![]() The original Cities in Motion struck the right balance on the simplicity-complexity spectrum and they really didn't need to change it. ![]() This is great for pedants and adding more realism could only be a good thing right? Wrong! Unless I was talking about a simulator or a shooter of course, then you can just ignore what I just said :). For example, you are now able to set timetables for vehicles and even paint different ticket fare zones (so you can charge a differing amount depending on which zones passengers travel to). The game does differ a bit from the original though and unfortunately most of the new changes have taken some of the fun out of the game due to unnecessary complexity. You're also able to access some charts and maps in order to gauge your progress, and complete missions for small rewards. You do so by building depots, purchasing vehicles, plotting routes, setting fares, spending money on advertising, and paying your employees. The core gameplay in Cities in Motion 2 remains the same as its predecessor: you're responsible for running a public transport company for a metropolitan area. Is the sequel worth playing? How does it differ from its predecessor? So when Cities in Motion 2 finally came out, I was pretty keen on sinking my teeth into another transport company management game. Ever since playing the game I've developed an appreciation for transport company management games and that's why I liked Colossal Order's first foray into the genre, Cities in Motion. I'm a big fan of Chris Sawyer's Transport Tycoon, not so much so that I'm going to go out of my way to play the mobile phone remake but I really enjoyed the 1994 original. We built this city on traaaains and traaaaAAAMS. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |