Cannibalism (not a joke this time)

[T4T3RGR3NAD3R]

It should come with massive sanity loss, which slowly becoes less the more you do it.

[Scrimbles]

YOU KNOW YOU WANT IT (Sorry for blank spaces)

[Ridley]

No, I don't want it.

 

I would be fine with a skeleton bat though. Maybe make it look like a scythe.

[TheKingofSquirrels]

What? If there is pvp, then yes they will attack me. But eating human meat is rather gorey for any game. Don't Starve doesn't and shouldn't do gore. I don't care what human meat would do, it doesn't matter. I am not going to eat  little girl meat.

 

Don't starve is a spooky dark game, not a gorey dark game. 

 

It´s not meant to be gory...This is a game were hounds will eat your flesh, you can dig up graves, characters often talk about death, you can beat a rabbit in the head with a shovel and then sacrifice it for science. Sure, I´m not going to pretend that this isn´t one of the darker features if it were to be implemented, but it would go naturally with the dark style of the game. 

 

You don´t have to! It´s a choice! Did you read that you can also craft a grave and bury them instead? Giving you maybe 50+ sanity. You would only do this if you were really desperate, but even then, people like you wouldn´t because they know how wrong this is. That´s why I believe this is a really cool idea, it´s implementing a moral choice question! 

 

This isn't real life though, just like how that satanic symbol wasn't. I wasn't put off by it, but I agreed with the removal of it. If its going to bother people, its not the best thing to put in game. Just because most people thought the symbol was better, doesn't mean its smart to keep it. So Klei got rid of it.

 

I think the cannibalism is worse then the imagery, so it sounds bad to implement it. I asked some of the players I know, and eating a dead little girl did not sound like a good thing to put into a game.

 

Satanic symbol? What are you talking about? 

 

Honestly, if games like Skyrim have it why can´t Don´t Starve? I would argue that Don´t Starve is a much darker and an appropriate game to have this feature than Skyrim. 

 

[TheKingofSquirrels]

I respectfully don't like this idea. It would put me off, cannibalism is in my opinion unnatural and anyone who does it deserves to die, irregardless of the circumstances. It also doesn't seem like something that characters like Maxwell (too proud and refined) and Wendy (who would probably accept her death if she was close enough to it to resort to cannibalism anyway) would do.

 

It also just doesn't fit in with the Lovecraft-esque theme of Don't Starve. Giant tentacles that try to kill you? Sure. A tree that gets up and disembowels you if you cut down too many of it's bretheren? Okay. A human being intentionally devouring another human being? Maybe you should go watch Silence of the Lambs (which is a great movie, just not the same theme as DT) instead of playing this game. 

 

So if you are stuck in the woods and a friend of yours died, you would rather die than eat him? I don´t think it´s fare to blame people who do, but I guess that´s why I like this idea, it implements a moral choice. You can always bury them instead, which will boost your sanity. I just hate the idea of a player dying and his body either disappearing or turning into a skeleton immediately. It´s unrealistic.

 

Agreed. Characters like Wendy and Maxwell should have a much bigger impact on their sanity than the others if they eat meat.

 

Lovecraft? Then it would go perfectly, because Lovecraft actually has written about cannibalism (The Picture in the House). Also, Edgar Allen Poe, which is also a big influence on this game, incorporated cannibalism in his writing. In fact, The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket is actually a survival story about of a group who are shipwrecked, so it blends perfectly with Don´t Starve! 

[TheKingofSquirrels]

YOU KNOW YOU WANT IT (Sorry for blank spaces)

You mind if I use that?

[Refurin]

If this ever was a thing, you would have to not get a sanity boost for burying those that you killed. Because killing someone to bury them to restore sanity is unbalanced, and for some reason, creepier than killing them to eat them.

 

I guess a simple way to go about this would be to drop normal meat from players, but the meat has some information stored in it, that says it's human, so if you eat it (or even pick it up), you get a huge sanity drop.

 

And I guess the burying thing could work by just using the shovel on the skeleton or whatever.

 

I don't know.

 

But I don't think this is a bad idea. At the end of they day, people are playing a game, one about not starving, no less, so I don't think they'd think too much into the fact that it was a person.

[Scrimbles]

You mind if I use that?

 

Sure, don't bother giving credit it took like 5 seconds to create

[TheKingofSquirrels]

Sure, don't bother giving credit it took like 5 seconds to create

 

I put a link to your page =D

[Ridley]

It´s not meant to be gory...This is a game were hounds will eat your flesh, you can dig up graves, characters often talk about death, you can beat a rabbit in the head with a shovel and then sacrifice it for science. Sure, I´m not going to pretend that this isn´t one of the darker features if it were to be implemented, but it would go naturally with the dark style of the game. 

