Klei is not above criticism

[ArcticFox789]

I have often seen people refer to how great Klei is, and how brilliantly they interact with the community, and I understand it's their forums I write this on, under their employees as admins, and they are far and away the best games company I know, so it pains me greatly to say almost anything bad about them, but criticism, if you can back it up and explain it is valid, and just repeating that "Klei is awesome", which is true, but it is not the answer to an argument. I doubt many people will agree with me here, and this could easily turn into a hotbed of hatred, so please keep it civil, but I'd actually like to hear opinions on this.

 

I disagree with the decision as a whole. I was at the forefront of the ":nomulti:" group, and I stick to my guns, I don't want Multiplayer. In my opinion it does not fit into the game, and it annoys me a bit that Klei are going against what was an admirable stance, and I'm sure they can explain their decision well enough, but I don't see why they didn't just stick to their guns here.

 

Look, I don't hate Klei, but they aren't gods who are untouchable, and I think people need to bear this in mind.

 

Oh, and I know this wasn't deliberately meant to rile anyone up but the toungue in cheek "Now let's get on with making the best multiplayer experience that we can.", frankly made my skin crawl. It just makes their past decisions seem invalid, pointless, and could even be taken as downright untrustworthy. I don't know why I take so much issue with this, but it's really been bothering me, and I thought I'd share.

 

Anyway, Klei isn't above criticism, and the 'Klei is brilliant' excuse is, in most cases, a redundant argument. Opinions?

[SpanishInquisition]

They didn't make the MP because they hadn't enough money and ideas, now they have.

[oCrapaCreeper]

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 Their original decision is now outdated for justified reasons and should not apply anymore, that was the past.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. 

[Silentdarkness1]

I think you've, rather strongly, made the same point I made in my thread, "I feel like the game's being weakened, a bit".

[An Artifact]

Thanks for summing up my feelings. I love Klei, and I love the level of interaction we can achieve in these forums, but we are not forced to agree with everything they do. Remember, this is not Aperture Science, nobody will fire you if you dare to raise complaints.

[Maximum124]

Alright I can respect that you don't want multiplayer. But what I really can't wrap my head around is directly stating and saying that even once they've announced that, yes they're making multiplayer a thing and are working on it right now, what saying that you don't want multiplayer will accomplish.

 

Do you hope that they'll just stop making it even after all this? Because most of the criticism I've seen has been that people have lost faith in klei because they want to do this now.

 

I fully believe that that they have made an outstanding single player experience. It's never going to be "perfect" because you can't please everyone, but they sure have been making it the best experience possible.

 

And that's just it, they're still working on it, they're still fixing the bugs and are listening what the community wants. They believe that if they can pioneer new things with multiplayer that they can then in turn add more to the single player experience to make it even better then it is now.

[ArcticFox789]

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.

 

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

 

I 100% remember Kevin saying something along the lonliness lines. I trawled through the oldforums for a bit, but I only have so much patience. I'd probably find it eventually.

[oCrapaCreeper]

I 100% remember Kevin saying something along the lonliness lines. I trawled through the oldforums for a bit, but I only have so much patience. I'd probably find it eventually.

He did. But the official statement on the matter as a whole was this:

 

That being said, we’re not against multiplayer, it was a decision made to ensure we could deliver on our original promise. In fact, we discussed it a lot in the early stages of the game. We just decided that a good single player game was going to be our focus. Once we decided on this, we did decide to add mod support for the PC/Mac/Linux versions and made it possible for people to attempt their own run at it. Who knows what the community will come up with down the road.

https://kleisupport.desk.com/customer/portal/articles/948100-multiplayer-in-don-t-starve

[debugman18]

With what reasoning is it bad or wrong that Klei changed their minds? I find that to be a quality trait, actually. Somebody who will not yield some of their choices and opinions is not somebody I believe is fit to design a game. Part of game design is change. Multiplayer just so happened to be that change, this time.

 

Besides that, multiplayer will not affect you if you do not play it.

