The Settlers 7: Paths to a Kingdom Review

By Quintin Smith Published 21 April, 2010

Immigrant song.

Version tested: PC

There's an apt flourishing of joy at the start of a Settlers 7 map. All the sprawling empty space and untapped resources stretch lazily into the distance, the landscape rendered in gorgeous, cartoony perfection. Virgin territory, pleasant olde worlde music and the simple rules of the game lead you on to dizzy, stupid dreams.

'That's where I'll put my grain farms,' you think to yourself. 'I'll put a street of bakeries just nearby, for easy access, and the sawmills can go next to the storehouse! This settlement will be perfect! No, not at all like all the other ones.'

20 minutes and 500 addicted clicks later, you're staring at a terrible mess. Your terrible mess. See if you can figure out what to do in the following example:

There's an army on your doorstep, so you need coins to raise an army of your own. Like, right now. You currently have no coin because your coin mints have stopped working, because they have no coal. You ran out of coal ages ago, and in desperation threw up a dirty little coking industry where you'd originally planned to put your tailoring district just so you could make new coal out of your over-abundance of wood. Except your coking plants need tools before they can start working. Checking your toolmaker, you find that he's stopped working because he... has no coal.

1

It's kind of like a cookery book. What you make will never look as good as the official shots. I am sorry.

This is the beauty of Settlers 7. While most city-builders reveal their difficulty with that slow, depressing realisation that your grand design isn't good enough, or with the sinking feeling that you've been doing something wrong all along (perhaps without even knowing what), the rules of Settlers 7 are too simple for that.

To highlight what I mean, a sheep farm takes 1 water and produces 1 wool every so often. You can watch your little shepherd shearing it and carrying it to the storehouse, if you're feeling indulgent. A weaver will then turn that 1 wool into 1 cloth. A tailor turns 1 cloth and 1 food into 1 clothes, and a trader can swap 3 clothes for 6 gold. It's all simple stuff.

And yet despite these basic, almost wholly automated systems, you're constantly fixing really satisfying problems. Almost the entire game lies in accidentally creating and identifying all these little knots in your production line that play like one big interconnected puzzle. It's a new take on the 4X game: less Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate, more Expand, Exploit, Exterminate, Except wait, balls, you're out of iron. Where on Earth did it go?

2

Battles make for a tense spectacle despite the fact that you know how they'll turn out. You might as well be excitedly watching a kettle boil.

It's great fun and ungodly compelling, especially once the single-player campaign gets up to speed and begins presenting you with opponents who actually fight back.

Winning in Settlers 7 is down to a new system called Victory Points. You can still peel your opponent's regions from him one-by-one using an army and win via eradication, but an alternative has been provided for players who don't enjoy a slow, painful defeat that renders the last 10 minutes of the match pointless. Victory Points give players a grab-bag of shared objectives - have the most coins, the highest prestige level, a certain region and so on - and victory is awarded to the player who reaches a set number of Points first.

Dry as this might sound, it's fun and hugely tense. Sliders that show everyone's place on each of the Points mean you can race your opponents to certain targets, hit them where they're weak or even plan abrupt victories by snatching two or three points within a minute of one another.

Say your opponent has four of the five points required to win, and they're about to hit the 20-man mark that unlocks the Biggest Army Victory Point. You check the other points they hold; one of them's for the highest population, and you're only lagging behind by 5. Without thinking you throw up the plans for three foresters and three pig farms, and your mad little settlers fling them up just as your opponent finishes his army, thereby taking away one of his Points. Suddenly it's 4-4, and the whole game's balanced on a razor blade. What do you do? What do you protect? Can your new pigs help?

For a game with such a chipper tone and so many friendly introductory missions, it's an awesome surprise how demanding and sharp Settlers 7 can be with the flick of a difficulty setting. This is wonderful design. On Easy, you've got a relaxing, moreish world-builder. On hard, you get a fierce strategy game that's damp with adrenaline. On normal, something in between. Settlers 7's online functionality is similarly diverse; competitive multiplayer is present, but so's a "helper" function that allows confused beginners to pull veteran players into their game as voluntary advisors.

The only time the game itself sags is during the rare moments when you end up sat on your hands, waiting for something to happen. As your model villages spread across the map, the tangle of production lines becomes increasingly hard to follow, and subtle flaws that the game doesn't prepare you for will occasionally bring your entire economy crunching to a halt like a spanner left in a pair of gears.

New constructions might take an age to be built because your wood and stone has been automatically dropped off in some inconvenient, distant storehouse. Likewise, an unexpected dearth of water can take forever to be fixed - you have to place new wells, wait for them to be built, wait for extra water to be carried to a storehouse, and then finally you watch the water trickle down through your whole economy, so to speak. That there are subtleties to management is obviously a good thing, but subtleties should be there to reward advanced players, not punish everyone else.

3

Run! Faster! There should be a sub-game where you run around in first person view with a whip in one hand and a torch in the other.

More waiting occurs in single-player once you have a map secured and end up drumming your fingers for five minutes as your settlers amass or dispatch the resources needed for some plot-related objective. While this is rarer, it's still more than enough time to sit and reflect on how Blue Byte Software's decision to make your settlers run everywhere instead of walking was either very lucky or very smart. The sight of a settler slowly pottering along with some game-winning brick or haunch of meat might have been too much to bear.

But this is only a minor issue. Settlers 7's biggest flaw right now is actually nothing to do with the game itself, but when you can play it. At the time of writing the game's servers are still being brought down every weekend by a weight of traffic that leaves you unable to even play Settlers 7's single-player for hours at a time.

Unbelievably, I'm not referring to Ubisoft's DRM servers here, which seem to have stabilised since their ill-fated launch and gave me no trouble. There is, in fact, a second set of servers unique to Settlers 7 which keep track of your profile, campaign progression, stats and other vital services like achievements you can post directly onto your Facebook account, and these are the servers which are sporadically getting brought tumbling down. At the time of writing this still hasn't been fixed.

That said, this is far too polished and clever a game to let a stupid problem like this stop me from recommending it. If you're looking for a more sporty, addictive alternative to Anno 1404, or a just worthy continuation of the Settlers series, you've absolutely found it.

8 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy

Comments (81) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Eraysor #1 2 years ago

    As much as I would really like to play this game, I just can't bring myself to do it. The DRM kills it, sadly.

  • Vedfolner #2 2 years ago

    @Eraysor: Ditto
    Edited by Vedfolner at 22/04/10 @ 08:52

  • cyacomini #3 2 years ago

    If this is half as good as Settlers 10th Anniversary it's an instabuy for me.

    Just hope my XPS laptop can run it!

    Please can we have a 360 version? Tropico has shown it can be done with flair...

  • MeBrains #4 2 years ago

    the lack of a good pc does it for me - as does the lack of time. have always respected the series ever since its first installment on Amiga over 20y ago... and this sounds like it went back to its roots. build, watch, relax... and fight from time to time.

  • Jackface #5 2 years ago

    Been itching to buy it for my Mac but I'm not paying them to tell me when I can play, so no sale, sadly.

  • Earlyflash #6 2 years ago

    I don't understand how not being able to play Single Player "for hours" is a "stupid problem". It's not stupid (well it is), it's absoltely outrageous, as they've had weeks to sort this mess out.

  • Tomo #7 2 years ago

    Wow, was not expecting that.

  • timknott #8 2 years ago

    Desperate to get this, but with my sporadic internet connection, without an off-line mode, its unplayable to me. Really disappointed, it looks really good.

  • ryandsimmons #9 2 years ago

    Since the reviewer can't play it why not give it a temporary score of 3? Then when the game is actually playable raise it up to 8 or 9?

    If the game was inherently broken due to a bug that crashed it that was software related (as opposed to DRM) I am sure that that would be reflected in the score itself with the possibility of a rereview when a patch came out.

    If a few sites did this then the publisher may actually bother to try to get the DRM working to avoid the metacritic bad publicity.

  • berelain #10 2 years ago

    Oddly, those problems weren't apparent when I reviewed the game a few weeks ago, just after it was released. Maybe its probed more popular than expected? But I never had any problems either with the DRM of the profile servers... just with my own ineptitude for the game itself... its still bloody good fun though.
    Edited by berelain at 22/04/10 @ 09:06

  • JoeBlade #11 2 years ago

    No DRM-removal patch? No sale.

    How the reviewer can admit not being able to play several hours in a row at times and still rate this 8/10 is beyond me to be honest. No matter how good the game may be otherwise, that is just plain unacceptable.

  • jellyhead #12 2 years ago

    Nice game, shame about the restrictions on playing it.

  • technotica #13 2 years ago

    Well I bought it, its the most fun Settlers game in years, and the DRM is the most frustrating I have ever experienced.
    A few weeks ago everyytime I tried to play the game in the evening (after work) it wouldn't let me...

    Nowadays it seems to work for me everytime I want to play, but really Ubisoft shot itself in the foot.
    Edited by technotica at 22/04/10 @ 09:12

  • UncleLou #14 2 years ago

    How the reviewer can admit not being able to play several hours in a row at times and still rate this 8/10 is beyond me to be honest.

    Because he's rating the game, and tells you about the problems outside of that.Giving it a lower rating wouldn't help anyone decide if he wants to get it despite the problems.

  • ryandsimmons #15 2 years ago

    I don't really see how a game not working at all for hours at a time is an issue that is "outside the game" to be honest.

    A game working or not is rather integral to the fun.

  • marilena #16 2 years ago

    Including the server problems in the rating would be very confusing. Also, every MMO ever would get a very low rating, since they tend to have server problems at the beginning.

  • Earl_G #17 2 years ago

    I'm behind firewalls for most of my PC life... therefore, no Ubisoft products for me for the foreseeable future... utter arse!

  • UncleLou #18 2 years ago

    I can't help you with that. Clearly two entirely separate issues for me, and anyone smart enough to read the review text together with the score will exactly know what's what.

  • tafkap #19 2 years ago

    The very concept of a single player game needing an internet connection is plain wrong. I hope people vote with their wallets to prevent this becoming the norm.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #20 2 years ago

    I really enjoyed the demo, didn't expect it to be that good (after the latest Settlers sequels). However, the DRM already gave me some problems while playing the demo and I'm not paying for that. I'll stick to Settlers 2 remake until they remove the DRM. I was hoping that the Steam version would come without it but that's sadly not the case. Too bad because the game is really good.

  • andywilkie35 #21 2 years ago

    Man I remember the first time I booted up The Settlers 2 when I was about 11 years old, one of the best games I've ever played.

  • JoeBlade #22 2 years ago

    @marilena: no, because it's part of what a Massive Multiplayer Online game is, it's right there in the very definition. In this case it's solely due to the stupidity of a publisher however, competing products (i.e. other single player videogames) don't have this issue. So it only seems right to take it into account for the score IMO.

  • UncleLou #23 2 years ago

    So it only seems right to take it into account for the score IMO.

    You'd get less information that way than you do now. Makes no sense.

  • bad09 #24 2 years ago

    Settler on no money because of your DRM Ubi.

  • mingster #25 2 years ago

    I can't work out how your meant to generate the coal you need from the predicament you mentioned.

  • mingster #26 2 years ago

    Totally agree.. I'd understand it if this was an 'online' game then server downtimes are par for the course.
    But it is unacceptable that a single player game should be unavailable to play whenever you want.

  • Oli Verified Reviews Editor, Eurogamer.net #27 2 years ago

    UncleLou is right. It would be totally unfair to give an excellent game like this a low score because of the commercial or technical issues surrounding buying and playing it.

    Our usual rule is to review a game purely on its own merits - that's why we normally don't bring price into the equation either. The circusmstances surrounding its release are for you guys to make your own minds up about.

    However, it is important that we tell you about those circumstances so you can make an informed decision, and Quintin's done that very clearly in his review here.

  • magicpanda #28 2 years ago

    "I can't work out how your meant to generate the coal you need from the predicament you mentioned."

    Knock down some woodcutters due the over abundance of Wood to regain a few tools.

  • Zidargh #29 2 years ago

    I have never played a Settlers game before but always wish I had. This looks amazing and I will wait for things to, uh, 'settle' down a bit with regards to the DRM to finish off my back log and then get this.

  • berelain #30 2 years ago

    Everyone complaining about the DRM, I completely agree with you. However I think you're kidding yourselves if you think that it won't become the norm for even single player titles to require an internet connection. I'm not saying I like the idea, but I think it will happen, as more and more of our consoles and PC's become almost hard-wired to the internet and designed to bring us content updates as they happen, whatever we're doing.

    On the other hand, Ubi's DRM does have one advantage; cloud-based storage of saved games. I do love the idea that I could be playing, say, the Settlers on my desktop machine then go to another room or another persons computer and continue the exact same game from the same point I left off without having to manually muck about transferring files and so on. Its not mitigation for the other issues, no, but its some small comfort. And yes I know Steam does the same with some games.

  • jellyhead #31 2 years ago

    The cloud is fine as long as their servers are up which is my main issue with these systems. I don't want to be at the whim of anyone else as to when i can play a game. Future or not, they're getting no money from me no matter how good the games are. I've already not bought 3 Ubi titles because of it and spent the money on other games and i'm buying more Indie titles too. So in a way, Ubisoft are helping sales. Just sales to other publishers and devs.

  • mingster #32 2 years ago

    Ahhh.. that makes sense cheers Magic Panda.

  • Macdory #33 2 years ago

    No sale for me - interesting that this is already

  • geeza2020 #34 2 years ago

    wow, up to number seven now? I havent played a settlers game since the third one which i loved, and i would be tempted with this but the DRM just sounds bloody awful.

    oh and i dont have a pc anymore :(

  • Frosty840 #35 2 years ago

    Why the *fuck* have Ubisoft made me boycott them right at the moment where they started making awesome games again?
    I want this so much, I'm a big fan of ye olde German-style management games, and I've been pining for a decent Settlers game since the series went completely off the rails after Settlers 3.

    I also live out in the sticks and have an internet connection that will fail to play nice with UbiDRM.

    Please, Ubisoft, I *want* to buy your games. I don't want to buy your DRM. *Please* make something I can buy!

  • Der_tolle_Emil #36 2 years ago

    @berelain: No, this kind of DRM is not exactly the future. It has been available for quite some time and it's called Steam. Also, the advantages you mention are also available in Steam (not all titles mind, but that's besides the point).

    This is why I don't like the Ubi DRM - online requirement already exists and is working really well, however they insisted on creating their own DRM that of course has lots of problems because they have no experience with it. I wish they would have just opted for Steam and be done with it.

    Edited by Der_tolle_Emil at 22/04/10 @ 11:35

  • maddoxon #37 2 years ago

    I don't buy Ubisoft games anymore although I wanted this one. Thanks to the horrible intrusive DRM implementation it's a no go for me.

  • gmjapan #38 2 years ago

    im more than happy the score reflects the actual game and the review still contains info regarding the issues with playing. It means i can check out how bad the issues are from users, forums etc.
    I have had no issues connecting to play. I have had major issues with stability though which i really hope the new 103 patch fixed and cant enable crossfire without trees flickering but the game is great fun - shame i suck at it.

    I wish there was an option to switch off a Victory Points win on a map though. I dont always want the game to end when i've finally built up enough to cause mayhem.

  • sneetch #39 2 years ago

    Indeed Der_tolle_Emil, requiring an online account for activation of a game has become a standard but this always on requirement is unnecessary. Steam already have a very good system for this and as the Steam platform offers a lot of advantages in itself (such as the millions strong member base) I can't believe they didn't just go with Steamworks.

    I'll be happy if Ubisoft find a way of emulate the Steam functionality and allow us to play offline but I doubt it's in their plans. Pity as I quite like this game but their constant server problems and my occasional net connection problems mean I'm just not willing to buy it.

  • curtlikesmeat #40 2 years ago

    I've said it in about 100 other threads it feels like but I'll say it here so Ubisoft can read it, I won't be buying with the DRM installed as much as I would like to - I'll buy it if they remove it, if not I'll wait for a community patch.

    Anyone who says that people moaning about the DRM are in the minority is wrong - this is a niche game, not a COD release and if you go to almost any gaming forum / site on the net you will find long topics on it.

  • Mkwone #41 2 years ago

    Wow it's been years since i played The Settlers. I used to play the original on the amiga after school with a mate. We'd spend hours jointly taking down the opposition before taking on each other. I fondly remember watching the race between each of our soldiers march to the barracks to grasp that bit of free land.

    Admitadly i've not played it since the second game and i presumed they had turned a bit naff. Good to hear that this game at least is good. Such a shame something technology has to hold back the experiance. For me single player games should be played without connection and most definatly when ever you want, not when the servers are running. How did we ever get ourselves into this sort of situation?

  • berelain #42 2 years ago

    @DEr_Toll_Emil - I completely agree! I didn't say Ubi's DRM was the future, just that I think all games will operate in this way, not just some. And as much as I dislike Steam sometimes (its pricing structure is all over the place) it does what it does extremely well, far better than any of the myriad competitors out there at the moment, and I do wish PC devs would just agree to have one gaming 'social network' and be done with it- its annoying having to add my buddies on about fifteen different programs!

  • Boomerang #43 2 years ago

    I'll echo what others are saying:
    I'm a massive fan of the series, all the way back to Settlers on the Amiga, but i point blank REFUSE to buy this (as much i want to) while i need to rely so much on online services (registering an account, storing progress online, DRM servers) to play a sinlge player game!!

    All in favour say "Fuck you, Ubisoft."

  • estoo #44 2 years ago

    DRM issues aside, I can't find the system rquirements for this on Amazon or Play so don't know if my laptop will even run it.

    If I can, I will wait for a patch so I can play it offline, it's not acceptable to me that they insist I be online to play it.

  • Nuronv #45 2 years ago

    This is my personal opinion...
    I don't have a problem with it requiring internet access, the fact that all my profile data is stored on the server out weighs the fact I always need a connection.
    For a long time I have wondered why more games don't do this. For example I often play torchlight from 3 different computers, because the data is stored on a remote server i can just continue where i left off, same goes for when i inevitably format one of my machines without backing up the data properly.
    Will there be a point where I'm on a train and curse to myself that I can't play Settlers? Probably but the few times it negatively is far outweighed but the times it benefits me
    You may now start downrating me

  • kangarootoo #46 2 years ago

    I agree about the score. The server issues will get sorted in time, and a sentence or two stressing the importance of that is sufficient. The review score should focus on the game experience as a whole.

    If the review score reflected the current server issues, it would be immediately rendered inaccurate upon the fixing of said servers. The review score should stand the test of time, not be swayed by very immediate and transcient factors. In otherwords, the REQUIREMENT for these servers should be a factor, but not their availability at the time of writing.

  • paketep #47 2 years ago

    So, two kinds of useless servers for a single player game. Great work, Ubi. Great fucking work.

