I think I now understand why Pearl’s eviction bothers me so much.

[gaymime]

2 hours ago, raniskog said:

Exactly, and when the boss fights are initiated, it becomes self-defence again. Fuelweaver and BQ and the like all start attacking the player whether the player attacks them or not.

it is not "self-defence" if they only retaliate against you initiating violence. you can't be attacked by bq OR fw without hitting one of them multiple times and doing a summoning ritual on the other and both of these actions are fully avoidable

1 hour ago, SilverSpoon said:

Klei could have done a better job of following that storyline than having players build things and then forcing players destroy them, especially considering this was a rushed update for Klei Fest.

how though? how would they make the player understand that this path is a bad path without it costing the player anything? so far the only suggestion people have had was "get rid of the story" and "get rid of the story and also don't touch my stuff". showing wagstaff kill a person as well as let two other people die(winona did survive but he was ready to watch her go all the same) wasn't enough to convince people that he was a bad guy and following him was peak ethical dereliction

[Jakepeng99]

This update needs work

Edited June 22, 2025 by Jakepeng99

[SilverSpoon]

37 minutes ago, gaymime said:

how though? how would they make the player understand that this path is a bad path without it costing the player anything? so far the only suggestion people have had was "get rid of the story" and "get rid of the story and also don't touch my stuff". showing wagstaff kill a person as well as let two other people die(winona did survive but he was ready to watch her go all the same) wasn't enough to convince people that he was a bad guy and following him was peak ethical dereliction

I've said "make a other island for WARBOT fight" at least three times.

Destroying something be made player is a worse idea than just displaying dialogue that says "Uh-oh, you're evil!"

Edited June 22, 2025 by SilverSpoon

[cropo]

Don't Starve started as a game where the player was supposed to be weak and helpless. 

Whatever character they played, they were disparaged in their homeland when a shadowy figure in a snazzy suit and a cheesy smile promises them glory and wealth and cures for their ails if only they could immigrate to his special little vacation island where everything will be better.

Said figure then steals your livelihood end effort for his own benefit and leaves you for dead in the middle of nowhere.

The player is indeed now in a beautiful world with its own ecosystem, but their stomach is grumbling. If the player character dies, that was it. Everything was gone, you don't respawn and get another chance, giving the player a real-life reason to want to avoid death no matter what they had to do in order to stop it. This forces players to learn efficient tactics(and by efficient, I mean exploiting pigs, who are named NPC's and not just random monsters, digging up the ground, desecrating forests and causing mass fires for some simple charcoal.)

If you try to go all-green and plant a bunch of berry bushes for food, a thanksgiving turkey lookalike will emerge and attempt to steal all your berries and is not easily killed and simply comes back even if you can. DST in its early years expanded on this by having grass literally come to life and run away from you so you can't easily condense it into one spot.

Don't Starve was hand-crafted to disallow the player from ever feeling like the good guy, survival required optimal play, and optimal play was committing atrocities on the world around you.

With Klei adding so many fancy toys to DST over the years, this is no longer apparent in the emergent gameplay, but the theme of it in progression still exists. Rather than survival, you want to escape, and the path to escape is digging up wildlife that had no quarrel with you and murdering them for a chance of escape or even a more convenient and luxurious form of survival. Sure, you can just not murder Dragonfly and her younglings and steal her egg, but the inherent selfishness of the characters, their examination quotes and dialogue, paint the vast majority of them as pretty terrible and unsociable people.

When an old man who is literally in the world you came from asks you for help relocating a crab lady who most people don't like because he might hold the means of escape for you, you do it. You're not going to have some Dragonball Z empty island that no one ever visits to have a private fight with a lunar god, that is a deus ex machina conveniently placed to absolve the player of the moral responsibility of what they have been doing up to this point.

Edited June 22, 2025 by cropo

[Capybara007]

19 minutes ago, cropo said:

 

what if i dont care about this inmersion bs and just want to have fun

[cropo]

Just now, Capybara007 said:

what if i dont care about this inmersion bs and just want to have fun

Then stop thinking too hard about it and just relocate Pearl. It's really not that big of a deal.

[Bumber64]

5 hours ago, gaymime said:

except canonically you've been a heartless bastard since day one

Remember when Maxwell ran into Wilson huddled around a campfire after being dethroned, and they got into a fight that resulted in them both murdering each other?

