What Game Design means and why it matters

[Kelloggs Dogfry]

Zombie, I’m seeing a lot of, “all players…”, “in my experience I’ve seen players…”, coupled with a bit of gate keeping people’s opinions because they’re “relatively new” (which in this context I would argue a newer player’s opinion is the most important here).  No offense, but mild anecdotal evidence does not allow you to make a broad sweeping statement of the game being poor in its learning loop/“game design”. I’ve also seen plenty of people who have learned nothing through the wiki, myself included, and have gotten very far through the game. Point is you should stick to more concrete arguing points and opinions than, “I know people who…”.  

[Mantispidae]

Between all this back and forth im surprised at two things:
1) the insistence that no, no one would find this gameplay loop fun. Which is just outright wrong on the basis of people here literally telling you. 
2) DS combat is somehow extremely complicated to learn

Which like, its just not? Maybe to master and get good at, but its not in the slightest mechanically complex. Lets break down combat in DS. Assuming you know that you can at least attack things (and you SHOULD) even if you don't learn the F key, any time you have an item in hand weapon or not hostile mobs prompt attack over examine. then its just a matter of figuring out the keys, which can be looked up since most mouse-based games have keyboard alternatives and prompts.

So then the complexity of combat is just two things: hit thing till it dies, and before you die, which is done:

1. Via tanking. Which in its most bare bones baby form is just smacking something till its dead. Most things early game you find don't one shot you, they overwhelm you with numbers. One-on-One and no armor you can still brute force a few spiders. Then the upgraded form of tanking is easy. More defense or more healing. Crafting a log suit. Bringing some food, which you would have learned modifies stats the second you eat anything, and give that a go. Congrats you've cracked the basics of the code. 
2. Via dodging. Minimizing how many times you get hit and trying to get hits in. All this requires is attempting to pay attention to how whatever works. Theres no jumping or dodge rolls so the "get out of the way" aspect is pretty dang straightfoward. What people struggle with is the timing and figuring out whats a good number of hits

And actually, you cant pretend the game doesnt show you kiting. There are mobs that kite when they fight. And their the ones that probably will beat a newbie pretty good- merms and pigs. They do the hit-and-run tactic, abit more sloppy than most players. If the pig running around makes it harder for you to kill it, than damn what is stopping you from trying that with other things?

your other thread brings up players never looking at the fight tab, but god damn, you can get through the game using a dang pickaxe for your weapon. Half the time on older files I just beat things to death with my walking cane. Theres only like 10 crafting sections and the ones with big pointy weapons labeled Fight is pretty damn explicit. If a player can't be bothered to try that much than it doesn't matter what you do to help them figure out better methods of... anything. Set pieces also can also offer things like weapons or armor and are pretty common, but admittedly RNG. But still. You dont even need to kill anything to get the baseline items in the game (not to mention things can just die on their own) so its not like you even have to start learning combat through bare hands no-armor combat before you can get anything.

Its not fancy combat design and its one of the weaker aspects of the game, but its not like. This complex uncrackable thing no one can figure out till a veteran puffs out their chest and smugly goes "oh. try equipping the football helmet" 

[ZombieDupe]

On 9/1/2021 at 4:52 PM, Stonetribe said:

Well that's, debatable.. I think that an awfully lot of people would argue that, I dunno, fun gameplay is far more important than explaining how every little thing in a game works. And besides the game does provide hints towards some of the more important mechanics in the form of character quotes. One of the very first things new players often learn is that darkness kills you, not just because it actually happens, but because the player character will say something along the lines of, "Gah, I need a light!" Same goes for hunger, wetness, freezing and overheating etc.. The crafting tab also provides very brief descriptions that hint as to what the items actually do, which is something that some other sandbox games, such as the wildly successful Minecraft, actual don't.

Fun and game design goes hand-in-hand, for this game in particular. There is generally no fun in grinding, picking up individual pieces of grass one by one, that's why many make gecko farms which can ease that and accumulate x10 more grass in a given area without you doing anything beyond the setup. There is fun in exploring, getting new more powerful items, experiencing danger and, most importantly of all, getting the hang of things that may be required for you to take use of later so that you could experience the emerging later game content without dying to cold every 2 minutes. I very much agree that to some extent taking death as a learning experience can be good, and for a game like this it suits it well. But the payer has to learn from their mistakes so they can survive longer, exponentially even, without hitting a learning wall, which for players who keep playing past a few hour mark will likely happen around Winter/Spring. Things in this game just take too long to get anywhere for arbitrary reasons like the high crafting cost of the most basic things, Straw Hat takes 12 grass to craft, good luck getting that in summer when everything's withered despite Straw Hat + Whirly Fan being a better combination for survival than the Pretty Parasol you're given. Getting off tangent now...

On 9/1/2021 at 5:03 PM, Shosuko said:

As for the "learn through death" loop, I think you're making a false assumption here in that a player learns nothing.  When it gets dark and you die, you learn you need light.  When you lose health because you're starving you learn you need to eat.  When you pick some berries and carrots around a pond early game you learn that frogs will agro you without you attacking them.  When you decided to fight them off you learn they gang up on you.  They are also very annoying causing you to drop loot, AND once you kill one you learn the loot sucks, and maybe don't waste your time fighting it.  So next time you play you learn to get materials for a torch before night, pick the berries and carrots but be careful of the frog, and go about your day.  Next time you run into an enemy you will probably realize that you don't actually need to fight it either.

Restarting is incredibly easy as well.  My first game session probably involved dying 10+ times to stupid things as I figured out the game.  Because its so easy to just die and start over, and because there was no real objective I was getting close to, its not really a bad thing to just wipe the slate clean and give a player another shot.

You can learn through death that Darkness kills you for example quite quickly, sure, but that's not the full picture. Let's say you play on a survival world, private or public (because Survival is the default, if something is default, people will first automatically assume that is the intended and best experience for them when starting out). So what, you just got killed by darkness, will likely not get resurrected and leave/have world regenerate again? The simpler solution would be to have the player be able to press a button to resurrect at portal instantly to try again and progress further faster. You still are punished, losing your items where you died and having to travel back from the respawn location, playing as a professional, that will be your punishment when you get your hands on life giving amulets or realise there is Endless mode that helps you with that as well instead. But having to wait for entering a new world again and again, that's an annoying time sink and by that time you probably will have forgotten whatever reason you may have died to and will die to it again just as easily until it becomes ingrained in you, but by that point the game will have become frustrating and boring for most people, don't you think? But that's talking only about a basic night time loop. Combat more specifically will be much longer and you will learn basically nothing.

On 9/1/2021 at 5:03 PM, Shosuko said:

Apparently not - because that isn't emergent game play.

This is not emergent game play.  A game can creatively teach you how to jump and shoot in a megaman game, but that doesn't make your ability to jump and shoot "emergent gameplay."  It just means they taught you how to play their game in a natural way.  Emergent gameplay is about players using the game in creative, often unexpected ways.  And for a developer to support emergent gameplay, or to design for it, largely means letting players explore the game mechanics to see what they can do.  Kinda hard to make a feedback loop of positive reinforcement kudos when players do something the game developer didn't even plan on because all the game developer did was set up the world for the player to find success in...

Well that just expands the definition of Emergent Gameplay, just even more difficult. The weird wacky ideas you may come up with instead of what would normally be expected of a player when approaching a game still cover the idea that the game should account for it to help you progress. And I'm not strictly arguing for having the player find the same straight road to success or not experiencing failure, but too much failure on a regular basis leading to grinding halt of any enjoyment and repetitive nature of trying to get past it and with the player having no idea what to do is certainly something a designer should account for first and foremost. Funnily enough, it's often the case with this game as it is right now.

On 9/1/2021 at 5:03 PM, Shosuko said:

I think you vastly underestimate how much humans love problem solving that they'll do it without kudos rewards or coin indicators along the way.  Yes many games use these - but they also want / need to teach players how to play their game.  If you never learn how to jump and shoot in megaman you're not going to be able to even play it.  Like literally.  But there is no "beat the game" in DST, only playing the game.  I've played years in game without crafting a single weapon, or attacking a single mob.  The hands-OFF approach of DST is part of its good game design.

This has nothing to do with rewards, and I know for a fact that rewards only go so far, at the very least in enjoyment of a game, if you think back a bit about what I've said about grinding and resource cost, you'll understand that's not my main argument in relation to design here. To quickly get that megaman example out, weren't the first few games released on console? So if you have a controller and the game doesn't tell you what buttons to press, you don't have very many options to fail with to get yourself moving, while on a keyboard + mouse there being plenty (that especially being the case for any combo controls, like shift + left click).

Playing years without progressing as far as to crafting a weapon would be demonstration of bad game design in my opinion. It's one of the most basic things you should grasp in your first few minutes of playing. If anything it shows how the hidden content that the game has that you could be engaging with a lot more and quicker is artificially bloated to take forever to get to unless you know exactly what you can do to get there quicker, inflating your playtime with very little content to boot. There can be enjoyment to be had from little content, picture Cookie Clicker. I would never play that game, but people have spend hundreds, thousands of hours into it with little actual content or anything to do. That said most people would never do that, and on top of that the game doesn't have tons of content you will probably never reach because you didn't even know it existed, or if you do, it will be way later than you could have and realistically should have had access to, but the game does nothing to even hint there's anything worth continuing playing it bar a few hours for very many people, and that's terrible game design for you. But if this is somehow good game design for you, I would like to see or at least hear what you would describe or consider as terrible game design.

On 9/1/2021 at 4:23 PM, BezKa said:

And tell me, how long do I require to become a qualified expert of the game? Am I only allowed to judge whether I like the game after 5 years? Or is it 3? 

I've got a feeling you should stop standing on your tiptoes while riding that horse. The game does have flaws, but one of its cores is not one. 

Years? Depends how often you play. Hours you have put into the game matter more, and I guarantee your perspective on many aspects of the game will change drastically . Maybe not entirely where you will agree so much about what I'm saying, but you will likely understand my perspective a lot more given those hours. Again, this game has content that, if you played mostly without help due to the learning wall problem, will take you hundreds of hours to experience most of what it has to offer. And it isn't that there's so much to the game that it would take you that long to experience it if it was well designed, it's just you're wrestling with what little you have access to for so long you never get to anything different without external guidance of some kind. You should not have to play this long to experience most of the game, but it's the grindy setup of multiple parts of the game with awful sense of no direction and poorly designed mechanics that lead to this more often than not.

Raft and Subnautica may have a fraction of DDS/DST's content overall but do not take a thousand hours to master more or less, and I have seen people complete at least one of them with little to no guidance in a couple dozen hours. I completed Rain World in about that same amount of time and only getting lost 2 or 3 times over the course of the entire game. From my observations and experience, that's roughly how long it takes to complete most games with substantial amount of content. The content you experience in DS/DST in those 20 hours vs what it actually has to offer pales in comparison and you will be lucky to not get bored to death before you scratch the surface of it. Reflecting on it, only reason I was able to stay with this game as long as I did was because of the idea that there could be more to it, the great and unique aesthetic that fit the game and how masterfully the mystery of the original cinematic trailer created for Don't Starve. It's a shame I can't say the same for the quality of the gameplay.

 

I keep hearing "quotes" as a method of learning the game. I think I already addressed this elsewhere so I guess I'll bring it up here now that it seems people want to bring it up as a method of learning the game.

I never read quotes. Unless I specifically got curious about something, which has happened far too little. And many other people, they don't even read signs, heck I don't think they even notice the signs are there as they blend in so well with the floor and other noise of more instantly essential things to you to even appear automatically important. You add a sign next to the portal, pointing people to base, you can bet everyone who asks where base is will still ask where base is in chat, it's comical!

When something is attacking you, when you're stressed beyond belief trying to escape and survive, you're probably not gonna pay attention and won't read ****. Miss-clicking on the ground when you are trying to do something else (in combat in particular) will happen far too often anyway and players will only start out clicking on things to do things, not to read, because if point-and-click does a thing, why would you assume other controls would be of any use to you or for clicking on things in to serve a whole another purpose? Inspecting/examining things requires only mouse click for some things, but only under very specific conditions. The moment you have axe equipped, examination indicator for a tree goes away, same with creatures (this is slightly addressed in Hamlet with the pigs in towns, which was definitely an important change). Otherwise you have to know to hold Alt and left-click to do so and the game never shows many of these controls for you when you do hover over something unless you play with a controller. And it is more of a keyboard + mouse problem than a controller issue for multiple reasons I have stated before. Either way, that is still a problem, both from control teaching perspective as well as quote teaching perspective (if you're inclined on having that be pursued as a self- teaching mechanic), if you wanted players to want to learn that way.

