Some Realizations about Shipwrecked

[SinisterOctopus]

I hate to bring up Destiny again, but they changed direction mid-development, and it did not end well at all.

 

Klei/Capy have already developed Shipwrecked to be standalone, and if they give in to demands that it be made into DLC, it will be a drastic change in the direction mid-development, and it will not end well.

[Grumble]

Theres quite a few differences between Destiny and Shipwrecked. Destiny was created entirely from scratch while Shipwrecked is being created using the Don't Starve engine. Destiny was developed for multiple platforms, Shipwrecked is not, at least not initially. There was no preconception of what Destiny was so they changed the direction of the game multiple times because they could and players wouldn't be none the wiser since they had nothing to compare it to, plus they had a multibillion dollar budget to make those multiple changes possible. Shipwrecked is not drastically changing the Don't Starve formula, and in Joe's post he mentioned nothing but balance as being an obstacle. If for some reason they make the changes and ship it and people do not like the balance, guess what? Balance can be patched. Until we hear that technical limitations for sure would not make the game possible or would extend development by a large margin, I think they should see what they could change to make as many people happy as they can.

[emerphish]

Klei/Capy have already developed Shipwrecked to be standalone, and if they give in to demands that it be made into DLC, it will be a drastic change in the direction mid-development, and it will not end well.

It may or may not end well. As pointed out nearly all of the content in development could be used, but it would definitely push back the release date if they did. For me, as long as Klei/Capy do what they do well, I am fine. I would rather have a world gen toggle with shipwrecked because it doesn't seem to have the same potential to fail as a standalone game would. Ultimately the developers are the most informed and, as long as they listen to the will of the people, they will probably make the best decision. After all their goal is to get us to buy Shipwrecked, and people (I would like to say don't, but that would be a lie) shouldn't buy something they won't enjoy.

[SinisterOctopus]

Shipwrecked is not drastically changing the Don't Starve formula, and in Joe's post he mentioned nothing but balance as being an obstacle. If for some reason they make the changes and ship it and people do not like the balance, guess what? Balance can be patched. Until we hear that technical limitations for sure would not make the game possible or would extend development by a large margin, I think they should see what they could change to make as many people happy as they can.

 

Joe didn't say that balance was the only obstacle, so I wouldn't assume that it is.

 

"The fact is that Shipwrecked started out before DST and originally was created as a standalone experience, and there are a lot of things to take into consideration if the two games were to be merged together. And the way the shipwrecked islands and Don't Starve interact would have a significant impact in terms of balance on both sides."

 

(Couldn't figure out how to properly multiquote, so this is Joew's post)

 

In fact, Joe says there are "a lot of things to be taken into consideration if the two games were to be merged together".

 

Also, he says that there would be a "significant impact in terms of balance". So I wouldn't undersell the obstacles. But in the end, it's Klei/Capy that decides what's technically possible for them.

 

As for balance, DST had obstacles involving balance, and we still haven't seen a resolution yet, and they started working on resolving the balance from the beginning, whereas Shipwrecked, (although it has been worked on for longer), hasn't even considered balancing Shipwrecked for merging with DS until now.

 

 

 

[SinisterOctopus]

I would rather have a world gen toggle with shipwrecked because it doesn't seem to have the same potential to fail as a standalone game would. Ultimately the developers are the most informed and, as long as they listen to the will of the people, they will probably make the best decision. After all their goal is to get us to buy Shipwrecked, and people (I would like to say don't, but that would be a lie) shouldn't buy something they won't enjoy.

 

I don't get why everyone is so set on the fact that standalones run a risk of failing. Klei knows how to make good games, that much is clear, and if the question is people buying it, Klei and Capy combined have a large enough fanbase that will probably just buy it because they see Klei/Capy's name on it. I apologize if I'm wrong, but it sounds like people are just using this excuse that Shipwrecked will fail if standalone, instead of saying that they personally want it to be DLC and won't buy it unless it is DLC.

 

Since Klei/Capy is more than competent, the only real issue that might cause it to fail is if the community doesn't buy it, and I honestly don't think that's an issue.

 

--

 

Their secondary goal, I hope and think, is to make a game that is as fun for them to play as it is for us. (That's the mark of good developers.) The will of the people is at least somewhat split (so don't claim that everyone wants Shipwrecked to be DLC), and I personally think Shipwrecked will be more fun standalone.

 

The people that agree with me that Shipwrecked should be standalone will buy the game because they enjoy it. The people who disagree with me, they still played DS (and enjoyed it, I'd assume), so why wouldn't they enjoy Shipwrecked? (Even if they thought it'd be better as DLC.) The reason people wouldn't buy it, (which baffles me) is because they disagree with Klei's approach (which also baffles me) and because they would rather have no new content at all than have a standalone that isn't changed into DLC (which baffles me the most).

[t0panka]

Dude everyone here will buy it if it is DLC or standalone and i am sure enjoy new content BUT. It is just weird that they announce SW as expansion (i think i read somewhere about DLC) and ALSO add that boat and bird in original DS! Well this can't be more obvious that SW is going to expand DS+ROG right? Thats why people went crazy about standalone. Problem with standalone is that:

- why split one game to two "same" games?

- is there enough content in SW that wont get boring soon or that it is already seen (reskins)?

- what about feature updates? For example "Trough the Age" - are we getting this for DS+ROG and SW too? Or just SW since mounting is probably as "mounting boats?

- so this means DS+ROG is dead/done?

 

But anyway i hope we get today more info about SW from Klei so we know whats up. I trust Klei since they never disappointed me and they know how to make epic games!

[SinisterOctopus]

Dude everyone here will buy it if it is DLC or standalone and i am sure enjoy new content BUT. It is just weird that they announce SW as expansion (i think i read somewhere about DLC) and ALSO add that boat and bird in original DS! Well this can't be more obvious that SW is going to expand DS+ROG right? Thats why people went crazy about standalone. Problem with standalone is that:

- why split one game to two "same" games?

- is there enough content in SW that wont get boring soon or that it is already seen (reskins)?

- what about feature updates? For example "Trough the Age" - are we getting this for DS+ROG and SW too? Or just SW since mounting is probably as "mounting boats?

- so this means DS+ROG is dead/done?

 

But anyway i hope we get today more info about SW from Klei so we know whats up. I trust Klei since they never disappointed me and they know how to make epic games!

 

It is technically an expansion, and a lot of people immediately jumped to DLC when they heard that, and it didn't help that every news site and person who had heard of it were calling it DLC, when that was never in play.

 

I don't think the games will be the same, and I think there will be enough content to keep people playing, but since we've only seen a brief alpha demo of the game, it's too soon to tell.

 

As for future updates, "Through the Ages" is exclusively for Don't Starve Together.

 

Before Shipwrecked was announced, nobody knew anything about future updates for Don't Starve, and after it was announced, and Shipwrecked was revealed to be standalone, everyone seems to think that Don't Starve is dead/done and we won't get any more content for it because Klei has moved on to Shipwrecked or DST. But the truth is, we know just as much about Klei's plans for future content as we did before, which is nothing. Klei might be finished with Don't Starve or they might not be. We don't know.

[t0panka]

EHM if you take something OUT of the game and add another stuff and make it another game it is technically a spinoff not expansion. They add that boat to DS with that Wolly or what is his name and also ROG was expansion. There is not a single sign that this would be standalone right?

 

We seen alpha (new water and sailing + lot of reskins (biomes, creatures, items, etc.) and JoeW said "The volcano, the characters, new seasons, bosses and a bunch of other stuff." - bunch of other stuff doesn't sound as enough content BUT YES we need more info about this.

 

As for future updates that was example but Klei said that some of the new stuff from DST will come to DS in future (maybe even TTA who knows)

 

Before SW was announced Klei said that DS getting something new too (because DST getting TTA). So we knew something is coming. I didn't said that DS+ROG is dead there was question mark. They can support all three games with updates but it will be even harder because it is hard now. Look at caves for DST how hard are they to add.

[SinisterOctopus]

EHM if you take something OUT of the game and add another stuff and make it another game it is technically a spinoff not expansion. They add that boat to DS with that Wolly or what is his name and also ROG was expansion. There is not a single sign that this would be standalone right?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_pack#Stand-alone_expansion_packs

 

Some examples off the top of my head: Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon and Wolfenstein The Old Blood.

 

So yes, technically, Shipwrecked does fit the definition of an expansion, even if the word itself is misleading.

[jbeetle]

It is just weird that they announce SW as expansion (i think i read somewhere about DLC) and ALSO add that boat and bird in original DS! 

