They Are Billions The New Empire Campaign Critique
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 чер 2024
- Hey folks! Today I’ll be doing a critique of The New Empire Campaign recently released for They Are Billions. This video will focus exclusively on the newly released content, which for brevity’s sake I’ll refer to as just Empire. If you’re interested in my overall take on the core gameplay of They Are Billions, I recommend you check out my video from last year on the title’s Early Access Release: • They Are Billions In-D...
Facebook: / brownbeargaming
Twitter: / brownbear_47
Twitch: / brownbeargaming47
UA-cam: / brownbeargaming - Ігри
So this is why I stoppped at 50% of gameplay and started to reconsider my choices in life. This game totally disrespects players by stealing their gametime by giving nothing. Story could be interesting, but it doesn't exist. Even worse, people are making custom maps, and these have some sort of story elements. It's like game devs created powerful map editor to create powerful and touching stories, but instead used some rigged random map generator to extend gametime. Not to mention their 'attempt' to not make player to play same bland game each level.
And of course, there will always be some internet trolls who could start 'git gud' sort of shit. However, these 'git gud' fans totally forgot that game already had such a mode: survival. They hadn't to make another survival mode and dub it campaign.
The worst part of the campaign was that is was the same map you had to play if you failed. And you had to clear them all. In the normal survivor mode you can just start a new map but here you have to do the same grind again. Another sad part is that many people will not buy the game due to a bad campaign, it got so bad reviews due to the campaign. The survival mode is what this game is.
I stopped - or was stopped - at 29% of the campaign, I literally could not complete any more maps due to the tech tree locking me in place and limiting me - placing hunter cottages literally everywhere I could (and fishing huts, too) I could reach a maximum of 870/1600 people on The Lonely Forest, locking me from winning despite clearing the waves (with rangers, since I had no food for soldiers, and no tech for snipers or towers...)
I enjoyed the concept of the campaign over survival maps, and really liked having a tech tree to progress in, where every upgrade or new tech felt like such a big improvement. Although it was very tedious having to grind, especially on maps that had a wave coming late, but you clear it entirely early, and just have to spend a long time waiting for x to be done so you can place y and wait for that to complete to place z until finally the end comes after way too long.
Great review btw, I agree with a lot of it.
Your analysis was amazing! Thank you for your work!
Hey folks. :D
I wathed this video about a year ago. today I returned and watched it again bacause as an analysis it provides a great and objectively valuable insight through data. I gotta say it was a pleasure to re-hear the formula you used to explain complex topics of intervowen mecanics, story, desig ect. into a comprehensive, relatively easy to follow, video.
How long did it take you to make this video?
Thank you got this content.
for*
Hey Brownbear. I enjoyed this critique but it left me wondering one thing. You bring up padding as a way to measure the quality of a campaign and reference the RTS campaigns from Warcraft III and StarCraft II. Do you have a sense of how much / little padding those campaigns have (in terms of mechanics)? It would be nice to have a benchmark if you want to compare. I myself don't have an intuitive sense of how much or how little padding there is in Blizzard's RTS missions. Cheers and thanks for the great content!
A while back I played anno 1404, and the campagin there was way better than this game. Each level requires set objectives to complete, with optional ones offering bonuses, and each objective was different in each mission. Each level transition keeps most of the buildings you made previously, and this wouldve benifited this game greatly, you dont have to waste each mission building from scratch, just new challenges that test what you have built previously.
Also, the random encounters are kinda dissapointing, since this game is in an apocalypse, there should be a variety of things you could encounter in the outside world when exploring, similar to Frostpunk, where these encounters can either benifit or greatly harm your society.
Also bummed you cant have numerous smaller colonies that can be linked by trains. Imagine if your outer colony fell, you would have to pull back the remaining citizens and soldiers to another colony. Maybe when these colonies fall this creates a strain on your economy, as more people in this district equals more food shortages. Plenty of different ways this game couldve developed but it seemed like we got everything given to us in 2017, dissapointing.
Thank you for the video.
I played the campaign a bit, and it seems to me that the survival mode is very solid. But pretty much everything they added to make it into the campaign doesn't work. It's shame.
While I have many issues with Attack on Titan, I was really curious to see this game build a narrative to pull the RTS mechanics together. I guess it's not as bad as most sandbox games that spend years on feature creep yet provide no direction (I'm proud that Space Engineers exists but man, there are no NPCs, no interaction, no real biosphere...), but I'd love to see a good campaign in such apocalypse.
there are downside to the campaign but then, you cant compare a $5 game to a $40 game. furthermore, they did not charge for the campaign. which is pretty good enough for me. for the hero part you mentioned, calliope seems to be your choice of hero.
