- Dec 31, 2018
- 81
- 110
Simple, it lacks enough content for me to label it as anything else by my own standards. I think of the potential the game can have in the future if it keeps updating (albeit even at a slow pace) and cross check it with the content it currently has. If it doesn't add up to 1/4th the potential it can have as a game, then I consider it in infancy. It isn't easy coming to a conclusion as such, considering the game is a life sim with potentially infinite possibility to grow as long as they keep coding scenes in, but same time it isn't so hard either. So far the game has the basic foundations to be a playable game with a ending that has tiny variations pending on very few of the life choices you made during your life in game. Outside of that, the game lacks substantial amount of content, scenes, variations, consequences, and boons to make it feel like your choices in the game of a life sim truly matters, thus I consider it a infant game even with 6 years of development. This is not a smack at the developers, but a term of hope to see much more out of the game. Hope that answered your question. Then again, you can also consider it a excuse of my own to not write a 1 to 2 star review for a game I genuinely enjoyed playing, simply because it hasn't reached my standards as a player/reviewer/gamer for what a more complete life sim game should feel like. Think about it for a moment, if I gave you a phone app game that had tic tac toe on it, you would consider it a complete game with that alone, but if I promised that your choices in tic tac toe had potential boons or consequences later that present more choices to maybe upgrade to chess or bejeweled, but I have not implemented that feature yet, would you still consider it a complete game? When I see a life sim game, I base my grading/review of the game off of what I've seen other life sim games accomplish and if I felt the choices made in the game really feel like they mattered to the life of the sim in the game. Then again if ethics have taught me anything, it is impossible to go from what is to what ought to be. So, take the answer as you will.Okay, but seriously, how can you consider a 6 year old game to be in its infancy?
P.S. I would also mention, to give credence to my assessment: A game can still be in its infancy for 6 years as it depends on issues of if the developers are getting screwed in other departments, thus not being able to work on the game. Bad choices to cut existing content instead of reworking it can do this too. Slow development, or lack luster additions each patch contribute to a games prolonged infancy as well. For example: Skullgirls was still a baby for awhile because Konami screwed them over legally. Then after a couple years the developers branched off from Konami and just published the game themselves and finally were able to develop on it more. Never take the time of a game being in development as a indication for it's completion. I stated it before, and I will state it again: Progress requires time, but time does NOT denote progress.
Last edited: