Klei, can we stop getting updates?

[Uedo]

49 minutes ago, cropo said:

Is the legend of zelda a survival game because it has drowning elements, or a depleting HP bar and magic meter that you must maintain? Try getting 2 Beefalos, do not allow them to fight back when struck, and let them breed with a single berry ad-infinitum, that is Minecraft. How is that a survival game? You say my definitions are too specific, but I say the examples both you and bumber gave me are far too vague and loose to the point they can be applied to practically any game.


 

 

If they have not added any significant survival-related challenged for the entirety of its runtime; it's only "survival" related feature of starving being added as a combat balance change in its infancy and never expanded upon, nearly every resource being so plentiful and easy to produce that server owners have to ban players who make too much to prevent server lag, the vast majority of the fan-base fighting over what color they should add as a dye for their blocks in their next update, their offshoot community of modders on the two available platforms only having Quality of Life, RPG and combat overhauls, and mass-production overhauls, and disgruntled people who want the game to be a genuine survival game going off to create their own game because the game is too easy to convert into a challenging survival experience...I would say that's not a survival game. At best, it just barely, technically fits the definition on technicality alone and nothing else. The original point of this tangent was that Minecraft was used as an example of a "survival game not having to rely on non-survival updates to thrive" which I disagreed with because Minecraft has never truly done anything with survival mechanics and their updates have been either for cosmetic or combat-related purposes, which is counterintuitive to the updates they allegedly want to see in Don't Starve.

 

You have to do this in almost every game in existence though, this is not specific to any particular genre. Having "survival elements" does not make a game a "survival game". Don't Starve is a survival game because the core design philosophy, advertisement, and intent behind the game was to pit the player in an unforgiving world of hostility that they would need to brave in order to fulfil their basic needs, and failing to do so results in your death. 

Minecraft is an open-world sandbox where nearly every element of its features are at your disposal to manipulate, abuse, and reshape to your image and you are highly encouraged to do so. The player is not told they have to navigate a hostile world in order to keep their basic needs met in order to survive; they are plopped in the middle of no where and told to have fun, that the universe is kind and loves them, and that they have the power to create entire worlds. There are enemies trying to kill you, but that does not make it a survival game; every game with combat features enemies that are trying to harm you in some way. The core design philosophy of both Notch and Microsoft was to encourage creativity and imagination, not pit the player against the elements, starvation, and adversity, and Microsoft on principle have been very reluctant to add content to the game because they don't want to "complicate the game further" because turning it into an actual game with more elements and mechanics the player needs to deal with gets in the way of their creative process. They have even dumbed down the hostile elements as of late, by reducing enemy spawn conditions so builders would not be restricted in their lighting choices for their decorative building.
 

I still think i'm right, I don't really have anything to add. I think the points I made previously demonstrate my position.

Overall though, if you want to take some grapes, no matter how sour they might taste, I'll state to avoid any ambiguity: I think whether the player feels the game is survival does not detract from the survival elements designed into the game. I fully believe you don't feel it's a survival game, I'm not doubting you - The problem is that we disagree on a fundamental level, one of us will have to shift our perspective. I understand yours, but you're arguing that a lake isn't water because the ocean is made of water and it's clearly not an ocean. It's water, whether you want to believe it or not, it will always be water. Just as DST, is, a survival game - not in isolation, it's many things, but survival mechanics are a core part of the gameplay loop at all stages of the game. 

49 minutes ago, cropo said:

You say my definitions are too specific, but I say the examples both you and bumber gave me are far too vague and loose to the point they can be applied to practically any game

Sorry, to be clear. I wasn't trying to say you were being too specific. I was saying you're being too black and white, sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

EDIT (Sentence wasn't very clear): If anything, i'm saying you're not being specific enough, in the sense you're ignoring the context and on your interpretation of something you'd consider a direct definition of the genre. This topic comes up time and time again, and it shows that your definition of genre is not as rigid as you'd like it to be. 

What's a rogue-like, what is a rogue-lite, what's the differences between the two, and is minesweeper a rogue-like?
My bet is that you'll be able to define them really easily yet it'll still cause disagreement with other people, almost as if it's subjective, it is, but that's why i've found it more helpful to discuss survival mechanics and not the genre of survival game, because the latter just turns into a revolving door of opinion and arguements.

DST is a survival game.

49 minutes ago, cropo said:

Minecraft is an open-world sandbox where nearly every element of its features are at your disposal to manipulate, abuse, and reshape to your image and you are highly encouraged to do so. The player is not told they have to navigate a hostile world in order to keep their basic needs met in order to survive; they are plopped in the middle of no where and told to have fun, that the universe is kind and loves them, and that they have the power to create entire worlds. There are enemies trying to kill you, but that does not make it a survival game; every game with combat features enemies that are trying to harm you in some way. The core design philosophy of both Notch and Microsoft was to encourage creativity and imagination, not pit the player against the elements, starvation, and adversity, and Microsoft on principle have been very reluctant to add content to the game because they don't want to "complicate the game further" because turning it into an actual game with more elements and mechanics the player needs to deal with gets in the way of their creative process. They have even dumbed down the hostile elements as of late, by reducing enemy spawn conditions so builders would not be restricted in their lighting choices for their decorative building.
 

