Print

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

[Sergius]

Bottom line: "change is bad. If something is good, don't change it to suit your tastes better. If something is bad, don't change it to make it better. Also don't add things"? I have to agree, that's a very weird way to look at things.

The point of mods is to modify stuff. Some people love it, some people hate it. Saying that you "don't see the point" is a critique of those who like to mod, not of the mods or the games themselves.

[ChairmanPoo]

Hmmm, I bought Rimworld because I found the concept intriguing. I *did* get sort of bored early on. But afterwards, after throwing in several mods, IMO it got far more interesting. I don't think it's a bad game per se. Just a bit shallow when compared to Dwarf Fortress. But given current DF's terrible performance issues, I've found that a properly modded Rimworld can do very well as a poor man's DF.

[Glloyd]

I haven't really had a chance to play DF since shortly after the release. Are the performance issues still that bad?

[ChairmanPoo]

There haven't been any more releases, to my knowledge... and... as far as I'm concerned, they [performance problems] are. I haven't really tried it on my desktop. But on my i5 laptop, it gets bad fairly quickly. I suspect around 60% of that is to blame on the new trees, their increased volume.. and likely the falling leaves and fruit thing. Though miasma clouds in caves -which are inevitable, as sooner or later a FB drops in and massacres the local wildlife- also play a role (maybe a single-cave-level 3x3embark will work better. I have to look into that)

It saddens me a lot because I really love DF. And yes, DF is way better than Rimworld, IMO, gameplay wise. I couldn't care less about the dwarfiness of dwarves.. I'd play DF just the same if instead of dwarves your colonists were, say, alien walking toads. It's the amount of stuff that you can do in DF that you cannot do elsewhere.

For me, DF is like minecraft but BETTER, because in Minecraft you're a grunt. You have to do everything by yourself. In DF you're the architect-mastermind.

I'll probably try single cave embark vs last year's DF soon and decide.

[Aklyon]

Last I checked DF is also for the most part still entirely single-core, not multithreaded.

[MrWiggles]

Bottom line: "change is bad. If something is good, don't change it to suit your tastes better. If something is bad, don't change it to make it better. Also don't add things"? I have to agree, that's a very weird way to look at things.

The point of mods is to modify stuff. Some people love it, some people hate it. Saying that you "don't see the point" is a critique of those who like to mod, not of the mods or the games themselves.

Go and change it to your hearts content. Never said, don't do it. Just don't get the drive or the want of mods, that turns into a need. If the game is unplayable without them, then the go play a game that is playable. We're admitting that the game is fundamentally boring and or broken. Probably labor itself into broken, if mods become a need. You're (royal you), saying that the gaem is unplayable without that mod. And unplayable games are broken.

Hmmm, I bought Rimworld because I found the concept intriguing. I *did* get sort of bored early on. But afterwards, after throwing in several mods, IMO it got far more interesting. I don't think it's a bad game per se. Just a bit shallow when compared to Dwarf Fortress. But given current DF's terrible performance issues, I've found that a properly modded Rimworld can do very well as a poor man's DF.

So like, if you were to measure your feel of how much you've changed the game, how much has you changed it? Percentage wise? Like 1 percent, five percent, 80 percent?

[My Name is Immaterial]

Personally, I don't see why you think a game that's still in its alpha stages of development is 'broken' or even unplayable. The dev hasn't even put it on Steam through Early Access yet. It's clearly not done in any way yet.

[Aklyon]

And yet we're having an argument about mods anyway. Such is the internet.

[MrWiggles]

Personally, I don't see why you think a game that's still in its alpha stages of development is 'broken' or even unplayable. The dev hasn't even put it on Steam through Early Access yet. It's clearly not done in any way yet.

I'm not saying its unplayable. I play rimworld as is just fine. But thats a consequence of saying that the game can't be played without mods, is saying it can't be played.

[Sergius]

I didn't realize people were claiming that the game was unplayable without mods. Maybe I missed those posts? I merely pointed out that I ended up installing a lot of mods, after reading what they did. Because I found the added gameplay interesting.

Games like this are under construction. A lot of the mods add things that may even be on the roadmap by the developer. I'm pretty sure some have more or less been officially incorporated. Others change the setting completely, adding things like OtherFranchise(TM) weapons and bling. They also give the player some say in how they want the game to play instead of a one-size-fit-all solution (in any color as long as it's Black), and they also give modders the ability to scratch that itch where they feel they're making something, without having to develop an entire game from zero.

Then also there's the point of potential: time is a limited resource, and no matter how much stuff the developer puts into it, it's never going to be more than the sum of the base game plus every single different thing every single modder wants to add to it. What you're saying is that, if a game already provides FUN=100, there's no point in making it FUN=150 because that means the original game is FUN=0 (or some other low value that you find means boring).

Is it so hard to believe that gamer A finds a game perfectly fun without mods, gamer B also likes it but wants to add some stuff, but gamer C finds it not so good for his specific tastes, but with the right mods it's even better than the other games in the market? Why tell gamer C that he shouldn't do it and look for something else even if it's not as good?

[ChairmanPoo]

For the record, I've never said that it was unplayable without mods. Just that without mods, I personally find it a bit dull, as you can do much less stuff than in DF (to be fair, vanilla is a different kind of sandbox with a definted game goal: build a spaceship and GTFO). With mods in, the sandbox opens quite a bit and thus your games are fun for longer.

[Flying Dice]

Leaving aside the absurdity of deriving "Don't play the crap game," from "this alpha-stage game is a bit boring without mods," I'd posit that people want to play Rimworld despite it being a bit dull in vanilla because nothing else right now really fills the same niche that it does. The closest I can think of would be the Fallout mod for DF.

[n9103]

Don't feed the trolls.

[Muz]

Leaving aside the absurdity of deriving "Don't play the crap game," from "this alpha-stage game is a bit boring without mods," I'd posit that people want to play Rimworld despite it being a bit dull in vanilla because nothing else right now really fills the same niche that it does. The closest I can think of would be the Fallout mod for DF.

Yeah, pretty much. Some of my favorite games out there are total conversion mods (Magna Mundi, DoTA, Fall From Heaven (Civ 4)). All these games wouldn't be possible without the underlying framework of a game, because the game engine takes too much work to build.

I haven't seen any such mods for RimWorld, but I'm hoping, as the engine is pretty awesome.

[Sergius]

I haven't confirmed this, but it's quite possible that the Edb-Interface (or some other) mod is conflicting with the one that enables surgery on animals, as the tab doesn't show up.