|
Shibawanko posted:Actually yeah the alien invasion thing sounds like it could be fun, and different from tedious zombies. Maybe make it so that the entire equator and temperate zones have been destroyed by a radiation pulse or whatever, with the only survivors near the poles, then ambush the occasional search party of intelligent aliens. They shouldn't be zombielike though, more like highly intelligent grays who silently hunt you individually or in pairs. Yeah, right? And if anything the games industry needs more "ideas guys" like me :iamafag: I know exactly what you mean, and it kind of speaks to the quality of the Long Dark that it gets you thinking in those terms, even. "This is so realistic, so the game should let me do this" kind of thing. I does make a lot of concessions to make game play or challenge work (which I think is fine, and why I don't consider the game let's say very realistic as opposed to semi-realistic), but in the end it turns out to work pretty well for that kind of game. It's also a game that makes exploration interesting, which I consider to be a core component of survival games to keep it fresh. All in all, I like the Long Dark a lot as a neat balance between a bunch of things, including realism.
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 12:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 00:59 |
|
|
the long dark could be a way better game at the expense of their vision which is basically "we want the hardest mode to guarantee that you will die" and is, for the most part, not a fun thing because you cant overcome it. the problem with the difficulty is you really get three stages - one where you're scrambling for cover, the next where you need to develop all of your tools, and then the only thing you get to use those tools in is... waiting for a thousand days for the weather to eventually get to -69 and you cant gather wood and food fast enough i dunno how you address it. you could make multiple iterations of improved tools and or security, but then you're just adding a grind into the game. you could add aliens or hostiles or major events that happens semi-predictably like don't starve, but that might kill the realism Nice piece of fish posted:I enjoy the Long Dark a lot, but I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it really realistic. I mean, I get it, it's a pretty good simulation of that kind of scenario, but a bunch of the mechanics and gameplay/techniques don't have anything to do with realism. The wildlife aside, dehydration/hydration in arctic climates don't work that way, you're not walking anywhere in the snow, firewood and making fires are a lot simpler and bows and such are not going to be available for you to use unless you find them. im actually interested in what you mean. yeah firewood seems easier to get in game than it would be IRL, but im not really familiar with hydration or bow crafting
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 12:41
|
|
|
Verviticus posted:the long dark could be a way better game at the expense of their vision which is basically "we want the hardest mode to guarantee that you will die" and is, for the most part, not a fun thing because you cant overcome it. the problem with the difficulty is you really get three stages - one where you're scrambling for cover, the next where you need to develop all of your tools, and then the only thing you get to use those tools in is... waiting for a thousand days for the weather to eventually get to -69 and you cant gather wood and food fast enough I'd probably want a "strike out for civilization/survivors" mode where there's a massive endgame map you have to traverse to reach safety. And I do mean massive, as in a real problem to navigate and if you make the wrong choice even with all your gear and prep, you might still be in very serious trouble or trapped if you make a bad call. Kind of like a "final exam". Would mostly fit that vision too, as you'd have to use all the things you'd learned as well as utilize your gear and collected poo poo to survive a much harder challenge. It could be a race against time kind of factor as well. Verviticus posted:im actually interested in what you mean. yeah firewood seems easier to get in game than it would be IRL, but im not really familiar with hydration or bow crafting Firewood in winter is actually not that hard to get, as you can rely on finding dead standing wood in any arctic or subarctic forest. It'd be a lot harder in a tundra type climate, or with elevation, and far enough north forests are out of the picture too. Instead, a common survival tactic in snowy/extremely cold conditions (which, with proper clothing is the biggest hypothermia threat) would be to dig a bivouac in the snow (or an igloo, if you're planning on staying a while). No firewood needed, and you'd be ok even with kinda lovely clothes. Which is an obvious thing you ought to be able to do in the Long Dark. As for hydration, if the land around you regularly dips below 18 degrees below (centigrade) and isn't near a city, you're fine for just melting snow to drink. No need to boil it. You can eat it too, but that might reduce your core temp too much. It's great for keeping core temp down while doing physical activity though: Sweating is a huge concern in those climates because it can lead to evaporative heat loss and it's hard to air yourself out without also succumbing to hypothermia. I'd estimate a person needing twice the daily