Not to mention how useless many of the quotes for multiple characters for multiple different things are, or so I hear. I don't read quotes all that much and I'm not about to go out of my way doing something so cheap and boring.

On 9/1/2021 at 5:13 PM, Mike23Ua said:

even the games weather seasons changing forces the player to play the game in new ways- 

Autumn: I can chop birchnut trees and live off cooked Birchnuts alone! I can kill frogs that spawn from ponds!

Winter: Uh oh.. those Birchnut trees shriveled up and no longer drop Birchnuts, and those ponds I was relying upon for food are now frozen over NOW WHAT AM I GOING to Do?!

Spring: Well the rabbits I was relying on for endless food sources rabbit holes have collapsed and these Beefalo I was relying on for protection have become in heat & hostile, even the BEE’S seem to hate me now.

Summer: HELP Everything’s on Fire! Nooo my base is burning, Maybe I should stop running away scared from these pesky bats that came out that hole I busted open & go into this cave retreating down here for some safety from this unbearable heat? Oh.. neat there’s content down here too that I can gather resources from and take back to the surface with me for later- Who knew Torches weren’t the ONLY light sources in the game!?

The list goes on and on and on…

This is is just examples of where the player actually learns little to nothing. I haven't seen any new players joining in summer start actually finding and jumping in caves unless told to do so during summer. More likely scenario, they die to overheating an leave because they cannot be resurrected instantly. Not to mention you have to find the entrances to the darn things. New players don't learn about lanterns all on their own as a result either. "NOW WHAT AM I GOING to Do?!" Hahaha yeah most people sit at a firepit in base because they can't even craft warm clothing, but that's ok, just grind 100 more hours into the game before you maybe figure out how to reach Spring, very cool! And the list does indeed go on, unfortunately.

On 9/1/2021 at 5:13 PM, Mike23Ua said:

Please- PLAY the Game & enjoy the work Klei put into it, OR Resort to a Wikipedia page (which admit-ably some things require it such as learning how to craft tables & chairs from a very obscure as all heck way of doing it)

But for the love of god… Stop discrediting all the work Klei has put into this game.. they probably spent DAYS alone on character inspection quotes or making each character force the player to learn a very specific way of playing the game…

Dont let that work go under appreciated.

Thank You.

I'd say, if anything it is overappreciated. The hype is insane whenever even a snippet of content is released. Even immense hard work doesn't get a free pass from criticism if there's any to be had, and there is plenty to be had for DS and DST.

On 9/1/2021 at 5:40 PM, Kelloggs Dogfry said:

Zombie, I’m seeing a lot of, “all players…”, “in my experience I’ve seen players…”, coupled with a bit of gate keeping people’s opinions because they’re “relatively new” (which in this context I would argue a newer player’s opinion is the most important here).  No offense, but mild anecdotal evidence does not allow you to make a broad sweeping statement of the game being poor in its learning loop/“game design”. I’ve also seen plenty of people who have learned nothing through the wiki, myself included, and have gotten very far through the game. Point is you should stick to more concrete arguing points and opinions than, “I know people who…”.  

Game design can realistically only be improved by learning what a typical player normally does in a given situation (as far as typical goes, Shosuko pointed out how it can reach further than that). I have plenty experience with that. If I can't use any of this as arguments and explain reasons for that as the basis for those arguments, then realistically any criticism to be had for the game altogether goes out of the window and that's not fair, that would stifle any discussion to be had about anything if that were the attitude for anything some single person doesn't agree with. I don't have the resources nor the time to conduct a controlled test of hundreds, maybe thousands of people who have never played these games of the DS games and present you a detailed 5000 word report by next Monday. I shouldn't even have to, Klei should, but they don't even have the resources or the will to spend them for that, so why would you expect me to have that? What I claim can be taken with a grain of salt but it's not without merit. Everything we post here is from personal experience pretty much. If I could and was inclined to bring you much more concrete evidence to make my case I would.

Oh and players in their first few hours don't and cannot necessarily explain the details of their experience... Especially if their experience was what they thought the game amounted to, despite there being tons of content they will never see the light of day. DS/DST are in a very special and peculiar situation where you only realise some of the fundamental flaws when you have played for a significant amount of time AND come to understand new player struggles when they may have no clue what's going on or why. Though DS adventure mode can be discovered more easily and is much more comprehensive than whatever DST has for its end game.

Yes, the wiki doesn't really teach you, it just tells you the details if you already know and understand the core concepts. That's what guides and other players can be much better at doing. The game itself for most things, not so much. How much experience do you have with the games so far?

On 9/1/2021 at 8:10 PM, Mantispidae said:

Between all this back and forth im surprised at two things:
1) the insistence that no, no one would find this gameplay loop fun. Which is just outright wrong on the basis of people here literally telling you. 
2) DS combat is somehow extremely complicated to learn

Which like, its just not? Maybe to master and get good at, but its not in the slightest mechanically complex...

1) Not everyone. But most people that try it probably quit when the loop becomes more apparent and dismiss the game as "not for them".

2) Not complicated. Just nearly possible to learn on your own (at the very least in a timely manner) because armor is never really made out to be as important as it actually is and the idea of kiting isn't so obvious to enough people to even begin to attempt to get good at it. New players generally just tank till they die or try to run away. Once you tell them how to do combat, no **** they become real good real fast, I've had this happen first hand when telling new people about it. The idea and understanding just isn't there. So I guess the rest of the argument is irrelevant for me since I agree it isn't complicated.

On 9/1/2021 at 8:10 PM, Mantispidae said:

...Lets break down combat in DS. Assuming you know that you can at least attack things (and you SHOULD) even if you don't learn the F key, any time you have an item in hand weapon or not hostile mobs prompt attack over examine. then its just a matter of figuring out the keys, which can be looked up since most mouse-based games have keyboard alternatives and prompts.