 

It will also provide Klei the means to improve the single-player experience. They will make more money off of this, which means they have more resources available. Secondly, if they are rewriting the engine (in part or in whole) it means they can add things they wouldn't have been able to.

 

If it matters, I was never for or against it, I am only defending it because I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

I think you're jumping the gun here, by judging an experience before being exposed to it.

[J20hawkz]

I neither hate multiplayer nor do I love it. I too agreed with Klei's decision that Don't Starve was meant to be enjoyed as a single player game. I trusted their judgement and watched how they transformed Don't Starve into one of my all time favourite games.

There is no denying that they have kept to their word and made the best single player game they could. No doubt they won't stop there with RoG and I expect more changes to come to the single player experience in the form of more DLC, if not then I don't mind. But remember lava caves?

At this point I'm waiting to see what Klei do with Don't Starve Together. Yes they changed their minds, but they didn't sacrifice single player to profit off multiplayer. They promised and they delivered. They don't owe anyone who defended their decision and they don't deserve any criticism after all they gave us. They're even giving everyone who owns Don't Starve, multiplayer for free. In my eyes Klei are a company that prides themselves on high quality work. I can only assume they wanted to challenge themselves after they said it can't be done. So lets wait and see what they do.

[insanechef]

I agree with debug, it's completely independent to single player so you do not lose anything by not playing multiplayer. it's your choice

[ArcticFox789]

Alright I can respect that you don't want multiplayer. But what I really can't wrap my head around is directly stating and saying that even once they've announced that, yes they're making multiplayer a thing and are working on it right now, what saying that you don't want multiplayer will accomplish.

 

Do you hope that they'll just stop making it even after all this? Because most of the criticism I've seen has been that people have lost faith in klei because they want to do this now.

 

I fully believe that that they have made an outstanding single player experience. It's never going to be "perfect" because you can't please everyone, but they sure have been making it the best experience possible.

 

And that's just it, they're still working on it, they're still fixing the bugs and are listening what the community wants. They believe that if they can pioneer new things with multiplayer that they can then in turn add more to the single player experience to make it even better then it is now.

 

The thing is, I don't think the singleplayer experience is finished yet, and I think there were less community splitting things that could've been done.

 

I don't aim to stop multiplayer, but debating it will only improve the final product, and flying into every argument against with "It's happening, get over it", isn't really helpful for generating debate, and unfortunately this happens on most threads here. I respect that people who are pro-multiplayer are within their rights to slam down hard on anti-multiplayer posts, but this isn't even particularly anti-mutli. It's not supposed to be about that much. Anyway, this is off-topic.

 

Oh, also on your last point, as pessimistic as this sounds, firstly the quote states 'may', so no promises, and it sounds like an attempt to reassure the naysayers rather than a genuine commitment or something they've got a plan for to me. I don't expect anything dodgy from Klei but far too much about this whole thing has left a very bad taste in my mouth to ignore.

 

 

I think you're jumping the gun here, by judging an experience before being exposed to it.

 

Hey, multiplayer's coming, I can't stop it, but I'm more angry with how it was presented, what's been said so far, and how it's not just a mind change, it's a complete U-turn, from some of the less official and diplomatic statements from developers.

[ArcticFox789]

I'm sure he did, but the official statement on the matter as a whole was this:

https://kleisupport.desk.com/customer/portal/articles/948100-multiplayer-in-don-t-starve

 

I'm well aware of the official statement, (I've linked more than enough people), but the opinion I referenced belong(ed/s) to the original creator and lead developer of the game, so you can understand why I think it's just as relevant as a diplomatic, official answer ever could be.

[NeoDeusMachina]

I won't post here about ''for'' or ''against'' multiplayer, as I find it pretty irrelevant. They are working on multiplayer, it's their game, and it is their right! Everyone will probably agree on this.