100% is "very easy" 200% is "easy" 300% is "normal" 500 is "hard" and 800 is "very hard" Like every other game these difficulty setting arent called that to not insult the players who can only succeed at the "very easy" difficulty. You do have a point about the tech tree not beeing great but i dont think having similar missions is bad, it just means more of the gameplay loop the player has enjoyed so far.
I don't really think your point stands - there's literally a difficulty setting labeled "Easy", and it's 25%. 100% is labeled "challenging". As for this one - "it just means more of the gameplay loop the player has enjoyed so far" - maybe it would be good for you to watch the whole video, as this point is addressed directly in section 2).
This might be an odd comment, but I feel like your narration has become better - It always felt a bit condescending with every sentence going up at the end, and this is not the case here.
Didn't know about this game. It looks amazing. I mean visually. Great art style and all the moving pieces are so smooth. Shame to hear such a heavy critique, I won't be trying it out most likely. I hate padding.
Well, I said this 5 minutes in. I hear the good parts as well. :P And I guess this is just a critique of the campaign, not the entire game? :D
i was one of the backers for this game. i got it from the very beginning. the game is as advertised. i like both survival and the campaign a lot. i have not a damn clue what the dude who made this video was expecting. Warcraft 4? I can tell by his "critique" that he s not really good at this game. most of his complains are plain stupid nonsense. only valid points are the swarm and hero missions in the campaign that can become a little tedius after a while. but thats just like a very small portion of the campaign gameplay. go watch some actual gameplay yourself and then decide if you want to buy it or not. dont let others decide for you.
This disaster of a campaign is a result of game devs being so arrogant that they didn't even bother letting the players test their campaign. Great concept, utterly ruined by incompetent devs who's heads are so far up their ass that they don't even listen to critique and censor out reviews they don't like. I'm glad I got this during a sale during early access instead of paying full price for this burning trash heap.
Seems like I won't be getting it. Money saved is money earned.
are you stupid? go watch some gameplay and decide your self if its worth it or not. don't let others decide for you. ffs.
@@reVieced who decided for him?
@@Battleschnodder the guy that created this video apparently, since this dude took him up for his word.
Game sucks ass in every way. We can only hope these people never try again.
The game was utterly boring to me from the beginning. The resource-gathering is so... simple it's actually not fun to build up my base. A veritable downgrade to RTS games. Sorry you didn't enjoy the campaign, I'm sure they could have been very creative with it.
I am with brownbear, the survival mode was utterly fantastic, it had some flaws (that are still somewhat there), but very fun, unique sort of experience.
I just really didn't like the campaign all that much. I didn't think of the ways it could have been considerably improved until he mentioned some of those specifics though. Like instead of a limiting tech tree, missions that quickly, but still incrementally build it up automatically from mission choice, where the map is designed around you learning how to properly use a unit for instance, better understand the tech, etc. More useful actual story progression during missions, and more... So much lacking for a "campaign".
Nope, sorry, I agree with some of what you say, but lumping surivival campaign maps in together and saying "we have 4 so lets ditch 3" is just fucking insane. ON that basis I dont think I've ever played an RTS campaign that is no 80% bloat according to you. Look Iget you are tying to be edgy out there person, but fucking hell, try to be semi-semsible otherwise you just invalidate all your legitmate critique.
This comment makes no sense. The video makes it clear why I think certain maps duplicate each other; it discusses examples from other RTS games as to how to approach mission design; and it genuinely considers the idea that the core gameplay is fun and therefore whether it's OK to repeat content. There's no "edginess" here, it's as straight-forward and direct as it gets. I recommend you actually watch the video and pay attention to what I say.
@@brownbeargaming no, this comment makes perfect sense, you are, as many others here and on the subreddit have also agreed, being a bit silly on this one, which invalidates a lot of what else you say by association. I agree with a lot of what you say on other issue, but this one you are just being silly.
Calling me silly a bunch of times doesn't address what I said. Also, "as many others here and on the subreddit have also agreed" - this is false. Most comments in the /r/TheyAreBillions thread don't discuss the content of video at all, and the one that does mischaracterizes it (as I responded in the thread). The thread in /r/games mostly agrees with the video. The top comment on this video is agreeing with the video's premise. It took me all of five minutes to look this up, and that's all before even addressing the fact that your argument is a logical fallacy (argumentum ad populum).
@@brownbeargaming and saying a comment makes no sense just because you disagree with it, does not make a compelling argument, nor make it so. So you know, stones and glass houses.
And numerous coments pick you up on this matter. Anyway, one thing I cant stand is hypocrisy, so I'll just ignore you now.
lol