Devs: What's the point of the game?

[mehtarlam]

I get the title "Don't Starve".

So is the point to wander around picking berries and killing rabbits while cutting down two trees per day to stave off the night? What's the goal? Where's the end game? What am I playing toward? Eat a few cooked berries a day and chop down one to two trees while harvesting three grass? Is that the goal of the game? Is the game designed to test my endurance at repeating the following tasks.

1. Eat four to five cooked berries/rabbits/birds.

2. Chop down two trees.

3. Harvest three grass.

I can do that on day one.

After watching a few hours of live Don't Starve play on Twitch.tv I made the plunge and bought the game. Are you watching how people are playing on Twitch? That's what interested me and that is how the majority of people are playing the game--at least those streaming their play.

1. They pick up enough resources on day one to start a fire and survive.

2. From day two onward they build and flesh out a "base" or in some cases "bases": Fire pit, science machine(s), crock pot, turbo farms, etc., etc. They're playing toward a goal, perhaps one you don't approve of, but a goal. That goal is building up a large, self-sustaining base.

From what I've read from the dev team houses and structures that would facilitate a base would encourage "turtling up"--which isn't what you have in mind. Okay, sounds good. So what do you have in mind? What's the point in surviving say one day versus three hundred when day three hundred is just as easy as day one? In fact, the hardest day to survive as of right now is day one. After day one the only way to die is to get caught harvesting resources (for a base you don't want us to build). Maybe you forget to execute step 2, i.e., you don't chop down two trees and are unable to start a fire. Or maybe I forget step 3 and neglect to harvest three grass.

Dying to npcs--spiders, pigs, beefalo--is a voluntary act or an act of misplay, e.g., accidentally clicking to attack a beefalo. All npcs can be kited and none of them drop items you need to "not starve".

Suggestion:

If the goal is to not starve the "longest", then perhaps some type of ramping up of resistance with a reward for hitting a certain day count would be of interest. Perhaps at the beginning there is plenty of resources and few threats (npcs). The player is allowed to store up excess and devise a strategy to hold on. As the days go by, the game would become progressively more difficult. There could be rewards for making it to day 100, 200, 300, etc.

[Excess]

As the days go by, the game would become progressively more difficult.

This is the devs idea too, and the recent introduction of hounds is the first step towards that objective, as the hounds grow in number the longer you survive.

[Krimbo]

You do realise this game is an alpha right?

Not even a beta. Alpha - playable state.

Meaning, its not a finished product.

They're adding things to it all the time.

I gather you've heard of Minecraft before.

Don't Starve is way more developed than Minecraft was in Alpha.

There's tons of things to do in the game already, not mentioning the content they add every two weeks.

Also, Minecraft didn't have an 'end game' until one of the latest versions.

[Toaster Fu]

Well, the content of the game is in beta, the steam port is in alpha…

[Krimbo]

Well, the content of the game is in beta, the steam port is in alpha…

Either way. Minecraft was beta for a LONG time. They probably tripled the games content whilst it was in beta.

I'm hoping Don't Starve add just as many things to do as well.

[501105]

Seeing as the game will get plenty of content yet to come until its release in march and 6 months of supprt after that (at the least), I would not worry about content. Do realise that a lot of fun in the game is making your own goals, crafting all hats or creating crazy beautifull camps, fun does not need a clear goal to be had.

[mobius187]

I see some solid answers already posted, but I'll throw in my 2 cents as well.

the goal? Where's the end game? What am I playing toward? Eat a few cooked berries a day and chop down one to two trees while harvesting three grass? Is that the goal of the game? Is the game designed to test my endurance at repeating the following tasks.

As others have pointed out, Don't Starve is still in the Beta stage, and as such, it's not finished yet. At this time there is no end game and it's unclear whether there will ever be one. Personally I'm fine either way (having on vs not having one). As to the goal, or what you are playing towards, right now it's survival. However as time progresses new content will be added and the difficulty in completing this task will change. For example, the inclusion of the hounds was made to make the survivor's life less predictable and surviving that much harder.

After watching a few hours of live Don't Starve play on Twitch.tv I made the plunge and bought the game. Are you watching how people are playing on Twitch? That's what interested me and that is how the majority of people are playing the game--at least those streaming their play.

No, I haven't watched anything on Twitch.tv, however I did watch a Let's Play series posted on YouTube. That's how I managed to learn the basics of the game. At least the basics as they were back in early November.

From what I've read from the dev team houses and structures that would facilitate a base would encourage "turtling up"--which isn't what you have in mind. Okay, sounds good. So what do you have in mind? What's the point in surviving say one day versus three hundred when day three hundred is just as easy as day one?

Yes, but also no. It's interesting. Officially Kevin has stated he witnessed all our creative methods (re: exploits) to protect ourselves, especially in light of the random hound attacks. I for one built a small fort out of chests, until chests were nerfed (i.e. no longer blocked pathfinding). On the flip side we have been told by Kevin that walls will eventually be added.