 

However, I just want to point out that no one on this Earth has ''never'' changed their mind on anything. They made a judgement in the past based on what information/means they had at that time and for them, it was the best possible decision. Now, today, things have changed and they re-evaluated their past decision, which is totally fine. I don't know anyone around me who hasn't done as much in their life, including myself. I am pretty sure you already did it yourself, and if you are tempted to tell me that you never changed your mind about anything, I would find it really hard to believe.

 

Now, I am just interested to see what they will come up with multiplayer and I hope it will be as much enjoyable as single player. If not, then I'll just stick to single player and my life won't suffer for it.

[Rasukki]

You are completely right, they are not above criticism. And unfortunately to say it that's where I stop agreeing to you as you are not above it either.

 

 

And as for it not fitting in with the DS feel, I honestly don't see why, whenever I think of DS I think of almost a rebellion game. A big scary puppetmaster who turns out to be a puppet himself captures people to toy with. And they, ticked off that he did this, go to defeat him and knock him off his throne, only to become him.

 

If you think about it its a very accurate representation about how actual rebellions work. But anyways back on topic.

 

 

But of course in an actual rebellion it is not wise to challenge a tyrant by yourself directly and so they retrieve help. Wilson was really trying to amass an army by building his door, inviting as much back up as he could to take on Maxwell, and if he became corrupt they would get to dethrone him. 

 

And I respect if you don't feel this is  true, I completely understand, but that illustrates another point. Don't Starve is a magnificent work of art (hell, the graphics are literal art, even the character voices are art, AKA music.) and when you try to interpret a piece of art, whatever your opinion is is probably unique, sure maybe you can convince other people to see it but not all. And unfortunately video game designers know this, they know that they can not make the game perfect for everyone. And so they try to appease as many as possible. 

 

And they have done this! The only people they will disappoint is people who don't like don't starve or any of the stuff added from (insert update here) to all's well that's Maxwell (Greybeard I'm looking at you...) they've not even put it in a official vanilla update, they made it an optional (free I may add) DLC to try to appease the non multis. They've tried to appease everyone they can! And in my opinion they have!

 

 

Anyways, All best wishes.

 

~Rasukki

[Battal]

I said this before, and I'm going to say it again.  Don't jump onto a bandwagon before it even sets off.  We have almost no details about Multiplayer, so we really shouldn't be saying it's good or it's bad. 

[debugman18]

 

Hey, multiplayer's coming, I can't stop it, but I'm more angry with how it was presented, what's been said so far, and how it's not just a mind change, it's a complete U-turn, from some of the less official and diplomatic statements from developers.

 

 

I don't really see it as a U-turn, I see it as a step forward. They added everything they thought could be or needed to be added to single player before they even started on this. While I agree that there are things about single-player that could be changed, that has nothing to do with multiplayer being added. If they never made this announcement, Reign of Giants would still come out, as it still is, with the same content. Assuming they were going to address any other issues afterwards, through DLC or otherwise, is purely speculation.

 

In summary, we lose nothing, we gain something (that will be completely optional, so atmosphere is irrelevant), and that is literally all, until we can show otherwise.

 

With or without multiplayer, the game (or game with DLC) would still have remained exactly the same way anyway. Nobody can say what they planned on doing after that.

[JeMiChi]

I agree with you for the most part. However, it's impossible to please everyone. Klei has done a great job listening to the community, and this is another proof of that. So many people have literally begged for DS to become multiplayer, that it got out of hand a couple of times..

Also, this means that Klei has not stopped working on DS, and trying to improve it even further. They actually have more people working on it than before. They are just opening up new possibilities - without abandoning the old ones that have been proven excellent.

It would be way worse if there were no more updates at all!

I'll most likely keep enjoying DS as a single player game rather than the multiplayer version, but I can't judge it before I actually see it..!

No one is perfect, but these guys are pretty good!

[oCrapaCreeper]

I'm well aware of the official statement, (I've linked more than enough people), but the opinion I referenced belong(ed/s) to the original creator and lead developer of the game, so you can understand why I think it's just as relevant as a diplomatic, official answer ever could be.

