Even if they might be in the game already, we don't know exactly, so there's no real harm in expressing concern regarding them. And yes, site B immediately came to my mind as soon as I posted that lol
Disappointment
- Thread starter Dino droppings? Droppings?
- Start date
Even if they might be in the game already, we don't know exactly, so there's no real harm in expressing concern regarding them. And yes, site B immediately came to my mind as soon as I posted that lol
I feel like you are forgetting the focus of the game which is the dinosaurs, and everything is else is a varying degree of a sideshow. Infinite money to test enclosures, paddock designs and interaction between dinosaurs. Thunderdome style battle cages. Battles and setting dinosaurs free to damage your park and slaughter the guests for free and no risk! Testing out genomes too! While I understand that some people will use the sandbox much differently, and to on each his or her own, but deep down this game is a dinosaur game. Under that is management game. The small things won't always make in first as they can't pander to everyone smallest desires. But who knows how old the dev build was, or what they are trying to keep secret until release. I hope you won't let these small things dampen your experience.
Park customization in a park builder shouldn't be considered a small feature.
I have to agree with this. Using a controller is stupidly easy to use on xbox and ps. Heck my 5 year old can place stuff down perfectly in the sims. I understand if you aren't use yo it, but it takes less than an hour to perfect it.
If controllers were good at precision shooter games wouldn't have auto aim.
But shooter games are designed for really fast reactions. they need autoaim because of their competitive nature. In JW:E you could just take your time to do it right with no pressure.
They also rely on precision, which a controller doesn't have. Every try and do a head shot with a controller? Its not that easy. Sure it's doable. But with a mouse it's done a lot easier.
Yeah, our discussion of these topics tells FDev that we are serious and passionate about them. They then use that discussion to prioritize the next iteration.
My main issue really was the OP using language that seemed both inappropriate, and unusual for that poster. Droppings has always been passionate about the game, so when they start accusing the developers of being "lazy", "idiotic", and having "literally no reason" for their decisions, I was concerned that Droppings had gone too far and tipped from "passionate but disappointed" to directly insulting the developers. To say that they have literally no reason for making certain decisions says to me: not that the developers are lazy, but that we the audience have no insight into their decision making process.
Last edited:
Yes but that's why I mentioned the level of competition. There is none in Evolution, so being extremely precise isn't necessarily an issue because you can take your time.
Well 'idiotic' wouldn't be a word I would personally use, but I too question some of the decisions regarding the game. Specifically the set time of day on each island. I think differentiating each island would've been cooler if each island had slightly different trees and landscape rather than just lighting. Like sorna could have redwood forests etc. I do agree that some decisions of the game feel like unnecessary limitations.
I guess my point is that we don't know the reasons behind those decisions, whether we agree with them or not. For example, FDev may want to do single-item terrain, but that requires a certain amount of time and resources. The development schedule has a hard deadline set by another company (Universal) so some of those decisions may have been due to resource limitations.
Its plausible that they did/are creating hardwood/rainforest/conifer tree sets to use, but they aren't going to be perfectly bug-free in the next three weeks so they aren't talking about it. Its possible that they may be planning the Ultimate Terrain DLC with single rocks and logs, signs and statues, etc. but they just didn't have time to get it in on Initial Release. Its not that they made bad decisions, so much as forced into a certain set of limitations that we aren't aware of. With online gaming, we can get game expansions and updates on the fly so adding wanted features after release is not a big issue. With modern software, its not fair to compare Initial Release with Final Product. I'm not paying sixty bucks for JUST the Initial Release, but for the long time I expect to be playing and all the things they will add along the way.
So instead of insulting the developers about bad decision making before the game is even out, I'm willing to explain what I hope for, and see what happens in the game when it is actually out and playable. THEN see what the devs do with it in the following six months!
At that point, if we STILL don't have the customizability we want, THEN i'd be willing to jump on the Disappointment Bandwagon. But until then, I will continue to SQUEEEE every time I see a new Species Profile.
Last edited:
The devs quickly adressing the possible improvements of customization before the actual release would be nice.
