Last few years I’ve been excitedly waiting for sequels from several small-to-medium sized studios that made highly acclaimed original games—I’m talking about Cities: Skylines, Kerbal Space Program, Planet Coaster, Frostpunk, etc.—yet each sequel was very poorly received to the point I wasn’t willing to risk my money buying it. Why do you think this happens when these developers already had a winning formula?
For cities skyline. The first game was pretty shit all things considered. The game had so many dlcs and mods were what added a lot of the good functionality.
Cs2 was way more ambitious with the simulation aspect and utilising new dev tools. Once we get more mods and more dlcs cities 2 will be looked at as an amazing city builder.
I would be inclined to agree with you, except that the simulation is one of the weakest parts of the second game.
But also part one did not have the same ludicrous number of game-breaking bugs on release.
CS2 has gotten better for sure, and will keep doing so over time, but I’ve given up on wanting to buy it because it seems fundamentally worse than its predecessor.
If they ever add DLCs for true simulation of the economy and for showing fire, police, and ambulance crews at work as well as re-adding bicyclists I might reconsider.
Yeah I know cs2 sim sucks, believe me I’m one of the biggest cs2 haters there is. On release the cs2 sim was the same as cs1, all smoke and mirrors. Except cs1 didnt promise to be calculating all these things.
Cs2 has been pretty bug free for me up until economy 2.0 added a few simulation bugs.
My wishlist is for them to remake all the vanilla assets, they look terrible. Add bikes and e scooters. Then add an industries DLC.