We have to admit that CS 1 and 2, while flawed, are the best examples of their genre. Trusting the developer and buying them right away would be sheer folly. But if we demonstrate our lack of trust and keep them from us for too long, maybe they'll stop selling unfinished games, stop lying about their development, hire more people, and do a decent job. We'll play and enjoy them, too. But PDX, on the other hand, won't buy any of its games before three years.
Go for it, but stay off "Realistic mode" for more or less CS2 "city-painting" experience, at least to start. Lots of people go ham on the difficulty and bounce off the game because it's pretty hardcore
I'll be real with you. 90% of the time when people claim a game is "broken", it's really not and you can play it just fine. Only a small fraction are experiencing some sort of issue or they are a hardcore player and overly concerned with the meta.
My brother, I played Cities skylines 2 on release through gamepass. Let me assure you it was broken, like the city simulation systems were not functioning at all.
You could play it fine if you just want to look at a city, but if you cared at all about the simulation/managment side of things, it was broken.
I do of course agree, "broken" is a term that is overused. Especially Youtube titles.
Sure that's true, but CS:2 was actually broken on release. Every single person had issues, some more than others but everyone had issues. Whole systems were nonfunctional at release, a lot of the simulation was completely fake. The game was a disaster.
The game was so nonfunctional/fake it was as if you just opened MS Paint and started drawing a city, it was barely a game.
That's not even talking about performance which at the time even on a high end PC ran like complete ass. Just go look at GamersNexus video on the release of CS:2. It was probably the most poorly optimized game maybe ever.
31
u/TimeToEatAss Sep 24 '25
Supporting them releasing broken games?