Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Egan_BW]

If you wait long enough they'll probably all rot to death anyways.
Though that introduces the problem that the game would be a little boring once all the zombies were gone, unless there was some human politics going on.

[Sergius]

Agree, but that's kinda my point, if you can abstract that there's tons of zombies because the city is huge (rather than tiny as it looks), you can abstract that there's plenty of material to upgrade like, one fort, or repair a handful of cars. Because you find more materials, even in the same houses that you checked... because one house represents 100 houses in reality, or something?

The worst part is that your stronghold just uses these materials every day for no reason, for maintenance.

Realistically you shouldn't even more zombies than whatever the amount of bedrooms in your town should allow.

I don't like mechanics that say "hey, get bored already and play something else, why you keep playing my game so much?!"

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

I have a pet peeve, tho I'm sure a lot of people find awesome.

Instead of describing the type of game, I'll use an example: State of Decay. It's got pretty neat mechanics about building and settling and upgrading and surviving and scavenging, but stuff will simply run out so that you basically have to stop dawdling with all that crafting/management nonsense and just win the damn game.

I find it a shame that I can't just play that thing forever and ignore the main plot. Or at least give me an alternate "endless mode" after I finish the game once or something.

I'm kinda of an opposite opinion, especially for open world survival games.  There's way too many games in that genre that just drop you in the area with some tools and expect you to just make shit up to do on your own, so one that gives you actual goals sounds like something I actually want more of without them falling into the former mass.

[Neonivek]

I have a pet peeve, tho I'm sure a lot of people find awesome.

Instead of describing the type of game, I'll use an example: State of Decay. It's got pretty neat mechanics about building and settling and upgrading and surviving and scavenging, but stuff will simply run out so that you basically have to stop dawdling with all that crafting/management nonsense and just win the damn game.

I find it a shame that I can't just play that thing forever and ignore the main plot. Or at least give me an alternate "endless mode" after I finish the game once or something.

I'm kinda of an opposite opinion, especially for open world survival games.  There's way too many games in that genre that just drop you in the area with some tools and expect you to just make shit up to do on your own, so one that gives you actual goals sounds like something I actually want more of without them falling into the former mass.

I hate games where you can build things but that are ENTIRELY pointless

Which luckily, and thank goodness, more and more games are finally catching onto the fact that it is BAD FREEKEN GAME DESIGN (sorry Minecraft Lovers, but you know it is true) and are actually focusing more on how what you build interacts with the world.

Not that cosmetics are bad... so much that when everything is entirely cosmetic.

Ohh Dragon Quest Builders... As flawed as you are, I really hope people learn a lesson from you.

[Chiefwaffles]

BAD FREEKEN GAME DESIGN (sorry Minecraft Lovers, but you know it is true)

♫ Opinions ♪

[SeriousConcentrate]

I think there's a place for sandbox construction games. It's not for me, really; I don't do well when told 'make your own fun', but I'm not going to tell anyone who enjoys building things for the sake of building them that they are wrong.

[Sergius]

To be clear, SoD is not a Minecraft-like crafting/building sandbox game. You can move to a handful of bases, each with some prebuilt structures and 2-3 empty spaces to make a workshop or something, you can't really craft a ton of stuff. You just go around beating respawning zombies, clear big infestations, make friends with some neighbors and/or recruit survivors (both of which are usually randomly generated, and I think you can't really run out). Days only pass in real time, so you sometimes have to leave the game off and come back to it the next day to see some progress (one of the Expansions does away with that and passes days according to completed events). Then you shoot more zombies, run over them with cars, which you then have to repair. And you have to loot houses to be able to keep going, because each real-time day stuff gets used up, and then you can't get any more stuff so you just get bored and start playing something else.

[Neonivek]

BAD FREEKEN GAME DESIGN (sorry Minecraft Lovers, but you know it is true)

♫ Opinions ♪

Is it? Are you sure?

To admit given that they COULDN'T make it any different... It would be like bad UI in old games. A product of its time.

I think there's a place for sandbox construction games. It's not for me, really; I don't do well when told 'make your own fun', but I'm not going to tell anyone who enjoys building things for the sake of building them that they are wrong.

You say that... and to an extent it is true... but let me ask you.

How many games where you build something... does it not do anything at all?

They do exist. That isn't Minecraft.

---

But right now Minecraft is kind of the stranglehold on the entire genre. It really rocket started this genre and moved it into its current prominence. Yet its legacy has become a ball of chains keeping it down as well... With games trying to make something with themselves with that set up usually failing to implementing new features in really dinky manners.

[itisnotlogical]

BAD FREEKEN GAME DESIGN (sorry Minecraft Lovers, but you know it is true)

♫ Opinions ♪

Is it? Are you sure?

The reason this sort of antagonism against functionality is mostly... Minecraft apologist rhetoric. Instead of admitting to a limitation or flaw it is instead better to spin that flaw into some sort of benefit.