amount shown in the game for all the activity they are doing (getting dehydrated in the arctic and subarctic, esp. during winter is really easy). Also, you would find no liquid water in a frozen wasteland like the game, including indoors and in toilets, unless warmed or moving. All soda cans would likely have burst, as well as water bottles. In terms of food, frozen carcasses would be close to impossible to dress and slaughter and would be higly suspect food sources. Unless it's a fresh kill, it's very possible to find tainted meat from decay/intestintal cross contamination even in subzero temperatures (body dies warm, bacteria make their own heat, so you can't count on the meat being preserved). Intestinal distress in the arctic will likely kill you or at least severely weaken you, due to dehydration and calorie loss. You would also not find cattail plants to eat in that kind of climate, and if you did the worst of winters wouldn't be that cold. Also, you'd eat the tubers (roots) not the stems for starchy calories. It's a weird game world that has a little of everything, isn't it? Bow crafting, forget it. Making a bow is really hard and if you're sourcing your wood from the forest, in winter, expect a long-rear end curing process before you have a stave to even use. Even if you could cure a stave (which you likely can't in subzero average temps), you'd have to know how to tiller the bow without shattering it and possibly injuring yourself and make a good drawstring. Even if you did all that, you'd have to make arrows which is very hard and actually a seperate profession in medieval times because it's so specialized. At the end of this months-long process you'd still only have a pretty lovely self-made amateur bow (you're not likely to be an expert at this, are you) that will likely not shoot straight above 30 meters, likely isn't very durable and probably has a low draw weight with an uneven draw. It's very hard to make a bow. None of this spergy poo poo is ingame, because holy hell I got bored just writing that. The game makes allowances on this stuff, as it should, because in real life survival is about mostly scavenging, knowledge about the world around you and relatively abundant firearms. And also being bored and lonely a lot. Doesn't really make a good game by itself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
I'm actually kind of interested in this stuff. Wouldn't birch sap be a good source of sugars too? I saw that once, guy made a kind of spout on a tree and just tapped sap right out of it. Maybe that doesn't work as well in winter because of the reduced flow?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:I'm actually kind of interested in this stuff. Wouldn't birch sap be a good source of sugars too? I saw that once, guy made a kind of spout on a tree and just tapped sap right out of it. Maybe that doesn't work as well in winter because of the reduced flow? Actually, no. Birch sap doesn't contain much sugar, but some xylitol makes it pretty sweet still. It's pretty low on calories, and you can really only gather it once per year. In winter you'd struggle to get anything out of it. It's nothing like maple syrup, for instance. A good source of food in an arctic/subarctic climate would actually be trapping. You can trap all sorts of winter-active critters with fairly simple setups if you know some woodscraft, as many mammals have interrupted hibernation cycles and some don't hibernate as much or as long. If you wanna see something funny (and really unethical) related to survival, check out these guys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqmhwqHgQXU http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2l1rey loving idiots, it's just so stupid. That episode they killed a porcupine or something and ate it. It's possible to find food even if you don't know a thing about what you're doing, really. E: Ice fishing is actually quite effective, though, and pretty simple to do once you get through the ice. You can also prevent the hole from freezing back up with some pine twigs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
People into The Long Dark who want that kinda game but with more to it, try UnReal World if you haven't already. So much more sensible variety of threats along with variety in climate and weather with a whole host of long term survival options including building your own settlement with people in it. It's really quite something and there is nothing else like it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:People into The Long Dark who want that kinda game but with more to it, try UnReal World if you haven't already. So much more sensible variety of threats along with variety in climate and weather with a whole host of long term survival options including building your own settlement with people in it. It's really quite something and there is nothing else like it. Right, the finnish thing with the LARP pictures? It's hilarious. I'm sure it's a good game, but I'd love to see a LP of it before buying, because... you know... finnish. Are you doing one? You should do one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Right, the finnish thing with the LARP pictures? It's hilarious. I'm sure it's a good game, but I'd love to see a LP of it before buying, because... you know... finnish. Are you doing one? You should do one. I kinda started doing one but gave up. There's a free version though, which I heartily recommend!