First thing i do is turn auto aim off if it is on. Find it a lot easier with out it.
Also never had trouble playing sim/management/building games with controller.
I understand why they are not including a full day/night cycle and honestly I don't really care too much. It would be nice; but a day night cycle is not really content in and of itself; its glitter and tassels. I am not very knowledgeable about computer processing and graphics, but I think it is foreseeable that with the graphical detail they are putting into the game that concurrently trying to generate a continuously smooth lighting transition between day and night would both take them an unknowable amount of time they don't have and would require players to have computer and graphics card combo worth over a thousand dollars.
Frankly I am fine playing a management style tycoon game in complete daylight. I agree that seeing the sun rise and set on the park would look gorgeous.
What concerns me the most is lack of replay value. When it comes down to it if we only have six islands, every single option we have on those islands counts towards replay value because the fewer options there are, the more those islands will look the exact same every time we play them. The argument of PCMR4life that "Why are you asking for something that's already in the game, if you want to manage something play the 5 islands" I find extraordinarily hollow when something that would go a long long way towards addressing this, simply allowing a "challenge mode" on Nublar, seems extraordinarily easy, cheap, and fast to do (unlike creating a full day/night cycle). Putting a "challenge mode" on Nublar where we have the OPTION of choosing how much starting cash we have, instead of being forced to not worry about this because there is 'no cash restriction', simply adds more replay value to the game. Perhaps there are people who want to engage in management oriented play on six islands instead of being limited to 5, and who want to do it without being haggled by various campaign characters. It is true, perhaps we will have the option of choosing starting cash and can simply hit a hot key to get free money. We don't know yet, in which case Nublar is de facto 'challenge mode' unless you hit a cash injection hotkey which then makes it 'sandbox' mode. If we can only research and unlock items within the 5 deaths and then use it on Nublar, I guess that suffices. But appeasing those who simply ask for a "choose starting cash" option for Nublar to avoid feeling cornered into an unchallenging "unlimited money" scenario is really really really really really easy to do. Why not do something so so so so easy if it increases replay value and player options?
Frankly I am fine playing a management style tycoon game in complete daylight. I agree that seeing the sun rise and set on the park would look gorgeous.
What concerns me the most is lack of replay value. When it comes down to it if we only have six islands, every single option we have on those islands counts towards replay value because the fewer options there are, the more those islands will look the exact same every time we play them. The argument of PCMR4life that "Why are you asking for something that's already in the game, if you want to manage something play the 5 islands" I find extraordinarily hollow when something that would go a long long way towards addressing this, simply allowing a "challenge mode" on Nublar, seems extraordinarily easy, cheap, and fast to do (unlike creating a full day/night cycle). Putting a "challenge mode" on Nublar where we have the OPTION of choosing how much starting cash we have, instead of being forced to not worry about this because there is 'no cash restriction', simply adds more replay value to the game. Perhaps there are people who want to engage in management oriented play on six islands instead of being limited to 5, and who want to do it without being haggled by various campaign characters. It is true, perhaps we will have the option of choosing starting cash and can simply hit a hot key to get free money. We don't know yet, in which case Nublar is de facto 'challenge mode' unless you hit a cash injection hotkey which then makes it 'sandbox' mode. If we can only research and unlock items within the 5 deaths and then use it on Nublar, I guess that suffices. But appeasing those who simply ask for a "choose starting cash" option for Nublar to avoid feeling cornered into an unchallenging "unlimited money" scenario is really really really really really easy to do. Why not do something so so so so easy if it increases replay value and player options?
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply. Whilst I agree with 90% of what you said, I need to reiterate that my concerns were primarily focused on the limitations afforded by the design choices and not the inclusion/exclusion of certain features.
The features I asked for were simply used to bolster my argument about the lack of a 'challange mode'.
I'm sorry to say that I have become immensely frustrated and disheartened reading a large proportion of responses.