So then the complexity of combat is just two things: hit thing till it dies, and before you die, which is done:

1. Via tanking. Which in its most bare bones baby form is just smacking something till its dead. Most things early game you find don't one shot you, they overwhelm you with numbers. One-on-One and no armor you can still brute force a few spiders. Then the upgraded form of tanking is easy. More defense or more healing. Crafting a log suit. Bringing some food, which you would have learned modifies stats the second you eat anything, and give that a go. Congrats you've cracked the basics of the code. 
2. Via dodging. Minimizing how many times you get hit and trying to get hits in. All this requires is attempting to pay attention to how whatever works. Theres no jumping or dodge rolls so the "get out of the way" aspect is pretty dang straightfoward. What people struggle with is the timing and figuring out whats a good number of hits

I have addressed the key problem of controls a few paragraphs above and in this post of this topic too right here, don't really want to repeat myself on that again.

On 9/1/2021 at 8:10 PM, Mantispidae said:

And actually, you cant pretend the game doesnt show you kiting. There are mobs that kite when they fight. And their the ones that probably will beat a newbie pretty good- merms and pigs. They do the hit-and-run tactic, abit more sloppy than most players. If the pig running around makes it harder for you to kill it, than damn what is stopping you from trying that with other things?

Have yet to see or hear anyone claim they learnt kiting thanks to some somewhat rare mobs doing so via hit-and-run. The fact you (at least seemingly) just realised that yourself as a possibly, theoretically potential way of learning the act of kiting disproved any validity to the claim further. As I have pointed out before, and as is the basis for anything I say (so far, never know, the research for this could be done more thoroughly in the future), claims can have merit, but given what I said before and the overarching discourse about combat having no mention of this from anyone that I have read, I don't think think this does. If it did, well we would have newbies running around kiting all over thanks to the mere existence of hit-and-run mechanics of some beefy boys.

On 9/1/2021 at 8:10 PM, Mantispidae said:

your other thread brings up players never looking at the fight tab, but god damn, you can get through the game using a dang pickaxe for your weapon. Half the time on older files I just beat things to death with my walking cane. Theres only like 10 crafting sections and the ones with big pointy weapons labeled Fight is pretty damn explicit. If a player can't be bothered to try that much than it doesn't matter what you do to help them figure out better methods of... anything. Set pieces also can also offer things like weapons or armor and are pretty common, but admittedly RNG. But still. You dont even need to kill anything to get the baseline items in the game (not to mention things can just die on their own) so its not like you even have to start learning combat through bare hands no-armor combat before you can get anything.

Its not fancy combat design and its one of the weaker aspects of the game, but its not like. This complex uncrackable thing no one can figure out till a veteran puffs out their chest and smugly goes "oh. try equipping the football helmet" 

The importance of armor doesn't come in the form of necessity for basic combat when you are actually good at combat. It comes crucial when you're new and sloppy, know what to do to get good (because someone or something told you how to do it most likely), but have yet to master it. That and fighting tough bosses, possibly badly timed hound waves too, because we all make mistakes and not everyone wants to put the grind to make everything an ease for the time they are going to spend playing in a given world. I can also very easily (though it is long and boring to do so) kill a tree guard with just an axe, cane or just punching one down, but that has nothing to do with a new player's understanding of how to tackle combat.

People do press the Fight tab from time to time, but not to craft armor usually, but to craft a spear. Armor is that irrelevant to people! And it's likely because most other games that involve combat either have no armor required or give you some armor right out of the gate (hello newbie Wigfrid mains) which gives you a cushion to learn something at least. This game makes armor a necessity for new players but doesn't put enough emphasis for a player to realise they need to get it as soon as combat becomes unavoidable. 

 

[BezKa]

10 minutes ago, ZombieDupe said:

Snip

You know... I'm tired of this. I don't know if you consider exhausting your discussion partner out a victory, but if you do, I guess you won.

You still haven't convinced me of anything, other than that you're awfully sure of things you have zero guarantee for. 

[ZombieDupe]

10 minutes ago, BezKa said:

You know... I'm tired of this. I don't know if you consider exhausting your discussion partner out a victory, but if you do, I guess you won.

You still haven't convinced me of anything, other than that you're awfully sure of things you have zero guarantee for. 

I don't care about some "victory" or a debate, I hate that personally. Debate inherently implies a bias on either side until the other one gives in or something, at least the way I see it. I'm here for discussion, to discuss intricate topics and share ideas and perspectives with people, no matter what we may end up agreeing or disagreeing on, no matter if we change our minds on something. I pointed out my perspective initially (even if very vaguely) and was hoping for a discussion surrounding the topic in general. If your perception of this has been to simply try and debate against whatever the another person says no matter what they may say till one gives in, I think you may have a skewed view on highly detailed topics with a lot of back-and-forth in general. Debates for the express purpose of making the other person look foolish exist, but I'm not here for that.

If I didn't convince you that's fine. The intricacies of design are difficult to understand, much like many more difficult subjects. Heck I'm sad I could not compact and boil down ideas down further without more misunderstandings and such. There's already plenty of that. There was simply a lot I felt was necessary to address given the sheer amount of interesting talking points laid out by multiple people. And my language isn't particularly straight-forward either, but sometimes it's just an impossible or unreasonable feat to do.

For you, I think you will understand in time.

[BezKa]

17 minutes ago, ZombieDupe said:

I'm here for discussion

And yet you don't listen.

17 minutes ago, ZombieDupe said:

I think you may have a skewed view on highly detailed topics with a lot of back-and-forth in general. Debates for the express purpose of making the other person look foolish exist, but I'm not here for that.

Is speaking vague insults at me a necessary addition to the discussion? I know how to have a talk with someone, and I'd say I have pretty good eye for when someone wants to make me look stupid, which you're trying to do with everyone on these threads. Start treating people as equals next time. 

17 minutes ago, ZombieDupe said:

If I didn't convince you that's fine. The intricacies of design are difficult to understand, much like many more difficult subjects. Heck I'm sad I could not compact and boil down ideas down further without more misunderstandings and such.

