Hold on, are we helping Wagstaff scam Pearl?

[yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy]

I really hope I'm misunderstanding, because I'm not a native English speaker, rather than this plot being actually this way...

The main reason Pearl moved seems to be just because she couldn't stand Wagstaff's harassment. I don't know who else this junk collector could refer to. And Wagstaff marked moonquay on the map, but called it a "totally uninhabitable island," which is clearly a blatant lie. The island is a pirate hideout!

So Wagstaff deliberately seized Pearl's home to use as an experimental site, and used harassment and fraud to coerce Pearl into moving to the pirate hideout?

I hope the characters are also victims in this, believing Wagstaff's so-called "she always wanted a bigger home" nonsense. Otherwise, I can't imagine them (or us players) sending this kind and lovely old lady to their home after being tormented by pirate monkeys, especially since we were taking care of her before.

What also worries me is that the monkeys' attitude toward another kind of crab creature is hardly friendly.
 

[Peasant]

Apparently yes.

[Ruperstiltskin]

Nah cause for real, what the hell is this, i dont even know how to explain it.

The current state of the world makes this whole situation really really real so for once since im playing a game to have fun i would like to not be reminded that we can be harashed out from where we live? Its a game and all sure, but no man, this is actually very f up if you even think about it and even normalize this type of behaviour from the bad jerk.

[yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy]

Beyond my concerns about the plot, making Pearl move to the monkey island from a gameplay perspective is also hasty and unreasonable.

There's a lack of interaction between her and her belongings with the monkeys. She lacks dialogue related to the monkeys and moonquay. Her bees will fight with the monkeys in the spring. Items she gives to the player are dropped on the ground so they can be directly stolen by the monkeys. These are about the extent of the interactions.

I know this is just a beta, and I hope Klei has plans for subsequent updates, although I haven't found anything about it in the update posts. I saw a post suggesting letting Pearl discipline the monkeys, and I think that's the right idea. This new neighbor should bring some changes to the monkeys - changes that benefit her, the monkeys, and the players. After all, the moonquay story arc is incomplete. I've also seen ideas about having Pearl move to find the Crab King, or having Wagstaff just go to another island to experiment. Klei, this might deviate from your initial plans for this beta, but this *is* a beta. The players are offering these ideas based on what you gave us in the "She sells sea shells" update years ago: respect and kindness towards this pitiful and lovely lady. Please consider these ideas and optimize and expand upon them in this beta. At the very least, the current situation is definitely unsatisfying.

And I must mention, some players like to build bases in Pearl's house. They're really beautiful, and I imagine these players are feeling just as upset as Pearl.

[BalkanCockroach]

21 minutes ago, Ruperstiltskin said:

Nah cause for real, what the hell is this, i dont even know how to explain it.

The current state of the world makes this whole situation really really real so for once since im playing a game to have fun i would like to not be reminded that we can be harashed out from where we live? Its a game and all sure, but no man, this is actually very f up if you even think about it and even normalize this type of behaviour from the bad jerk.

Yes, It's a game.

[Ruperstiltskin]

4 minutes ago, BalkanCockroach said:

Yes, It's a game.

Sure, and i love games where you do inmoral stuff but only when they get it right, as in a comedy game or a parody on itself. This instance got none of that but thats for that insightful comment about something i already acknowledged

[BalkanCockroach]

1 minute ago, Ruperstiltskin said:

Sure, and i love games where you do inmoral stuff but only when they get it right, as in a comedy game or a parody on itself. This instance got none of that but thats for that insightful comment about something i already acknowledged

I'm just saying you're taking it too seriously. 

[Ruperstiltskin]

4 minutes ago, BalkanCockroach said:

I'm just saying you're taking it too seriously. 

Sure.

[gaymime]

37 minutes ago, yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy said:

So Wagstaff deliberately seized Pearl's home to use as an experimental site, and used harassment and fraud to coerce Pearl into moving to the pirate hideout?

[Dr. Safety]

37 minutes ago, yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy said:

Beyond my concerns about the plot, making Pearl move to the monkey island from a gameplay perspective is also hasty and unreasonable.

There's a lack of interaction between her and her belongings with the monkeys. She lacks dialogue related to the monkeys and moonquay. Her bees will fight with the monkeys in the spring. Items she gives to the player are dropped on the ground so they can be directly stolen by the monkeys. These are about the extent of the interactions.

I know this is just a beta, and I hope Klei has plans for subsequent updates, although I haven't found anything about it in the update posts. I saw a post suggesting letting Pearl discipline the monkeys, and I think that's the right idea. This new neighbor should bring some changes to the monkeys - changes that benefit her, the monkeys, and the players. After all, the moonquay story arc is incomplete. I've also seen ideas about having Pearl move to find the Crab King, or having Wagstaff just go to another island to experiment. Klei, this might deviate from your initial plans for this beta, but this *is* a beta. The players are offering these ideas based on what you gave us in the "She sells sea shells" update years ago: respect and kindness towards this pitiful and lovely lady. Please consider these ideas and optimize and expand upon them in this beta. At the very least, the current situation is definitely unsatisfying.

