Let's talk about Don't Starve multiplayer..

[Doctor H. Derp]

I can't imagine how this isn't the case. Think about RoG. There were plenty of non-massive changes from RoG that could've been easily implemented into vanilla, but that won't happen, so that makes me think the same will go for multiplayer.

 

I'm not exactly up in arms at the notion that a DLC centered completely around adding multiplayer to Don't Starve is going to be multiplayer focused as opposed to singleplayer focused. I'm concerned that once this DLC comes and goes the focus on multiplayer will remain instead of merely being an addition.

 

So many pro-multiplayer people are all like, "What's the problem? Klei can work on both equally, and they can be equally awesome!" which it could be, but it could also be that Klei believes the real money is in multiplayer. Does that mean Klei are evil money-grubbing jerkfaces? No. It just means that if they could make more by bringing us the best multiplayer experience they can muster as opposed to the best singleplayer experience they can muster, which do you think is going to be the more tempting option? Which do you think will have more incentive attached to it?

I don't think Klei is all about the dollar, but I'd be a fool to think that Klei doesn't have paychecks to issue out, electrical bills, rent, other costs and expenses, etc.

[Spazmatic]

Words of wisdom from @Xjurwi , @ArcticFox789 , @aredshroom , @simplex and @Doctor H. Derp right here. Not much to add to that, other than my own point of view.

 

Personally, I'm rather neutral about the whole multiplayer prospect, not against it nor am utterly excited about it. And that's not because Iof a lack of faith in Klei (during my ermagerd I leave forums period I bought the RoG dlc aswell, which provided more hours of replayability to DS and a way to support the devs), it's just that there needs to be an actual, euh thing (It's a....thing.) to experience, not merely written words and promises. A wee bit too early to send the final product to total damnation, but also too early to call it the best thing ever. It's a plan, it will be a thing, might aswell make the best of it. After all, both the pro and contra multiplayer folks just want the best for the game, be it in a conflicting way to each other.

 

On a sidenote, I always felt like the people who wanted multiplayer were  a minority, at least in 2012-13. Seems the demand grew over the years eh (or I was bestowed with ignorance, perhaps)?

[Nickboom]

I think the issue here is that we all need to wait for a bit and just see how they implement multiplayer. I also believe rather strongly that Klei has given us a *ton* of content after release for free already. Stating that some of the less massive changes in ROG should be in vanilla is rather annoying considering how good Klei is to their community. (Aside from bug fixes clearly) When they mentioned multiplayer the way I pictured it going was an even harsher world that only me and maybe 2 or 3 other people are struggling to survive in, we gather around the fire at night and talk about our experiences during the day. I also picture people RPing lots as their given character. My only issue is that public servers would be horrible and filled with griefers but I think servers made by me or my friends for us and whitelisted servers would actually be kind of fun. (Also whos to say they wont add more common monsters that have AOE attacks or that people have to work together to take down like one person distracts it or something while the other attacks it's defenseless rear)

[buttercup]

My feelings on this are.....complicated. Like Arctic said, I've been around since late 2012, and I've seen so many "omfgz whats teh point if i cant play with my boyfriend????//" threads that I lost count. So after a year and a half of shooting down multiplayer threads left and right, this is extremely jarring. 

 

One of my favorite things about Don't Starve was how nobody told me to play it with other people. I don't mean to sound like a video game elitist nerd, but I'm a loner. I don't play multiplayer if I can help it. And a trend I've noticed in single/multiplayer games is that things are usually near-impossible to do yourself, because the expectation is that you'll always have backup. Having trouble beating a boss? Ask some friends to help, you antisocial freak! So when I saw multiplayer was 100% off the table, and they were totally committed to singleplayer, I was relieved. But now.....you have to understand why I feel at least a little bit lied to.

 

I'm not trying to sound entitled. I know things change, I know plans for things change, I know multiplayer is where the money is. I got so much more than I paid for on this game that I honestly have nothing to complain about. I guess all I can do is hope that they make good on their promise to keep doing exclusively singleplayer stuff as well, because that's what I'm here for.

 

(Also I'm still kinda sad that the puzzle didn't lead to something cool like the William Carter one did. I like backstory don't look at me)

[mrtwoface]

Six months of free updates and a cheap DLC is not enough single player experience?

 

They can't add in every suggestion that forumers make, and from what I have seen in the ROG forum, they are a LOT more considerate of player suggestions to the game then any other game developer. The new resurrection feature where a skeleton is left behind to make bone shards renewable was player suggested. The stackable glowberries and refuelabale moggles were player suggested. Can you see how it sounds a bit silly when you say that they don't listen to our suggestions?

 

Klei said that MP in DT looked fun to them. Not cost-effective, not in the maximum profit interest, just fun. They want to make their game more fun, and I am interested to see if it is fun for everyone else as well. 

 

I do wish that Klei had announced it some other way then the puzzle, because it seems like a real kick in the face to people who were hoping for lore or more SP updates. I also wish that they hadn't so forcefully squashed all ideas of multiplayer in the beginning so they would look less like they can't make up their minds. 

 

Ultimately, multiplayer is coming no matter what we say on this forum, so why not just hope for the best and plan for the worst rather then making it ruin the game a bit for you? Just my opinion. 

[Doctor H. Derp]

Six months of free updates and a cheap DLC is not enough single player experience?

 

That is a very disingenuous question, allow me to explain why.

 

1. If nothing else -- the tip of the iceberg if you will -- we were promised numerous times that Klei was going to bring us the best singleplayer experience they could muster and that multiplayer was permanently off the table. Many of us purchased Don't Starve based upon those promises. If there's any "entitlement" from my side of the fence, it's based upon that, and quite frankly I believe we're justified to feel a bit misled.

 

2. I have 2 major problems with that mentality you just conveyed. The lesser of those 2 is that we all know should Klei announce a DLC after DST and should that DLC also be multiplayer focused, the second anyone of us voices a concern or a complaint, I'm willing to bet a nice tidy sum of money that people will say that exact line to us word for word. "You entitled, spoiled, brats. You already had those 6 free months and RoG! What more could you possibly ask for?!"

 

3. My biggest problem is that question is based upon a false premise, or are you really insinuating that you didn't enjoy those 6 free months? That you haven't enjoyed RoG? That you've merely just been muddling through all this singleplayer content but now that multiplayer is about to begin, now it's your time to shine? Now it's time to really enjoy the game?

Just a week ago it wasn't that Don't Starve was "singleplayer focused," it was the game. That very same game that you fell in love with which is why you're here on these forums right now debating us on why multiplayer is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

To even imply that those 6 months and RoG was in truth just for us is a slap in the face. It was for us all.

DST? You really can't say the same about. It's largely, if not entirely, for people like you.

 

Ultimately, multiplayer is coming no matter what we say on this forum, so why not just hope for the best and plan for the worst rather then making it ruin the game a bit for you? Just my opinion.

 

Just a week ago any one of us would say, "Ultimately, multiplayer is not coming no matter what we say or do on this forum." Apparently not, eh?

I'm already braced for impact.

[ArcticFox789]

I'm not exactly up in arms at the notion that a DLC centered completely around adding multiplayer to Don't Starve is going to be multiplayer focused as opposed to singleplayer focused. I'm concerned that once this DLC comes and goes the focus on multiplayer will remain instead of merely being an addition.

 

I don't think it's a DLC. If the game price is going up to $19.99, as stated, I assume that means it will be added to vanilla. not being a DLC. This also explains why (unlike RoG) existing members don't have to pay for it. Therefore, they are currently modifying vanilla completely (or at least mostly) focused on multiplayer, and having been promised the best singleplayer experience, having that ripped away with a tongue-in-cheek "Let's get on with making the best multiplayer experience we can", is just a little bit galling, and I feel very misled. I mean, I've already got my money back tenfold in the fun I've had with DS, but something about this particular line hit hard with me, and I really don't like it.

 

On a seperate note, a lot of people sitting on the fence, and telling us to wait for Multiplayer to see what it's like. I don't actually think that's a valid observation, generally, people aren't critisizing the implementation of MP, (I trust you Klei, I'm sure it'll be great for those who want it), but more the way it was announced, the fact that it had been completely rejected until the terrible end to the puzzle, and the fact that people feel it would damage on of the core aspects of the DS atmosphere: lonliness. So far, the concerns are not actually anything to do with what we don't know (how it will work), and more to do with what we've been told (MP is happening, these are some sketchy outlines, the JoeW post, etc.). 

[ArcticFox789]

Stating that some of the less massive changes in ROG should be in vanilla is rather annoying considering how good Klei is to their community. (Aside from bug fixes clearly) 

 

I don't mean that how it's been interpreted. I don't mean any game-changing things from RoG, but there were certainly some tweaks and changes that would make sense to be put into vanilla, not "omg klei shud add spring/autunm to vanila lol". I'm more than happy for content to be added in a DLC, but personally, balance changes and tweaks that aren't especially RoG related, but more general hanges, should be patched into the base game.

 

Although, I don't see what Klei being good to their community has to do with anything.

[An Artifact]

After reading a few of these - for a lack of a better term - argument threads, I've seriously grown tired of the phrase "Klei doesn't owe you anything." Apparently it's an argument for both sides, not sure how that works.

 

It seems many of the people here have seen Klei's statement that they will solely focus on the singleplayer experience as a promise that they highly valued to be fulfilled. I, myself, never much cared for this sentiment - for me, the promise of a lack of something isn't a good selling point. And yes, I do understand why people cared about this so much, I'm just saying this to clarify that I am not in the same position as the people that really bought this game with Klei's design philosophy in mind.

 

I must admit, this recent announcement really did feel a tiny bit peculiar to say the least. The change of mind appeared to come very sudden and really did clash with the stance the developers seemed to have just days beforeheand. I don't know the details on what caused this change of mind, so I won't make accusations of any kind, but I will note that a slight scent of old fish is in fact in the air.

 

So, people feel betrayed because Klei is taking their game in a different direction now. I can understand their feelings, even though I don't share them. Many of the arguments made against multiplayer I actually agree with - as much as it pains me to say, but I don't think the original plan for the "best singlplayer experience" has really been fulfilled. I, and many others, are not entirely happy with how the game is right now. There are some glaring problems with it that I feel should have been worked on before multiplayer. To make this clear, I don't feel betrayed, I feel that I got more than I payed for out of this game. Im just saying that I'd rather had something else be worked on than what is being worked on if they really want to work on something. Heck, it would have been completely acceptable for them to stop development alltogether at this point, yet they are still adding new things to DS, even though those things might not be for everyone.

 

So, I've completely lost track of where I was going with this and am too lazy to re-write everything, so I'll just conclude with saying: Can we please stop the hostilty in these arguments? Nobody is forced to like multiplayer, and every consumer has the right to criticize the product they got. I, myself, am not overl the roof about the announcement, but I'll certainly play it when it comes out. I still hope for eventual end-game challenges and a functional Krampus, though.

 

Oh, and also: Why is this whole "loneliness" aspect so important to people? I don't know about the rest of you, but with Chester, Glommer, pigs and beefalos around, I've never sincerely felt lonely anyway. So multiplayer really can't ruin an aspect that doesn't even exist, at least not in my experience.

[ArcticFox789]

[Many words]

 

I would disgree. I think that so far we've seen a lot of stupid arguments, yes, but that has died down into what now seems to be a debate, and a very good one at that. Hostilities flared up and died down quickly, and now people just seem to be debating it. Of course passions are high, because many people have invested hundreds/thousands of hours into DS, and this is the most controversial debate yet.

[An Artifact]

I would disgree. I think that so far we've seen a lot of stupid arguments, yes, but that has died down into what now seems to be a debate, and a very good one at that. Hostilities flared up and died down quickly, and now people just seem to be debating it. Of course passions are high, because many people have invested hundreds/thousands of hours into DS, and this is the most controversial debate yet.

 

Oh well, that's a good development then. Some of the more... unenjoyable arguments are still on my mind, so I might have had a bit of a negative view on the current situation.

[mrtwoface]

That is a very disingenuous question, allow me to explain why.

 

1. If nothing else -- the tip of the iceberg if you will -- we were promised numerous times that Klei was going to bring us the best singleplayer experience they could muster and that multiplayer was permanently off the table. Many of us purchased Don't Starve based upon those promises. If there's any "entitlement" from my side of the fence, it's based upon that, and quite frankly I believe we're justified to feel a bit misled.

 

2. I have 2 major problems with that mentality you just conveyed. The lesser of those 2 is that we all know should Klei announce a DLC after DST and should that DLC also be multiplayer focused, the second anyone of us voices a concern or a complaint, I'm willing to bet a nice tidy sum of money that people will say that exact line to us word for word. "You entitled, spoiled, brats. You already had those 6 free months and RoG! What more could you possibly ask for?!"

 

3. My biggest problem is that question is based upon a false premise, or are you really insinuating that you didn't enjoy those 6 free months? That you haven't enjoyed RoG? That you've merely just been muddling through all this singleplayer content but now that multiplayer is about to begin, now it's your time to shine? Now it's time to really enjoy the game?

Just a week ago it wasn't that Don't Starve was "singleplayer focused," it was the game. That very same game that you fell in love with which is why you're here on these forums right now debating us on why multiplayer is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

To even imply that those 6 months and RoG was in truth just for us is a slap in the face. It was for us all.

DST? You really can't say the same about. It's largely, if not entirely, for people like you.

 

 

Just a week ago any one of us would say, "Ultimately, multiplayer is not coming no matter what we say or do on this forum." Apparently not, eh?

I'm already braced for impact.

You don't have to be so rude to convey an opinion about a question I asked. "People like me"? What kind of discriminatory thing is that supposed to imply? I don't recall saying anything in my post about my opinion towards multiplayer one way or the other. It would be nice to show my 11-year old little brother how to play this game I like and have fun with him, but if that is less important then a video game developer person saying something wouldn't be added to the game and then another video game person saying it would, then please let me know. I don't know why it is so personal with some of the forumers. Why does it have to be so dramatic? 

 

I've been playing DT since you had to put stuff into the Science Machine to get magic research points, and I don't appreciate the implication then I'm some multiplayer-obsessed kid from COD who sets the day to Long and the berry bushes to Lots in the worldgen. It seems more and more like the non-multiplayers are the ones that are ganging up on people. I didn't even say I liked multiplayer; I shudder to think what your reply would have been had I said I did. 