"I'm sorry you're too dumb to understand." Idk, maybe I am. Or maybe "you haven't matured in social speaking enough to realize how your wording is perceived by a reader.". My guy. Get off that horse. Stand on my level. Drop the wordy smoke-screen and just speak normally. You're using so many words to tell such short message. It's the main reason I'm tired. Reading this school-essay-style writing is exhausting, and the rude lining is unmotivating. Your points get lost in pointless jabber, and your wording distracts from the issue you're trying to point out.

17 minutes ago, ZombieDupe said:

 And my language isn't particularly straight-forward either, but sometimes it's just an impossible or unreasonable feat to do.

So you do know that. That's good.

 

17 minutes ago, ZombieDupe said:

For you, I think you will understand in time.

 

35 minutes ago, BezKa said:

you're awfully sure of things you have zero guarantee for.

 

[Mike23Ua]

If the player only sticks around at base by a campfire and doesn’t actually care to get out- Explore and learn the game then your 100% right they WON’T ever learn anything.. and No matter how mind numbingly easy Klei makes things- It won’t ever matter: The players Unwillingness to learn means they should probably in all honesty not be playing this game at all.

But If you think you can do better in game design then by all means go make your own game: but don’t be surprised in the slightest bit when the game your wanting to make suddenly becomes the game your making for the fanbase you amassed and it’s no longer a invention of your own hearts desires, but rather what you think will please the most people.

And don’t you dare sit and tell me it’s not because I’ve actually talked personally to a handful of developers throughout my life: and they usually all say the same thing- “What we started building as a labor of our own love, later became what the fans wanted, what the fans asked for, then our small indie development team got bought out by a larger company- and we were no longer able to design the games and content WE Wanted to make.. we had to make what our higher ups TOLD US TO.”

In other words- Undead Labs had total control over State of Decay until they become part of Microsoft’s brand- And the WORLD is expecting a game equivalent to Gears of War or Halo from them now that they’re under Microsoft’s branding.

They no longer get to take the risky chances with fun new features, or make the game the way they want it, because I’m pretty sure if SoD 3 fails to meet Microsoft’s expectations- Undead Labs won’t get a second chance to redeem themselves.

The TL:DR- Unless your a TRULY Independent Developer you NEVER get to make the game you want to make… you have to make it based on what your TOLD to make it. 

[Masked Koopa]

Be that as it may, there's something to be said regarding following the suggestions of those who have engaged with your creation well enough to understand it, potentially better than you do, especially when the act of creation isn't a one way street. Even with a total lack of direct communication, the lack of or presence of success shapes what avenues we choose to pursue, while also shaping how future creators will design their own creations.

I've seen the results of developer vision getting in the way of what the game needed to actually be a better experience for the players, and while DST isn't in anywhere near such a dire situation, it's an important factor to consider. As a game developer, you're going to need to be very open to reconsidering your choices, especially when it comes to balance. I've had a really good track record when it comes to predicting weapons that would become OP in the shooters I play, but I still can't predict everything when it comes to creating my own weapons and meta. 

Deciding that you don't want to change something despite community demand is a perfectly valid thing to do a developer, don't get me wrong. But there's no guarantee that choice won't be to the detriment of the game's ability to provide entertainment.

[ZombieDupe]

36 minutes ago, BezKa said:

And yet you don't listen.

Is speaking vague insults at me a necessary addition to the discussion? I know how to have a talk with someone, and I'd say I have pretty good eye for when someone wants to make me look stupid, which you're trying to do with everyone on these threads. Start treating people as equals next time. 

"I'm sorry you're too dumb to understand." Idk, maybe I am. Or maybe "you haven't matured in social speaking enough to realize how your wording is perceived by a reader.". My guy. Get off that horse. Stand on my level. Drop the wordy smoke-screen and just speak normally. You're using so many words to tell such short message. It's the main reason I'm tired. Reading this school-essay-style writing is exhausting, and the rude lining is unmotivating. Your points get lost in pointless jabber, and your wording distracts from the issue you're trying to point out.

I do listen. Very carefully. What I don't do is automatically agree on things if I take issue with a statement or idea. If your impression is that I'm trying to make you look stupid then that's on you. I'm simply trying to do my best to be very clear about what I'm implying, even if attempt at that clarity can become incomprehensible to people that don't have the word bank I do. Often that involves specifying out things that someone may point out as misunderstandings. Case in point...

Quote

1) the insistence that no, no one would find this gameplay loop fun. Which is just outright wrong on the basis of people here literally telling you. 
2) DS combat is somehow extremely complicated to learn

I later pointed out earlier these are not the specific statements that I hold and reasons for the statements that I do actually hold. If I said "yes, that's exactly what I think" when it wasn't, it would give a skewed perception of my opinion. And could invalidate everything I've said, even if a lot of what I have said prior has merit.

That's one reason I find the language I'm using very necessary. I'm not going to insult someone, especially not if it's going to give an impression that I don't intend, and I have seen first hand what happens when that is the direction that a discussion derails to. I don't want that, I'm sure you wouldn't want that and that nobody else realistically would. None of this is "pointless jabber" even if it looks like it.

Quote

you're awfully sure of things you have zero guarantee for.

What does that really state? I'm sure of my experience and of players I have seen and encountered and can generally state the outcome of a typical new player will do with a good amount of certainty and it happens over and over again. So zero guarantee for what exactly?

I don't think you understand a lot of what has been stated in this topic, even from talking points not made by me but I think you will at some point, maybe when you play more of the game, have more experience, I can't know for sure. For now at least, you can just agree to disagree if you like. But enough personal-talk, I would rather get back to the topic of the discussion if there's more to be discussed.

 

 

34 minutes ago, Mike23Ua said:

If the player only sticks around at base by a campfire and doesn’t actually care to get out- Explore and learn the game then your 100% right they WON’T ever learn anything.. and No matter how mind numbingly easy Klei makes things- It won’t ever matter: The players Unwillingness to learn means they should probably in all honesty not be playing this game at all.

