Klei is not above criticism

[Battal]

My biggest problem isn't really the multiplayer itself but how it has been presented and klei's sudden decision on the matter.

 

I guess they were going for a "What a twist!" moment, but I agree it came at the wrong time, the wrong place, and was far too out of the blue for my liking.

 

[NeoDeusMachina]

Honestly, I never felt betrayed by their decision nor did I find the way they announced it bad. I am sure they were really happy to come at us with this new feature, especially since it was asked for a really long time by many players and they didn't have the ressources to work on it at that time.

 

I am not in their mind, but seeing all the effort they put in the last puzzle to announce the multiplayer, I am pretty sure they were really happy and expected a lot of players to be happy about it too. I was amongst the first to be surprised by the last picture of ''The way'' mostly because it was unexpected.

 

On the matter of transparancy, video games companies don't have to be 100% transparent with what they are doing. They don't ''owe'' us explanations about every single step of the game developpement. They were working on a multiplayer prototype and kept it as an internal ''secret'' as long as they were not convinced it would be both doable and enjoyable. Doing so, they avoided a lot of disappointments if it had been unconclusive and a lot of useless ''we don't want multiplayer'' threads when it was still unsure if they would actually do it. Now that they know for sure they will do it, they officially announced it even if it is still unclear to them what it is going to be like.

 

To make sure my post is even more on topic, I do agree that Klei isn't above criticism. However, in my opinion, there is nothing to criticize about the way they announced multiplayer or about the fact that they decided that their single player game was done (for the reasons mentionned above). I could go on for a while but I don't think it's going to add anything more to everything that was previously said. I don't expect to convince you with what I just said, but you asked for opinions so I shared mine! =)

[ArcticFox789]

I agree with Arctic here.

 

My biggest problem isn't really the multiplayer itself but how it has been presented and klei's sudden decision on the matter. Arctic made a point how most of us anti-multiplayer forumers joined a while ago when Klei was WAY more active with the community and any thread about multiplayer was shutdown. Now I know the other devs are working on Incognito but as far as we know Kevin could be in south america battling giant anaconda's with a shotgun, my point is lately the devs aren't really communicating with the community anymore. It would've been a smart idea to slowly creep on us and ask what out opinions were about DS having multiplayer, but no instead they keep it a complete secret and stick it in our hardest puzzle to date, we expected more lore or even poor Wilson going home, but all we got was a advertisement for the biggest controversial topic.I'm not going to believe Klei thought that was a good idea, what even worse they knew it would go this direction, even in the OP thread I felt like it wasn't enough info and it felt more pandering to people who wanted multiplayer. The whole thread left me fell slimy, not because I felt klei had "betrayed" or I felt DS would be "ruined into the 12 level of hell" but it just didn't feel like klei thought the decision that much out. it's also been shocking how many people wanted multiplayer but before we're just as anti-multiplayer as me and a few others. Heck just recently I learned I'm one of the few people who actually believed DS shouldn't have multiplayer. I've already stated my point already, but I'm explaining in more depth about.

 

Yeah, I have problems with MP itself, but I should probably ignore those until we know more about it. As you said, the main issues are the sudden springing of the choice, and the annoying way in which it was presented, when people were expecting so much more than an ad. I have noticed a slowing down of community contact. I understand Kevin disappearing whilst his baby was born and such, but we see very little of the other Klei members, even JoeW. The best thing about this community was the ease with which we could speak to the development team, and whilst I understand this was more important during Beta, they could've kept it up, and if they wanted to add something divisive, especially something they've denied, they should've put out feelers, subtle little things, anything to gather opinion, but I don't think they have, and their silence on the matter is unnerving. I guess they are reading, but what you have chosen to do is puzzling to say the least, and keeping shtum isn't easing any fears.

 

The announcement post was just...ugh. I felt it answered/explained little, and as you said 'pandering to the people that wanted multiplayer'. It left my skin crawling, especially as (like I've said) that particular comment. I'm a little more strong here, I do feel mislead, not betrayed, but certainly mislead, and I don't think MP will ruin DS, I just don't think it should be there. It won't particularly affect me, but I can voice my displeasure, can't I? Just because something is optional, does not make it okay. 

 

The amount of people changing sides/sitting on the fence surprised me, but I think it needs to be pointed out that anti-MPers are against the idea of DS MP, we are not saying that DST will be bad.

[Maximum124]

We were promised the best 'singleplayer' experience they could deliver. As much as the singleplayer is excellent, now just stopping and doing something that was categorically denied before isn't doing that. That's moving the goalposts. And that's makes us, as the consumers feel mislead. Klei will do a good job of Multiplayer, of that I have no doubt. They clearly care about this game. It will be good, but my objections are about the fact that it exists at all. Don't Starve is not a game where you should play with friends. You've been tricked into entering a cruel world full of evil and mystery, and tackling it alone, you against the world is part of it's charm. This game is not meant to be something you're laughing out loud at, and unlike Minecraft and Terraria, this is a true survival game, where you are bad at fighting, and the world wants you to die. It's a game that should be hard work, and it should be a challenge. It shouldn't become 8 people hacking away at a Deerclops and it shouldn't be friends romping through, laughing their heads off. Multiplayer does not go well with the atmosphere of the game, and whilst you may want to play MP DS, and that's fine, I don't feel like it goes well with the game, and I'm not entirely sure why the developers suddenly think it will to. 

