There’s not really a whole lot of documentation with this game which I think helps contribute to a very steep learning curve. The tutorial goes fairly well but it almost seems like after you move out of your garage it’s almost impossible to stay alive. There’s no real help with the sliders for any of the projects. Mostly just "Hey play around, we won’t give you any hints other than “Hey what would you expect in a real game of this type” " Or there’s no indication of whether it’s better to have technology or design for the selected game categories(other than extremely obvious ones)
It’s a fun concept but I still have no idea how I can make a hit TES game that sells 750k copies, to then fail miserably afterwards.
A better explanation of the games mechanics would be great.
I agree entirely. The transition from garage to first office is a super hard drop of enjoyment I have never survived too long because of the reasons you listed. also, salaries and rent are unproportionally ludicrous.
I could agree with your sentence personally, but in fact the original post is about quite another thing - a tutorial starts with obvious things and keeps walking with tiny steps until at some point player realizes that there no more help from the game for a long time and it’s absolutely impossible to understand what exactly is going wrong. Learning curve should be revised to be more friendly for newcomers and less intrusive for experienced players. It’s not the best idea to define plain triggers on some singular events (e.g. “Research engine part”) with almost no useful information, while game can follow for players’ actions and when same error keeps over and over (e.g. if player releases several games with old engine which results in low score) tutorial should be provided with a specific advice.
Or maybe this game originated only for hardcore gamers?
Yeah its actually frustating when you dont know which lever is depends of what in the game.
also - when you need to decide engine is more to design or to code (for example)
a smal hint would be good
I think that instead of documentation the game should give cues to why it failed. A review could explicitely say why it felt short. Your team could try to give you advice, the publisher could tell you. You could receive letters from fans …
This would be more immersive than a documentation and provide direct feedback shortening the learning curve
The reviews occasionally give you some guidance - “they should have focussed more on technology”, or “X and Y are a strange combination”.
I found that it makes sense to not move up to new offices straight away - get more of a cash cushion first, so you can absorb some failures. Don’t rush into medium games, as they’re expensive to make and the contribution to dev costs from the publisher aren’t enough.
Engine and AI are definitely development/tech from what I’ve gathered, graphics, sound, dialog, story/quests seem to be design, not sure about the others.
Oh, and once you’re on level 2, do training. It’s the only way to keep up with standards. Don’t use all your RPs on developing new technology, develop yourself and your staff as well.
The reviews give guidance but what makes this game frustrating at first is the lack of direct feedback. You are given too fast too many options and not guided enough into finding the right balance
I still find that fun. Maybe it’s just a nostalgia effect for me, how games used to play in the old days. It’s much easier to work out what you’re doing than one of my old favourites, Detroit.