<p>F2P is horrible and this game illustrates how to do it wrong.</p>

<p>People who like F2P are dumb - it's not done for the benefit of players, it's done for higher profit margins. Sure, some freeloading no lifes will play for free but for the most part, it's an attempt to fleece players for more and it works or they wouldn't keep pushing it.</P>

<p>F2P is lame for numerous reasons. For one, you get far lower quality players in online games that are F2P because obviously losers who want everything for free are useless pieces of trash. For two, when game designers have to constantly keep cash hooks in mind it has to make design suffer. For three, paying a set fee for a quality game and having the ENTIRE game available to you is much better than playing a crippled game where you get nickled and dimed for pieces of the game such that you would end up paying vastly more to ever get a complete game.</p>

<p>This game is a perfect example. If this game was worth $60 (it's not, not by a long shot), and you got all heroes and costumes unlocked by playing reasonably, or had a choice of premium heroes you gave a crap about to start, that would be one thing. But as it is, to get a complete game, it would cost you hundreds of dollars. $20 for a single hero or costume is just criminal and/or you'd have to be a moron to pay that. Apparently there's no lack of morons out there.</p>

All I want to see is an MMO that focuses on grouping. I'm sick of MMOs that are glorified single player games full of tons of solo ez-mode content. I'm sick of low quality players that don't care about the genre, don't care about grouping, and that want to solo - go play single player games.

Looks better and better all the time. I'm all for more, more, more old school style games, especially anything turn based. I'm beyond sick of corporate FPS and RTS repetitive crap, and especially sick of console/app phone dumbed down garbage. The kickstarter thing is interesting and it'll be interesting to see if these games end up as good as they seem up front (ie, do publishers hold back devs or can these devs manage to fail to deliver all by themselves ;)

Two lessons to learn here.

People still like classic games and classic gameplay. All games do not have to be blockbuster graphical overload FPS or otherwise overdone to death, nor does every game have to be dumbed down for a console port.

All games do not have to suck the teat of big brother Valve via Steam and/or Steamworks. Amazingly enough games were able to be sold, distributed, and have modding or multiplayer components without Steam being involved.

You love to hate on EA and other big publishers...but you love Steam. How does this make any sense when Steam has essentially replaced the publisher for so many companies and is making bank on gamers and game creators? Not to mention that people who buy games hate DRM and Steam is some of the most obnoxious DRM ever created.

@yeah_28 Yeah, Wasteland 2 looks to be pretty good and should be a real successor to Fallout even if it's not being billed as such.

I suppose Fallout 3 is a good game for some but to me it's an abomination and it's not really Fallout, it's just a 1st person shooter with the name Fallout slapped on to it.

Because games don't already cost too much to make and take too long to make...

Looks neato but these days so many companies design for consoles first that won't be able to utilize such tech...so who's gonna actually use it?

Also these days companies seem to be getting tired of the 100m+ production cost of game and the risk of making that back. Kinda doubt using an engine like this is going to do anything to trim the time necessary for art production.

While I agree with smithster77 that it would be nice to see gameplay and AI take precedence, you can tell by most replies here that a lot of gamers just care how things look, even if they are garbage to play - or so they say until they actually play the garbage. That's why it's risky to sink 100m and 3 years into developing a graphics demo of a game.

The tiny city sizes make it more like SimCityBlock and the region thing does not represent the way real cities work.

The tiny cities stifle your creativity and hinder the fun.

So with all the other bugs and issues on top of forced online for what is a single player game for most, it's really hard to enjoy this game.

I've made exactly one city. Filled the map, had a flood of cash and couldn't build squat without wiping out parts of my city, easily handled whatever came up, and ultimately had no real reason to continue. It's not fun to develop a small slice of what COULD be the best cities ever if city size wasn't so crippled.

I enjoy making incredible cities. The tiny map sizes limit your ability to do so. Never was and am not interested in developing regions that aren't really cities.

If they ditched forced online that everyone hates, fixed the bugs, and increased the city sizes considerably, this game would be amazing.

Thanks for the honest review. Something most sites seem incapable of doing.

There are some cool things about the game but the tiny maps, slow loads times between cities in a region (make managing several cities for interdependence suck), and the forced online crap ruin everything.

Bigger cities and offline (NORMAL) single player and this game would be best in series.

All the online crap should be optional for the few who want it.

I like how the first dungeon and this one emphasize boss fights over wading thru repetitive trash (have done the first one). That's one of the best things going on here. Graphics are nice for the dungeon itself but the whole game is brought down by how horrid the characters look and move.

I personally find the combat in TSW to be very boring and interesting bosses aren't enough to make it not borking.

With TSW, you have a few really cool elements being brought down by some really suck elements. For ex, some questing provokes though where some is travel across the zone 5x to find needles in haystacks - ie, old school tedium.

IMO, this seems typical of funcom. They tease you with a few really slick things and bury those in a pile of dookie, and overall, their games just never quite fully deliver.

@dude102

repeating content at increasing difficulty levels is not content..but I'm sure bliz is happy that you think it is and was worth paying $60 for...they're probably laughing their tails off