Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About FishStyk

  • Rank
  1. It's definitely not easy, and Roland is on point when arguing the subjective nature of one's experience. Having said that, there are patterns in human behavior and interests. Different games leverage different patterns as few (if any) patterns are universal. Mindcraft, imo, for example, exposed a new pattern and it's success has spawned a set of new games exploring the boundaries of that pattern. I consider 7d2d one of those games, however, it seems as though that may not be the vision of TFP. We'll see. Yeah, some times interference is warranted
  2. Fair enough, though this discussion was between us and that was not my argument. I’ll toss this up to a miss communication due to the medium. You stated this, and that most of the negative feedback was from older players, while defending the latest design changes. I took this as favoring the new players assessments over the older players assessments, but that was my interpretation, and may have been in error, so I’ll take responsibility for that. I apologize if I misunderstood your point. As for ‘discrediting’ anyone, I don’t find it reasonable to weight all feedback equally. Weighting some feedback less than other feedback is not, imo, discrediting it. I weight the feedback of my mechanic friend over my pet groomer friend when it comes to buying cars, that doesn't mean I'm discrediting their input, just that when their advice conflicts, I'll tend to defer to my mechanic friend. I suggest we agree to disagree on this. That’s an assumption. I’m not having fun because I don’t like the game anymore. After about 15 hours of trying to enjoy a17, because I really wanted to, I’m done. Like many, I’m waiting until a18. Of the 3k+ hours I’ve played this game, I’m fairly confident that I’d not have made it even to hour 15 if the current gameplay was what I’d first experienced. There’s no way of knowing that for sure, but I’ve a pretty good handle on what I like and don’t like. The point of contrasting it with a16 was to communicate to the developers what changes have altered my degree of interest. I think we understand each other, and can agree to disagree. Absolutely true, assuming the final game design keeps players that long. If the final shipped game design keeps people like 5 hours before they rage quit or, worse, few players even bother buying the game, then yeah, that’s a fail. In that case, it would be good that they got as much money from the beta as they did, because the early beta would have been more fun than the final game. I hope the final game is fun as well, either because they stick to their vision and it happens to be fun, or because they learn what their players enjoy and adjust course. I'm not making an effort to provide constructive feedback because I want them to burn..?
  3. So it’s just random chance, at 5-120 mill per dice roll. No game company is infallible, especially since they are always in flux as markets, technology, leadership and team compositions change over time. I think Blizzard and Bethesda both have good records, but both got greedy. I also suspect they'll correct course after their latest missteps. At least I hope they do. I think Bioware had a fairly long and solid run, until EA bought them. They made some missteps along the way, but generally showed good judgment and adjusted course quickly as mistakes were made (again, until EA's involvement). I think Valve and Id also have good records. Rockstar. Back in the day, Westwood was solid (until EA). I suspect there are others I've missed.
  4. Minus creativity and innovation, sure. To think I was advocating for uninventive cookie cutter games is a very ungenerous interpretation of what I’ve said, if not an outwrite straw man. Let’s be clear here, I didn’t discredit anyone’s feedback, I made a general claim about the relative credibility of an assessment as it relates to the information available at the time of the assessment. Moreover, this line of discussion was in response to you making a similar claim, but in favor of new players. A claim that goes against our best understanding of decision making with incomplete information (from Information Theory). A claim backed solely by your own bias, which you now project upon others. Demonstrably wrong. There are game companies that, with creativity, innovation, a strong sense of what’s fun for their audience, and solid game design principles repeatedly produce successful games. They recognize the patterns in what their audience finds enjoyable and build games leveraging those patterns. If this was entirely subjective then that would not be possible. That is one of the approaches I mentioned. The cost of that approach is that if developers that follow this path are wrong they go out of business. I acknowledge this approach, contrasted it with others, as well as conceded that it’s TFP’s choice what they do. Our difference here seems to be in that you think this is the only viable path, whereas I see, and advocate for, other paths. Game companies that have repeatedly produced successful games have proven they can develop fun games, TFP has not demonstrated this yet. This is their first game. It’s successful so far, but their changing it and it’s not yet clear if these changes will help or hurt the game, nor is it clear their final vision will be good.
  5. Fun is not a Boolean. Gaming is a competitive market. Games compete for the limited attention/money of gamers. If a game is less fun, that will result in more players opting to spend their time/money on other games. The incomplete information is relevant to weighting the feedback of the player base. The assessments of those with less information are less credible. This of course, presumes the FP's are leveraging the assessments of the player base in the first place. It's not about having less fun than they think they are, it's about less fun than they could be having. When that puts them in the range of 'less fun than they'd have playing other games' this results in less customers.
