am sure it is a bug, but it certainly was convenient for me.

I'm pretty sure this is intended. If not, there would be no way to control your populations leading to mass starvation cycles every few years.

Would be FUN though

[Knight of Fools]

I've been enjoying it. Not sure why, normally I get frustrated with games like this.

I haven't "lost" yet, even though I've chosen "Hard" since my first game after the tutorial. Heck, it almost seems too easy if you plan ahead properly and take things slowly. I can see how people end up starving and such, but I've had problems with having too much food. My storehouses kept getting full.

Of course, the village I'm working on right now is only my second and only has a population of 91 including kids and students, so we'll see where it goes once I start making larger towns. This one certainly won't be very large since it's on a small mountain map, and I'm moderately surprised I've gotten it as large as I have. But any larger and I'll be intruding on my foresting industry.

My biggest complaint so far is that quarries and mines are both limited and can't be destroyed. Kind of ruins my "perfect town" ideal, since making a mine or a quarry just guarantees that the land you slap it on is useless from that point on. Wouldn't be so bad if you could have a few builders spend a couple of seasons filling them up with dirt or something.

That, and the game could use some color and decorations on the buildings. The people wear some pretty colorful clothes, it just needs more color outside of the citizens. You can barely see them most of the time. Drapes, flags, paint on the exteriors of homes, shop signs, flower gardens... Hopefully modding will smooth that over, but despite the earth tone color scheme it looks nice enough.

Also, has anyone else noticed that people seem to age 10 years every year?


And, for the record, there's an option to increase the UI size. It does need a lot of work though.

[nenjin]

That's probably what Alex's problem was. He kept building houses for new adults, which basically gives you uncapped population growth.

[umiman]

People think this game is hard?

My mind is boggled.

[Tnx]

The main forums and the subreddit have tons of people who shrug off any criticism of the game as "oh those people can't appreciate a hard game".  Whereas I'm sitting here on my first playthrough on hard, and doing extremely well.  If these people think Banished is hard they should try DF.

[MoLAoS]

Honestly, I'm ashamed of RPS. I'm glad I asked for a perma ban from there. Just for the record, I was nowhere close to a ban from behavior, the mods were very confused when I asked for a ban.

Their reviewer played the game wrong and then because of his ignorance he tanked hundreds if not thousands of sales. I don't have the time or money for Banished currently but I'm going to buy it anyway, just because of RPS being dumbasses.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

I like this game, I like watching my village grow. That's its appeal to me.

[nenjin]

Their reviewer played the game wrong and then because of his ignorance he tanked hundreds if not thousands of sales. I don't have the time or money for Banished currently but I'm going to buy it anyway, just because of RPS being dumbasses.

I take issue with this.

Developers are not entitled to sales by the reviews that get written.

While yes, on a very human level it kind of sucks for the guy, I also place the responsibility on the reader to interpret the message. Some people in the RPS thread said they did that very thing, and bought the game because of his review.

But the sense of entitlement the fans seem to think the media owes the people they cover stinks, IMO. That's fanboyism going overboard. RPS was free PR for that guy. He had to do nothing other than fire off an email to put his game in front of thousands of people's eyes. He didn't have to launch a website, maintain a Twitter account, hire staff or any of that crap. (He did at least a couple of those things, but none necessary to get the PR you get simply from being on the RPS front page.)

So he's already getting a sweet deal, if we assume that at least a percentage of RPS readers aren't slaves to the opinion of the writers. And nowhere did I see Alec fail to accurately report what's in the game. His interpretation may have been wrong and left him feeling frustrated, but I recall he said he was probably missing something. Then again, has any game ever gone from "not really fun" to "fun!" by grasping a mechanic?

Setting that aside, I think he gave a fair portrait of how the game struck him. Which was kinda bland and circular. Besides. RPS is just a drop of water in the bucket compared to what being on Steam is. I don't want game journos self-censoring because they're afraid of hurting someone's bottomline. I read sites like RPS exactly because I get unfiltered opinions. I read their reaction, gauge it, decide if it sounds incomplete or if it pretty well captures what I've already seen for myself.

I've gotten mad at RPS for how they've reviewed games I like (Space Hulk got trashed over there, and in that sense yes I do agree that RPS judgments tend to echo for a while.) But the media doesn't owe developers anything other than facts and their honest opinion, whether it's misguided or not. When you sell a game and play the PR game, you have to accept the feedback you get.

