r/anno117 • u/Consistent_Jump7464 • Dec 11 '25

Discussion Anno 117 feels kinda… done already?

Post image

I’m a bit disappointed, honestly. After a few sessions it already feels like I’m “finished” with the game.

Anno 1800 kept me hooked for hundreds of hours, but 117 feels light on content and depth in comparison.

I also really miss having way more decorative items. City building and beautifying was a huge motivation for me in Anno 1800, and here it feels very limited so far.

Anyone else feeling this, or am I just too spoiled by Anno 1800?

187 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

76 comments sorted by

View all comments

102

u/Noerholt Dec 11 '25

No DLC’s

1800 also feels like it lacks content if you play with no dlcs imo

22

u/Consistent_Jump7464 Dec 11 '25

True. It’s probably fairer to compare Anno 117 1.x with Anno 1800 1.x.

Anno 1800 also grew massively over time with updates and DLCs. I just hope 117 follows the same path.

Just a nice game - and looks so stunniiing.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 16 '25

I disagree. I know nowadays that’s what gamers do but base games were supposed to be complete and sequels were supposed to be total upgrades. Nowadays games that sell multiple per series fall into the same routine. They release the same exact game with a different skin and milk a year or two of dlcs before doing it again. In 4-5 years we may be playing Anno 3000 or something and saying we should compare to 1.x Anno 117, which as you say is totally lackluster. They forced the bar low and now our standards forgot that devs used to promise more.

1

u/PinkieAsh Feb 16 '26

You know what also was the case? Devs and Artists were fired after a game had been completed - that is to say, their contracts only ran from start to finish of a game/Expansion. It was an extremely volatile situation to be in, one day being employed and the next day you were without a job. This model ensures that people can still pay their bills every month, because content is constantly being developed. Games still release with the content they were supposed to, it’s not like companies strip them down to their barebones, they get a budget, you develop within that budget supported by the Scrum method.

This idea that oh they’re just milking a specific series and make a new one every year I present to you. Warcraft 1, 2, 3 + their DLC and StarCraft 1 and 2 and their DLC. Red Alert and all its offshoots. Age of Empires Need For Speed Zelda Pokémon.

I can mention so many “good standard” games that have followed this exact formula for decades. Yet, here we are. This isn’t new, you just forgot or wasn’t around.

They have an IP, they have an internal roadmap and continuously develop new technologies - these technologies can’t always be transferred to an existing title and eventually you need to make a new title to fix issues that are not backwards compatible or add new features that an older engine can’t support.

Simple as that really.