That's not a bad point. That aside, I see no problem.

[emerphish]

Mr. Octopus, you can't deny the fans' love for Don't Starve. But if shipwrecked will be standalone, it will:

 

A) Fail, and we essentially didn't get anything out of an entire new game,

B)Succeed, and leave Don't Starve behind, 

 

OR the most likely possibility,

 

C) It fractures the community as some people like it, and move to playing shipwrecked most of the time, and some people will stick to RoG.

 

I do think Klei/Capy can and will make a good game, but none of those options sound very appealing to me.

 

If you decide to reply, I ask that you make a case for an option D, because I don't see one and I want to.

[UnionGaming]

Mr. Octopus, you can't deny the fans' love for Don't Starve. But if shipwrecked will be standalone, it will:

 

A) Fail, and we essentially didn't get anything out of an entire new game,

B)Succeed, and leave Don't Starve behind, 

 

OR the most likely possibility,

 

C) It fractures the community as some people like it, and move to playing shipwrecked most of the time, and some people will stick to RoG.

 

I do think Klei/Capy can and will make a good game, but none of those options sound very appealing to me.

 

If you decide to reply, I ask that you make a case for an option D, because I don't see one and I want to.

 

C is going to happen I feel. When/IF it comes out standalone I'll mod old stuff on for nostalgia's sake xD

[SinisterOctopus]

Mr. Octopus, you can't deny the fans' love for Don't Starve. But if shipwrecked will be standalone, it will:

 

A) Fail, and we essentially didn't get anything out of an entire new game,

B)Succeed, and leave Don't Starve behind, 

 

OR the most likely possibility,

 

C) It fractures the community as some people like it, and move to playing shipwrecked most of the time, and some people will stick to RoG.

 

I do think Klei/Capy can and will make a good game, but none of those options sound very appealing to me.

 

If you decide to reply, I ask that you make a case for an option D, because I don't see one and I want to.

 

Please, Mr. Octopus was my father.

 

A) I don't understand how it could possibly fail, and I've explained why.

 

As for B and C, I have to admit, I don't understand those reasons either. Do you only have space in your heart for one game? When Invisible Inc came out did it split the community? Did Don't Starve Together split the community or stop them from communicating with each other and with Klei. Will I stop playing Don't Starve when Fallout 4 comes out? We don't protect old games by not releasing new ones, that just doesn't make any sense.

 

People will play the games that they like. If there are more games people aren't necessarily going to move on. I would look forward to having one more game in my library to put my time into, and I imagine other people would to. Why is it worse to divide our time between two games instead of putting all our time into one game?

[SinisterOctopus]

If you guys want it to be DLC because you'll like it more, just say so. Statements like "it will fail" and "it will fracture the community" don't make any sense to me, and honestly just sound like excuses to make Shipwrecked into DLC.

[Hundkerchief]

If you guys want it to be DLC because you'll like it more, just say so. 

 

That's what people who are in favor of a dlc and I  keep repeating over and over. 

[ImDaMisterL]

That's what people and I keep repeating over and over.

And some also say the other things he mentioned -_-

[SinisterOctopus]

That's what people and I keep repeating over and over. 

 

I understand that, but at the same time they're trying to justify themselves to everyone by claiming that DLC is the only viable option.

 

Maybe I'm guilty of that as well, but the point I'm trying to make is that Klei/Capy shouldn't go back and change Shipwrecked, when it has already been designed and balanced for standalone.

[Hundkerchief]

And some also say the other things he mentioned -_-

I wasn't implying that everybody was in favor of a dlc. And I find it interesting to find the reasons why some people prefer it as a standalone. 

 

In any case, after Klei's final decision  one part of the community or the other will be fatally disappointed because of the choice they made. They have "le cul entre deux chaises" if I may say.  

Maybe it's time to get the dusty Confederate flag out from the closet again. 

 

Anyways, I'm sure the disappointed side of the community will be mature enough to overcome the disappointment.

[ImDaMisterL]

I'm sure the disappointed side of the community will be mature enough to overcome the disappointment.

I hope you're right...

XirmiX might make some angry threads here and there, but hopefully that will be all.