  • Nuronv #48 2 years ago

    For those after the system requirements:

    The Settlers 7: Paths to a Kingdom System Requirements
    Operating System: Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7
    CPU: 2 GHz Intel Pentium 4 / AMD XP 2600+ or better (Intel Core 2 Duo / AMD Athlon 64 X2 recommended)
    RAM: 2 GB (4 GB recommended)
    Graphics: 256 MB DirectX 9.0c-compliant, Shader 3.0-enabled video card (512 MB recommended)(*see supported list)
    Hard Drive: 8 GB
    Sound: DirectX 9.0c-compliant sound card
    Peripherals Supported: Windows-compliant keyboard and mouse
    Internet Connection: Broadband Internet connection with 128 kbps upstream or faster

  • pacifika #49 2 years ago

    eg drama troupe wanna join?

  • TheBlackBandit #50 2 years ago

    Quinns, you really need to work out iron production.

  • Soul_man #51 2 years ago

    Saw this in the shop and considered it until I noticed the "permanent internet connection required" notice. There are too many good non-crippled games out there to buy this one and risk losing progress due to network hiccups.

  • Rubarack #52 2 years ago

    Unfair on who? The incompetent and evil developers who are incapable of releasing a functional product? If a game is fundamentally unplayable how good it is is essentially a moot point. By all means say "If it was working it would be worth an 8 or even a 9" but if it doesn't do anything then it gets a 0.

  • Matfink #53 2 years ago

    To a follower who has it - how does it compare with the original (and best IMO) Settlers?
    Demo too big for me to risk another Settlers-related disappointment :-/

  • the_mtfr #54 2 years ago

    I'd have bought it full price if it had just an old-school cd-key instead of this DRM.

  • cwk27 #55 2 years ago

    @ryandsimmons

    Didn't Eurogamer do that with the WoW review when it first came out and they couldn't log onto their servers for ages?

    I'm pretty sure they gave a lower score which was then revised once Blizzard had sorted out their issues?

    I'm still not convinced by this DRM move. The fact that Ubi execs think that this will in some way reduce piracy or second hand sales is naive at best. I've heard of so many people pirating their games now just because they can't be bothered to have to deal with gamebreaking DRM. And unless a dev is going to provide continued support and free DLC for the game, cloud save games is in no way a sufficient reward for having to put up with shoddy DRM software. No sale from me.

    I'm even refusing to buy their nondrm PS3 games at the minute, until this PC gaming issue is resolved.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #56 2 years ago

    It's a bit difficult to compare with the original Settlers - also, Settlers II is the best one :) Gameplay feels and is just as fun as the first two Settlers games, however, it's not even remotely the same. It feels fresh yet familiar and you just know you are playing a Settlers game.

  • carbonic #57 2 years ago

    Hmm, I would so buy this but if I can't do it offline I won't even bother.

  • Hantheman #58 2 years ago

    Glad to see the Settlres franchise back on the good path. Settlers 2 is a onderful. It's about time they produced a top quality city sim.

  • dsmx #59 2 years ago

    I would of got this but my internet connection isn't reliable enough , so unless they drop the always on internet connection thing I may have to go elsewhere to play this game.

  • kingmong #60 2 years ago

    it's a shame this is good coz I loved 1 and 2, but no way am i putting up with that DRM

  • jonthepymm #61 2 years ago

    Following on from nuronv's PC requirements, here are the Mac requirements:

    Operating System: OS K 10.6.3 Snow Leopard or higher
    Processor:Intel Duo Core (Intel 2 Duo Core)
    Memory: 2 GB (Recommended 4 GB)
    Hard Drive: 8 GB free Hard Disk space
    Video Card (graphics): 256 MB RAM (Recommended 512 MB RAM)
    DVD-ROM: DVD 8x (DVD 24x), needed only for installment
    Peripherals Supported: Mouse, Keyboard
    Singleplayer: 33.6kbit/s upstream (33.6kbit/s upstream)
    Mulitplayer: 128 kbit/s upstream (128 kbit/s upstream)

    I've just ordered the game following this excellent review but clearly haven't actually tried it on my Mac yet. It should work, apparently, as PC and Mac versions are shipped together. Sounds like the same DRM issues apply, though.

