Development game on wrong paths: The new The Settlers nips fun in the bud

One ​​week ago, after a long odyssey, The Settlers: New Alliances was finally released, at least on PC. And anyone who thought they could no longer be negatively surprised was taught a lesson. The title would have had so much potential – but it consistently gets in the way of the fun itself.

Table of contents

1. The start looked so promising
2. A strange release without reviews and Volker Wertich
   1. And now, of all things, there is a problem with the technology
3. The Settlers: New Alliances is not a good game
   1. A building game that doesn't encourage building
   2. Perhaps the slowest RTS in the world

< li>That was a flop with the announcement

1. 60 euros for early access quality
2. The end of horror makes room for something new

The prelude looked so promising

It's been four and a half years since Ubisoft caused excitement at Gamescom 2018 with the announcement of a reboot of the Settlers series. The publisher promised a comfortable development game, in which the colonization of beautiful areas and the development of a flourishing economy should be the focus. We were talking about procedurally generated maps, dozens of production chains and buildings as well as lavish bustle that should invite you to dreamily watch and marvel at the happy settlers. A total of four technology levels should accompany the expansion of a growing city and players should have been able to choose from a total of three victory conditions with correspondingly different strategies. A first trailer already conveyed an appealing image of the new game.

Although the genre of building games was already rich at the time, there were and are plenty of indie games with the basic concept of the settlers series. But a real The Settlers, developed with a triple-A budget, with great graphics and under the supervision of series father Volker Wertich, whom Ubisoft made a key figure in marketing the new part? That just sounded good. Too good, as will become clear later. Because almost everything that made the hearts of genre lovers beat faster in the summer of 2018 has been rigorously removed from the game by Ubisoft, as suddenly became clear during a beta test phase in early 2022. And this closed beta became a debacle for the publisher, which should have been a warning shot and a wake-up call.

A strange release without reviews and Volker Wertich

At least Volker Wertich was already aware of the sword of Damocles about The Settlers: New Alliances – he had turned his back on the development in the meantime. Ubisoft's fundamental realignment is incompatible with his vision, he explained. However, even after the devastating feedback on the beta test phase, the big publisher stuck to that realignment. The game was postponed indefinitely and is now reopening a year later, under a different name and henceforth as a “real-time development strategy game”. Only a launch trailer captures the promise of the announcement a few years ago.

The Settlers: New Alliances finally appeared on February 17th, but there was no major media coverage. Ubisoft itself is relatively reluctant to advertise and has not provided the trade press with pre-release versions, as is usually the case in the industry. As a result, no or only very few test reports and impressions are available one week after the start of the game. And anyway, The Settlers: New Alliances on PC will only appear on Ubisoft Connect and the Epic Games Store, where players are quite limited in their ability to write reviews.

Ironically, there is still a problem with the technology

And that is probably no coincidence. The game was counted anyway, because the expectations of gameplay and scope were low. And yet it manages to disappoint The Settlers: New Alliances once again for the release – the technology of all things also clouds the first impression. Crashes and freezes are the order of the day. DirectX 12 didn't work at all for many players at first. And the multiplayer mode was also a disaster at the start: the waiting times were long, games often didn't even come about and if they did, they ended abruptly in most cases due to crashes or connection problems before the players even interacted with their opponent for the first time could.

This is surprising because the beta version ran much smoother a year ago. On the other hand, nowadays it's almost the rule that triple-A productions, especially after such a bumpy development, have to mature with the player. And a first patch is already improving. So let's just assume that Ubisoft also clears up the other technical missteps in a timely manner – would the new The Settlers then be a title worth playing? Technically, yes: the graphics are still very nice to look at even years after the announcement, the performance is decent and the playful style with the cute animations is appealing. Although the character models and animations in the cutscenes of the campaign seem to have come from 2010, apart from that it quickly becomes clear: A lot of love went into this project.

The Settlers: New Alliances is not a good game

But this realization makes the experience all the sadder for many long-time fans of the Settlers series, because no matter how hard builders try to have fun in The Settlers: New Alliances, it just won't work. The game consistently trips itself up, suppresses gaming fun in the bud and always wants to be something different. And that's an unbelievable shame for settler lovers, as the original vision had so much potential as an idyllic building game.

A building game that is not for Structure animated

But trying to play The Settlers: New Alliances as a building game despite the realignment is frustrating. There are comparatively few resources, goods, buildings and production chains. The latter also remain superficial and offer little depth for optimization or tinkering. Players are hardly given any opportunities to actually have a controlling influence on the economy: once the ten basic buildings have been erected, the title's development game capacities are basically already exhausted. A quickly limiting settler limit and too scarce resources do the rest and quickly put a stop to extensive city growth.

And anyway, The Settlers: New Alliances simply don't provide any incentive to settle. Because the goal of each game is solely to wipe out the opposing tribes. Strictly speaking, once enough buildings have been erected to exhaust the few existing coal deposits, there is no longer any reason to start new construction projects. The production of food does not serve to supply the population either, but can only be used to make certain production buildings work faster. The course of a game is identical every time and offers a depth that many browser or mobile games know how to surpass. The graphics alone make it clear that this is a triple-A production.

And what if the default goals are simply pushed aside and a player decides to settle at their whim for the sake of settling? Then he will already find out in the main menu that such a game is not intended. The Settlers: New Alliances does not offer the possibility to start an endless game without enemy factions – or a diplomacy system to make peace with them or even trade with them. In such a mode, there would simply be nothing for players to work towards: every settler, building and production chain instantly ceases to exist as soon as there are no enemy warehouses left to destroy on a map. If you are looking for a peaceful idyll to build comfortably, want to build a flourishing economy and simply enjoy watching bustling settlers at work, you have come to the wrong place.