That's assuming that's the usual outcome of this game when someone does make a campfire, but that's clearly not the case. There's a difference between what difficulty a player theoretically and unlikely might not overcome vs difficulty that a player is very likely to not overcome and there's plenty evidence or discussion of experience from players who have observed other player behavior to confirm that notion. Players do go outside of their campfire area, they explore and gather until they feel like they don't need all on their own. What they typically don't do is find caves and go into them out of curiosity or due to expectation of being saved from heat there or learn how to kite properly all on their own.

There is an argument to be made about how easy the game should be and, personally I think it should be as easy as is absolutely necessary. Then, pick up the difficulty as the game goes on. Realistically that should be game design 101.

34 minutes ago, Mike23Ua said:

But If you think you can do better in game design then by all means go make your own game: but don’t be surprised in the slightest bit when the game your wanting to make suddenly becomes the game your making for the fanbase you amassed and it’s no longer a invention of your own hearts desires, but rather what you think will please the most people.

"What the developer wants to make vs what the playerbase wants from the game" is quite the conundrum, but I think neither are good to stick to. And it has depended on the game did turn out or would have turned out as the best option. For a developer, vision changes as you create a game, playerbase might have both great and terrible ideas for it depending on their perspectives, the developer themselves may have both good and terrible ideas. That's why I call it at good game design, appropriate aesthetic, immersion, enjoyment, progression and more, and that's the most difficult to understand, let alone get right.

If I were to redesign DST myself specifically, I think you would ultimately appreciate many of the changes I would bring to the game. I simply don't have the time or the full capability to make a mod even if I could.

Actually Masked Koopa just took the words out of my mouth there, bruh.

34 minutes ago, Mike23Ua said:

And don’t you dare sit and tell me it’s not because I’ve actually talked personally to a handful of developers throughout my life: and they usually all say the same thing- “What we started building as a labor of our own love, later became what the fans wanted, what the fans asked for, then our small indie development team got bought out by a larger company- and we were no longer able to design the games and content WE Wanted to make.. we had to make what our higher ups TOLD US TO.”

In other words- Undead Labs had total control over State of Decay until they become part of Microsoft’s brand- And the WORLD is expecting a game equivalent to Gears of War or Halo from them now that they’re under Microsoft’s branding.

They no longer get to take the risky chances with fun new features, or make the game the way they want it, because I’m pretty sure if SoD 3 fails to meet Microsoft’s expectations- Undead Labs won’t get a second chance to redeem themselves.

The TL:DR- Unless your a TRULY Independent Developer you NEVER get to make the game you want to make… you have to make it based on what your TOLD to make it. 

Pretty much fully agree on this, as far as publisher-studio relations go. But what does this have to do with the discussion at hand?

[Yuuko]

7 hours ago, ZombieDupe said:

Well that just expands the definition of Emergent Gameplay, just even more difficult. The weird wacky ideas you may come up with instead of what would normally be expected of a player when approaching a game still cover the idea that the game should account for it to help you progress.

Emergent Gameplay is a pretty well established term.  It encompasses a lot, but is basically summed up as "whatever the player comes up with."  Many sandbox games rely on this, many embrace it, and to think they could get ahead of it, teaching players "whatever the players come up with" is a bit ridiculous, especially since this includes exploiting bugs, and using things NOT for their intended purpose.  Just look at speed running, which is its self an example of emergent game play, and tell me the game should be teaching you all of that XD lol.  DST is a game that embraces letting the player figure things out for themselves.  Giving them tools that help them succeed without telling them what tools to use, or how to use them.  This allows for a player to decide certain things about their experience, completely changing the game based on who is playing.  Which is exactly why you're wrong here:

Quote

Playing years without progressing as far as to crafting a weapon would be demonstration of bad game design in my opinion. It's one of the most basic things you should grasp in your first few minutes of playing.

You see - I never needed to fight in my early games.  Combat is purely optional in this game.  The combat menu is there, pretty clearly conveyed with the crossed swords image, easy to understand even if you can't read.  I just didn't ever *need* to fight anything, and so I never did.  Nothing about the game hid this from me, but nothing about the game required it either - which is exactly why they can get away with such a hands OFF approach, letting players determine the methods and focus of their own game.

In MegaMan you MUST learn to jump and shoot or you cannot play the game, literally.  You can't pass a single level without these abilities.  BUT DST never required I fight, and I never chose to, so I continued playing in the way I wanted to happily passing the days by without ever crafting armor or weapons.  I like playing pacifist, and like games that allow me to do so.

I feel this is why you aren't going to get anywhere critiquing DST as "bad game design" for not giving you the tutorial treatment.  You might as well critique abstract art saying it doesn't keep in the lines, creating a clear picture, therefore fails as art lol  If DST isn't for you, or maybe you have a friend who just "doesn't get it," that's okay.  The game isn't for everyone.  But for people who like a gothic sandbox that lets you explore its odd mechanics on your own terms, DST is the game to play.

[Mike23Ua]

^^ What they said, but DS single player does teach the players more then DST does: In DS it will quickly teach you the importance of and how to use things like: Torches, Campfires, Winter Hats, Thermal Stones, Armor, Miners Hats, Bug Nets etc.. It does this ViA ADVENTURES MODE and the items Maxwell provides the player with in each of the 5 randomly generated challenges he provides them.

In DST: Klei expects you to spawn into the world Already knowing all the stuff you learned in DS- and that’s where new players quit the game in Frustration: not knowing they need X, X & Y just to Survive “Insert particular challenge here.”

People who have played through solo DS WITHOUT A WIKI or Guides Online did so strictly and solely based on the HINTS and Items Maxwell provides them with.

In that regard: Perhaps A short introduction tutorial where players have to pass a small pre-set group of Maxwell/Charlie challenges before they can even PLAY Multiplayer would go a very long way in helping teach people how to play the game without giving them step by step instructions on HOW to do it.

The TL:DR- it doesn’t take rocket science to spawn at Maxwells feet with a glowing thermal stone and a nearby already burning campfire to discover- HEY I keep this rock warm it’ll keep ME Warm.

AND THAT is the REAL Difference between learning in DS vs learning things in DST

[JoeW]

I am not going to get involved in the argument. But I will present that Don't Starve itself like most Klei games sets out to defy traditional wisdom in game design. And I would like to offer the perspective that we are not trying to do things "the right way", nor are we trying to appeal to all gamers. 