 

The best singleplayer experience is here, or at least the majority of it, in both my and Klei's opinion. You can go play right now if you want. 

[RalphKastro]

didn't really pay much atention to the post, but I think that with "people like you" he meant people who want multiplayer like you.
the rest, I wouldn't say it was rude, more like very personal

[Sheriff]

Some more lore would be even better! possibly a new type of... campaign? kinda like maybe the challanges that the two face requires BOTH players to do certain objectives to continue to the next challange.

[Ridley]

Some more lore would be even better! possibly a new type of... campaign? kinda like maybe the challanges that the two face requires BOTH players to do certain objectives to continue to the next challange.

 

I want more lore as with every game I have ever played.

 

However, not everyone can connect to the internet well enough to do MP stuff. The example I use, is I could never get Gengar, from pokemon, as a kid. You had to trade with someone, which I was unable to do. SP needs the same access to MP content, monsters just need to be designed so they effect 4 people as well as 1. This doesn't mean number buffs, but the hallucinations are already a good example. Their teleporting abilities prevent people from piling up on them, but doesn't cause SP to be more difficult.

[Doctor H. Derp]

You don't have to be so rude to convey an opinion about a question I asked. "People like me"? What kind of discriminatory thing is that supposed to imply?

 

"People like you" as in people who enjoy the idea of multiplayer coming to Don't Starve as opposed to "people like me" who don't enjoy the idea of multiplayer coming to Don't Starve. Do you not lean in favor of multiplayer? I could very well be wrong, and I'm sorry if I am.

 

I don't recall saying anything in my post about my opinion towards multiplayer one way or the other.

 

I feel you showed a bit of a bias with this commentary:

 

"Six months of free updates and a cheap DLC is not enough single player experience?"

"Klei said that MP in DT looked fun to them. Not cost-effective, not in the maximum profit interest, just fun. They want to make their game more fun, and I am interested to see if it is fun for everyone else as well."

 

And less so over here, "Ultimately, multiplayer is coming no matter what we say on this forum, so why not just hope for the best and plan for the worst rather then making it ruin the game a bit for you? Just my opinion."

 

I also think you showed a bit of a bias at the bitter end of Riakathii's Entitlement Away thread:

 

"They updated some vanilla stuff in the final ROG update, and they will likely add/update stuff in the multiplayer update. I don't see how anyone can complain that single-player needs even more of Klei's attention after six months of free updates and a dirt-cheap DLC that is more like a massive update then a real DLC. In their opinion they have done all the work on SP that needs to be done at the moment, and in in their opinion MP would be fun and they want their game to have it. Their game. Not our game. Klei has never been focused on profit, otherwise they would have made the DLC more expensive and packed the six months of updates into other expensive DLC's."

 

I mean, again, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

It would be nice to show my 11-year old little brother how to play this game I like and have fun with him, but if that is less important then a video game developer person saying something wouldn't be added to the game and then another video game person saying it would, then please let me know. I don't know why it is so personal with some of the forumers. Why does it have to be so dramatic?

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.

 

I've been playing DT since you had to put stuff into the Science Machine to get magic research points, and I don't appreciate the implication then I'm some multiplayer-obsessed kid from COD who sets the day to Long and the berry bushes to Lots in the worldgen.

 

Sorry if it came off that way, that wasn't my intent. I thought it was fair to say that you had a lean toward the multiplayer side of the fence.

 

Y'know, I don't think there's inherently wrong with having a bias. Hell, I have a bias, and I wear that bias fairly clearly on my sleeve.

 

It seems more and more like the non-multiplayers are the ones that are ganging up on people. I didn't even say I liked multiplayer; I shudder to think what your reply would have been had I said I did.

 

"Ganging up"...? How do you figure? I was the only one who responded to your first post in this thread or at least so far.

 

It would've largely been the same I imagine because the meat of the content of my previous post in response to you was aimed at how I disliked the nature of your question and I went into detail on 3 points about why I took exception.

 

The best singleplayer experience is here, or at least the majority of it, in both my and Klei's opinion. You can go play right now if you want.

 

Are you absolutely certain you don't lean in favor of multiplayer? Because such statements lead me to believe you lean in favor of multiplayer.

Obviously were going to disagree on that matter of opinion which is perfectly fine.

[Doctor H. Derp]

Oh, and also: Why is this whole "loneliness" aspect so important to people? I don't know about the rest of you, but with Chester, Glommer, pigs and beefalos around, I've never sincerely felt lonely anyway. So multiplayer really can't ruin an aspect that doesn't even exist, at least not in my experience.

 

One of the reasons I have a lot of trouble playing Wes is because the lack of character sounds truly makes me feel alone and it bothers me something fierce. I think the furthest I've ever gotten him was 20 days before just the sheer quietness of his character got to me.