 

You don´t have to! It´s a choice! Did you read that you can also craft a grave and bury them instead? Giving you maybe 50+ sanity. You would only do this if you were really desperate, but even then, people like you wouldn´t because they know how wrong this is. That´s why I believe this is a really cool idea, it´s implementing a moral choice question! 

 

 

Satanic symbol? What are you talking about? 

 

Honestly, if games like Skyrim have it why can´t Don´t Starve? I would argue that Don´t Starve is a much darker and an appropriate game to have this feature than Skyrim. 

 

It is gory, and it would be the goriest and darkest feature regardless if you used it or not. I still don'ta want to see might drop on the ground after someone dies. It does not go with the style because its gory, and Don't Starve is purposely not gory.

 

Moral choices are tricky in games because they are either wrongly done by a charisma meter or they mean nothing. Moral choices normally work best as tough decisions where you won't know the outcome. 

 

The symbol was the old magic tab icon.

 

Other games have sex, we don't need that just because its in another game do we?

[An Artifact]

 

Other games have sex, we don't need that just because its in another game do we?

 

Sex also doesn't have anything to add to surviving in the wilderness (as important as it might be to the survival of the species). Eating, however, is the most important part of surviving.

 

Besides, who said anything about KILLING other players for their meat? I wouldn't ever kill them, I'd only pick up their buttcheeks and fry them on a fire if they get slashed by a treeguard or something.

[kxdx]

I like the concept of there being a large sanity impact on the matter, whether you decide to eat them or bury your fallen ally.

[Brianman27]

Wendy kills her sister, she also can kill and eat you.

[Ridley]

Sex also doesn't have anything to add to surviving in the wilderness (as important as it might be to the survival of the species). Eating, however, is the most important part of surviving.

 

Besides, who said anything about KILLING other players for their meat? I wouldn't ever kill them, I'd only pick up their buttcheeks and fry them on a fire if they get slashed by a treeguard or something.

 

The point was it didn't fit into the game, and neither would cannibalism. I know what you mean by surviving under all means, but then why can't I eat my hand and later use a meat effigy to get it back? That is just as gory as what is being suggested, and it doesn't fit the game for that reason. Besides all this, what would it add to the game mechanically? Yet another way to get food, which isn't a problem anyway. Besides possibly comical, all this would do is discomfort people with a arbitrary mechanic with a theme that was purposely avoided. 

 

Eating already dead players is still cannibalism. 

[An Artifact]

The point was it didn't fit into the game, and neither would cannibalism. I know what you mean by surviving under all means, but then why can't I eat my hand and later use a meat effigy to get it back? That is just as gory as what is being suggested, and it doesn't fit the game for that reason. Besides all this, what would it add to the game mechanically? Yet another way to get food, which isn't a problem anyway. Besides possibly comical, all this would do is discomfort people with a arbitrary mechanic with a theme that was purposely avoided. 

 

Eating already dead players is still cannibalism. 

 

Pigs eating pigskins is also cannibalism. And those guys don't even need to eat to survive, unlike us.

[TheKingofSquirrels]

It is gory, and it would be the goriest and darkest feature regardless if you used it or not. I still don'ta want to see might drop on the ground after someone dies. It does not go with the style because its gory, and Don't Starve is purposely not gory.

 

Moral choices are tricky in games because they are either wrongly done by a charisma meter or they mean nothing. Moral choices normally work best as tough decisions where you won't know the outcome. 

 

The symbol was the old magic tab icon.

 

Other games have sex, we don't need that just because its in another game do we?

 

First off, when a character dies, my idea wasn´t that a character would simply drop meat when they died. I was thinking more like; his body would lay on ground and after a couple of days, it would turn into a skeleton. During that time you could either pick him up and bury him, or harvest him with an axe. Would you rather a player despawned or turned into a skeleton immediately after death? Because personally I would hate that, it´s unrealistic and silly. Also, the fact that the game is perma-death, a player dying shouldn´t be something casual. 

 

Personally, I don´t think it´s that gory compared to the other stuff in the game. Did you know that in Don´t Starve you can find heads on sticks with flies flying around them?

 

It´s not really clear what you said about moral choices. I´ll say this, unlike other games with moral choices, like Bioshock for example, they have stories with them and I don´t really like them that much, simply because it´s very good vs evil, and ultimately what ends up happening is because you pick a morally questionably bad choice, you get the bad ending. Don´t Starve doesn´t have a story or an ending, so thankfully that won´t be a problem here. 

 

Sex? What´s that go to do with anything? It has nothing to do with surviving in the wilderness...