People like a game that you personally do not like. It isn't the hivemind. It isn't some sort of unspoken social defense mechanism passed to us by our caveman ancestors. It isn't tribalism or rhetoric or whatever you learned in sociology that you want to call it.

People who are not you, tend to disagree with you on at least a few things. Those disagreements might include liking Minecraft and thinking it is the best game ever. That is the human condition.

[Neonivek]

People like a game that you personally do not like. It isn't the hivemind. It isn't some sort of unspoken social defense mechanism passed to us by our caveman ancestors. It isn't tribalism or rhetoric or whatever you learned in sociology that you want to call it.

People who are not you, tend to disagree with you on at least a few things. Those disagreements might include liking Minecraft and thinking it is the best game ever. That is the human condition.

Here is kind of a thing about liking something.

Liking something doesn't preclude recognizing flaws or limitations. When it DOES, then it is a problem.

I am not saying Minecraft is bad... Yet what a coincidence "This is a flaw" is met with "People just like things you don't!" as in... I must dislike Minecraft. Exactly a "you are with us, or against us" videogame mentality. That isn't Tribalism at all!

Though I edited my old post (while you were typing your response) to tone down my criticisms.

[TheBiggerFish]

....You appear to dislike Minecraft.

[Neonivek]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

....You appear to dislike Minecraft.

Because I recognize a single flaw or limitation... I must dislike Minecraft?

Though I do like it that you MUST justify this flaw as an active dislike. "No no no, you see it is only a flaw if you dislike the game!"

The game is really old... Why does it still have active Fandom Policing? No critics even talk about this game anymore so it isn't like it needs this protection. I am probably literally the only person who even makes that criticism anymore!

And by all means no game that tried to play by the same rules as Minecraft has ever gotten close to pulling off a similar quality game (mostly because they kind of miss important recipes). Though in an odd twist, the closer a game tries to copy Minecraft the less appealing it is. (maybe it is a uncanny valley sort of deal).

---

Bah I shouldn't care... Games are moving further and further away from that mentality as it is and it can stay there and be enjoyable for people who want a more simple experience (for all the people who still play majority Vanilla)...

Though there was Fallout 4... and it was basically a Minecraft Holdout... So I might have to wait a few more years before games move on.

---
---

Sequel Power Seep

Ok to an extent a character losing their powers or abilities is often annoying but at least it explains things somewhat (albeit often badly... Megaman X at least lampshades it somewhat in that he is usually considered "Too powerful" so he might depower intentionally).

But then there are the games where a character is just as powerful or MORE powerful... and yet somehow the threat or enemies haven't changed at all.

There are two games which I can think of that are particularly bad about this.

-Blackguards 2 is almost baffling in that the returning characters are somehow WEAKER than they were in the first game... when you first recruited them (I've never seen that before).

-Lightning Returns: She keeps insisting she is more powerful than she has ever been. Yet enemies you used to easily defeat can now give you a lot of trouble! MAYBE justified in that no one dies so even easy monsters might have 500 years of experience on their hands.

[Shadowlord]

I hate games where you can build things but that are ENTIRELY pointless

Which luckily, and thank goodness, more and more games are finally catching onto the fact that it is BAD FREEKEN GAME DESIGN (sorry Minecraft Lovers, but you know it is true) and are actually focusing more on how what you build interacts with the world.

Not that cosmetics are bad... so much that when everything is entirely cosmetic.

That's quite the SPICY HOT TAKE you have there. I'm amazed that you would actually claim to be objectively right about that on the DWARF FORTRESS forums.

[Neonivek]

Dang Dwarf Fortress and having functional rooms and later functional houses and bases... You should be ASHAMED OF YOURSELF!

Man and Dwarf Fortress even applies a function and value to cosmetics... daaaamn them soo much!

Ohhh wait Dwarf Fortress isn't Minecraft

[NullForceOmega]

No.  You don't get to compare Minecraft to Dwarf Fortress, no I don't give a damn that Notch did, he's an idiot (a rich idiot, but an idiot nonetheless).

While you can make rooms in DF that serve no purpose, generally you don't, unless there is a narrative reason to do so.  And any space you create can be utilized in some fashion, I carve out whole Zs for materials, then turn them into gigantic storehouses for the crap I build, thus useless space becomes useful.

In Minecraft the VAST majority of what you build simply serves no purpose, once you have the materials necessary to survive and tier up to diamond/defeat the stupid bosses, there is nothing to do but build useless structures or start over in a new world.  You can build for a narrative purpose (or to mass produce crap you don't actually use, why have you got a mob grinder again?  The bosses are dead, that shit is no longer useful.), but generally you are just building to have something to do, and the only reason you aren't doing it in creative is so you can say you built it 'legit'.

I play Minecraft, I enjoy Minecraft, but neo's right.  The big empty sandbox is not good design, and until the games using it actually find a way to make what you do matter, it will remain bad design.