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:a common survival tactic in snowy/extremely cold conditions (which, with proper clothing is the biggest hypothermia threat) would be to dig a bivouac in the snow (or an igloo, if you're planning on staying a while). No firewood needed, and you'd be ok even with kinda lovely clothes. Which is an obvious thing you ought to be able to do in the Long Dark. It is something you can do in The Long Dark? http://thelongdark.wikia.com/wiki/Snow_Shelter quote:You would also not find cattail plants to eat in that kind of climate, and if you did the worst of winters wouldn't be that cold. Also, you'd eat the tubers (roots) not the stems for starchy calories. The leaf bases and the tender part of the bottom of the stem can also be eaten, plus you don't have to dig them out of the frozen ground. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typha#Culinary_uses Nice piece of fish posted:loving idiots, it's just so stupid. That episode they killed a porcupine or something and ate it. It's possible to find food even if you don't know a thing about what you're doing, really. It's considered bad form to kill a porcupine in normal situations; is that why you call them idiots, because they don't really need it to survive? They're slow enough that a human can chase one down, and a long stick is sufficient to overcome its defenses and kill it. Thus, you leave the porcupines alone because it represents a wandering, self-maintaining cache of calories for anyone who should end up lost and starving out there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:I'd probably want a "strike out for civilization/survivors" mode where there's a massive endgame map you have to traverse to reach safety. And I do mean massive, as in a real problem to navigate and if you make the wrong choice even with all your gear and prep, you might still be in very serious trouble or trapped if you make a bad call. Kind of like a "final exam". Would mostly fit that vision too, as you'd have to use all the things you'd learned as well as utilize your gear and collected poo poo to survive a much harder challenge. It could be a race against time kind of factor as well. thats honestly really neat, thank you for writing that up Pham Nuwen posted:It is something you can do in The Long Dark? http://thelongdark.wikia.com/wiki/Snow_Shelter simultaneously super useful and also a death trap if you ever want to go to sleep. ive died a couple times freezing to death because i misjudged temperatures/my fire magically went out Verviticus fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Oct 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
the number one thing missing in survival games like long dark that would make them a lot harder and more realistic at the same time isn't really the big things like food, water, and warmth, it's the small things that bring someone down over time. micro-damage is a real and serious thing in a survival situation. a soft tissue injury in your foot can hobble you for days without warning. a knot in your back can keep you from sleeping and ruin your ability to progress. an allergic reaction to some food you didn't even know you were allergic to can leave you mentally slower for a good long while. the problem with this in game terms is twofold though. firstly, how do you accurately simulate all of this to make it something that actually simulates the aches, pains, creaks, and groans of a body doing really hard work without making it a bunch of lovely random syndromes, and secondly, how do you make it fun? even irl, a soft tissue injury in the foot or hip is not something you can feel coming, or that occurs from some dramatic bust-up. you just walk really far and the way you were letting your feet fall makes some scar tissue show up on your heel and now it feels like a nail is driving into it all the loving time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
At this point I want them to sack off the story and only ever do survival. If they managed to combine elements of a story with survival, that'd probably be the best thing for them to do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:It is something you can do in The Long Dark? http://thelongdark.wikia.com/wiki/Snow_Shelter That's a "snow shelter" cobbled together from sticks and cloth. I'm talking about a snow bivouac. https://www.fjallraven.com/snow-bivouacs It can get warm enough from your body heat alone to be quite comfortable, since the insulation is great. Pham Nuwen posted:The leaf bases and the tender part of the bottom of the stem can also be eaten, plus you don't have to dig them out of the frozen ground. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typha#Culinary_uses Can be, being the operative word. It's too much fiber for too little nutrition, and too much plant fibre is not great in cold conditions because it fucks with your digestion. You want the starch from the tubers, but it's a moot point anyway since you wouldn't find the plant anywhere with those kinds of (in game) temperatures. Pham Nuwen posted:It's considered bad form to kill a porcupine in normal situations; is that why you call them idiots, because they don't really need it to survive? They're slow enough that a human can chase one down, and a long stick is sufficient to overcome its defenses and kill it. Thus, you leave the porcupines alone because it represents a wandering, self-maintaining cache of calories for anyone who should end up lost and starving out there. I call them idiots because they are obviously clueless with very