I tend to agree with your statement about The Settlers. The series just hasn't evolved much. They really haven't introduced anything particularly new to change the gameplay.
Nope, and that's probably part of the problem. I was kind of expecting a little more than what's in here. I'm still going through the game, and maybe I'll feel different in the morning.
Lemme guess - you never played the original Settlers. I mean, your review makes it very clear that you are unfamiliarized with the basic concepts of the game (yes, it is repetitive, but really all RTSs are when you really look at it - you know what, scratch that, EVERY GAME is repetitive when you think about it), and to say that the series didn't change much makes me 100% certain that you've never played Settlers I or II. The single biggest downfall of Settlers as a series is how much it changed and alienated the fans. Look no further than this very thread for people saying they loved the originals and didn't care for the recent sequels. By the way, in the first games, in those, you couldn't control ANY units. And that's what made it really original. It didn't feel cumbersome or unnatural at all. Other than that I agree with the main points of your review - even as a huge Settlers fan, this isn't doing it for me. I'll continue to play it. I originally dislike Red Alert on the iPhone and now I'm having lots of fun
Thanks. Unless you do a complete 360, Albie, I'm going to definitely take a permanent pass on this one. ^ It wasn't his first Settlers experience. Read the post above yours.
Nope I did, although you're right on Settlers I and II...I've actually only played the more recent ones. That's both a good and a bad thing. My point is that the game should be a bit more than what it is. And maybe my expectations need to be adjusted but at the same time, I'm also comparing this to other RTS games. And to your point about RTS concepts, while I agree that yes they are repetitive from a practical standpoint, they should also allow for some flexibility such as tactics (attacks or otherwise).
With all due respect Albie, your reviews are excelent but this - and I know it's more of a "hands on" than an actual review - is way, WAY off. You criticized aspects that were a staple of the first game that no other reviewer ever found a flaw with. In fact, those were the things that made it what it was. To say the game has not changed, when this is THE number one reason most fans will be disappointed or not buy the game at all, is puzzling to say the least. Compare Settlers I or II to III and the difference is mindblowing. And I guarantee you the latter doesn't have as many fans as the former, BECAUSE they changed it. In my opinion your review sounds like you went in having no idea whatsoever what you were in for. I mean, anyone familiarized with Settlers knows you don't actually give your troops direct orders. That's not what the game is about. Forgive me if I sound grouchy. I'm just really upset that this is in no way the Settlers we all knew and love. Why fix what wasn't broken, Ubisoft? (Yes, this is Ubisoft's fault. Gameloft simply ported the changes they've been making to the original gameplay)
I'd happily settle for Settlers 1 or 2 with freeplay for an iPhone game. Making the game more hassle with manual managing of units seems like a really bad choice for such small screen. Traditionally the Settlers has been mainly a game about building working infrastructure and only secondarily about conquering your rivals. Only thing really missing was a way to bargain with AI for goods. I think that "pick it up and play for a while" freeplay would have suited the iPhone and mobile version in general much better than mission based and more constrained version. All this ranting without ever trying the iPhone version though. Still on the fence whether to buy or not, the question is more about supporting a franchise going to waste than just couple of bucks.
Even if you had never admitted this, it was glaringly obvious. Claims that the game didn't change + complains about not being able to directly control units = someone who obviously never played the original games. The fact that you CAN control units now, on top of all the changes they made to the original concept, is what 99% of Settlers fans have against the recent iterations. Don't take my word for it, read this thread and see what people have to say about the new ones. Not trying to flame you, I just felt I needed to point those out. I hold your reviews in the highest regard.
No worries here. Like I said, I haven't played the original versions, and if people prefer the original concept, that's perfectly fine. Personally, I prefer being able to control units, and that's all I was saying.
Your reviews are a great addition to these forums and you're an all around cool guy. I just felt compelled to speak up about your preliminary review, because to me it read like someone playing Mario for the first time and complaining you have to jump too much. I needed to point out ot you that those aspects were what made the game what it was... I've been very patient about this game because I'm a huuuuuge fan of the first two Settlers. I'm disliking some of the gameplay aspects yet I feel there's more in there, so since I already spent the money anyway, I might as well take the time to figure out. By the way, even though there's no freeplay mode (biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig mistake, Gameloft!), you can replay any missions at any time. It doesn't offer any customization but hey, the first Command and Conquer didn't have skirmish either, all I'd do is load my favorite level and play that as though it were a skirmish map. What can you do...
As far as I played The Settlers for iPhone, it seems to use the "Settlers 3" GFX, which looks great! It also feels like "The Settlers" - with all it's economic and strategical aspects! Further, gameloft really managed it to put this complex strategy game on the iPhone's small screen without overcrowding the screen with lots of buttons. Everything's only there when you need it. I also really like the 'fast forward' feature. You've got 4 campaings to play what's ok for the price, but the thing I'm really missing is an endless mode, which saves when you close the game and loads when you open it! Gameloft adopted the controls very well to the iDevices, however, not the use case.
Actually I really dislike the skip function. I liked the old way, where you accelerated the pace of the game as opposed to just skipping to 20 or 30 seconds into the future. It makes me feel like I lost track of everything else that was going on. With the 2x pace, at least you still saw everything that was going on. God dammit, this is making me want to go grab my DS, or even better, close Chrome and boot up Settlers II Gold Edition
aww no i wake up this morning, find the best news of the week that settlers is out .. and its getting panned i never played settlers III or IV so can only summarise from comments here that the only major advance was the rts style unit movement. i did however burn the candle at both ends with settlers I and II. crippling the game in this way by making it mission based has destroyed the whole concept, tho without playing it yet i cant tell from the remarks here whether each game lasts long or is incredibly short. having to start over your proud empire as you progress does not sound like so much fun. its not like this needed major coding to incorporate, or does the limitations of the idevice mean thatg the game would constantly crash when your city became huge?why no open ended mode gameloft .. why?