It seems as though the vast majority of people have completely misunderstood, unintentionally and intentionally, the entire point of this post. In my original message I thought I made it quite clear when I said, "first of all, this is not a post attempting to change peoples opinions on the game. If you are excited about the game and you agree with the design choices, more power to you. No one should attempt to disuade you from your opinion; least of all me. However, if you are open to an honest diologue then please read on".
Let's take a moment to think about what this means. Everything I listed in the OP was of my own personal concern. That means that anything in it was by definition a subjective opinion. By extension, it was not intended to change anyones opinion about the game. I've probably had to reiterate 10 times in the ensuing comments that if you as an individual like the design choices made by Frontier, awesome; I'm genuinely happy for you.
What this means is that if I am showing people who are happy with the design choices the respect their opinion deserves, surely I in return deserve the same treatment?
What I received instead were a list of comments from people who had obviously not properly read the OP, or at least interpreted it in the most cynical and disengenuious way possible. And instead of ignoring it (assuming that the people who accused me of whining are happy with the design choices), they proceeded to try and explain why my subjective opinion was wrong. Do you understand how fundamentally flawed and worrying that is?
Do we really want to become sort of authoritarian collective, policed by small-minded children where if someone expresses an opinion that even vaguely sounds negative they are immediately labled as a whiner or are simply dismissed as unrealistic. It's genuinely concerning. If in a group of like-minded individuals we can't coexist peacefully, that doesn't say a lot for humanity.
It seems as though the vast majority of people have completely misunderstood, unintentionally and intentionally, the entire point of this post. In my original message I thought I made it quite clear when I said, "first of all, this is not a post attempting to change peoples opinions on the game. If you are excited about the game and you agree with the design choices, more power to you. No one should attempt to disuade you from your opinion; least of all me. However, if you are open to an honest diologue then please read on".
Let's take a moment to think about what this means. Everything I listed in the OP was of my own personal concern. That means that anything in it was by definition a subjective opinion. By extension, it was not intended to change anyones opinion about the game. I've probably had to reiterate 10 times in the ensuing comments that if you as an individual like the design choices made by Frontier, awesome; I'm genuinely happy for you.
What this means is that if I am showing people who are happy with the design choices the respect their opinion deserves, surely I in return deserve the same treatment?
What I received instead were a list of comments from people who had obviously not properly read the OP, or at least interpreted it in the most cynical and disengenuious way possible. And instead of ignoring it (assuming that the people who accused me of whining are happy with the design choices), they proceeded to try and explain why my subjective opinion was wrong. Do you understand how fundamentally flawed and worrying that is?
Do we really want to become sort of authoritarian collective, policed by small-minded children where if someone expresses an opinion that even vaguely sounds negative they are immediately labled as a whiner or are simply dismissed as unrealistic. It's genuinely concerning. If in a group of like-minded individuals we can't coexist peacefully, that doesn't say a lot for humanity.
It's hilarious that you would say that after you personally attacked someone just a few pages ago or so. For no reason might I add.
Maybe it's time you just move on. If you don't like what the game is then don't buy it or wait and see what it's like on release. But harping on the same issues day after day isn't going to fix things. Especially when things don't need to be fixed, can't be fixed to your exact specifications or were never an issue.
For no reason? Really? And would we really call that a personal attack? Seems a tad exaggerated don't you think.
My point still stands by the way. Perhaps respond to that.
Last edited:
Yeah, you called Andrew2018 a child. You said "You are literally a child". That's a personal attack. Now I read a lot of the posts in this thread and I didn't seem him attack you in anyway. Just disagree with what you posted. I would call that a personal attack. Calling someone a child isn't a positive thing, it's a negative. It's an insult.
So it's hilarious to see you calling other people children when you behave like one when people don't agree with you. Also please drop the passive aggressive routine. I know what you are doing. Passive aggressive behavior is the worst.
Dang I had no idea you knew so much about me. If you think someone is in their 30s is a child I would be interested in knowing what you think an adult is. As well you just pretty lost all credibility for any point you were trying to make by name calling. I honestly agree with PC. I think you need a break from this forum to clear your head.