Edit (Better phrasing): So when you create a world in minecraft do you choose 'Creative' or 'Survival'?

Causeeeee if you choooooose surrrrvivvvaaaaalllll....... 

Edited July 8, 2025 by Uedo

[cropo]

26 minutes ago, Uedo said:

What's a rogue-like, what is a rogue-lite, what's the differences between the two, and is minesweeper a rogue-like?
My bet is that you'll be able to define them really easily yet it'll still cause disagreement with other people, almost as if it's subjective, it is, but that's why i've found it more helpful to discuss survival mechanics and not the genre of survival game, because the latter just turns into a revolving door of opinion and arguements.

I understand what you're trying to say but this is probably the worst example to argue that it is subjective. 

A "Roguelike" is "Like the game Rogue" wherein the player is plopped down and does stuff till they die, said death is permanent. A "Rogue Lite" is the same concept, but the punishment is not as harsh and has some form of permanent progression that persist through death. 

 

29 minutes ago, Uedo said:

Causeeeee if you choooooose surrrrvivvvaaaaalllll....... 

A mode in a game being called "survival" does not make it a survival game in the way that the image is being invoked here; many games use the "survive" or "survival" word in it. 

 

 

31 minutes ago, Uedo said:

but you're arguing that a lake isn't water because the ocean is made of water and it's clearly not an ocean. It's water, whether you want to believe it or not, it will always be water.

I would argue a better metaphor is that you are trying to argue that Soda is water, because it has water in it, when the intentions of soda are clearly not to be consumed for hydration. So if I said I was dehydrated and you offered me a soda, and then argued to me that Soda was fine because from a technical standpoint it contains "the elements needed to hydrate" within it I would tell you that it's not water.

[Uedo]

39 minutes ago, cropo said:

I understand what you're trying to say but this is probably the worst example to argue that it is subjective. 

A "Roguelike" is "Like the game Rogue" wherein the player is plopped down and does stuff till they die, said death is permanent. A "Rogue Lite" is the same concept, but the punishment is not as harsh and has some form of permanent progression that persist through death. 

 

A mode in a game being called "survival" does not make it a survival game in the way that the image is being invoked here; many games use the "survive" or "survival" word in it. 

 

 

I would argue a better metaphor is that you are trying to argue that Soda is water, because it has water in it, when the intentions of soda are clearly not to be consumed for hydration. So if I said I was dehydrated and you offered me a soda, and then argued to me that Soda was fine because from a technical standpoint it contains "the elements needed to hydrate" within it I would tell you that it's not water.

Totally

 

[reddocc]

why

[Bumber64]

9 hours ago, cropo said:

Is the legend of zelda a survival game because it has drowning elements, or a depleting HP bar and magic meter that you must maintain?

BotW and TotK are. They've even got temperature. Other entries aren't because they toss you the items you need when you need them. Arrows and magic are restored by pots in the boss rooms that respawn each attempt.

11 hours ago, cropo said:

2018: [...] new enemies to fight. (Phantoms.)

2019: [...] new pillager-type enemies to fight in raids. (They invade your safe trading areas.)

2020: Nether update, [...] new combat-related enemies with a loot chest at the end. New endgame-tier armor [...]. (You risk your survival trying to get these rewards. New ways to be knockback'd into lava. Mending enchant is the actual issue with equipment.)

2022: [...] boss mob that wasn't intended to be fought [...]. (A threat that requires you to exercise stealth. Incentive is loot as usual.)

2023-2024: A mini dungeon [...]. (Threats for new loot again.)

I'm just not seeing the "survival" content here.

Unique threats are survival content. Just because you can lock yourself inside a dirt box forever to avoid progression and all threats doesn't make it not a survival game.

You can build automated stuff, but you have to acquire most of the tech (e.g., redstone, quartz, slime) by going out and risking your life first. Enemies and fall damage are present threats while building. Potions and elytra are locked behind areas that can destroy your entire inventory.

IMO, the hunger bar actually is less survival focused than what preceded it. Food used to not stack, so you could only bring a few healing items with you. Now you're just limited by recovery time, which is more like an FPS hide-and-heal mechanic.

Edited July 9, 2025 by Bumber64

[_zwb]

20 hours ago, Capybara007 said:

Dst is not a gacha game

I'm not saying it is, the point is bad game design doesn't always stop people playing the game.

[Echsrick]

On 7/8/2025 at 4:55 PM, cropo said:

Minecraft is 100% not a survival game,

it has a survival mode silly, therefor: a survival game