    If anyone has already run it on a Mac, I'd be grateful for confirmation it works.

  • kangarootoo #62 2 years ago

    @Rubarack

    I'm not sure this game can be described as fundamentally unplayable, can it?

    Also, I'm not sure the devs get to choose this sort of thing. This is far more likely a publisher requirement, dressed up as gameplay related.

  • noTHINGface #63 2 years ago

    Yup - this review confirms what I expected, I would probably enjoy the game but I'm another who wont be buying unless they remove the DRM, or at least provide an off-line option for the single player game... Ubisoft got this so wrong it's untrue!

  • cyacomini #64 2 years ago

    Ubisoft DRM cracked apparently..

    [link url=http://n4g.com/dev/News-512541.aspx
    ]http://n4g.com/dev/News-512541.aspx
    [/link]

  • Hantheman #65 2 years ago

    Hahaha, gotta laugh at that. The most restrictive DRM yet is already overcome.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #66 2 years ago

    It was only a question of time. You do have to admit that it took much longer than any other copy protection out there to finally crack it, so Ubi must have done something right (from a technical point of view). Nevertheless, the question is... was it worth it? I'm against piracy and I would like to see how many sales they won/lost due to the DRM and if the hundreds of hours invested in setting up the DRM paid off.
    Edited by Der_tolle_Emil at 22/04/10 @ 17:37

  • devilmyarse #67 2 years ago

    DRM = no buy from me.

    Ubisoft, get rid of the DRM and I will buy this instantly.

  • Faldrath #68 2 years ago

    Sorry, Oli, but I don't buy it. Suppose you got a game to review. The game itself is great, but unfortunately it's very unstable, crashes randomly every 1-2 hours, or randomly corrupts the save files, etc. I'm pretty sure the game gets marked down for that. Heck, Quintin reviewed Silent Hunter 5 not long ago, and it was marked down for that.

    And now you're claiming "It would be totally unfair to give an excellent game like this a low score because of the commercial or technical issues surrounding buying and playing it."? Explain to me how it is fair to give a game a low score because of the technical issues that keep you from enjoying it, like in SH5, but it's not when it's the DRM that keeps you from enjoying it, like in S7? Heck, the DRM is even *worse*, because bugs can be patched, but the DRM won't be removed.

    I don't think you've thought this through. And I find it disheartening that EG (and, to be fair, most gaming sites) doesn't take a stronger editorial stance on this DRM issue.
    Edited by Faldrath at 22/04/10 @ 17:44

  • immateriaux #69 2 years ago

    @ Nuronv
    "This is my personal opinion...
    I don't have a problem with it requiring internet access, the fact that all my profile data is stored on the server out weighs the fact I always need a connection."

    It is quite a selfish opinion though. The key word is "require". Do you require an "always on" connection in order to offer the option of storing profile information online? No, of course not. So would you be satisfied with an offline mode (that perhaps you personally never used) so that those people who are not in your enviable position of having constant internet access could have the opportunity to play the game? I would hope so?

  • Nuronv #70 2 years ago

    @immateriaux

    Yes an Offline option would be great and I do think Ubisoft will end up removing this constant connection requirement as honestly its a PR disaster.
    However I can't help but feel whenever the term DRM is used there is a massive "HOW DARE THEY! F&$K!&G UBISOFT!" overblown reaction. There has and always will be a tug of war between publishers trying to protect their product at the cost of customer accessibility and the customers working around those restrictions.
    No doubt once the current Ubisoft system has been completely broken they will scrap it and move on to something else.

    Personally i like the Steam system as it strikes a balance where the customer is can download and install the software on as many computers as they want and it doesn't require a constant internet connection.

    TL:DR - You can't please everyone , make the most of it

  • Ocid #71 2 years ago

    Was really looking forward to this but thanks to Ubi's bullshit DRM i'll be passing on this one.

    Shame really but its their own fault.

  • AaronBoone #72 2 years ago

    2 sets of servers is utterly retarded. No question. Scores reflecting whether the DRM is hindering the game or not is a fair point, but perhaps can be put down to teething troubles. Personally don't agree with the amount of backlash people are having against Ubisoft trying to prevent piracy, cause that's all it's doing. Yeah, people who don't have internet connection should feel annoyed, yes it servers aren't operating properly people should be annoyed. The point is, companies have lost millions and millions of dollars on the PC development side because people are stealing their games. They've tried to defeat the pirates/hackers etc and failed, what choice do they have left. Moaning about it if you're a PC gamer is counter productive cause if rampant worldwide piracy continues, without companies like Ubisoft trying different methods, there will be no pc market other than WOW type games. Have to see global picture people.

  • Silvervein #73 2 years ago

    After reading the review and the thread, a thought came to my head.

    The most accurate way of reviewing this game would be to give a sentence at the beginning, then two blank pages, and then sentence at the end. And a score of 9/10.

    Why? Because it would very accurately show your gameplay experience with Ubisoft drm in place. Game might be fun. Game consisting of paying for the game with good cash, and then watching blank screen for hours or days, however fun it is, deserves to be minced and fed to the devs, box and all.

    PS. About pricing of this (and other single player games) requiring constant internet connection. When I pay for a single player game, I expect that one time payment gives me the right to enjoy it. If I need to constantly pay another company to enjoy a single player game I *already paid for*, I expect that to be reflected in the price of the game in question.

    So unless ubi begins to sell settlers for 1 pound (or two bucks, depending on where you live) to compensate for the need to fork cash for monthly internet bill, I'd say we have a perfect example of *legal* piracy.
    Go ubi.
    Edited by Silvervein at 22/04/10 @ 21:53

  • immateriaux #74 2 years ago

    AaronBoone's post is almost frightening moronic: there speaks the voice of a dumb-ass UbiSoft exec with no vision, no knowledge and no ideas. Who really are these weird apologists who occasionally pop up to post these bizarrely limited, ill-informed views on DRM and then go on to patronise the rest of the universe with non sequiturs like "They've tried to defeat the pirates/hackers etc and failed, what choice do they have left"???

  • Nuronv #75 2 years ago

    I suppose the best question would be what is the best solution for Piracy / DRM?

    Is it possible for their to be a middleground?

  • jellyhead #76 2 years ago

    AaronBoone, as i've said before. I'm a customer and Ubisoft are trying to provide me with a game. If they attach conditions to the game that i disagree with i won't buy it regardless of their intentions and motivations. I'm not buying a predominantly single player game that requires a permanent internet connection to their unreliable servers.

    Ubisoft of course can do what they like and by the same token i'm under no compulsion to purchase their games if i don't like the strings attached. If that impacts their business then they need to make the product more attractive to me as they are the ones who want my money and i have plenty of other developers and publishers to choose from.

  • kingmong #77 2 years ago

    wellsaid jellyhead

  • rosshuts #78 2 years ago

    Going back to the game itself, I am quite pleased of the high score. I used to play Settlers on the Amiga and always loved the style and in some ways the humour as well. I have just sold my beast of a PC though so its a shame as I would have liked to pick this game up.

  • sneetch #79 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo
    I'm not sure this game can be described as fundamentally unplayable, can it?

    As you can't play it a lot of the time, because of issues with their servers, can it be described as fundamentally playable? :)

  • orakio #80 2 years ago

    I'm against this type of DRM, but the score for the game is fair for me.
    The developers did not choose to implement DRM, that's something the publisher wanted.
    Thus, the developers need to be rewarded with a good review.

    Simply a matter of choice for the reviewer at hand.

  • Luckz #81 2 years ago

    6/10 game, too omgstreamlined, and the animations are *all* flawed. Every single worker animation.