1 hour ago, gaymime said:

it is not "self-defence" if they only retaliate against you initiating violence. you can't be attacked by bq OR fw without hitting one of them multiple times and doing a summoning ritual on the other and both of these actions are fully avoidable

The deer antler doesn't even open the sack. It's a trap. (You are actually punished for killing gem deer, encouraging you not to do that. Killing Klaus frees them from his control!) Neither of these bosses are actually required. New players are likely to take the honeycomb and run, content with bee boxes.

38 minutes ago, cropo said:

If you try to go all-green and plant a bunch of berry bushes for food, a thanksgiving turkey lookalike will emerge and attempt to steal all your berries and is not easily killed and simply comes back even if you can.

When an old man who is literally in the world you came from asks you for help relocating a crab lady who most people don't like because he might hold the means of escape for you, you do it. You're not going to have some Dragonball Z empty island that no one ever visits to have a private fight with a lunar god, that is a deus ex machina conveniently placed to absolve the player of the moral responsibility of what they have been doing up to this point.

Gobblers don't spawn from farm crops. You're at worst sticking a bird in a cage if you want to replant.

WX knows exactly how trustworthy Wagstaff is, and by extension the survivors that actually care about Pearl.

Gotta evict everyone from Hawaii to test the first atomic bomb. No deus ex machina, you know?

Edited June 22, 2025 by Bumber64

[cropo]

15 minutes ago, Bumber64 said:

Remember when Maxwell ran into Wilson huddled around a campfire after being dethroned, and they got into a fight that resulted in them both murdering each other?

Maxwell was a desperate person in life, who made a faustian bargain with eldritch pillagers to make more money and have success and hurt a lot of people to maintain that "wealth". Wilson DID murder Maxwell, by dethroning him because Wilson thought it would let him escape, this is something you as the player are required to do in order to progress. The fact neither of them died and Charlie sacrificed herself to let Wilson escape was coincidental. They still want out, and have not given up on that. We are even given explicit implication that Maxwell has decided to do something unbecoming of the group for Charlie's sake; we have reason to believe that if Charlie told Maxwell to kill a survivor he would do it. We were, literally, shown that Maxwell cannot be trusted as a person very recently.

 

15 minutes ago, Bumber64 said:

The deer antler doesn't even open the sack. It's a trap. Neither of these bosses are actually required.

In order to get the deer antler, you have to scare a group of innocent deers into running into a tree to de-horn them so you can use it as a key to steal from a bag that doesn't belong to you. It's not a trap, it was the player mistakenly using it thinking it would work and spawning an avatar of punishment to deal with them.

15 minutes ago, Bumber64 said:

Gobblers don't spawn from farm crops. You're at worst sticking a bird in a cage if you want to replant.

Farm Crops do not spawn with enough sustenance to survive off of(assuming we are talking pre RWYS, which is a new toy from DST that I mentioned). They are punishing, tedious, and require optimal extraction of literal crap in order to get any gainful use out of. They are intentionally obtuse in their design and stop working naturally during the first season of the game. The golden rule experienced players gave to new players getting into the game at this time was "farms are a noob trap". It was the single most condemned item that players actively warned would hinder your survival and progress in the game.

 

 

15 minutes ago, Bumber64 said:

WX knows exactly how trustworthy Wagstaff is, and by extension the survivors that actually care about Pearl.

The flashback for WX heavily implies it was a joint experiment and was never intended to go badly for WX. That was at least my interpretation of the short. WX hates everything, and it's reasonable to assume they would hate Wagstaff simply due to the fact they hate everything and their input on matters would be taken sparingly.

 

 

15 minutes ago, Bumber64 said:

Gotta evict everyone from Hawaii to test the first atomic bomb. No deus ex machina, you know?

I don't know what you're saying here unfortunately. An atomic bomb is arguably considered to be the height of human arrogance and immorality, and any testing of it, whether citizens are forcefully evacuated or forced to suffer the radioactive side-effects(like immical gestalts) is a net-negative for everyone and yet still happens because mysterious and rich figures high above us can and will do it and was treated as a necessity for "progression" in a sense.



Even Charlie herself, who was clearly harmless, was forced into having an aggressive and violent personality, because the powers that be will absolutely not tolerate a nice and kind person sitting on the throne. Cruelty is required from the players, who do not have the power and wealth to be moral. These themes have been in the game since it came out, and only recently has started to become backpedaled in favor of lulz and random fun in a sandbox environment. I'm not going to harp on the gameplay elements because I enjoy a lot of the changes, but when it comes to the story I would rather they not sacrifice these clear themes in order to let us be numb to our deeds in the game and treat Pearl like some decoration to be stored away on a lonely island for the rest of her existence simply because we made a pretty building there.