 

Also, one of the reasons they give is that 'the game was originally designed as a Singleplayer game', and so code changing would take ages. Had they originally intended for MP to be included, one can only assume they would've incorporated it into the game at the start of development for easier implementation later. This leads me to believe that minds have been changed by near-constant pressuring, and that, whilst I may be worng leads me to conclude that MP is not something that was always planned, more something that just kind of happened, and I doubt it actually is, but to me, it really smacks of squeezing every last penny out of this game. I would rather it was left to finish development than layer upon layer of new features be added. I don't think Klei would do any of this, but I'm so taken aback by this, that frankly, I'm not sure what to believe.

 

Still, adhering to such loose terms like "Survival" and "Hardcore" and applying them to the game is still based on belief and not fact.

 

I could easily call don't starve a "Log gathering simulator" or "Easy" and they'd be just as true as what you said because everyone experiences the game differently as well as have their own way of playing and skill level.

 

I've only really felt lonely until I come across a mob or get an eyebone. and then that just disappears. I've laughed at the game, I've also been scared. I've felt challenged and I've felt like things are too easy. Everyone has their own experience of the game, and if yours is best enjoyed by playing by yourself then so be it. That entire paragraph is based on if you were forced into a multiplayer game, which you aren't. You can still have that feeling of loneliness and difficulty by yourself, right this second even!

I, personally, am glad that multiplayer was presented the way it was and that's probably because I'm for multiplayer. I think all the time and effort put into the puzzle was worth it and rewarding. I can see how it might of been a smack in the face for some, but can you really suggest a better way that they could of presented it that would cause the reaction to be anything else then what it is now?

 

It was sudden for us, not for the devs

 

If you read the original thread that the last puzzle image led to it said

 

Over the past few months, we’ve quietly smuggled in some new people onto our team who immediately said “Heck yeah, this can be a thing!” and actually threw together a proof of concept. After a couple months and an office-wide session of multiplayer Don’t Starve, we were convinced it was worth exploring and bringing it to our community.

Months, at least 3-4 from that wording. This isn't some sudden thing at all. They weren't forced by the community to do anything.

[Lonestarr01]

A lot of people wanted multi and maybe Klei did too. They just didn't have the money or knowledge to do so. Now they do.

 

You don't have to play multiplayer. I get you don't like multiplayer, but you seriously do not have to even try it. Just pretend it doesn't exists. I just don't see how people can say this is a bad idea. People begged for it, and Klei delivers. And it's free. And yet, there are still sore sports out there that want to complain about good things.

 

Sorry if I come off as rude, but I just don't see how you could be against a FREE update to a game. It's not like they're ruining the single-player dont starve experience. If they were, I would be against it as well, but they're not. 

[The Letter W]

Some people I think really just liked it being solely single player and that's okay. I respect that because just last week I probably would have told people the same thing! 

I'm not going to give punches to the face to anyone who says they don't like the idea even if I don't agree with it. I mean, it is understandable with what we were lead to believe and all that. 

[scize]

wow this is just a game, created by a brilliant team for you guys to have fun. you guys are taking this way to strongly to heart. Klei can do whatever the heck they please. its their game. and these forums and us being able to speak to them is a privilege, not a right. its just flipping multi player guys. and the way they announced it? who cares continue playing single player and just forget about this.

[JoeW]

This was a point of view that I did not consider before, because we don’t view Don’t Starve Together in this way. We didn’t “change our mind”. We see Don’t Starve Together as a different experience. Don’t Starve is not being changed because of multiplayer.

 

Don’t Starve as a game has always been a Single player game. Don’t Starve Together is what we are doing to make that game fun as a multiplayer game, which is why it is a separate experience and why it’s design will not impact Don’t Starve. And in this way, Don’t Starve will always be the truest form of the game. We aren’t changing Don’t Starve, we are simply creating an alternate version with a different focus. So, the statements we made about the nature of Don't Starve as a singleplayer game remain true, just the same, regardless of the existence of a multiplayer version of that game.

 

Our point that I suppose could have been made a bit more clear is that we didn’t (and still don’t) want the design of Don’t Starve to be affected by choices that would need to be made for multiplayer.

 

Considering the amount of work needed to make it a multiplayer experience, those decisions would have been vast and varied. There are already many questions about how Don’t Starve Together will handle many aspects of gameplayer such as sleeping, death, caves, adventure mode, resources and all kinds of other things that are difficult to approach from a multiplayer perspective.

 

But, as Don’t Starve Together, the challenge now is to figure out how those work for multiplayer, not the other way around. And we will work on answering those questions together.

 

I think, and maybe I am wrong here, but I think this was apparent to some people, while others don't see it the same way as we do which may be the source of much of the conflict. 

 

Overall the discussion about Don't Starve Together has largely been constructive and useful. I will be making a post sometime next week addressing these ideas. I will post this response in there as well. 