  6. I disagree. All they can do is follow their own judgment, but that includes learning and adjusting their vision. Game design is a skill like any other, and can be developed and improved. There are game designers that build games for themselves, and hope/expect the players like what they built, and there are game designers that build games for their audience, learning and adjusting as they go. Sure, any path they take will result in someone being unhappy and ranting at them (like I arguably have been doing), but the difference is that those that build fun games, either because they built a game for themselves that others liked or they built a game for their audience, are more successful and get to make more and better games. Those that do not either fail or remain stuck making niche games on shoe string budgets. This is all FP’s prerogative, but they have options other than ‘follow their vision’. I can't say if FP's new direction is right or wrong, nor do I know if they're building the game for themselves or their audience, or whether I'm among the audience they're targeting. What I do know is that there's no way for them to read my mind, so on the chance that I'm part of their target audience, and their willing to adjust course, I'm providing my input
  7. Agreed. It's FP's game and their risk/rewards gambled on these changes. IMO, the earlier sandbox design was what made 7d2d unique and so popular, but FP knows the numbers better than I. Maybe the sandbox game design wasn't drawing as much audience as I thought..? My suspicion is that the new changes are hurting the game, and I've seen game designers stick to their own vision even at the cost of a products success before.. Hopefully they make good calls. All I can do at this time is provide candid feedback, as I'm not planning to start a game company just to make a better version of pre-alpha17 7d2d.
  8. Understood, and I'm just pointing out that fun is relative and that the new eyes are making that assessment with less information. If the game is fun now but was more fun before, that, in the end, will result in less players happy with the game.
  9. Fair point, but another way of looking at it is that many of those that have more information, how the game used to be and how the game is now, think the game was better the old way. The new players, without a frame of reference, are fine with the new gameplay, but they may well like the older game play better if they could play it. You're putting more trust in the assessment of those with the least information. That's seems unwise.
  10. I found myself watching markapliers playthrough of 7d2d. Back then the game was on alpha 4 and still quite rough. Despite how rough the game was back then, watching these playthroughs reminded me of what I really used to love about the game, which has been lost somewhere between a4 and a17. Bit by bit the FP seem to be turning the game from a survival sandbox game to a traditional RPG. Now we have vendors, quests, skill points and seem to be moving towards some sort of fallout like RPG. Don’t get me wrong, I like fallout, but I already have fallout. There are tons of good RPG’s out there. I’m beginning to think the great game FP made was just a fluke, and they’ve no idea what made it successful. As far as the arguments of comfort zones and changing betas, those arguments are ridiculous. If you want to disregard criticism of the game, fine, do so, but don’t pathologize those you disagree with or pretend you know why we’re being critical. That’s like me saying you like the game because you are a fan boy who can’t think for himself.
  11. I apologize for posting in the wrong thread. Thank you for moving it. Regarding level caps, yes, I got the term wrong. I meant level gates. Thanks for the correction. Regarding gamestage, I agree that it is aggravated by the level gates as the game design currently necessitates power leveling if one is interested in base building/crafting, my primary point was in regards to how one interacts with the game world. This is just my opinion, but the game world should have a progression arch of its own (maybe one users can customize via map settings) and the player should have effect in the game world based on the players actions. The progression of the world being tied to the player’s level removes the adversarial relationship between the player and the world, where the player is attempting to survive in a world that’s naturally hostile and inconsiderate, replacing it with a world that shapes itself to the player’s progress, to the goal of providing a consistently challenging experience. I, personally, don’t want a survival game that’s trying to keep me challenged, I want one that’s trying to kill me!? I still like the game though! Gamestage may be something that’s not going away. I’d prefer otherwise, but I’m content with my feedback having been heard and considered.
  12. 17.2 feedback I love your game. I’ve played for over 3k hours. As much as I enjoy the game, recent design changes have very much diminished my enjoyment. Below I’ll attempt to explain the changes I’m objecting to and what effect they have on my experience. Please understand that this is just candid feedback, I still love the game. Level Caps – I’ve played the game many ways. That’s one of the things I really enjoy is trying different approaches to surviving. Such experimentation often involves min/maxing along some specific path, like all armor/defense, all weapons/attack, all building/crafting, just run!!? The level caps pretty much kills this sort of experimentation. It forces me down path that the developer seems to want me to go. As much as I enjoy your game, I don’t care at all how you want me to play the game. By limiting my specialization and forcing me down specific paths, you’re simply removing my options and choice, which is what I value in an open world game in the first place. This is especially frustrating when I’m taking the builder/crafter path as by the existing level caps, my game doesn’t really even begin until level 10-15. Creature spawning/strength linked to level – In previous versions of the game, creature spawning, and strength was linked to time. The longer the game went, the more dangerous the creatures became. This created an engaging race against the clock. I needed to build and skill up as fast as I could to survive the coming threats. Further, this was customizable by the player. I could adjust the day cycle to introduce a more challenging experience, as with a reduced day cycle, I had less time to prepare. Or I could make the monsters and world conditions very unfavorable to me but increase the day cycle to give me more time to prepare. It was my choice and I could try different things. This also made a sort of sense in the world. I could believe that over time the creatures became stronger and more people became zombies, so life just got harder. This added to the immersion of a survival game. With the change of linking threat to level, I’m not racing against anything and there’s really nothing I can do to try to get ahead. It would probably be best if I just didn’t level up at all, as what’s the point. This also breaks immersion, as it makes no sense why creatures would automatically adjust to me. It feels like a game, not like an apocalypse. Quest/Vendor – I get it that some people want quests and some signs of life in their apocalypse. I get it. It’s not for me, but in the past, I could just ignore it. I’d ignore/avoid the venders and scrap the quest. No harm, but with the recent level cap changes spending time near the vendor seems nearly mandatory. I just don’t have access to the things I need in the game any more without visiting the vendor. And of course, the game is a lot easier if one just takes the vendors quests. Once again, this feels like the game developers trying to force me down a path, trying to get me to play the game the way they want me to play it, rather than simply providing an apocalyptic playground I can enjoy as I wish. Again, I don’t mind the vendors and quests being there, It’s the changes that make the game near unplayable without interacting with them that I object to.
  13. Once I’m established it’s less of an issue, but at the start at least, snow, desert, and burning forest bioms are, imo, unsuitable for basing. Sure if you get lucky with some loot one may be ok, but at that point your pretty much just gambling. Maybe this is appealing to some, but dying because I screwed up is far preferable to dying by random chance. The biom temperatures also discourage exploring, which I enjoy. Basically if I want to go explore I pretty much need to fill my backpack with equipment for all weather types. Again, once established, I can work around the weather, but it’s tedious and annoying when I find some gun shop I want to loot while out exploring with a backpack full of clothes. For me, the bigger issue is basing though. Once one gets established in this game, with a reasonable base and such, there is really little incentive to move camp, so this pretty much just makes these bioms irrelevant at best, annoyances at worst. This is probably more annoying to me than to others as I used to prefer desert bioms as my base, and was also fond of snow bioms. Each biom has its own character and surviving in each had its own tactics and difficulties. This was great. I was quite fond of this diversity of gameplay and problems. Modding out the weather, which I only started doing the last couple days, has brought all of that back for me. I also think weather breaks the immersion. Sure it makes sense that one can't run around naked in the snow or wear a parka in the desert, but one also doesn't walk for a couple hours an go from desert to snow. We just don't encounter that range so we don't think about it and when a game makes me need to think about it, it breaks immersion. Maybe if snow bioms were in the north and south extremes of the map and deserts in the center (of by n/s, e/w should not matter) this wouldn't be so jarring. "I'm headed north' I should pack for cold". This, however, introduces another problem because, to my knowledge, the random gen maps are infinite, so there is no northern or southern extremes. For me it’s a question of tradeoffs. Sure weather adds a new problem to the game, but is the problem fun or worth it to overcome? What is the cost of this feature? Does it add or detract from the gaming experience? In my view, having diverse environments that one can settle in with distinct advantages and challenges adds much more to the game than weather does. If weather is to be part of one of these 'distinct' challenges, there needs to be some means of overcoming it at the start of the game (before one is established) and more temperature hostile bioms need some incentives for a player to over come this to settle there. I've found -nothing- that would entice me to settle in a burning zone, even without the extra heat.
  14. Yeah. I eventually stopped wasting my time, and just restarted immediately unless I spawn in a forest or grassland area. Now, Instead, until they fix it, I just set all the temperatures to be the same in the bioms xml. That is working well for me now. It allows me to actually play in different bioms, which is great!! Sad I had to hack the game to enjoy other bioms. Love to hear your feedback after making it past the first couple of weeks. From your post it's not clear if you've made it to day 7 with the new systems. Being hard is not bad, but having to restart because of the types of things you've describe, IMO, is bad. Agreed, there are lots of things that, IMO, are not too 'hard'. Once one gets the hang of the bow, hunting and killing zombies is not that bad, though dogs are a bit rough and bears are death. Fair amount of towns to scavenge and find initial shelter. Food is scarce enough to keep one's attention unless your town has a food store. I still like the game and think there is a lot of things that 'aren't broke. Which I agree that this is what a default setting ‘should’ be. This is what I'm advocating for. Unfortunately, I just don't think the experience fits the description. It's an alpha (beta?, Something pre-release), so the team may just be tinkering with systems and causing some issues, I don't know. All I can do is post my feedback and experience and hope the game gets better.
  15. Stop. Just stop. I stated that I've been a long time fan of the game. I've no idea how you misinterpreted my critique or concluded that I didn't understand that figuring things out is part of the gameplay (one of the fun parts at that). I don’t really recall when I started, but I recall enjoying alpha 11, so it was some time before that. I'll try to clarify my criticisms: - Challenging gameplay is a good thing for this fiction, but default settings should not be tuned to be challenging to veteran or hardcore players. They should be challenging to players experienced in the genre, but new to the game. If this is not the case, new player acquisition will suffer. Hard core players often want the game difficulty to be high, and will often advocate for this, because they enjoy being among the few to be able to overcome the challenge, but this is what higher difficulty levels, and modes like iron man, are for. Harder difficulty settings and game options can make the game harder for those that seek more challenging gameplay. This criticism is about the default level of difficulty, not the max difficulty. - The beginning of the game (first two weeks) is not where the problem with game difficulty is. IMO the problem is that once one has defenses, guns, and a garden, the game becomes less fun, because things become easy and repetitive. Making the game more difficult in general is not fixing this problem.
  • Create New...