Perhaps the slowest RTS in the world

Well, what if The Settlers: New Alliances, in accordance with Ubisoft's realignment, is not seen as a building game, but as a real-time strategy game? Then the title is no less frustrating, because not a minute goes by without it being clear: this game was designed in a completely different way. Although the military units can be controlled individually, they are very notchy and imprecise. The AI ​​of the units and opponents is clumsy. Combat abilities are simple-minded, can be bypassed or countered far too easily and, moreover, do not particularly suit the settler setting. And it regularly becomes clear that the title was not originally conceived with an absolute focus on the military – in this respect, for example, Age of Empires 4 offers much more interesting and, above all, more varied gameplay.

1. < img src="/wp-content/uploads/b0fd1aa66c49986d0b092788eaa351cd.jpg" /> The Settlers: New Alliances (Image: Ubisoft)

Image 1 of 3

< /figure>

The Settlers: New Alliances (Image: Ubisoft)

The Sieder: New Alliances, on the other hand, is not only not very dynamic for a real-time strategy game, but above all it is far too slow. Building up the weapon production chains is not exciting, not challenging and especially not varied, but it precedes combative conflicts, which are elementary for the RTS genre. So the first interaction with the enemy is sometimes delayed by 20 minutes or more. Players spend most of their time just waiting. You can't fast forward in the new settler even in single player mode.

With both ways of playing or approaches to playing this title – which itself doesn't seem to really know what it wants to be – there is an additional overwhelming factor: There are only a few maps per game mode and none that can be adapted, but they all play similarly anyway, and only three factions that are almost identical in gameplay and differ from each other primarily visually. And the single player campaign? Experiences with that are currently still rare, but it fails with the vast majority of players due to recurring crashes. In any case, it's not particularly thrilling – but that's secondary for a settler and the least of the problems in this specific game.

That was a flop with an announcement

So what can be said in conclusion? The Settlers: New Alliances is still not a good game a year after the beta debacle. Yes, the developers have made improvements in some areas, tweaked many things and sometimes responded to the feedback and requests from the community. And if you're trying to have fun with this title and don't run into any technical problems, there are certainly moments when a certain enthusiasm and desire to build arises. But The Settlers: New Alliances seems almost trying to put a stop to these glimpses of joy in gaming. Maps and options are too restrictive, the economy and combat system too superficial and most of the already few buildings and goods too trivial.

60 euros for early access quality

Now you could say: The developers just haven't finished, but The Settlers: New Alliances offers an excellent basis for a great building game – there's still a lot to get out of it. But no, after many years of development and several postponements, that's wishful thinking. This work will not get any better because the developers would have to revise Ubisoft's reorientation for this purpose or go back to the drawing board entirely. The publisher did not consider this step appropriate a year ago, but stuck to the concept that nobody really wanted. It almost seems as if Ubisoft intentionally drove The Settlers: New Alliances into a wall, despite all the warnings from the players, all the critical voices and all the advice from Volker Wertich.

Graphic and Art Design are the only real strengths (Image: Ubisoft)

Now it could also be said: The Settlers: New Alliances would be quite interesting as a free-to-play title or as an early access game at a price of 25 euros. But no, Ubisoft charges at least 60 euros for the game – a deluxe edition even costs 80 euros. And an in-game shop should provide additional income. Of course, Ubisoft desperately needs it: After numerous failures, the publisher got into trouble. The development of the new settler offshoot is said to have taken almost ten years and swallowed up around 50 million euros, as the games journalist Jochen Gebauer claims to have found out. In addition, everyone involved knew that the title was a flop – only a continuous development was probably no longer economically viable. The release emergency brake is now supposed to limit the loss.

End with horror creates space for something new

As a result, Metacritic currently has a user score of only 2.4/10 points. If the rating does not improve significantly – and the trend is currently pointing downwards – then The Settlers: New Alliances would secure a place among the worst rated PC games of all time according to the user score. The Metascore, based on four reviews from the trade press to date, is still 61/100 points, but is only of limited significance due to the small number of test reports.

Did you buy The Settlers: New Alliances?

• I bought the game and am having a lot of fun with it. I don't understand the harsh criticism.
• I bought it, but I don't really like it.
• I bought it, but that was definitely a mistake – I don't like the game.
• I haven't bought the game yet, but most likely will. I like what I've seen so far!
• I didn't buy the game, but I actually planned to. However, the realignment and previous ratings are keeping me from doing so.
• I've never been interested in this game, so I didn't buy it.
• Abstain (Show result)

Please log in to vote!

After the predecessor and especially The Settlers: Kingdoms of Anteria were a fiasco, Ubisoft should finally bury the once prestigious building game series this time. And given the publisher's quite impressive ability to fail such a promising vision despite all warnings, a terrifying end might be the best thing that could happen to the troubled settlers. Not only in this point reminds The Settlers: New Alliances to the failed Sim City 5, which ended EA's city-building series and made way for Cities Skylines.

And so the hopes of many players, who were looking forward to a new bustling development game when it was announced in summer 2018, now rest on Pioneers of Pagonia, among other things. After the realignment of his game concept imposed by Ubisoft, Volker Wertich has not been idle and is working with his development team from Envision Entertainment on the project that The Settlers: New Alliances should have been. There is no gameplay yet, but the title should start in Early Access on Steam by December of this year at the latest – and in this version it already contains more buildings, goods and production chains than Ubisoft's “real-time development strategy game”.

This article was interesting, helpful or both? The editors are happy about any support from ComputerBase Pro and disabled ad blockers. More about ads on ComputerBase.

CB-Funk Podcast Episode #8: When the graphics memory just shouldn't grow