[ARamblingSpider]

 

This was a point of view that I did not consider before, because we don’t view Don’t Starve Together in this way. We didn’t “change our mind”. We see Don’t Starve Together as a different experience. Don’t Starve is not being changed because of multiplayer.

 

Don’t Starve as a game has always been a Single player game. Don’t Starve Together is what we are doing to make that game fun as a multiplayer game, which is why it is a separate experience and why it’s design will not impact Don’t Starve. And in this way, Don’t Starve will always be the truest form of the game. We aren’t changing Don’t Starve, we are simply creating an alternate version with a different focus. So, the statements we made about the nature of Don't Starve as a singleplayer game remain true, just the same, regardless of the existence of a multiplayer version of that game.

 

Our point that I suppose could have been made a bit more clear is that we didn’t (and still don’t) want the design of Don’t Starve to be affected by choices that would need to be made for multiplayer.

 

Considering the amount of work needed to make it a multiplayer experience, those decisions would have been vast and varied. There are already many questions about how Don’t Starve Together will handle many aspects of gameplayer such as sleeping, death, caves, adventure mode, resources and all kinds of other things that are difficult to approach from a multiplayer perspective.

 

But, as Don’t Starve Together, the challenge now is to figure out how those work for multiplayer, not the other way around. And we will work on answering those questions together.

 

I think, and maybe I am wrong here, but I think this was apparent to some people, while others don't see it the same way as we do which may be the source of much of the conflict. 

 

Overall the discussion about Don't Starve Together has largely been constructive and useful. I will be making a post sometime next week addressing these ideas. I will post this response in there as well. 

 

Well at least this post clears up a bit, But I'll still stick with my opinion.

 

But I still don't think it was a bright idea to surprise us with Multiplayer like that. Woudln't it have been better to gradually introduce it before you added it? I doupt we'd would have as much conflict.

[jbeetle]

Well at least this post clears up a bit, But I'll still stick with my opinion.

 

But I still don't think it was a bright idea to surprise us with Multiplayer like that. Woudln't it have been better to gradually introduce it before you added it? I doupt we'd would have as much conflict.

I think that was already considered since he started with "let's rip the band aid off"

[Ridley]

I hope you guys understand the reason I am stressing that SP and MP should not have content that the only exists between one of them, regardless if you agree with it.

 

My biggest worry is having to choose which mode I want to play because of a division of content. Meanwhile some players could not even enjoy MP due to a unstable internet connection, potentially missing out on content.

[emrextreme]

Adding multiplayer to this title might be the best decision ever made. People like options to choose. If you don't want to play multiplayer you should have the option not to play and if one wants to play he/she should have that option as well. I still cant understand how multiplayer can possibly ruin the single player game.

[Malan-Tai]

There's a french saying that tells : "Il n'y a que les imbéciles qui ne changent pas d'avis." It would be translated by "Only the fools don't change their mind."

[J20hawkz]

I hope you guys understand the reason I am stressing that SP and MP should not have content that the only exists between one of them, regardless if you agree with it.

 

My biggest worry is having to choose which mode I want to play because of a division of content. Meanwhile some players could not even enjoy MP due to a unstable internet connection, potentially missing out on content.

I feel the same.

This is exactly why I started the poll for "Should there be a separate PvP mode"

[SamLogan]

Don't Starve don't become totaly multi it's just an optional mode. So what's the prob?

[J20hawkz]

@ArcticFox789 after everything you said, I can understand where you are coming from. But is your way of thinking right? Does it not divide the Don’t Starve community?

The one thing that divided our community was multiplayer, those of us who were against it and those who wanted it. Klei made an official statement saying No to multiplayer. What's surprising to see now is that people are interpreting that statement differently, where as at the time EVERYONE was using it to inform people Klei will NEVER implement it.

Bottom line is the official response from Kevin was a straight up response saying No. Hence why when we locked multiplyer threads we used that as evidence. Because of that we upset people who strongly believed Don't Starve could work with multiplayer and at the same time we made others happy or enforced the belief that Don't Starve would never get it. In my opinion that wasn't right because the community was divided. But it stopped the hate which made everything we did justified. Which as my job as a moderator was to do. Not to take sides but to enforce what EVER rules/regulations/statement Klei and Valve have set at the forum(s) I moderate in.

Sorry I know I'm going off topic again but there is really no point in arguing the points you raised. Judging by JoeW's response on Don't Starve Together, it definitely feels as though it was a very tough decision for them to make. They knew they would upset the side against having multiplayer, but at the same time they would put an end to this division. They are giving us the choice to either carry on playing Single player or try out Multiplayer. No force has been implied and they didn't sacrifice one thing for another.

You can carry on being upset about it all you want and you have every right to. But Klei have once again proved they will bust a limb to make as many people happy as they can. As I said you have the right to be upset but your argument in my eyes is not justifiable. To base your argument on criticising Klei is just as pointless someone basing their argument on calling Klei awesome for this decision they made.

Klei are not above criticism, but Klei have done nothing to deserve criticism. I'm sorry but this topic causes more division and more hate. Don't Starve Together is coming, whether you play it or not doesn't matter, we have again been given a choice with no strings attached.