[alainmcd]

Don't Starve isn't a game anymore. It's a franchise. The original game hasn't had new content in almost two years other than some teasers. Neither has RoG since last year. There's also Giant Edition, Pocket Edition and DST, all of which add to the community instead of dividing it, as some people fear SW will. The original DS isn't dying, but it is a finished product. It is also unlikely that it will receive more dlc. There were mainly two reasons why RoG was integrated into DST: not dividing the player base and not having to mantain two separate code bases. The first reason doesn't apply to single player, the second one is why I believe new DS dlc is improbable.

 

Regarding SW more specifically. DS is about exploration, failure, learning and improving. RoG was intended as an addition to the base game to prolongue the experience, with new biomes and creatures to keep the game fresh and giants and seasons to add mid- and late-game challenges. SW, on the other hand, is about starting a whole new experience, not knowing the world and having to learn everything from the beginning again, so having it as dlc would defeat the whole purpose. It will be focused on navigating the seas, as opposed to exploring a single giant island. At least that is what I understood from the demo.

 

...And if it is indeed released as dlc, I won't mind a bit as I trust Klei to know what they do, they have always delivered.

[emerphish]

Don't Starve isn't a game anymore. It's a franchise. The original game hasn't had new content in almost two years other than some teasers. Neither has RoG since last year. There's also Giant Edition, Pocket Edition and DST, all of which add to the community instead of dividing it, as some people fear SW will. The original DS isn't dying, but it is a finished product. It is also unlikely that it will receive more dlc. There were mainly two reasons why RoG was integrated into DST: not dividing the player base and not having to mantain two separate code bases. The first reason doesn't apply to single player, the second one is why I believe new DS dlc is improbable.

 

Regarding SW more specifically. DS is about exploration, failure, learning and improving. RoG was intended as an addition to the base game to prolongue the experience, with new biomes and creatures to keep the game fresh and giants and seasons to add mid- and late-game challenges. SW, on the other hand, is about starting a whole new experience, not knowing the world and having to learn everything from the beginning again, so having it as dlc would defeat the whole purpose. It will be focused on navigating the seas, as opposed to exploring a single giant island. At least that is what I understood from the demo.

 

...And if it is indeed released as dlc, I won't mind a bit as I trust Klei to know what they do, they have always delivered.

I...I think you just sold me.

 

RoG is stale, and imo too easy to avoid threats. That isn't something that can be changed without the addition of a new game. Señor Sinister, you have convinced me along with alainmcd.

 

Just have faith in Klei, they know how to make a good game

[Hundkerchief]

Don't Starve isn't a game anymore. It's a franchise. The original game hasn't had new content in almost two years other than some teasers. Neither has RoG since last year. There's also Giant Edition, Pocket Edition and DST, all of which add to the community instead of dividing it, as some people fear SW will. The original DS isn't dying, but it is a finished product. It is also unlikely that it will receive more dlc. There were mainly two reasons why RoG was integrated into DST: not dividing the player base and not having to mantain two separate code bases. The first reason doesn't apply to single player, the second one is why I believe new DS dlc is improbable.

 

Regarding SW more specifically. DS is about exploration, failure, learning and improving. RoG was intended as an addition to the base game to prolongue the experience, with new biomes and creatures to keep the game fresh and giants and seasons to add mid- and late-game challenges. SW, on the other hand, is about starting a whole new experience, not knowing the world and having to learn everything from the beginning again, so having it as dlc would defeat the whole purpose. It will be focused on navigating the seas, as opposed to exploring a single giant island. At least that is what I understood from the demo.

 

...And if it is indeed released as dlc, I won't mind a bit as I trust Klei to know what they do, they have always delivered.

 

Then I mourn the fact that it has become a franchise. 

I hope one day we'll get Super Don't Starve Kart, Don't Starve Soccer and Don't Starve at the Olympics games. (don't take it too seriously please)

 

I just hope Don't Starve isn't dead indeed (but if it does not receive new content anymore, is it not a bit dead ? Because why play DS then if DST have more content with Through the Ages and maybe future dlc ?) and that the franchise won't become a compilation of standalones.

 

But I understand the point of starting Shipwrecked in media res.   

[grekon]

Don't Starve isn't a game anymore. It's a franchise. The original game hasn't had new content in almost two years other than some teasers. Neither has RoG since last year. There's also Giant Edition, Pocket Edition and DST, all of which add to the community instead of dividing it, as some people fear SW will. The original DS isn't dying, but it is a finished product. It is also unlikely that it will receive more dlc. There were mainly two reasons why RoG was integrated into DST: not dividing the player base and not having to mantain two separate code bases. The first reason doesn't apply to single player, the second one is why I believe new DS dlc is improbable.