I can agree that the Wagstaff and Pearl thing seems rushed and disjointed, but that kinda is just Wagstaff in this game. He shows up in a place you don't expect and wants you to do stuff. The Pearl and monkey interactions you mentioned are problematic, and I hope that this can lead to a way of putting Pearl wherever you want, and maybe need to do more stuff to earn her trust back again.

40 minutes ago, yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy said:

And I must mention, some players like to build bases in Pearl's house. They're really beautiful, and I imagine these players are feeling just as upset as Pearl.

It does suck, but in a game where you can built anything anywhere, there will always be situations like this when new content is added. Maybe in the future Klei can add some small islands that just kinda exist and aren't there for any lore purposes.

Pearl's island was a nice island that remained peaceful outside of hound attacks and bees so it does suck to lose that.

[Superwolfkid]

Maybe they could manage to let Pearl relocate to the main land and allow the player to choose where she stays? 

I do find it ironically funny of her being moved there with monkeys, but it does feel a bit mean to Pearl, having her form a connection and open up to the player, only to inevitably screw her over just to turn her home into a Boss arena, 

 Either that or maybe a third island that wagstaff could build his stuff at, I wouldn't want people who've built there base around Pearl's island to also just get kicked off for story progression.

[Mysterious box]

6 hours ago, Ruperstiltskin said:

Sure, and i love games where you do inmoral stuff but only when they get it right, as in a comedy game or a parody on itself. This instance got none of that but thats for that insightful comment about something i already acknowledged

I mean how is this any different from what survivors have done previously? Many people destroy the natural homes of the constants inhabitants, steal from, or exploit them in mass and noone has any issues with it.

[yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy]

It's unfortunate that I've found a certain number of users in this forum lacking basic common sense and ability to appreciate. This isn't some malicious personal attack; it's an obvious fact. Frankly, this kind of foolishness leaves me more speechless than indifference. They all harbor the same amount of empathy for the faceless Stormtroopers in the background as they do for important supporting characters. I'm just a reader, a viewer, a player, and presumably not such a saint. Therefore, I don't feel the need to specifically refute the excessive sympathy for pigmen and rabbits that some people cultivate just for the sake of objecting. I'll just leave these few complaints in this reply and be done with it.
At least I hope these genuine, kind people, and our dear Klei, won't overlook the core issue that Pearl and moonquay have no specific interaction.

[gaymime]

15 hours ago, Mysterious box said:

I mean how is this any different from what survivors have done previously? Many people destroy the natural homes of the constants inhabitants, steal from, or exploit them in mass and noone has any issues with it.

maybe it is a bit of a read on my part(art and socioeconomics might not have been the best intellectual persuit for me given how they are currently intersecting lol) but i personally feel it is because it is socially taken as just "part of the game" to exploit and kill especially when the thing/being being exploited or killed is "renewable". it does not require self-reflection to murder pigs and tear down merm-houses so many people dont reflect on it. it isnt considered ok to exploit/kill someone who you know personally and so people are having to reflect on what they are doing when they do this clearly abusive thing to pearl. it makes them feel uncomfortable and they wish to alleviate that discomfort without challanging the core mindset that got them to this position to begin with.

Edited May 24, 2025 by gaymime

[abrocator]

When you are wanted for murder and don’t want anyone to follow you: move to Iceland.

When you want to get rid of the natives: convince them to set sail for Greenland.

[yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy]

22 hours ago, yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy said:

The players are offering these ideas based on what you gave us in the "She sells sea shells" update years ago: respect and kindness towards this pitiful and lovely lady.

I have a way better explanation for this kind of sympathy. It is Klei that set the initial moral standard.

13 minutes ago, gaymime said:

maybe it is a bit of a read on my part(art and socioeconomics might not have been the best intellectual persuit for me given how they are currently intersecting lol) but i personally feel it is because it is socially taken as just "part of the game" to exploit and kill especially when the thing/being being exploited or killed is "renewable". it does not require self-reflection to murder pigs and tear down merm-houses so many people dont reflect on it. it isnt considered ok to exploit/kill someone who you know personally and so people are having to reflect on what they are doing when they do this clearly abusive thing to pearl. it makes them feel uncomfortable and they wish to alleviate that discomfort without challanging the core mindset that got them to this position to begin with.

 

[gaymime]

1 minute ago, yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy said:

I have a way better explanation for this kind of sympathy. It is Klei that set the initial moral standard.

 

ideally, yes but in practice people still want to do the immoral thing of lying to her to get her out of her home

[yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy]

2 minutes ago, gaymime said:

ideally, yes but in practice people still want to do the immoral thing of lying to her to get her out of her home

When should we blame the players for this kind of deliberate plot conflict? The problem lies in the very choice itself: either not pushing the story forward or being a jerk. This is a beta version—does your imagination and suggested perspectives really help? The purpose of a beta is to address issues within the updates, not to criticize players who are left no choice. It sounds like you're saying that the beta is finished and nothing should be changed anymore.