 

 

[TheKingofSquirrels]

The point was it didn't fit into the game, and neither would cannibalism. I know what you mean by surviving under all means, but then why can't I eat my hand and later use a meat effigy to get it back? That is just as gory as what is being suggested, and it doesn't fit the game for that reason. Besides all this, what would it add to the game mechanically? Yet another way to get food, which isn't a problem anyway. Besides possibly comical, all this would do is discomfort people with a arbitrary mechanic with a theme that was purposely avoided. 

 

Eating already dead players is still cannibalism. 

 

Sex doesn´t fit because it has nothing to do with anything! Cannibalism does. It´s something that it is a given in the survival genre. Think of Alive and The Road. And even outside of fiction, real cases like the Donner Party, the Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 and the R v Dudly and Stephens case, where groups of people were stranded and separated from society, having to result to cannibalism to survive. Also, if you think of the influences which inspire Don´t Starve, which I would say are mostly Lovecraft and Edgar Allan Poe, they also incorporated themes of cannibalism in their literature. 

 

It fits with the style, it fits with the theme and it fits with the genre of Don´t Starve. I think it should be added.

[TheKingofSquirrels]

Wendy kills her sister, she also can kill and eat you.

 

Wendy killed her sister?

[RalphKastro]

Wendy killed her sister?

nope, it's just a theory(A GAME THEORY)

[mrtwoface]

So if you are stuck in the woods and a friend of yours died, you would rather die than eat him? I don´t think it´s fare to blame people who do, but I guess that´s why I like this idea, it implements a moral choice. You can always bury them instead, which will boost your sanity. I just hate the idea of a player dying and his body either disappearing or turning into a skeleton immediately. It´s unrealistic.

 

Agreed. Characters like Wendy and Maxwell should have a much bigger impact on their sanity than the others if they eat meat.

 

Lovecraft? Then it would go perfectly, because Lovecraft actually has written about cannibalism (The Picture in the House). Also, Edgar Allen Poe, which is also a big influence on this game, incorporated cannibalism in his writing. In fact, The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket is actually a survival story about of a group who are shipwrecked, so it blends perfectly with Don´t Starve! 

I just don't really see them adding cannibalism to the game, it would be a lot more possible trouble then its worth. If they changed a crafting menu icon because it looked satanic, do you really think they will implement a people-eating mechanic? I like the idea of a moral choice of what to do with another player's body, though, even if it didn't involve cannibalism.

 

edit: Good point on Lovecraft, I probably shouldn't have used his works as an example without first knowing if cannibalism was present in them 

[Ridley]

First off, when a character dies, my idea wasn´t that a character would simply drop meat when they died. I was thinking more like; his body would lay on ground and after a couple of days, it would turn into a skeleton. During that time you could either pick him up and bury him, or harvest him with an axe. Would you rather a player despawned or turned into a skeleton immediately after death? Because personally I would hate that, it´s unrealistic and silly. Also, the fact that the game is perma-death, a player dying shouldn´t be something casual. 

 

Personally, I don´t think it´s that gory compared to the other stuff in the game. Did you know that in Don´t Starve you can find heads on sticks with flies flying around them? 

 

It´s not really clear what you said about moral choices. I´ll say this, unlike other games with moral choices, like Bioshock for example, they have stories with them and I don´t really like them that much, simply because it´s very good vs evil, and ultimately what ends up happening is because you pick a morally questionably bad choice, you get the bad ending. Don´t Starve doesn´t have a story or an ending, so thankfully that won´t be a problem here. 

 

Sex? What´s that go to do with anything? It has nothing to do with surviving in the wilderness...

 

What? Unrealistic and silly? Animals already disappear on death, and saving people from the nightmare throne kills them the same way. It has never been called silly before this idea.

 

Pigs commonly devour each other in real life. People don't. People are not pigs, no matter what people say. Pigs are animals, so it isn't as bad as the possible human head on a stick. 

 

Bioshock had kind of lame moral system. It didn't effect anything most of the time and was very clear about what is good or bad in most cases. They didn't add much to the game. Papers Please was awesome about moral choices on the other hand. Those are different games though; alot of things work differently because of the entire set up they are composed in. This is why I didn't acknowledge Skyrim earlier.

 

The only time Don't Starve has seen human blood was in the Forbidden Knowledge trailer, and its a HUGE jump from that to eating each other. The old magic icon was removed from the game because it made people uncomfortable. I don't know much about Lovecraft and I am not a expert on Poe, but it wasn't above either of them to have a Pentagram in their stories I bet. Eating dead people does not fit this style, even though it was inspired by dark story tellers. Since we can't do things like eat pig skin to survive a little longer, it doesn't fit the theme of "Doing what ever it takes." And the genre is more spooky/dark than morbid gore. This should not be added, as it is a unfitting mechanic that does not enhance the game, seeing how it is a arbitrary feature that would not settle with some players and eventually become mundane as killing pigs for food to others.