The other characters feel lonely, but less so as just examining things makes a sound and gives you a little something to read, it's more interactive.

Woodie I never felt alone with because Lucy talks to you frequently.

Webber I never really felt alone with because I think of him like Venom from Marvel Comics, like he's actually 2 entities in one.

Wendy I don't ever really feel alone because I know Abigail is close by.

 

Even if Klei completely failed in creating the lonely atmosphere they were going for, I'm hard-pressed to believe that the addition of multiplayer is going to do anything but hinder that endeavor.

 

Who knows? Maybe abandoning that focus will be for the best because I'm seeing more and more people who just simply didn't feel that way while playing and it just might not be possible to fix at this point.

[YumoS]

I dont understand many of your posts! Its like Klei has made a Apple pie.

Taste it. If you dont like it dont eat it.

If you like it eat the whole cake.

You dont have to Complain. Just say: no thanks. I dont like apple pie. I eat the cherry pie (singleplayer)

[Zalyn]

I dont understand many of your posts! Its like Klei has made a Apple pie.

Taste it. If you dont like it dont eat it.

If you like it eat the whole cake.

You dont have to Complain. Just say: no thanks. I dont like apple pie. I eat the cherry pie (singleplayer)

False equivalence unless it's proven that MP will be a separate DLC (preferably paid for separately).

 

One of the reasons I have a lot of trouble playing Wes is because the lack of character sounds truly makes me feel alone and it bothers me something fierce. I think the furthest I've ever gotten him was 20 days before just the sheer quietness of his character got to me.

The other characters feel lonely, but less so as just examining things makes a sound and gives you a little something to read, it's more interactive.

Woodie I never felt alone with because Lucy talks to you frequently.

Webber I never really felt alone with because I think of him like Venom from Marvel Comics, like he's actually 2 entities in one.

Wendy I don't ever really feel alone because I know Abigail is close by.

 

Even if Klei completely failed in creating the lonely atmosphere they were going for, I'm hard-pressed to believe that the addition of multiplayer is going to do anything but hinder that endeavor.

 

Who knows? Maybe abandoning that focus will be for the best because I'm seeing more and more people who just simply didn't feel that way while playing and it just might not be possible to fix at this point.

On the loneliness, I actually find it psychologically very interesting that we will do the Robinson Crusoe thing by looking to anything/anyone we can find for companionship, no matter how weird.  I mean, talking to your axe, talking to your symbiote, and talking to your dead sister's ghost - perfect level of crazy for the atmosphere.  If only we could dig up a skull and prop it up as a sanity item (increasing? decreasing? not sure), we'd be all set (I'm reminded of Jarl Borg from Vikings...)

 

I also like playing Wendy because I feel less "alone," and have tried getting a mandrake or smallbird pet as well to play along with Wendy trying to find "friends" to keep her company (maybe do a tea party if she can get three).  So for me, the lengths I will go in-game to help my character feel less alone enhances the experience.

[psyk90913]

"Developer has many way to improve the game and orientate it. It may be periodic update, mod improvement, new DLC,...etc. But the general, the popular and may be the easiest way is multiplayer mode."

 

Popular? Seems to be so considering this forum.

Easiest? Well evidently Klei didn't think so until recently.

 

"- I have already known the developer's philosophy that they want to provide an original - roguelike - single player mode Don't starve game. And the multiplayer mode will break the atmostphere of the game which for lonely experience or such, blah blah blah."

 

The truth of the matter is that adding multiplayer is the antithesis of an atmosphere of loneliness. It's like adding black to a canvas in the hopes of lightening it up.

 

"- I respect it but from the user's point of view, I just don't care. What make the game more fun, more live last longer should be focused on. It's the first point."

 

I'll assume when you said, "I just don't care," it wasn't meant to sound dismissive.

Adding multiplayer to a game is not a guarantee it will be more fun. It's merely a guarantee that you can now play with your friends. You might as well be arguing for the inclusion of realistic guns in the Mario franchise because you find first person shooters to be more fun despite it being entirely antithetical to the very universe of Mario.

 

"- Second, why can't we have both? A DS game which contain single and multiplayer mode respectively without conflicting of each other?"

 

Because that's not how it works. They influence each other, content must be balanced for both, concessions must be made, and compromises forged. Klei has neither unlimited resources, manpower, or time and multiplayer support will take away attention from singleplayer guaranteed. Is Klei up to the task of managing both experiences as best as possible? It remains to be seen, but I'd be hard pressed to believe Don't Starve wouldn't be different had the multiplayer door remained closed.

 

"If the game engine doesn't let us do a such action in the game, base on game mechanism..., we must accept it. But if the object condition meet the desire, and the lifetime of the game is more important than which if it has multiplayer or not, should we change our mind?"

 

There's a difference between adding longevity for the sake of longevity and adding content that makes players to want to come back for more. Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine had multiplayer. Did it add longevity to the game? Probably. Was it amazing longevity that people just couldn't get enough of? Not really.

 

Adding multiplayer is not game development on easy mode. Adding multiplayer is not an insta-win button for the best game of the year award.

 

"I know the developer may actually don't care much about that, because Klei has many other game than DS. If DS is short lifetime but help the revenue increase, multiplayer is not important. In that case, I feel regret about this great potential game."

 

That's the second time I've read a pro-multiplayer person talk about the "potential" of Don't Starve being wasted should multiplayer not come to Don't Starve. How come it is only now that multiplayer is going to be a thing that I feel that Don't Starve is teetering on the brink of wasted potential?

 

 

It'd be different if I was confident multiplayer was going to have absolutely no influence on the single player experience.

It'd be different if I was confident that Klei had all the time and resources in the world along with the inclination to continue to make the best singleplayer experience they can muster.

 

All of that is up in the air. For all we know, now multiplayer is taking center stage and we can kiss the "best singleplayer experience" goodbye.

Sorry for the late reply @Doctor H. Derp. I didn't notice your post.
I don't want to talk about my too old comment but I'm going to clarify something.

 

 

I'll assume when you said, "I just don't care," it wasn't meant to sound dismissive.

That's my bad grammar sorry. I mean I don't care about what content the game has exactly, what make it is more good to player deserve exist, since I put myself into the view of player/user. I'm like anyone don't want to be a rude people to everybody, you know. My bad grammar, my bad expression

The rest I just want to say multiplayer being added to DS as optional mode. Why do you guys think loving MP meaning must hating SP? For me I love both. The game just has more option to enjoy. If you don't want to play MP, you stick to SP, that's all,

Would you tell me why you guys hate MP so much or what make you think MP will make the game being worse? I really want to hear opinions from people who don't like DS MP.

 

[The_Cookiebeast]

I'm quite excited about multiplayer personally, but i probably wouldn't have minded in the least if they never added it. It is good to see Klei have an ongoing interest in the game at least, instead of it just ending with RoG. Game difficulty will definitely be a problem, though you are overstating how many people would be in a regular world, they said about four minimum, it isn't going to be enough people for bosses to be like rabbits. Especially considering the fact that many bosses have Aoe attacks. Also remember that whilst fighting may be easier (if nothing is tweaked to make it less so), everyone would have to survive off of the same resources, you would have to develop heavily into food production or there wouldn't be enough to go around and it would go from Don't Starve Together to Starving Together. I just hope it doesn't turn into something akin to playing Minecraft online, which is supposed to be about creativity, but is actually about griefing and pvp. Hopefully the spirit of friendly survival in a dangerous world is respected.

[mrtwoface]

"People like you" as in people who enjoy the idea of multiplayer coming to Don't Starve as opposed to "people like me" who don't enjoy the idea of multiplayer coming to Don't Starve. Do you not lean in favor of multiplayer? I could very well be wrong, and I'm sorry if I am.

 

 

I feel you showed a bit of a bias with this commentary:

 

"Six months of free updates and a cheap DLC is not enough single player experience?"

"Klei said that MP in DT looked fun to them. Not cost-effective, not in the maximum profit interest, just fun. They want to make their game more fun, and I am interested to see if it is fun for everyone else as well."

 

And less so over here, "Ultimately, multiplayer is coming no matter what we say on this forum, so why not just hope for the best and plan for the worst rather then making it ruin the game a bit for you? Just my opinion."

 

I also think you showed a bit of a bias at the bitter end of Riakathii's Entitlement Away thread:

 

"They updated some vanilla stuff in the final ROG update, and they will likely add/update stuff in the multiplayer update. I don't see how anyone can complain that single-player needs even more of Klei's attention after six months of free updates and a dirt-cheap DLC that is more like a massive update then a real DLC. In their opinion they have done all the work on SP that needs to be done at the moment, and in in their opinion MP would be fun and they want their game to have it. Their game. Not our game. Klei has never been focused on profit, otherwise they would have made the DLC more expensive and packed the six months of updates into other expensive DLC's."

 

I mean, again, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.

 

 

Sorry if it came off that way, that wasn't my intent. I thought it was fair to say that you had a lean toward the multiplayer side of the fence.

 

Y'know, I don't think there's inherently wrong with having a bias. Hell, I have a bias, and I wear that bias fairly clearly on my sleeve.

 

 

"Ganging up"...? How do you figure? I was the only one who responded to your first post in this thread or at least so far.

 

It would've largely been the same I imagine because the meat of the content of my previous post in response to you was aimed at how I disliked the nature of your question and I went into detail on 3 points about why I took exception.

 

 

Are you absolutely certain you don't lean in favor of multiplayer? Because such statements lead me to believe you lean in favor of multiplayer.

Obviously were going to disagree on that matter of opinion which is perfectly fine.

I'm currently playing SP Don't Starve. After my current playthrough, I will be done with it for a while, because I've been playing since ROG went into beta and it is getting repetitive. In two or three months I will play Don't Starve again, when I have forgotten some stuff and it is fun again. I am biased in favor of the idea that SP is largely finished. I don't care if MP comes out or not. If it does, it is more content. If it doesn't, I'll just keep playing SP. I'm betting by that time, if you regularly play this game, you will want something new as well, even if it means finding a friend to play this awesome game with. 

 

I don't think it is alright that you quote me from other threads, this thread is about THIS thread, and it makes me feel like you are out to get me or something. I made posts here because I was ready for you to critique them here. My point about ganging up is that I saw a thread where the guy said it was just for people who liked multiplayer.People said he should probably change that so it is neutral, but he gave up on the thread and it got locked. This thread is about how the OP doesn't like MP. It is full of people liking posts from people who are arguing against MP.

 

What I'm saying is that it feels like this entire thread is a courtroom full of negatively biased people in the early 19th century Southern US, and I am a defense attorney defending an African American man who deserves a fair trial. That man is new content from this game we all like that is free for a majority of the people on the forums, and anyone who buys Don't Starve between now and the release of MP. I am ready to hear your logical argument about why multiplayer would be bad for this game. Plain, straight-out, please. Maybe you will convince me. 

 

I am not ready to be convinced that the SP experience needs a lot of work. On the other hand. I am firmly of the opinion that it is largely done mechanics-wise. I would love a SP DLC where you go underwater or into a fire cave or something, but that is more of a side DLC then the kind of DLC ROG was. I'm sorry if I offended you somehow. 

[Doctor H. Derp]

Sorry for the late reply @Doctor H. Derp. I didn't notice your post.

I don't want to talk about my too old comment but I'm going to clarify something.

That's my bad grammar sorry. I mean I don't care about what content the game has exactly, what make it is more good to player deserve exist, since I put myself into the view of player/user. I'm like anyone don't want to be a rude people to everybody, you know. My bad grammar, my bad expression

 

It's totally cool.

 

 

The rest I just want to say multiplayer being added to DS as optional mode. Why do you guys think loving MP meaning must hating SP? For me I love both. The game just has more option to enjoy. If you don't want to play MP, you stick to SP, that's all,

 

On the contrary, since many people here who seems to really enjoy the idea of multiplayer coming to Don't Starve have been enjoying the singleplayer experience right along with us, I really don't think that liking the idea of multiplayer is mutually exclusive to liking singleplayer.

 

However, that doesn't mean that the people, whomever they may be, arguing in favor of multiplayer are neutral. They are taking a side, which is perfectly alright, more than reasonable to take that side. It just means we'll have to agree to disagree on this particular facet of the game is all really.

 

Would you tell me why you guys hate MP so much or what make you think MP will make the game being worse? I really want to hear opinions from people who don't like DS MP.

 

My reasons for not liking the idea of multiplayer are varied, diverse, and now scattered across the forum.

Here's just a quick grabag of some of my more major concerns in no particular order:

 

1. I know full well that Kevin, the lead designer of Don't Starve, was largely not in favor of multiplayer at all and had a bit more staunch a stance on the topic compared to the official stance released by Klei, or at least so it seemed in the past. In fact, I'd be very curious to learn exactly how Kevin took the idea of MP coming to DS and what his current thoughts about it are especially if I could learn them unfiltered.

 

2. Many of us bought DS on the basis that Klei promised it was entirely committed to bringing us the best singleplayer experience possible and that a feature such as multiplayer that could possibly conflict with bringing us that experience was permanently off the table.

 

3. I feel it's entirely antithetical to the lonely atmosphere Klei was trying to create.

 

Let's just keep it this short for now.

[Doctor H. Derp]

I'm currently playing SP Don't Starve. After my current playthrough, I will be done with it for a while, because I've been playing since ROG went into beta and it is getting repetitive. In two or three months I will play Don't Starve again, when I have forgotten some stuff and it is fun again. I am biased in favor of the idea that SP is largely finished. I don't care if MP comes out or not. If it does, it is more content. If it doesn't, I'll just keep playing SP. I'm betting by that time, if you regularly play this game, you will want something new as well, even if it means finding a friend to play this awesome game with.

 

Sure, totally cool.

 

I don't think it is alright that you quote me from other threads, this thread is about THIS thread, and it makes me feel like you are out to get me or something.

 

The only instance within this thread in which I dissected and responded directly to a post not within this thread was when it was invited and offered by Psyk90913.

 

Within this thread you said,

 

You don't have to be so rude to convey an opinion about a question I asked. "People like me"? What kind of discriminatory thing is that supposed to imply? I don't recall saying anything in my post about my opinion towards multiplayer one way or the other.