Edited June 22, 2025 by cropo

[gaymime]

41 minutes ago, SilverSpoon said:

I've said "make a other island for WARBOT fight" at least three times.

Destroying something be made player is a worse idea than just displaying dialogue that says "Uh-oh, you're evil!"

no. i didnt ask "how to please people" i asked "how to make the player understand that this path is a bad path". your answer doesn’t do anything at all to address the issue of needing to give the player's actions weight

17 minutes ago, Bumber64 said:

Remember when Maxwell ran into Wilson huddled around a campfire after being dethroned, and they got into a fight that resulted in them both murdering each other?

no XD the comic i remember have them beating the stuffing out of each other over a carrot but i dont recall either of them dying

[Bumber64]

32 minutes ago, cropo said:

Maxwell was a desperate person in life, who made a faustian bargain with eldritch pillagers to make more money and have success and hurt a lot of people to maintain that "wealth". Wilson DID murder Maxwell, by dethroning him because Wilson thought it would let him escape, this is something you as the player are required to do in order to progress. The fact neither of them died and Charlie sacrificed herself to let Wilson escape was coincidental. They still want out, and have not given up on that.

In order to get the deer antler, you have to scare a group of innocent deers into running into a tree to de-horn them so you can use it as a key to steal from a bag that doesn't belong to you. It's not a trap, it was the player mistakenly using it thinking it would work and spawning an avatar of punishment to deal with them.

Farm Crops do not spawn with enough sustenance to survive off of(assuming we are talking pre RWYS, which is a new toy from DST that I mentioned). They are punishing, tedious, and require optimal extraction of literal crap in order to get any gainful use out of. They are intentionally obtuse in their design and stop working naturally during the first season of the game.

The flashback for WX heavily implies it was a joint experiment and was never intended to go badly for WX. That was at least my interpretation of the short. WX hates everything, and it's reasonable to assume they would hate Wagstaff simply due to the fact they hate everything and their input on matters would be taken sparingly.

I don't know what you're saying here unfortunately. An atomic bomb is arguably considered to be the height of human arrogance and immorality, and any testing of it, whether citizens are forcefully evacuated or forced to suffer the radioactive side-effects(like immical gestalts) is a net-negative for everyone and yet still happens because mysterious and rich figures high above us can and will do it and was treated as a necessity for "progression" in a sense.

Maxwell literally asked to be freed from the throne after being stuck there for hundreds of years with ragtime, living as Their puppet. The two share food after their scuffle.

You got in before the edit, but the gem deer are actually enslaved by Klaus. Deer typically shed their own antlers. Defeating Klaus is a net moral action.

Beefalo provide free crap. Not even rabbits are a particularly plentiful food source in winter. (Worse now with king chungus.) You're meant to stockpile or rush the teleportato.

Wagstaff chucked WX into the Constant to get rid of him/them. Maxwell would confirm. Winona (incorrectly) suspected Wagstaff of being involved in Charlie's disappearance. Maxwell could correct her, but she doesn't trust her boss anyway because capitalism.

They tested the bomb on Bikini Atoll, not the island of Hawa'ii, or wherever. No deus ex required. (BTW, an alternative plan to nuking Japan was to starve the population to death. Don't Starve.)

Edited June 22, 2025 by Bumber64

[cybers2001]

5 hours ago, Milordo said:

Strange that it took you all this time to understannd the problems around it, when people during the first week of the beta said it.

People complain the minute an update drops before they even open the game, so you learn to take it with a grain of salt.

[cropo]

18 minutes ago, Bumber64 said:

Maxwell literally asked to be freed from the throne after being stuck there for hundreds of years with ragtime, living as Their puppet. The two share food after their scuffle.

Maxwell did not ask to be freed, he actively tried to stop you from reaching him while donning the Wizard of Oz persona. He had given up after you reached him, he knew he lost and was at Wilson's mercy. The game gives you a warning before putting the staff on the pedestal as well which you have to agree to in order to proceed.

18 minutes ago, Bumber64 said:

You got in before the edit, but the gem deer are actually enslaved by Klaus. Deer typically shed their own antlers. Defeating Klaus is a net moral action.

The Deer in DST do not, and must forcibly have them broken. Klaus is essentially Santa Claus who intended to give out gifts and judgement to the nice and naughty, and you are attempting to steal from him directly. In all honesty though, Klaus definitely isn't on the level of other things in the game and has always been an optional encounter for sure.