little relevant survival training for colder climates. They don't make a proper shelter, one guy is wearing shorts and no shoes, they don't make the obvious log fire and it's just all bullshit with those guys. It's so dumb it's a running joke with my friends. Also, yeah, you don't bludgeon animals to death for entertainment on a tv show. It's likely to be illegal where they were, it's for sure unethical and you don't do it unless it's an actual survival situation. I hunt all kinds of game in different climates and conditions, I know the difference between legal and humane hunting and poaching. That poo poo is wrong, and it sends the wrong message to people who think the two morons know what they are talking about. Verviticus posted:thats honestly really neat, thank you for writing that up No worries, but please keep in mind that this isn't a survival lesson or anything, there's more to it than a quick synopsis. It's been a while since the army, and while I still hunt in barren mountain wildernesses and such I don't much go for the most hardcore hikes anymore. If you find this stuff interesting there's a very good hiking/survival megathread with tons of useful stuff and experience (if you haven't read it), it's very good but please don't apply any of it in real life without practice and experienced instruction. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3490050 Coolguye posted:the number one thing missing in survival games like long dark that would make them a lot harder and more realistic at the same time isn't really the big things like food, water, and warmth, it's the small things that bring someone down over time. micro-damage is a real and serious thing in a survival situation. a soft tissue injury in your foot can hobble you for days without warning. a knot in your back can keep you from sleeping and ruin your ability to progress. an allergic reaction to some food you didn't even know you were allergic to can leave you mentally slower for a good long while. Good points. The "twentieth mile" problems accrue for sure, and can lead you to some dangerous situations. I imagine that would be a huge killer, because it's such a mental drain in addition to making you prone to serious injury, and that can really affect the outcome of any survival situation. In fact, it might be the biggest reason someone doesn't make it. The mental aspect of it all isn't well simulated in any game I've ever seen, but it's constantly harped on by survival instructors for very good reason. It's all about attitude and making the right decisions, to prevent the small things from adding up and killing you. I don't think there's a good way to implement that into a game, but I'd love to see someone try. The basic paradox is still that survival isn't really very fun all on its own, it's cold, it's miserable, it's lonely and it's painful, and it's a proper ordeal. That doesn't really translate into fun very well. In fact, I think the Long Dark may be the best approach to gameifying survival I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:the number one thing missing in survival games like long dark that would make them a lot harder and more realistic at the same time isn't really the big things like food, water, and warmth, it's the small things that bring someone down over time. micro-damage is a real and serious thing in a survival situation. a soft tissue injury in your foot can hobble you for days without warning. a knot in your back can keep you from sleeping and ruin your ability to progress. an allergic reaction to some food you didn't even know you were allergic to can leave you mentally slower for a good long while. TLD loves to make you twist your loving ankle when you're exactly one sprint bar away from shelter before getting frostbite, at least Nice piece of fish posted:No worries, but please keep in mind that this isn't a survival lesson or anything, there's more to it than a quick synopsis. It's been a while since the army, and while I still hunt in barren mountain wildernesses and such I don't much go for the most hardcore hikes anymore. If you find this stuff interesting there's a very good hiking/survival megathread with tons of useful stuff and experience (if you haven't read it), it's very good but please don't apply any of it in real life without practice and experienced instruction. oh yeah, no chance there. i just enjoy seeing the comparison between realism and game systems
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:yeah, that was not the case when i played. i should probably boot the game back up after i've worked through my shadow of war addiction. Nope. You still need to budget either time to travel back to safety or extra oxygen and thermal energy to take catnaps every so often.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Well, Subterrain is $8.50 on Steam so I think I'll pick it up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Would people here recommend buying The Forest?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:Would people here recommend buying The Forest? You can build yourself a little home but there are monsters (cannibals) about pretty much always. It styles itself a survival game but it's really not since about 3/4ths of the game and all the goodies to loot takes place in this enormous cave system you find and are supposed to gradually explore full of jumpscares and combat and a lot of darkness. It's almost entirely fighting cannibals while exploring and very light on the base building aspect because there isn't a huge reason to (also it attracts cannibals). Like a lot of "survival" games, the first quarter of the game is dedicated to not starving but once you make a decent home base you're pretty much done with survival and it's more focused on exploration and combat. There's no end game last I played so I'm waiting for it to bake some more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