My thought is that, similar to Minecraft, players will be given the option to choose what goal they're striving towards. If you want to play it safe or if you want to take greater risks (i.e. be more adventurous).

In fact, the hardest day to survive as of right now is day one. After day one the only way to die is to get caught harvesting resources (for a base you don't want us to build). Maybe you forget to execute step 2, i.e., you don't chop down two trees and are unable to start a fire. Or maybe I forget step 3 and neglect to harvest three grass.

Right now Klei has implemented the basics of survival, but there are still gaps. For example, beefalo exist, but they never have children and they never eat... which means if the first issue is never resolved then potentially beefalo will go extinct (assuming the player hunts them or they die due to random accidents, like... Abigail). However if beefalo do ever have children then something needs to control that population growth, in which case beefalo should need to eat (i.e. grass). That way if there is no food source other beefalo would starve, and so on.

Also, Kevin teased us by mentioning the "winter was coming". So seasons may eventually be introduced into the game.

If the goal is to not starve the "longest", then perhaps some type of ramping up of resistance with a reward for hitting a certain day count would be of interest. Perhaps at the beginning there is plenty of resources and few threats (npcs). The player is allowed to store up excess and devise a strategy to hold on. As the days go by, the game would become progressively more difficult. There could be rewards for making it to day 100, 200, 300, etc.

Yup, as was pointed out by Excess, the DEVs are slowly ramping up the day-to-day difficulty by including such events as the hounds. Kevin himself commented players shouldn't be surviving as long as they have, or maybe he was just concerned that by surviving that long we were showing how easy it was to survive... and hence the recent updates meant to keep us on our toes.

[NeedPants]

I agree with 501105, fun is different for each individual and setting ur own goals is fun for many, but perhaps not for all.

Keep in mind this is not a competitive game, there are no scores and there is no ranking system. Everything u do, ur the one and only judge of it. Later on the game will pose more challenges, some will be brought upon u, like hounds, others are only a challenge if u want to make it one, like going to explore the swamps.

EDIT: I didnt notice b4 how u mentioned the devs "not wanting u to turtle". This isnt true. They dont mind us turtling and we can see that because there are alot of structures u cannot carry around with that require u to center ur activity around a specific area, but they dont want turtling to be the one and only viable strategy. U will always need a campfire and u will always have to build a science machine to unlock stuff, but other than that, u dont NEED to farm food, u dont NEED to replant berry bushes and u dont NEED to construct pighouses. U CAN scavenge for food effectively all around the map even in the most dangerous areas. The only problem at the moment is that it is so much harder and more tedious to survive scavenging around than it is to turtle. They are already tweaking that. They nerfed grass, they increased manure usage as to slow down turtlers and they nerfed tools overall so that it is more costly gather all the resources needed to build e.g. pighouses. They also added the backpack to facilitate nomaddic gameplay.

Edited December 1, 2012 by NeedPants

[winddbourne]

The mention of the backpack reminds me that use of the backpack currently discourages nomadic play on my part. I have no problem using the backpack in a "safe" area, such as around my base to help me gather and carry back specific resources quickly back to the central enclosure, especially if the enclosure has defensive measures such as a beefolo herd or pig village to discourage unwanted guests.

But if I'm wandering around exploring, and thus at risk of being in an unsafe area at night, running into a hound, a tentacle, tons of spiders, or whatever . . . then my safest course is to wear the armor instead. Why? Because I'm wandering and don't know what I might encounter in a hostile, and changing, world.

Thus the backpack encourages turtling, or at the least "clearing" the worlds dangers in some way to make it "safe" not to be wearing armor.

[Toaster Fu]

You could wear the football helmet with the backpack, it gives you armor like the log suit.

[mobius187]

You could wear the football helmet with the backpack, it gives you armor like the log suit.

Yup. And I keep a log suit in my inventory anyway. If the hounds come calling then you have more than enough time to drop your backpack and switch to your log suit. In any other situation you'll also have time. Well, maybe running into tallbirds would be troublesome, but then you have the football cap.

[ResonanceCrea]

I still kinda agree with the initial post in the sense that it's named "don't starve" and having only the hounds as a threat on the long run means only that, at this stage of the game, it should rather be named " don't die ".

But as most said, it's just a matter of waiting to see what the devs have in store for us.

Edited December 2, 2012 by ResonanceCrea
grammar

[winddbourne]

I haven't tried the hat's yet, perhaps a football helmet will be next on my research list.

[Sickma]

best way to make players starve is to not let them have any quickly renewable resorces

so to make the player venture for food.

ex: trees take really long time to grow so player needs massive tree farm to camp

-rabbits bearly respawn

- etc. radda radda... you get the picture