18 minutes ago, Bumber64 said:

Beefalo provide free crap

It takes 5 crap to fully sprout a single fruit, the odds just don't add up for surviving. You lose 75 hunger a day, I don't even think spending the entire game next to Beefalo and picking up their crap would work especially since they go into mating season in spring and would kill you(and in DST were changed to go into mating season sporadically so this group murder happens even faster.)

Farming isn't a moral option to avoid the things needed for survival from a new players perspective playing the game on release.

 

 

18 minutes ago, Bumber64 said:

Wagstaff chucked WX into the Constant to get rid of him/them. Winona (incorrectly) suspected Wagstaff of being involved in Charlie's disappearance.

Only after WX showed complete hostility and incompatibility post-transformation. Wagstaff seemed at a complete loss on what to do with them and this may be wrong but from what I see wasn't entirely Wagstaff's fault. He essentially had to find a way to remove a being that claimed to hate all organic life, claimed they were themselves evil, and had plans for world domination and the destruction of organics. Throwing them into the constant was practically doing them a favor.

But besides any of this, Wagstaff is literally proving to the viewer that he has some way to visit the constant without actually being in the constant. He has a clear track-record of successful enterprise in science to the point he can project himself safely(until recently) into the constant. This alone would logically give anyone enough hope to listen to his demands, especially when you're desperate and no alternatives have shown themselves after everything up to this point.

 

18 minutes ago, Bumber64 said:

They tested the bomb on Bikini Atoll, not the island of Hawa'ii, or wherever. No deus ex required. (BTW, an alternative plan to nuking Japan was to starve the population to death. Don't Starve.)

Everyone to this day has been negatively affected by the existence and testing of Nuclear bombs no matter where they've been detonated in the past. Even if every single bomb in history never hit a living target, their mere existence and what they have the potential to do, as well as the environmental threat of them are a danger to everyone and many undetonated bombs have gone missing and could literally be anywhere, waiting to be detonated still. There is no safe and ethical testing for nuclear bombs.

This is also going far out of the topic but we can mention briefly that the nuclear bombs were a net negative for us vs Japan as well, as it allowed them to be the first to be victimized and as such had a somewhat absolving affect on the atrocities they committed prior to being bombed. It didn't fully wipe the slate clean, but it had a clear interfering element to having their injustices getting called out. But I'll stop on that note.

Edited June 22, 2025 by cropo

[_mylilsunshine_]

as a nature-loving animal-respecting elderly-helping boyscout, i'm not heartless and i want to help and maintain a connection with pearl

[Bumber64]

10 minutes ago, cropo said:

Everyone to this day has been negatively affected by the existence and testing of Nuclear bombs no matter where they've been detonated in the past. Even if every single bomb in history never hit a living target, their mere existence and what they have the potential to do, as well as the environmental threat of them are a danger to everyone and many undetonated bombs have gone missing and could literally be anywhere, waiting to be detonated still. There is no safe and ethical testing for nuclear bombs.

The unknown consequences of a weapon developed in the middle of a world war are somewhat excusable by the consequences of an Axis victory. (Hitler started the nuclear Wunderwaffen program, lest we forget. There was a fear he could get one first.)

Kicking an old lady out of her home isn't an unforeseen outcome of... kicking an old lady out of her home. You've convinced yourself Wagstaff needed to do the test there, when it's likely mere convenience for him.

Edited June 22, 2025 by Bumber64

[cropo]

4 minutes ago, Bumber64 said:

Kicking an old lady out of her home isn't an unforeseen outcome of... kicking an old lady out of her home. You've convinced yourself Wagstaff needed to do the test there, when it's likely mere convenience for him.

All we care about is the possibility of Wagstaff giving us an out, even at the cost of evicting an old lady. You can easily justify the location as it clearly holds lunar significance but we don't really need to because the cold truth of the matter is the characters are desperate enough to be done with all of this and are willing to act as an agent for a benefactor that wants us to do bad things to people in order to save ourselves.

It's easy for us to condemn it on our chairs with our internet connection and a birds-eye god-level view of the game world, but if you were in that situation how would you do? Would you don your superman cape, work for the good of all, and overcome an uncaring and hostile world without sacrificing any of your morals or beliefs without dying or starving? I doubt it.

Edited June 22, 2025 by cropo

[SilverSpoon]

59 minutes ago, gaymime said:

your answer doesn’t do anything at all to address the issue of needing to give the player's actions weight

There’s no need to forcefully give the player’s actions weight.