I think there is a little more to the story that people are trying to present to you @ZombieDupe. 

I really can't get into the ins and outs of how Klei does things, because I don't think we have a set system for how we do things, but I can tell you it's never to follow conventional wisdom. We buck the established norms all the time, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But it's working for a lot of people, and that's who we build for. 

I could talk for hours about how we do things, why we do things and how hard it is to understand but to put it simply, we don't do things "because that's how it's supposed to be done". We question every single decision, like it's the first time anybody ever made it. We consider traditional wisdom, but we are not ruled by it. 

I think, perhaps - you can take a look at what we do, and maybe consider "what if they knew what they were doing when they did it, and why would they do it that way. 

I feel like you're making some assumptions here like we have no clue what we're doing. I think it's relatively evident that this is not the case. And I think that's what people are arguing against you here. I get it, we make weird decisions - we 100% do, but look at the result. Maybe you don't agree with those things, maybe you yourself would wish it was different, but we're not building for you - we're building for a huge group of people that like a lot of different things. It's challenging, but it's how we do things. 

You're not "wrong" - but I think you're misunderstanding our intentions and perhaps you can look at the larger picture and see what we're trying to do.

Again, this is something we don't talk about much. And I hope what I am trying to say comes across well. Because I see this thread and I see both sides of this discussion, I just think it's a little more nuanced than you are seeing. 

So - All that being said. I would appreciate if everybody would keep this thread civil and constructive. We absolutely do things unconventionally - and I think that's ok. Discuss that - discuss how our decisions differ. But please, understand that it's absolutely and completely by choice, not by accident and not through ignorance. 

[Captain_Rage]

To put the post above into perspective. This makes for a very nice read:

Yes, it all started with a big question mark. xD

[carralas]

i swear to all of you i’ve tried to read the entire topic before starting to type this, but comments got too long and i need to get some sleep. one of the devs also already replied and i’m sure someone already explained what is game design but… i’d just like to give my bits of thought. i guess that’s okay.

 

first of all… game design is a very simple concept (not easy to apply but to understand). it’s the definition of how the game itself works. mechanics, lore and how these two get together. i might say don’t starve have one of the best game designs i’ve ever seen. i’m not only saying that because i have over 2000 hours of gameplay in this specific game (and thousands in other games). i also have a degree in game design. this game is a masterpiece in the way it delivers what was designed. sandbox punishing survival game. that’s all. that’s the design. you’re at a very hostile land trying to survive without knowing anything.

then… i see from some comments people made that you’re trying to prove a point by gathering few data (i think you + 2 or 3 people took part in your video, am i right?). that’s not how prove something. you need at least some hundreds of “opinions” to get any conclusive answer. and you have it - one you deny. hundreds, thousands of game reviews on the very platform the game is sold. you can see there the point you made to argue the game isn’t that good doesn’t bother at all many people. it’s there, proven.

one or two last things i wanna say… you can’t take don’t starve on one hand and let’s say final fantasy on another and argue that because their game designs is different one is good and the other is not. it’s like comparing an apple to a cheeseburger. both are food but that’s most you can talk about it. also it seems like you’re trying to get your video/channel known and decided to share it here. it’s great to do that! but not the way you did. to be honest i think you were kinda disrespectful. not only to the fans that love this game but also to all the team that developed it. you wanna start a discussion about dst game design? that’s fine. a lot of people would get into it. you could even share your video and probably more would be willing to watch it. but you just came here and said “i’m smart, the game you like/developed is a failure, i don’t take negative feedback and bye”. get it? not very nice.

to everyone who made it this far: thanks for reading. i’m not a native speaker and still get very insecure when writing something so long and less casual. remember to don’t starve. bye!

[ZombieDupe]

On 9/8/2021 at 7:32 AM, JoeW said:

I feel like you're making some assumptions here like we have no clue what we're doing. I think it's relatively evident that this is not the case. And I think that's what people are arguing against you here. I get it, we make weird decisions - we 100% do, but look at the result. Maybe you don't agree with those things, maybe you yourself would wish it was different, but we're not building for you - we're building for a huge group of people that like a lot of different things. It's challenging, but it's how we do things. 

You're not "wrong" - but I think you're misunderstanding our intentions and perhaps you can look at the larger picture and see what we're trying to do.

Again, this is something we don't talk about much. And I hope what I am trying to say comes across well. Because I see this thread and I see both sides of this discussion, I just think it's a little more nuanced than you are seeing. 

So - All that being said. I would appreciate if everybody would keep this thread civil and constructive. We absolutely do things unconventionally - and I think that's ok. Discuss that - discuss how our decisions differ. But please, understand that it's absolutely and completely by choice, not by accident and not through ignorance. 

Then I have a question, and it would be very much appreciated if you (or whoever has a good grasp of this stuff, if anyone really does at the company at the moment, a game designer preferably) could address the examples I have provided, if there is further discussion to be had.

Let's take a look at the Ancient Tab for example. Despite being craved so much, most of the items there are usually not worth the cost and break extremely easily or have little application as well as durability. To be more specific:

Spoiler

* Thulecite Crown - one of the most desirable, can be worn on head, has a little over 1000 durability but the regular cost is FOUR thulecite and 4 nightmare fuel for one of these. If you're gonna go to ruins getting just one of these is a waste of your time because by the time you are out you will be needing to go back in to get this item again. The problem is compounded by the fact that the shield still drops durability while you are hit when wearing it, meaning if you are going to take use of a bad situation to tank your enemies while the shield is up, which is what the shield appears to be for, your crown will be obliterated in seconds. Case in point a single late game hound wave.

* Thulecite Armor - Similar situation as with the crown, but it's body armor and takes SIX thulecite. Remember you get one thulecite from mining a single statue, so you would be basically sweeping the area clean to craft just a few of these when there are better alternatives. Remember this is if we think about one player and first come first serve and the first few who get there will wipe the ruins clean very early. This would not be a problem if the cost of these items wasn't so high and the loot pool from thulecite statues was higher.