I mean, consider the alternative. Would you rather RPS cater and fawn to indies? Only publish articles that gush for the game? Isn't that what drove people away from the corporate review sites where AAA games get reviewed? To not publish their visceral reactions to a product because "we don't want to hurt their sales?" C'mon. That's not a standard that holds, even if it does occasionally help a game some people like.

FWIW, the exact same debate is happening over on RPS right now too. Where some people clearly think RPS wronged this guy and has damaged the game's reputation. Honestly, I think that's people fanbois going a little unchecked.

[Fikes]

Reading the review actually made me want to play the game more. I like it when things are slowly falling apart and I like solving the puzzle of in game balance.

Can someone who enjoyed Sim City and Tropico explain why this game fails? Every criticism I read so far could be applied to either of those games.

Both games turn easy when you start to figure out the balance, but I still fire them up every once in a while for what ever reason.

[nenjin]

Reading the review actually made me want to play the game more. I like it when things are slowly falling apart and I like solving the puzzle of in game balance.

Can someone who enjoyed Sim City and Tropico explain why this game fails? Every criticism I read so far could be applied to either of those games.

Both games turn easy when you start to figure out the balance, but I still fire them up every once in a while for what ever reason.

After watching TB's review: flavor, visuals, interesting narratives being created by game play and variety. Tropico has all those. It does look very nice and captures that sense of place....but I can't see that sustaining a body for more than a couple playthroughs.

[MoLAoS]

Their reviewer played the game wrong and then because of his ignorance he tanked hundreds if not thousands of sales. I don't have the time or money for Banished currently but I'm going to buy it anyway, just because of RPS being dumbasses.

I take issue with this.

Developers are not entitled to sales by the reviews that get written.

While yes, on a very human level it kind of sucks for the guy, I also place the responsibility on the reader to interpret the message. Some people in the RPS thread said they did that very thing, and bought the game because of his review.

But the sense of entitlement the fans seem to think the media owes the people they cover stinks, IMO. That's fanboyism going overboard. RPS was free PR for that guy. He had to do nothing other than fire off an email to put his game in front of thousands of people's eyes. He didn't have to launch a website, maintain a Twitter account, hire staff or any of that crap. (He did at least a couple of those things, but none necessary to get the PR you get simply from being on the RPS front page.)

So he's already getting a sweet deal, if we assume that at least a percentage of RPS readers aren't slaves to the opinion of the writers. And nowhere did I see Alec fail to accurately report what's in the game. His interpretation may have been wrong and left him feeling frustrated, but I recall he said he was probably missing something. Then again, has any game ever gone from "not really fun" to "fun!" by grasping a mechanic?

Setting that aside, I think he gave a fair portrait of how the game struck him. Which was kinda bland and circular. Besides. RPS is just a drop of water in the bucket compared to what being on Steam is. I don't want game journos self-censoring because they're afraid of hurting someone's bottomline. I read sites like RPS exactly because I get unfiltered opinions. I read their reaction, gauge it, decide if it sounds incomplete or if it pretty well captures what I've already seen for myself.

I've gotten mad at RPS for how they've reviewed games I like (Space Hulk got trashed over there, and in that sense yes I do agree that RPS judgments tend to echo for a while.) But the media doesn't owe developers anything other than facts and their honest opinion, whether it's misguided or not. When you sell a game and play the PR game, you have to accept the feedback you get.

I mean, consider the alternative. Would you rather RPS cater and fawn to indies? Only publish articles that gush for the game? Isn't that what drove people away from the corporate review sites where AAA games get reviewed? To not publish their visceral reactions to a product because "we don't want to hurt their sales?" C'mon. That's not a standard that holds, even if it does occasionally help a game some people like.

FWIW, the exact same debate is happening over on RPS right now too. Where some people clearly think RPS wronged this guy and has damaged the game's reputation. Honestly, I think that's people fanbois going a little unchecked.

I've bought a lot of games based on RPS reviews. I think a review site has a duty to give games a real chance. In this particular case I think RPS failed in that duty. Its clear that in at least one place the review was inaccurate because the reviewer made a poor gameplay decision and never even considered another option.

Scientific research has shown that something as simple as holding a hot or cold beverage can radically alter our first impressions of a person. Something much more relevant like a severe gameplay mistake is likely to cause at least as much of an impression.

RPS can be as careful as they want about investigating a game and then I can decide whether I think they did a good job or not.


As far as going from not fun to fun by grasping a simple mechanic. I'm not even sure what to say to a person who asks that question. How to convey an empathic yes combined with an exaggerated eye roll over the internet? How can you even ask that without exploding into dust due to a massive concentration of anti-logitrons?

Well, turns out I actually did know what to say. My bad.