[TheKingofSquirrels]

What? Unrealistic and silly? Animals already disappear on death, and saving people from the nightmare throne kills them the same way. It has never been called silly before this idea.

 

Pigs commonly devour each other in real life. People don't. People are not pigs, no matter what people say. Pigs are animals, so it isn't as bad as the possible human head on a stick. 

 

Bioshock had kind of lame moral system. It didn't effect anything most of the time and was very clear about what is good or bad in most cases. They didn't add much to the game. Papers Please was awesome about moral choices on the other hand. Those are different games though; alot of things work differently because of the entire set up they are composed in. This is why I didn't acknowledge Skyrim earlier.

 

The only time Don't Starve has seen human blood was in the Forbidden Knowledge trailer, and its a HUGE jump from that to eating each other. The old magic icon was removed from the game because it made people uncomfortable. I don't know much about Lovecraft and I am not a expert on Poe, but it wasn't above either of them to have a Pentagram in their stories I bet. Eating dead people does not fit this style, even though it was inspired by dark story tellers. Since we can't do things like eat pig skin to survive a little longer, it doesn't fit the theme of "Doing what ever it takes." And the genre is more spooky/dark than morbid gore. This should not be added, as it is a unfitting mechanic that does not enhance the game, seeing how it is a arbitrary feature that would not settle with some players and eventually become mundane as killing pigs for food to others.

 

Well, I think at least (let´s forget about the cannibalism for a second here) player´s corpses should stay and have some purpose. I don´t think that killing a player should be something casual like killing an animal, where they just despawn after being killed. I think remains should be left of some kind. Do you at least agree with the idea of being able to bury the dead in respect?

 

I´m a vegetarian, so to me it´s just as bad, but anyway, point is I still think there is some gruesome stuff in the game.

 

I love Papers Please. What I´m trying to say is, I don´t like moral choices when they actually change the story with a bad or good ending. I think moral choices should just affect the player as a person outside of the game, like in The Walking Dead, where the choices you make really make you go "Gee...I´m a horrible person" and make you doubt your entire life, but don´t really change the story that much.

 

I still think the comparison to sex is ridiculous and I think people were sensitive to the satanic icon because of religious reasons. I like it because of the depressing realism it brings to the game and I personally believe that Don´t Starve is dark and mature enough to handle and adopt this feature appropriately, but I understand your points against it and I get that some people will be sensitive and react badly to it. 

[TheKingofSquirrels]

I just don't really see them adding cannibalism to the game, it would be a lot more possible trouble then its worth. If they changed a crafting menu icon because it looked satanic, do you really think they will implement a people-eating mechanic? I like the idea of a moral choice of what to do with another player's body, though, even if it didn't involve cannibalism.

 

edit: Good point on Lovecraft, I probably shouldn't have used his works as an example without first knowing if cannibalism was present in them 

 

Oh yeah, there is no way they are adding this, I don´t expect them too. This was more of an experiment to see how messed up people are. 

 

The whole satanic thing they probably took it out because of sticky and dangerous religious issues it might have brought up. I personally don´t think that eating people in a game would be that offensive, but maybe I´m a bit jaded and I´m not realizing that some players might be sensitive to it. I don´t know.

 

I will say though, I really hope that player´s corpses don´t just despawn. Killing players should´t be something casual like killing animals. Also, if they die and all of their inventory just explodes in the air, it´s a bit too much like Minecraft. I know when players are resurrected, they turn into skeletons. I hope that´s not the same when players are killed, it would look a little silly in my opinion.

[Tonguetyd]

Sure, but don't make it something you'll want to eat.

Killing your friend should be the final thing you do should food get scarce.

[mrtwoface]

Oh yeah, there is no way they are adding this, I don´t expect them too. This was more of an experiment to see how messed up people are. 

 

The whole satanic thing they probably took it out because of sticky and dangerous religious issues it might have brought up. I personally don´t think that eating people in a game would be that offensive, but maybe I´m a bit jaded and I´m not realizing that some players might be sensitive to it. I don´t know.

 

I will say though, I really hope that player´s corpses don´t just despawn. Killing players should´t be something casual like killing animals. Also, if they die and all of their inventory just explodes in the air, it´s a bit too much like Minecraft. I know when players are resurrected, they turn into skeletons. I hope that´s not the same when players are killed, it would look a little silly in my opinion.

Maybe instead of choosing to bury them or eat them, you could choose to bury them and get a sanity boost or use a hammer to get bone shards and a possible item they had with a sanity loss? And maybe if you choose to do a bad thing to a corpse, there is a chance a ghost could spawn? If the whole inventory drops on death, everyone will be killing each other, so I hope that isn't the case.