[Szczuku]

16 hours ago, Mysterious box said:

I mean how is this any different from what survivors have done previously? Many people destroy the natural homes of the constants inhabitants, steal from, or exploit them in mass and noone has any issues with it.

Probably because we don't first help Pigmen advance their village only to then end up plundering it. Nor do we bring spiders back from the brink of extinction before deciding to industrially genocide them. Having us first help Pearl pretty-up her island only to later have all of that effort thrown in the garbage is just, frankly speaking, a stupid decision.

Imagine how a new player will feel when they play the game blind, decide to decorate Pearl's island and later find out that now they have to destroy all of that.

[JeMiChi]

I haven't played the beta yet, so I can't speak about the gameplay, but as far as storytelling and dark plot twists go (with extremely flawed characters and betrayal and all that), this feels very Don't Starve. (Remember how hard you worked for escaping / getting to defeat Maxwell in the Adventure Mode of the single-player game, just to be faced with the fact that it was all for nothing and you were stuck on the throne now and the loop started over???)

I also love it when a story makes you actually think about the consequences of your actions and feel bad about making someone suffer. It's a hard, but valuable lesson (although I'm sure it will quickly become "just another part of the game" that people won't even think about). It's also a reminder of the kind of person Wagstaff is... ^^"

[Mysterious box]

4 hours ago, gaymime said:

maybe it is a bit of a read on my part(art and socioeconomics might not have been the best intellectual persuit for me given how they are currently intersecting lol) but i personally feel it is because it is socially taken as just "part of the game" to exploit and kill especially when the thing/being being exploited or killed is "renewable". it does not require self-reflection to murder pigs and tear down merm-houses so many people dont reflect on it. it isnt considered ok to exploit/kill someone who you know personally and so people are having to reflect on what they are doing when they do this clearly abusive thing to pearl. it makes them feel uncomfortable and they wish to alleviate that discomfort without challanging the core mindset that got them to this position to begin with.

That's insightful and a bit unnerving...

3 hours ago, Szczuku said:

Probably because we don't first help Pigmen advance their village only to then end up plundering it. Nor do we bring spiders back from the brink of extinction before deciding to industrially genocide them. Having us first help Pearl pretty-up her island only to later have all of that effort thrown in the garbage is just, frankly speaking, a stupid decision.

Imagine how a new player will feel when they play the game blind, decide to decorate Pearl's island and later find out that now they have to destroy all of that.

That's kinda worst though no? From a more objective standpoint it means we're fine with doing horrible things to intelligent beings so long as we haven't formed a bond of them...

Edit: Techinically this also justifies Wagstaff's actions as his relationship with her is equal to that of a pigman we're the ones with the bond. I wonder if this is commentary on the survivors actions.

Edited May 24, 2025 by Mysterious box

[gaymime]

13 minutes ago, Mysterious box said:

That's insightful and a bit unnerving...

well, does it help there seems to be several people who are looking at this and seeing what the dev team seems to be trying to share? that is the good thing about fiction, it gives people an opportunity to explore difficult and complex scenarios in a safe and structured way. i am very curious to see how the rest of this part of the story goes

 

2 hours ago, JeMiChi said:

I also love it when a story makes you actually think about the consequences of your actions and feel bad about making someone suffer. It's a hard, but valuable lesson (although I'm sure it will quickly become "just another part of the game" that people won't even think about). It's also a reminder of the kind of person Wagstaff is... ^^"

yes!

Edited May 24, 2025 by gaymime

[Capybara007]

wagstaff being evil and materialistic sounds interesting but because of this game´s poor writing it all feels like fanfic
(what im trying to say is that none of wagstaff dialogue indicate this, all he does is just say random science and experiments stuff, maybe he should say something about what he could do with power, like he did in hamlet)
i cant wait for the moment when you defeat this new warbot boss and its exactly the same as for the celestial champion, like nothing changes in wagstaff, he just goes "thanks for the help i shall continue with my experiment" like he has been doing since 2022

Edited May 24, 2025 by Capybara007

[TheDistinguishe]

On 5/23/2025 at 2:32 PM, Dr. Safety said:

I can agree that the Wagstaff and Pearl thing seems rushed and disjointed, but that kinda is just Wagstaff in this game

so true but i do hope they add more slice of life content of pearl and monkeys, it would be weird if she didn't have anything to say about it. plus it would add weight to our actions if we saw her struggling at quay, perhaps if they were bothering her while fishing, or spooking her fish away. stealing her honey and drying racks too. make it have consequences

Edited May 24, 2025 by TheDistinguishe

[Bumber64]

13 hours ago, Szczuku said:

Probably because we don't first help Pigmen advance their village only to then end up plundering it. Nor do we bring spiders back from the brink of extinction before deciding to industrially genocide them.

Webber moment.