 

I took that as a sincere question as to how I drew the conclusion I did and then I provided you all the places I had personally seen and felt were relevant.

 

I made posts here because I was ready for you to critique them here. My point about ganging up is that I saw a thread where the guy said it was just for people who liked multiplayer.People said he should probably change that so it is neutral, but he gave up on the thread and it got locked.

 

I find this to be a bit unfair. You say "this thread is for this thread," and you take exception, at least in part, that I pulled an example that originated from outside this thread, and now it's been revealed that you've been referencing a thread from outside this thread?

It's fine, I just find it a bit unfair like I said.

 

I assume you're talking about Discussing DST?

If so, considering how there's only 5 posts and 2 authors within that thread, I take it you mean to say that oCrapaCreeper is the anti-multiplayer poster? If that is the case, then how do you explain this post? It's 2 down from the OP.

 

"They never said they were against multiplayer. Their original decision was a product of its time due to lacking resources and the game already having a focus back then to keep a stable single player experience. Now they have more resources and the game's main focus is complete, and they want to finally take on the most popular request from the community in a way that affects no one who doesn't like that idea. Their original decision is now outdated for justified reasons and should not apply anymore, that was the past.

 

Klei is not above criticism, but are above criticism that has little understanding of the subject."

~ oCrapaCreeper

 

I honestly think oCrapaCreeper took exception with how the original post within Discussing DST was worded and constructed, not on the fact that it was in favor of multiplayer.

 

This thread is about how the OP doesn't like MP. It is full of people liking posts from people who are arguing against MP.

 

Sure, but you knew that full well before coming in here as evidenced by how your OP was aimed directly at such posters. Naturally, there's going to be a higher concentration of people here who're more likely to express dissatisfaction of the idea of multiplayer coming to Don't Starve and as such posts expressing such a viewpoint are more likely to get a like considering.

Maximum124 liked one of your posts here and I know his stance is heavily in favor of multiplayer, so it's not like you haven't received any love, which is awesome btw. I'm glad people enjoy your posts.

Besides, it's no big deal. This isn't a popularity contest. We're all entitled to our opinions.

 

What I'm saying is that it feels like this entire thread is a courtroom full of negatively biased people in the early 19th century Southern US, and I am a defense attorney defending an African American man who deserves a fair trial. That man is new content from this game we all like that is free for a majority of the people on the forums, and anyone who buys Don't Starve between now and the release of MP.

 

Well I, for one, don't enjoy that connotation, but if that's how you feel, that's how you feel.

You definitely do have a point, DST could very well be awesome and I'm willing to give it shot once it comes up.

If it turns out to be that I'm wrong, I'm more than happy to publicly concede as such.

 

I am ready to hear your logical argument about why multiplayer would be bad for this game. Plain, straight-out, please. Maybe you will convince me.

 

Let's start with this and see where it goes: I find that adding multiplayer is completely and totally conflicting with creating the sense of loneliness Don't Starve was going for, an aspect of the game I do enjoy. Now, it is true that I never have to engage in MP and as such, for me, it wont be ruined, but in the sense of artistic expression, as expressed by Kevin in particular, it kind of sucks that you're going to have people now coming into your work of art and never really appreciating how it was supposed to be felt because the new direction is designed to not have that original feeling in it. It's like taking an indoor installation and putting it outside, laid bare, and exposed. It's different. The mood's different. The feeling is different. It's just not the same.

Maybe the fact that I feel the original vision for Don't Starve being compromised is so bad is because, I myself, am an artist.

 

I am not ready to be convinced that the SP experience needs a lot of work. On the other hand. I am firmly of the opinion that it is largely done mechanics-wise. I would love a SP DLC where you go underwater or into a fire cave or something, but that is more of a side DLC then the kind of DLC ROG was. I'm sorry if I offended you somehow.

 

You're more than welcome to that opinion and there's no need to apologize.

Thank you for your response.

[Doctor H. Derp]

On the loneliness, I actually find it psychologically very interesting that we will do the Robinson Crusoe thing by looking to anything/anyone we can find for companionship, no matter how weird.  I mean, talking to your axe, talking to your symbiote, and talking to your dead sister's ghost - perfect level of crazy for the atmosphere.  If only we could dig up a skull and prop it up as a sanity item (increasing? decreasing? not sure), we'd be all set (I'm reminded of Jarl Borg from Vikings...)

 

I also like playing Wendy because I feel less "alone," and have tried getting a mandrake or smallbird pet as well to play along with Wendy trying to find "friends" to keep her company (maybe do a tea party if she can get three).  So for me, the lengths I will go in-game to help my character feel less alone enhances the experience.

 

It is truly astonishing how the human psyche works.

 

Speaking of which, I've been waiting far too long for an excuse to reference this picture.

http://www.dontstarvegame.com/sites/default/files/fan-art/tul_starves2.jpg

 

xD