Jump to content

Edit History

Please note that revisions older than 365 days are pruned and will no longer show here
khzmusik

khzmusik

On 11/3/2024 at 7:39 PM, InfiniteWarrior said:


I must admit I don't get this community's insistence that players must leave or be "forced to leave" the Forest (or any other) biome in favor of more hellish pastures. None of the biomes are the wrong biome to be in if that's where player wants to be. There is already incentive to visit the other biomes (loot stages, tougher enemies, unique resources, ambience, etc.) whether the player decides to set up permanent camp in the Forest biome or not. "Progression" of danger and challenge is built into the maps. Is not the new "trader progression" through the biomes artificial enough? What does this community have against player agency that it is constantly arguing for player agency to be removed?

 

 

I'm not sure if this was a response to my post. But if it was - then I wasn't arguing against player choice. I was arguing that if biome progression was handled in an ideal way, then players will want to move to "harder" biomes as the game progresses. It's not about being "forced," it's about offering incentives.

 

At the moment, though, it's almost the opposite. What reason does the game give to leave the forest biome? Well, yes, Trader Rekt, I suppose. But the things you mentioned (loot stages, tougher enemies, resources, ambience, etc.) all go against moving out of the forest biome.

 

Loot stages don't matter if you don't need better loot (which you don't need if you don't move biomes). Tougher enemies are things to avoid in a survival game. Unique resources, maybe, but the only biome that really has unique resources is the desert biome (oil shale) and it's not the "final" biome. And as far as ambience is concerned, you already start in the biome with the "best" (prettiest/most peaceful) ambience.

 

I think it would be much better if players started in the wasteland, which would be the easiest biome (because it destroyed nearly everything including enemies), but has the least usable resources and you ended up progressing to the forest biome, which would be the most difficult biome of all (since it's the "paradise" that everything wants to go to) but also contains the resources that you need (like goldenrod or chrysanthemum for teas, deer for meat, iron nodes, etc.).

 

EDIT: but the fact that many players would object to this, and prefer things as they are now, shows just how difficult it is to do this effectively. I've yet to see a survival game do it, to be honest. Games like Subnautica have exactly the same issue.

khzmusik

khzmusik

On 11/3/2024 at 7:39 PM, InfiniteWarrior said:


I must admit I don't get this community's insistence that players must leave or be "forced to leave" the Forest (or any other) biome in favor of more hellish pastures. None of the biomes are the wrong biome to be in if that's where player wants to be. There is already incentive to visit the other biomes (loot stages, tougher enemies, unique resources, ambience, etc.) whether the player decides to set up permanent camp in the Forest biome or not. "Progression" of danger and challenge is built into the maps. Is not the new "trader progression" through the biomes artificial enough? What does this community have against player agency that it is constantly arguing for player agency to be removed?

 

 

I'm not sure if this was a response to my post. But if it was - then I wasn't arguing against player choice. I was arguing that if biome progression was handled in an ideal way, then players will want to move to "harder" biomes as the game progresses. It's not about being "forced," it's about offering incentives.

 

At the moment, though, it's almost the opposite. What reason does the game give to leave the forest biome? Well, yes, Trader Rekt, I suppose. But the things you mentioned (loot stages, tougher enemies, resources, ambience, etc.) all go against moving out of the forest biome.

 

Loot stages don't matter if you don't need better loot (which you don't need if you don't move biomes). Tougher enemies are things to avoid in a survival game. Unique resources, maybe, but the only biome that really has unique resources is the desert biome (oil shale) and it's not the "final" biome. And as far as ambience is concerned, you already start in the biome with the "best" (prettiest/most peaceful) ambience.

 

I think it would be much better if players started in the wasteland, which would be the easiest biome (because it destroyed nearly everything including enemies), but has the least usable resources and you ended up progressing to the forest biome, which would be the most difficult biome of all (since it's the "paradise" that everything wants to go to) but also contains the resources that you need (like goldenrod or chrysanthemum for teas, deer for meat, iron nodes, etc.).

×
×
  • Create New...