* Thulecite Club - you increased the durability of this specific item from 150 to 250. That did not matter. The cost, especially on the thulecite and living log side is so expensive that if you already didn't waste a bunch of it as one player on armor and some other stuff, if you decide to rely on this as your weapon long term, that will be one of the most costly things out of the bunch, no matter how good you get at the game. Because of that Dark Sword basically trumps this in every field; less overall cost for the hits you get and you can craft them it from anwhere once you prototype it so long as you keep fuel and living logs on you. In my experience most professional players do this.

* Lazy Explorer - You are more likely to miss-click the right mouse button when telepoofing than to actually use it when it matters. And it only has 20 durability and cannot be refueled. It has application to a very specific thing (first few Fuel Weaver fights) despite how fun it could be to use it more in more conventional scenarios, for bridging travel especially, if you could use it more.

* Lazy Forager - Waste of inventory space and only really useful for getting your stuff back when you can't reach or getting the little stuff the craters in the ruins have that you can't reach any other way. Myself and many others I'm sure would love to use this to collect logs, grass and whatever else tons of items lying on the floor, but since it only has so much durability, the cost is not worth it.

* Construction Amulet - 5 durability, disposable. Only really used for the ancient tab items themselves because of their extreme cost, so what's even the point?

* Deconstruction Staff - 5 durability, with double the gem cost. It's an extremely disposable item yet it has a skin. Why?

* Houndius Shootius - Can only craft 1 before beating the Fuel Weaver (because of the Guardian Horn requirement), which is fine. But if it dies it's gone for good. You are better off using literally any other alternative method wherever you might even think to use this thing. The damage it deals and the infrequency of its shots compounds to how this thing is lacking.

* Thulecite Medallion - It is used in some crafting recipes now and I think it's more the reason you had no idea how to make the item desirable. It could have some effect beyond telling you what phase in the ruins it is which was useful, that could solve its lack of use. Or just remove the item!

* Thulecite Wall - I think this is part of a much bigger conversation about the issue of walls, but the ever present bad ratio of cost-to-use results in this being purely decorative, if you can manage that, so I won't bring much about it here.

* Thulecite - the cost of fragments per thulecite just compounds to the grind and unneeded scarcity where this stuff should be abundant.

* Pick-Axe - you knew this one was coming, the requirement of going into the ruins every time to get one or few of these and the durability you are provided for it makes the item worthless. It would take a LOT more durability for this to become a regular tool for chopping and mining anything, especially when alternative and more efficient methods exist. But it would certainly be fun to use when you're out and about and just need some materials quickly on the go, that is IF it had respectable durability. There is more potential to be had with items that act as multiple tools in one.

 

By far the only two items I can say are some-what reasonably good for their cost are the Star Caller staff and the Magilluminessence. There are a couple more items, but I don't have enough experience with them myself to really say much as they pertain to specific playstyles. My solution to all of these aforementioned item problems would be to:

* increase durability of all these items immensely

* Half the cost of most of these items at the very least

* Increase the loot drop amount of the required crafting components (thulecite) on things like thulecite statues

* Give features and uses for some of these items that are very clearly obvious to have if they don't and in a way that doesn't break the game balance entirely (something like a lazy explorer and forager would be much more useful if you could simply use Nightmare Fuel to refuel them and I'm sure your fanbase would thank you for it).

Getting through ruins is a feat in and of itself for many people, why do the items you can get from there barely even reflect that effort?

This is one of many set of examples of what I would absolutely consider terrible game design choices for keeping the game enjoyable. You are given a set amount of a resource (thulecite) to work with before you can get more through beating Fuel Weaver (realistically speaking) and it takes a lot of time and effort just to gather a decent amount for what you could actually benefit from. New players are going to make a lot of mistakes and if they somehow get their hands on this stuff, or are provided these items by more experienced players, they will drain through them even more ravenously. How is any of this balanced or fun to engage with? The reason people even go to gather any of this stuff is because they are marginally better than not having them, but the cost and effort is astronomical and it becomes a time sink and a massive grind long term when it absolutely doesn't have to be. This is just one example of many questionable design decisions.

And I don't think what the industry has set as any standard is something you should follow by default, it's the reasons why whatever the standard is actually is the standard that matters. In fact there are plenty of examples of terrible standards that have made games worse for it at least from a player benefit perspective. And that is not to say you can't set your own standards, that's how we get them in the first place. But there are good and bad approaches to be sure when considering player understanding and enjoyment, I have yet to see good reason for how something like the example of current feature set design I gave under the spoiler is anything good or to be enjoyed. It's just that these decisions are so baffling that the only conclusion I could realistically come to is that either none actually understands any of this at the company or simply doesn't care for no reason in particular other than... we generally don't like to design things well and to be enjoyable? How is keeping something in the game worthless a good thing? If perfection is achieved not when you can't add anything more in, but when you can't take anything more away, then if something is going to stay worthless or subpar, why have it in the game at all?

 

In other words, I would like to hear some examples and reasons for those examples that have considered these problems, and if they are not seen as problems then why. If there is no reasonable answer to this, try buffing the addressed items reflective of these ideas. See what happens.

[goblinball]

2 hours ago, ZombieDupe said:

Let's take a look at the Ancient Tab for example. Despite being craved so much, most of the items there are usually not worth the cost and break extremely easily or have little application as well as durability. To be more specific:

You forgot the premier gardeneer hat, therefore all of your points are null and void.

 
All jokes aside, I think current ruins loot is fine for the most part. Thulecite crowns halve the damage taken compared to football helmets, construction amulets make most of your complaints about stuff being too expensive invalid, archives statues exist, etc. Ultimately though, ruins loot is a luxury, not a necessity. That being said, being a luxury is completely fine. They are still valuable and useful enough to the point that a majority of players believe going to the ruins for them is worth it. Plus, exploring the ruins is just fun. If the ruins loot is so bad, then why do people go to the ruins? Why do people attempt to rush straight to the ruins to obtain this supposedly mediocre equipment? Well, it’s fun! (And the loot is actually good). It’s very exciting to go through the dark depths of the ruins, fighting swarms of nightmares, running from hordes of monkeys, and kiting groups of depths worms; and it’s very satisfying to return back to the surface with all of your new shiny thulecite loot. I think you underestimate ruins loot, and even if the loot was as bad as you claim it is, enjoyment is enough to justify visiting the ruins.