Especially when content is hidden behind them or trading in a way that causes disadvantage, burden, or inconvenience on gameplay, it feels less like giving the player’s actions weight and more like foisting a specific thought onto them.

Edited June 22, 2025 by SilverSpoon

[gaymime]

 

25 minutes ago, cropo said:

All we care about is the possibility of Wagstaff giving us an out, even at the cost of evicting an old lady. You can easily justify the location as it clearly holds lunar significance but we don't really need to because the cold truth of the matter is the characters are desperate enough to be done with all of this and are willing to act as an agent for a benefactor that wants us to do bad things to people in order to save ourselves.

It's easy for us to condemn it on our chairs with our internet connection and a birds-eye god-level view of the game world, but if you were in that situation how would you do? Would you don your superman cape, work for the good of all, and overcome an uncaring and hostile world without sacrificing any of your morals or beliefs without dying or starving? I doubt it.

lolol, i know you arent talking to me directly but there have been so many times in so many games including this one where i went with my actual desires for pacifism in games. i've died AND thrived (mostly died) standing by my scruples

Edited June 22, 2025 by gaymime

[Bumber64]

31 minutes ago, cropo said:

All we care about is the possibility of Wagstaff giving us an out, even at the cost of evicting an old lady. You can easily justify the location as it clearly holds lunar significance but we don't really need to because the cold truth of the matter is the characters are desperate enough to be done with all of this and are willing to act as an agent for a benefactor that wants us to do bad things to people in order to save ourselves.

It's easy for us to condemn it on our chairs with our internet connection and a birds-eye god-level view of the game world, but if you were in that situation how would you do? Would you don your superman cape, work for the good of all, and overcome an uncaring and hostile world without sacrificing any of your morals or beliefs without dying or starving? I doubt it.

They've got: Potentially limitless life spans, resurrection options, an idea that time isn't correlated to Earth's, a counteroffer from Charlie, a history of surviving many threats, a solved food situation, their own scientist, a mechanic, 3 mages, a capricious imp, an unused portal in the archives, attacked by CC the first time they helped Wagstaff, more horrors the second time, a sinking suspicion it's about to happen again, and a history of things getting worse each time they get involved Them.

They can take 5 whole minutes to consider if evicting Pearl is necessary. Realistically, the only way the survivors would die off at this point is if they destroyed the world. (Now how would that happen?)

Edited June 22, 2025 by Bumber64

[gaymime]

20 minutes ago, SilverSpoon said:

There’s no need to forcefully give the player’s actions weight.

Especially when content is hidden behind them or trading in a way that causes disadvantage, burden, or inconvenience on gameplay, it feels less like giving the player’s actions weight and more like foisting a specific thought onto them.

there is a need though; this game has a story. you cant tell a story without, you know, actually telling the story and if the person it is being told to is not invested even a tiny bit then it is a failed story,

Edited June 22, 2025 by gaymime

[SilverSpoon]

16 minutes ago, gaymime said:

there is a need though; this game has a story. you cant tell a story without, you know, actually telling the story and if the person it is being told to is not invested even a tiny bit then it is a failed story,

Who is “the person”? It’s certainly not me. Even without the destruction of Crab Island, I would lose no nothing interest in the story of this game.

You're right, this game has a story. But not this story has a game.

Edited June 22, 2025 by SilverSpoon

[Bumber64]

1 hour ago, gaymime said:

there is a need though; this game has a story. you cant tell a story without, you know, actually telling the story and if the person it is being told to is not invested even a tiny bit then it is a failed story,

To continue with the story, you need to destroy the world and kill everyone in it, including yourself. This action cannot be undone. Proceed?

> Yes / No

Look, you were warned, but you did it anyway due to your morality! This tells us a lot about the survivors and the player. Reflect on how you were the real monster as the credits roll!

Edited June 22, 2025 by Bumber64

[cropo]

1 minute ago, Bumber64 said:

They've got: Potentially limitless life spans,

In a hell-hole that does not change until they do something terrible to the ecosystem and infinite capacity for experiencing pain.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Bumber64 said:

a counteroffer from Charlie,

Which is not going to be sunshine and roses, and you know that. Why would she need all this cloak and dagger, to isolate Maxwell and privately get him to her side in total secret?

 

 

3 minutes ago, Bumber64 said:

a history of surviving many threats,

A history of dying to many threats.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Bumber64 said:

their own scientist

A crappy, selfish scientist whose sole redeeming quality is that he grows a beard and jury-rigged some of the palest imitations of Wafstaffs most rudimentary crafts. Not the kind of guy to rely on to whip up a solution to escape the constant.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Bumber64 said:

a mechanic

Someone who pales in comparison to Wagstaff and is unlikely to surpass him with the limited access to resources. All of her mechanical knowledge is learned as a byproduct of a demanding labor-intensive job, she does not have the inspiration to truly invent wonderous things like Wagstaff has. Her way of repairing things is to just slam duct tape onto it because that's all she really knows. She's a punch-clock mechanic at best.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Bumber64 said:

3 mages

Who? Willow? She wants to be there and is not a nice person, and has a history of burning down places where people take residence in. Not exactly the person you want to argue would be worried about evicting Pearl; if anything Pearl probably reminds her of the cranky old nannies at her orphanage.

Wendy? A passive and depressed girl who would see the eviction as an ultimate consequence of life itself and wouldn't be too bothered for evicting Pearl. She has a sister to put to rest, and an uncle to redeem. She is the least likely to care about Pearls eviction.

Who is the third? Wickerbottom? Maxwell? Wickerbottom covets knowledge above all else; if anything she would be supportive of Wagstaffs actions. When Maxwell gave her the ultimatum to save her library at the cost of herself, she immediately accepts despite knowing it was going to have a cost to it. Other than Willow, she was the most mentally-sound person capable of making rational decisions; her decision to sacrifice in the pursuit of knowledge had more meaning than any of the other characters.

 

11 minutes ago, Bumber64 said:

a capricious imp

Probably laughing at everything currently happening and coming up with a fancy rhyme to comment on the naughtiness of it all. I don't think he cares.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Bumber64 said:

an unused portal in the archives

The last time they tried to use an "un used" portal they ended up as slaves to Charlie on minor expeditions to even MORE hostile worlds where they could have been permanently disfigured or killed by a bloodthirsty wargod. Lesson learned on that one, I would say.

 

13 minutes ago, Bumber64 said:

attacked by CC the first time they helped Wagstaff,

Which Wagstaff effortlessly cashed in on and came out turning a profit, even sharing some of it with the player.

 

14 minutes ago, Bumber64 said:

more horrors the second time, a sinking suspicion it's about to happen again, and a history of things getting worse each time they get involved Them.

Seems like they have an even bigger reason to be desperate now that the constant is no longer "constant" and everything is falling apart.

[Bumber64]

51 minutes ago, cropo said:

Which is not going to be sunshine and roses, and you know that.

A history of dying to many threats.

A crappy, selfish scientist

Someone who pales in comparison to Wagstaff and is unlikely to surpass him with the limited access to resources.

Who?

Probably laughing at everything currently happening and coming up with a fancy rhyme to comment on the naughtiness of it all. I don't think he cares.

The last time they tried to use an "un used" portal

Seems like they have an even bigger reason to be desperate now that the constant is no longer "constant" and everything is falling apart.

You and I can see it coming a mile away, but the survivors are absolutely going to accept it anyway.

Dead yet still alive. The survivors are skilled enough to live comfortably in base with their pals if they weren't actively making things worse for themselves all the time. Clearly they aren't afraid or incapable of fighting bosses, or they'd not keep going out of their way to do so.

Wilson understands pseudoscience well enough to the point where he can transmute planar resources.

Resources? Wagstaff left scrap lying around everywhere. Winona regularly makes improvements on Wagstaff's stuff.

Wickerbottom, Maxwell, and Wanda. They're very knowledgeable on Them/planar stuff.

Wortox might want to visit Earth on a lark. It brings into question how many of the survivors actually want out (definitely Warly), as opposed to a fix for an existential problem (Wanda and Wendy). What's Willow and Wurt's motive? Will Webber split with the spider half or become a circus sideshow? WX world domination?

Evidently they haven't learned the greater lesson in carelessness. It just wasn't producing results.

But they haven't tried using the new resources to build their own portal rather than hoping Wagstaff will get around to doing it for them. 

Edited June 22, 2025 by Bumber64

[Theukon-dos]

Thematically, I get why it happens, they want to show how much of a twat Wagstaff is. But between how cartoonishly evil evicting an old lady is when there's tons and tons of perfectly usable land that doesn't need it. And just how Inexplicably destruction-happy Klei has been with the rifts, it really just doesn't work out. 

 

It would entirely be possible for Klei to show Wagstaff being evil without ruining the one place the player actually gets rewarded for building on, or ruining any part of the map for that matter. 

[FillerText]

Why did this Discussion get skewed into how ethical nuclear bombs are?