 

Regarding SW more specifically. DS is about exploration, failure, learning and improving. RoG was intended as an addition to the base game to prolongue the experience, with new biomes and creatures to keep the game fresh and giants and seasons to add mid- and late-game challenges. SW, on the other hand, is about starting a whole new experience, not knowing the world and having to learn everything from the beginning again, so having it as dlc would defeat the whole purpose. It will be focused on navigating the seas, as opposed to exploring a single giant island. At least that is what I understood from the demo.

 

...And if it is indeed released as dlc, I won't mind a bit as I trust Klei to know what they do, they have always delivered.

WOW, you are the first person(and probably the last) that actually made a decent argument in favor of standalone. (takes of the hat and bows)

 

However I have a hard time believing that SW will really be such a big change. In the end I expect SW to be similar to RoG in terms of size and new experience. If ROG was intended to expand on the base game why should SW not be the same? After all SW is not a new game its an expansion, a standalone one but an expansion nevertheless. We have seen that fundamentals of the game won't change. There will be some re-skins as well.I wouldn't be surprised if I didn't even die on first play through in SW really.

 

I'm not saying that it won't be fun. Even though 99% of the game is made by Capy which I can care less about, that 1% of Klei is what makes me believe in this new expansion. Although making it standalone did make me more skeptical about it. Maybe the culprit here is Capy but now all we can do really is wait and see what Klei says. I'm very intersted to know why Klei decided that SW standalone was a good idea.

 

As for the DS vanilla it is dying. How many play DS and not DS:ROG. I also remeber someone from Klei saying that they do plan new additions to ROG. In the end their plan is very confusing and that what worries me. DS is franchise but franchises are based on continuous support from the studio, the new games and on the community. 

 

Anyways I salute you sir, You have earned my respect. (takes of the hat and bows again)

[alainmcd]

@Hundkerchief, DS isn't dead, nothing close to it. That would mean that any new release without plans for dlc is DOA. No, a game is dead when it is no longer supported by the developers or is no longer player, usually the latter. As a matter of fact, more people played DS+RoG on Steam this August than August last year, just a couple of months after RoG was released, and DST wasn't out yet. See http://steamcharts.com/app/219740. Those numbers will be hurt by standalone SW, no doubt, but does it even matter? As long as we're playing the game(s) and having fun, it don't see any problem.

 

@grekon, an expansion is additional content; a standalone expansion has some of the old content, not all of it, and new content. It is unfortunate that they first only announced as an expansion, but I guess it was to build up hype until they showed something. All I'm saying regarding SW as a standalone is that I see a good idea behind it, not that it is better or worse than dlc. I like the idea, though. I'm also a little afraid (very little) that there might not be enough content to justify a standalone game, but every game release follows the same pattern: hype and speculation about all the possibilities, big disappointment that it doesn't have as much content, and finally apreciation and fun. So let's hype!

 

Regarding DS vs RoG: I think RoG has been the problem. Releasing it as paid dlc was the sound thing to do, but it has introduced so many problems about maintaining the game and releasing new content (in whatever form) while being fair to those who paid for it. In my opinion, it is too good an expansion to let it die as a simple dlc. All DS releases since (DST, GE, PE) have included RoG as part of the core experience. Honestly, I think the best option would be to make it free dlc to DS in order to avoid all the problems it has created. But then people would start complaining about how unfair it is that they paid for it and others get it for free. (I don't care. I have had more than enough fun for what I paid, and I don't care how much others pay to have fun.)

 

Regarding the franchise: more platforms, more games and more content bring new players, which in turn bring new content to the franchise (games, dlc's) and to the community (fan art, fan fic, mods, forum debates and speculation, streams). Don't Starve will outlive the original game, and I think that is a great thing.

 

You are all being converted.

 

PS: you are very kind people. Hats off to all of you, too.

[jbeetle]

@Hundkerchief, DS isn't dead, nothing close to it. That would mean that any new release without plans for dlc is DOA. No, a game is dead when it is no longer supported by the developers or is no longer player, usually the latter. 

I think he just meant that DS by itself is dead, as in there's really no reason to play it without RoG.