there is an end game in the forest now and it's actually pretty decent. it is more an exploration game than a survival game, that is a fair cop, but it scratches some good itches and has a co-op mode so it's a solid buy. the building system is also varied enough that you can do some pretty fun stuff too, ask me about my zipline based fast travel system
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
so i started subterrain with the idea that im probably going to play an hour or two into it and then restart with a plan, since the game is somewhat opaque i managed to figure out how to research/develop filters for the first few zones and recycle junk, and im wondering if thats a good starting point to switch up to a higher diff, or if there are any other basic mechanics i should get to/learn before doing this
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:Would people here recommend buying The Forest? It's good. There's a lot of trash tier survival games out there, and The Forest is not among them. I played it like a year ago with a buddy and was dismayed to find that there wasn't an ending. So yeah I've put it on hold til something more of a full release.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
Yeah. The forest could use more levers to tune the difficulty/etc to your style, but it's pretty neat. Especially coop (since so few options there). Also the building stuff can be a bit time consuming.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
I feel like it's really hard to nail the enjoyment vs realism factor in survival games. Games like Space Engineers just become far too boring for me, cause Survival has you personally welding everything, and it takes so long to the point where 80% of your time is spent building, instead of doing fun things. I wish there was a system that had a happy medium between fun and not too easy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Verviticus posted:so i started subterrain with the idea that im probably going to play an hour or two into it and then restart with a plan, since the game is somewhat opaque i'd keep going until you say to yourself "ok, i hosed up big by not doing x" or alternately "i hosed up big because i did y" if you're saying that to yourself in subterrain, you're probably right that you hosed up big and restarting will allow you to avoid that mistake but also optimize about 15 other things leading up to that big fuckup fundamentally though no, research and development of various tools and resources is the main thing you need to know about the game; otherwise it plays much like many roguelikes i'm sure you've put away in your time Coolguye fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Oct 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
Q8ee posted:I feel like it's really hard to nail the enjoyment vs realism factor in survival games. Games like Space Engineers just become far too boring for me, cause Survival has you personally welding everything, and it takes so long to the point where 80% of your time is spent building, instead of doing fun things. My personal favorite is single player Ark prior to metal tier. Or at least it was a year or two ago, I'm sure the game is unrecognizable now. It felt like you were carving out your own little area, and slowly expanding outward to deal with increasing threats. After the metal tier though, the game turns into a massive grind. A big issue with these builder/survival games is that there's a creative mode and the survival mode usually just feels like working your way to your own personal creative mode.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 07:39
|
|
|
Can someone explain Don't Starve to me? I've heard the expansions are really different from the base game or something? If I wanted to theoretically learn this game, what would be the best way to go about doing so? Like, do I want to start with vanilla or what?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:My personal favorite is single player Ark prior to metal tier. Or at least it was a year or two ago, I'm sure the game is unrecognizable now. It felt like you were carving out your own little area, and slowly expanding outward to deal with increasing threats. After the metal tier though, the game turns into a massive grind. A big issue with these builder/survival games is that there's a creative mode and the survival mode usually just feels like working your way to your own personal creative mode. I've been wanting to start a singleplayer Ark game, cause I've only got about 10 hours on this game and I had it since it came out (I ragequit years back cause MP servers are god awful, you log in the next day and one dude on a T-Rex has single handedly wiped out in 30 seconds something that took you 4 hours). A friend said the same exact thing as you: later on the game becomes a grindfest. Sorta turned me off of wanting to play Ark. As for Don't Starve, someone will give a better explanation, but you're basically plopped onto a randomly generated world with different biomes. Top-down view. You gotta run around and clumsily figure stuff out. It's really hardcore. If you die, you start from scratch, zilch, nada. The gameplay was fun, but a lot of times, I'd die to something seemingly harmless, and I'd lose so much progress. So in the end, I got burnt out, cause I was tired of starting from scratch each time. It's a fantastic game and is great fun. Defo recommend with mates. And yes, the expansions are like brand new games. They made an ocean expansion and you sail from island to island on a dingy little raft. It looked really good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 07:59
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:i'd keep going until you say to yourself "ok, i hosed up big by not doing x" or alternately "i hosed up big because i did y" eh, i usually play these games on the hardest or second hardest difficulty and i started that save on normal i think so it might be a while. ill fail at the higher level a couple of times happily, i just dont want to waste 20 mins on some weird mechanic because my brain no good
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 09:45
|
|
|
The problem with don't starve is the unknown new things that you have to interact or forced to interact to know what it does. Generally, most of these things kills you and now know not to touch the thing next game in exchange for few dozen hours of your work. The thing that really ruined for me is the boss that spawn close to me and bolt straight at me. Chance are you will die because the boss gimmick or how to defeat them remain a mystery of trial and error. It would be much better if the game have checkpoint by days you survived. The game is addictingly fun but super harsh even with wiki to explain what each things do. Every moment in the game is a race against time for resource. You need all the food you could get, fire at night time, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 11:52
|
|
|
Q8ee posted:I've been wanting to start a singleplayer Ark game, cause I've only got about 10 hours on this game and I had it since it came out (I ragequit years back cause MP servers are god awful, you log in the next day and one dude on a T-Rex has single handedly wiped out in 30 seconds something that took you 4 hours). A friend said the same exact thing as you: later on the game becomes a grindfest. Sorta turned me off of wanting to play Ark. it was kinda mediocre, honestly. didnt like the early sailing, later challenges just feel like a time waster. bosses are way too easy, most recent patch completely broke the game
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
Part of the fun of Don't Starve Together is the mods. It's a bit like Skyrim in that regard. Only Skyrim doesn't let you see everyone else's insane mod layout. And the characters. Holy gently caress. The characters. There's something for anyone. A lot of of it is weird in a fun way too. Part of which is helped by the fact that part of the game is all about watching your character go bugshit insane from the circumstances they're in. This also crosses over with the modding thing as well since you can join a random server and use the mods they've enabled without having to set your mod configuration up to be the same as theirs ahead of time. So you'll see all sorts of crazy poo poo as you play thanks to the game having integrated workshop support. Want to play a sentient tree (Or a man in a tree suit that thinks he's a tree.) that got spliced with a human and needs to feed on twigs and berries to survive? Sure. Whatever. A noble fencer that looks like a mall goth circa the enlightenment era that loses health from getting "sun burned" during the day due to his lovely complexion? Whatever. That's not even that weird compared to the vanilla characters. Want to be a furry/werewolf? Alright. Expect to be mocked, however. Heck, want to be a fuckmothering vampire? The game's got multiple character mods featuring entire complex systems supporting it. Including the ability for your character to go insane with hunger, gruesomely hunt down your fellow players, and butcher them for their precious bodily juices as they flip out and flee from you to avoid losing potentially hours of work. This is on top of the endless slew of anime mods. Many of which can be remarkably complex due to an overseas fan community getting way into the game. Which means there's every chance that you'll log on to a random server and see some Touhou character burning everything in sight like they're Trogdor circa the late 90's to early 2000's while spouting incomprehensible moon speak every ten seconds. It's gloriously insane and often somehow fits into the brutal mechanics and narrative of the game. For instance, that pack of rabid Touhou characters might be nasty to look at when you first log on. But then you come back later and see a field of anime skeletons from where they accidentally burned their food sources down and died scrambling to trying to find two twigs and some flint to ward off the oncoming sanity destroying horrors of the night. Turns out having weeb superpowers that let you annihilate everything in sight doesn't save you from starvation. Archonex fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Oct 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
I'd totally play Don't Starve to the point where I forget what the sun looks like, if only it had some sort of save feature. I get burnt out so quickly due to the permadeath, and it boils down to me not being bothered to go through the same motions for the 20th time, only to have a previously friendly manpig all of a sudden go haywire and kick my poo poo in. Or if I accidentally hit a manpig if I'm trying to attack something else, and then I get owned and die and lose all my progress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
Yeah I would have really liked a softer experience, it's just not fun to replay the same game over and over. I consider myself good at survival games but I wasn't able to live long enough to build anything magic. I think a faster travel mechanic was needed as well, in that game, distance to things really limits you and half the crafting is concentrated on making a base but all the items require exploration. If they had a mode where you start with some bees and web a bunch of wood and you ran 200% faster on roads I'd have probably played it more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
Q8ee posted:I'd totally play Don't Starve to the point where I forget what the sun looks like, if only it had some sort of save feature. I get burnt out so quickly due to the permadeath, and it boils down to me not being bothered to go through the same motions for the 20th time, only to have a previously friendly manpig all of a sudden go haywire and kick my poo poo in. Or if I accidentally hit a manpig if I'm trying to attack something else, and then I get owned and die and lose all my progress. Bhodi posted:Yeah I would have really liked a softer experience, it's just not fun to replay the same game over and over. I consider myself good at survival games but I wasn't able to live long enough to build anything magic. I think a faster travel mechanic was needed as well, in that game, distance to things really limits you and half the crafting is concentrated on making a base but all the items require exploration. You guys know that Don't Starve Together has a mode literally just like that now, right? If you turn on Endless mode in world generation then there's no permadeath or punishingly unfair death mechanics. Instead of hovering around as a ghost for eternity waiting for someone to resurrect you (or for you to find one of the secret resurrection methods) you just go back to the Florid Gate as a ghost and click on it to respawn. No losing all your progress or anything like that. As I recall, the worst you have to do is go grab your items where they dropped and hike back to where ever your base is. Which can set you back. But only if you mess up and make a mistake, instead of the game punishing you for the act of failing itself. It's literally the only way I can tolerate the game too. The early game is filled with horrifying (and hilarious) deaths if you don't know what you're doing. And even the end game can be pretty brutal at times. With Endless mode on you can actually enjoy Don't Starve as one of the few survival sims out there that actually keeps a challenge all the way through without the tedious bullshit it throws at you. DST also has a solo play mode too, for those who don't have/want the single player mode. Granted, I don't know how it is in the single player game now. But the multiplayer version is great. In fact, if there's interest I can throw up a server on the private games forum with a random grab bag of mods to show off the game. Pretty sure it's on sale right now, so now would probably be a good time to start something like that anyways if there's interest. Wouldn't even need that much interest too, since I think the cap on players per server is like 6. It's a game meant to be played with a small number of people you know or can get along with. Archonex fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Oct 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Is there an Endless Mode for the ocean DLC thingy? Cause the 30 mins of that I played were really, really lovely. But then I died and didn't want to start from scratch again and ruin my enjoyment of the game. Check out Oxygen Not Included btw, for a Survival Sim where you need to take care of a bunch of colonists and keep them alive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Is Don't Starve Together like a version 1.5 of Don't Starve, or literally just a fork with multiplayer added? I see that you said it has a single player mode. Edit: I could swear there used to be a Don't Starve thread. Admiral Joeslop fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Oct 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
I might have to try out that mode mentioned about. Don't starve has always intrigued me but every time I play it I spend like 30 minutes getting to about the same (not far) spot, then die, and start over. Whereas the equivalent time investiment in a roguelike like DC:SS I can just turbo there in 5 minutes or less.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Admiral Joeslop posted:Is Don't Starve Together like a version 1.5 of Don't Starve, or literally just a fork with multiplayer added? I see that you said it has a single player mode. There was, it fell off because everyone got bored of it. The problem with DST is the problem with every other survival game - it's only interesting for the first couple hours of play, then you have solutions for your malthusian needs and you fall into the grind of every day subsistence life. Exploration isn't compelling when there's nothing truly new to see, only new arrangements of the same stuff. I think a lot more people would like DST if there was a mode where you can play the Don't Starve adventure mode with friends, since that gives you a goal to work toward.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
I got that Kingdoms game It's weird
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 00:59 |
|
|
Phi230 posted:I got that Kingdoms game Ok I'll bite. What Kingdom game?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 01:38
|
|