A lead developer of a game is not the voice of an entire project though. The game has other developers, such as Bryce, SethR, and that other set of unnamed developers that started the multiplayer project to begin with. You can't base everything off of what one person said, regardless of their stance in the development. What I posted above seems to be the generalized statement.

[ArcticFox789]

This thread has gone almost completely off the rails, and it's mostly my fault. If your post does not actually relate to the title, could you post it in the many thousands of threads that suit it better? Sorry for sounding annoying, but...yeah. 

 

I'm gonna stop responding to MP stuff here and only respond to stuff I intended to talk about originally.

[Maximum124]

The thing is, I don't think the singleplayer experience is finished yet, and I think there were less community splitting things that could've been done.

 

I don't aim to stop multiplayer, but debating it will only improve the final product, and flying into every argument against with "It's happening, get over it", isn't really helpful for generating debate, and unfortunately this happens on most threads here. I respect that people who are pro-multiplayer are within their rights to slam down hard on anti-multiplayer posts, but this isn't even particularly anti-mutli. It's not supposed to be about that much. Anyway, this is off-topic.

 

Oh, also on your last point, as pessimistic as this sounds, firstly the quote states 'may', so no promises, and it sounds like an attempt to reassure the naysayers rather than a genuine commitment or something they've got a plan for to me. I don't expect anything dodgy from Klei but far too much about this whole thing has left a very bad taste in my mouth to ignore.

 

 

Still in the end it's up to the creators to decide when it's finished and when it's not, if someone came up to me about my art and said "I think this art piece is great but I feel like you need to finish it more" when it's framed and hung up on the wall that's almost insulting, at least from a more artistic perspective. (But the same can be said of a product, if you see an apple in the store you shouldn't say how they should of left it on the tree longer to ripen to what you want, you either buy the apple or you go find one that suits your needs better.)

 

Don't starve vanilla is hung up nicely on the wall, with RoG hung up next to it. Multiplayer being the piece that they're working on now.

 

It's an opinion when the players think something is done or not, if the developers say they're happy with it and move on that's just whats going to happen. Clinging to their leg and saying what they're working on now is hypocritical and subtracts from what they already have isnt going to push your agenda of getting more out of the things that already exist.

 

I've said this before and I'll say it again, if you want more out of the singleplayer that's already here- go to the suggestion forums. Comment on the threads that you agree with and start new ones with new suggestions.

 

Singleplayer is a separate entity from multiplayer, please treat it as such.

[ArcticFox789]

A lead developer of a game is not the voice of an entire project though. The game has other developers, such as Bryce, SethR, and that other set of unnamed developers that started the multiplayer project to begin with. You can't base everything off of what one person said, regardless of their stance in the development.

 

I am of the firm belief that the original creator of a project's vision should be respected, and if Kevin changed his mind, then fine, but if it's the same, and he's been overruled, it would make me sad.

[Silentdarkness1]

Expertly put, @Maximum124 .

[MycoLogical]

Hopefully with the extra revenue multiplayer will bring for those that haven't purchased the game due to lack of a multiplayer component we will get the things we've been asking for; such as;

Lave caves

Fire Lands

Nightmare realm

Tall bird life cycles

More Krampus themed stuff

Generic Meat Effigy

Clockwork Pawns

Back stories...

[Will]

I feel that the only reasons multiplayer wasn't promised/revealed from the beginning were:

1. Not enough resources

2. Not enough time to code with the beta updates + DLC

 

Now that those 2 reasons are forfeit, they have no big reason to not try multiplayer. Sure, it may not be good, but on the other side of the coin, it may be fantastic. And, if you worry it is ruining the game by removing the loneliness factor, it is optional. It isn't becoming Left 4 Dead or anything. I feel as if your point would be more justified if they had said they were against multiplayer instead of just not doing it. But, we all most remember, this is a matter of opinion. And, as we all know, opinion does not equal fact. Except in this universe: