(Steam) Achievements for Don't Starve Together

[NeddoFreddo]

Should Steam achievements be added to DST?

Personally, I think yes, because it would give people who've done everything in the game something else to do. If you're a completionist, it would give you something to do to show off your not starving skills. 

The achievements could be like Terraria's achievements: Easy to grasp, fun to do, and not too hard or easy. (Just no achievements like the fishing quest ones pls)
Most of them could be based around killing a boss, or, there could be achievements for performing feats as every character (To encourage players to experience the other characters and not just their 'main.') Also of course the 'Survive x amount of days,' and Survive 2x amount of days,' achievements.

You're probably thinking: "But won't people just use the console to cheat the achievements through godmode and the likes?"
And yes, this is a valid argument but you can see what time and date people earned the achievements on Steam, so you'd be able to tell if it was cheated, to an extent.
Klei could also implement a system like The Binding of Isaac, where doing certain things (using the console, doing challenges, using seeds etc)

would result in this () appearing on the player's screen to let them know they can't complete achievements and unlock new items.

And yes, I'm aware that Klei has allegedly stated that they 'hate achievements' (?) but a number of their games on Steam... have achievements. (Games like Mark of the Ninja, Invisible, Inc., Shank, etc.)

So what are your thoughts on the matter? Achievements? No achievements? If so, why?
also apologies about the kinda wall of text

[minespatch]

Well... It happened with Forge so I'm not sure.

[DragonMage156]

I like the idea but I have yet to defeat any boss, aside from Forge (then again, I could play with friends to complete them. Don't expect deathless from me though XD )

[Sicko Hog]

Looking at the PS4 DST trophies, achievements would probably not give players who've done everything something new to do, since the hardest achievement there is "defeated an Ancient Guardian".

[Auth]

Seeing as how playing DST on the PS4 platform is littered with people just begging for you to help them get the achievements, then they stop playing the game after getting them, no. God no. Never. Never again.

Achievements ruin Don't Starve, and it's atmosphere. The whole game is specifically designed to be played how you want, not how the game wants you to play it. You aren't following a predetermined path, you're paving your own, your achievements are ones you have personally set for yourself, you don't need the game itself to pat you on the back for doing a task that should be done regardless (IE, first steps, first season survived, killed deerclops, etc)

And while yes, you might point out I'm a bit of a hypocrite because I despise people that make the game too easy (Mods that are basically brokenly powerful, "craftable krampus sack and other things" and of course everyone's favorite "Totally balanced furry anime generic sample skin recolor" mod character) I still think they have a right to completely ruin play the game however they want and I leave them be.

Point is:

Achievements worked for The Forge because they encouraged other ways of thinking that weren't inherently obvious to begin with. (Much like minecraft's achievements) However, with DST, every time the topic comes up of "What achievements should be added?" it's always "Stuff you do anyway" or "Stuff no person would logically ever do, ever" (Examples of both are "Chop 10 trees" and "Build 30,000 pig houses as webber")

Trust me, after a while of playing, all on their own players begin to experiment and try new things. Especially now, where word of mouth travels through the game itself rather than just youtube/the forums/reddit.

 

In my closing, final thoughts,

No.

[Tumalu]

Achievements made sense for Forge, because there was an EXP system. It encouraged you to learn the system (stuff like saving your specials to break snortoise guards and stop their spins, swap weapons for cooldowns, etc) and encouraged you to try out a lot of the characters so that you could earn the cheevos for EXP. As well, it made leveling more exciting and fast until you clear all the achievements out- they actively served a purpose.

AND, perhaps most importantly, there is also still a clear purpose to continue after you finish them; level up and get more chests!

But in the base game, there's no place for them, and no clear reason to keep playing after finishing all the goals the game set for you. As the last person (and research by Klei themselves) have said; in an open-ended sandboxy game like Don't Starve, putting achievements tends to lead to people viewing the achievements as the game's goal (what you're supposed to do to "win") because there IS no other clear goals. People then pursue them to the exclusion of anything else, stop when they're done. Not everyone will act that way, but a lot of people would. They're playing to get the achievements, because the cheevos are clear goals that have been set for them to accomplish, as naturally as how in Mario you're supposed to get to the goal point at the end.

I mean, in Binding of Isaac, each time I 10000%'d the game it just felt empty and pointless if I tried to keep playing further. ('til the next expansion inevitably came out...) On the upside, with Isaac, beating all the achievements actually took so long that I felt like I'd EASILY gotten my full enjoyment out of the game by doing so, but... Don't Starve doesn't really work the same way.

 

tl;dr Achievements work for Forge and other games but not DST because DST is an open-ended game where you make your own goals and/or play just for playing's sake. Instead of being on-the-side, the achievements turn into the -main goal- of playing as there aren't any others, which inherently screws up the way DST was designed to be fun.

[minespatch]

In the wiki, they mentioned something about science/ingenuiity points which helped build more objects.

[Sinister_Fang]

I think more people need to get satisfaction from actually playing the game itself instead of getting a little image saying you did a thing. It's a lot like getting a golden star sticker in elementary school. I guess the achievements in the forge were ok cause they actually game something for completing them (and a few of them were actually a bit of a challenge), but I still found it mildly annoying. Not to mention that in a game like this it'll cause issues for people who want to actually play the actual game  vs the people who play for star stickers. Imagine people not only asking you where base is, but also asking you to help carry them to get a specific "achievement". It would get real old, real quick.

[Captain_Rage]

No.

[deltarys]

this has been explained long ago by klei

Quote

Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic rewards in Klei’s latest game: Don’t Starve

Greetings! Klei Entertainment is working on a game that has been recommended to me by just about everyone who has played it, and when Jamie Cheng offered to write up a post about player rewards and the thought behind them, I thought it was a great idea. Also, I’m traveling and needed the content. I learned some interesting things reading this this post, and I’m happy to share it with you. Enjoy!

Back in 2010, Chris Hecker presented a talk about Intrinsic vs Extrinsic rewards, titled: Achievements Considered Harmful? You could say that this article is about our own, direct experience in the matter. It’s about how we nearly ruined our newest game by adding one of the most common game tropes: the quest system.

In January, we started working on a new game called Don’t Starve. This game is a big departure for us at Klei, considering our recent history with linear, narrative-driven action games. Don’t Starve is a randomly-generated, open-world survival game - the player tries to survive for as long as they can in a complex, hostile environment. It’s a “lost in the woods” simulator featuring cannibalistic pig people and trees that fight back when you try to chop them down. It’s about being alone, and surviving on your wits while growing a magnificent beard.

We were inspired by building games like Minecraft and Terraria, as well as simulation games like Dwarf Fortress. Add in a splash of old-school adventure gaming and a hint of roguelike, and you have an idea of what we were going for. Beyond a playground that Minecraft offers (oh, but WHAT a playground), we wanted to build a rich world that interacts in surprising ways, and challenges the player to explore and understand it.

With that, I’m going to start with some background, and then get into the surprisingly pointed consequences of using external incentives in our game.

Also, because we’re Canadian, we’re going to stick the letter “u” in words all over the place.
Behaviourism in games

At their most basic level, many video games can be reduced to simple behaviourism. The player sees a scenario on the screen, and tries to affect it via some form of input. The game reacts in either a positive or negative way, and that reinforces or inhibits certain behaviours on the part of the player.

You press a button to collect a coin. A bell rings, and a number gets bigger. All of a sudden, you have a powerful urge to press more buttons, and so it turns.

Meanwhile, a well designed game can elicit a much more complex emotional response from the player than simple reinforcement learning. Do you remember the sense of wonder that you felt when you first heard about minus world in Super Mario Brothers? Or the growing sense of unease that took hold about half way through Shadow of the Colossus? How did you spend your first night in Minecraft? Games can be powerful stuff.

So while behaviourism looms large in the physiological landscape of gameplaying, it is possible for designers to reach for something more. The psychological techniques that a game designer chooses to use in a particular game can have far-reaching effects not only upon the way that the game is played and why players choose to play it.



Skinner box
The design problem with behaviourism

In the large scheme of things, behaviourism in games is a useful tool. The real problem comes when the tool of behaviourism—the extrinsic reward—is either the only reason we’re doing something, or perhaps more tragically, replaces the reason we’re doing something.

Studies about the damage of rewards are well-known, and yet it seems common to hear a design (or business) talk about how effective arbitrary rewards are in motivating players. Take an old, 1987 study of 2 girls drawing for the fun of it:

“Young children who are rewarded for drawing are less likely to draw on their own that are children who draw just for the fun of it.”


In this study, the girls who were rewarded actually ended up drawing faster, but worse, than their counterparts who simply enjoyed drawing. Then, once the rewards stopped, so did they. In this instance, we’ve managed to replace the joy of drawing with the expectation for reward. This phenomenon is reproducible and has been repeated by multiple studies; the examples of the negative effects of rewards are abundant, and its clear that rewarding people, even for things you want them to do more of, can have the exact opposite effect.

Let’s put aside the moral implications of behaviourism for now, and make the case for why this approach is problematic for our game design goal: actually getting people to care about our game deeply. Specifically:

1. Rewards can cause players to do less of what you want
Players given rewards will stop doing the thing you’re rewarding them for once you stop the rewards, even if that action was fun in the first place.

2. Rewards can cause players to care less about everything else
Players looking for a reward become so focused on the reward, that any distraction is exactly that—a distraction.

3. Rewards can cause players to perform worse
Players who are trying to optimize for the reward will often stop taking risks, in fear of losing the reward, even if this risk taking behaviour could actually improve their performance.

All of these behaviours are backed by studies. To see many more examples, I direct you to further reading.

What we unintentionally found is, Don’t Starve became a poster child for what can go wrong. As we learned recently in our studio, you have to be careful when you’re making these decisions. If you choose poorly, you might end up subverting the whole point of your game in the first place.

When we as designers give an arbitrary reward, what we are saying is “what you are doing is not intrinsically interesting, so we’re giving you this carrot instead.”



Don’t Starve: An uncompromising wilderness survival sim
Why we implemented quests

Our initial playable prototype of Don’t Starve took a couple of months to build. It opened with Wilson, the main character, waking up inside a clearing. He would play a little getting up animation, and then the user interface would appear and the player was given control. That’s it. We wanted to see if players would grok the system we created for them, and start exploring.

Instead, players would watch the introduction (such as it was), and then turn to us and ask “What am I supposed to do next?” and “I don’t know what to do.” And then they’d simply be stuck.

Ouch. All of our work was going to waste, because people didn’t know what to do! With a bit of verbal coaching, they were able to start playing, but as a guided experience the game lacked the sense of discovery and accomplishment that we were trying to impart.

But all was not lost. Once we had taught players enough about the game’s basic mechanics, they would start experimenting on their own and would start to have a lot of fun. The problem was getting them to that point without coaching or prompting.

A couple of brainstorming sessions later, we decided that best solution was to provide more structure to the experience. The players didn’t know what they could do in the game, so we were going to tell them! If you’ve played any triple-A game on the current generation of consoles, you can probably guess where this was going: Quests!



Early Prototype: players are presented with a clear objective

Now, when players woke up, they were confronted by an evil-looking man in a pinstripe suit who challenged them to complete a laundry list of goals, like “survive for 5 days” or “find all of the phonograph pieces”. Completing the tasks would knock them off the list, and they would be replaced by more complex tasks. We figured that we could teach all of the core systems in the game this way, from exploration, to crafting, to combat. By the time they were done all of the challenges, players would be ready to take on the world on their own terms!
The unexpected result

The actual result was exactly what I described previously. First, players would optimize for the goal—in this case, it was surviving for four nights. Except, they now did this to the exclusion of all else! Players simply cowered in a corner, hoarding some food, and waited for the time to run out. This was:
a) very boring,
b) actually ineffective and
c) once they reached the goal, if we didn’t write another goal, they would stop playing.

Our solution had taken a confusing - yet fun - game and made it feel like a list of chores. There was also the problem that players would eventually run out of quests, and then stop playing entirely because the game was ‘over’. It was an incredibly eye-opening experience of how just a simple UI change (the objectives didn’t actually give you anything) could so effectively destroy player motivation.
Embrace the intrinsic fun

What we had initially thought was a failure of instruction was actually a failure in how we presented the game’s goals. In structuring the game as a series of explicit tasks to be completed, we taught the player to depend upon those tasks to create meaning in the game. At the highest level, the game that they were playing was “complete the task list”, and the actual game play became an obstacle to be overcome.

This was a clear example of not us as designers not understanding the underlying motivations for players, and allowing the rewards to overshadow the game itself. It was poisonous to Don’t Starve because as a systems-exploration game, its charm lies in letting players figure things out for themselves. Our itemized lists and rewards made the game seems as about as charming as a couple pages of math homework.

Once we realized what the underlying issue was, we doubled-down on focusing on the one thing that mattered: allowing players to have fun exploring and experimenting.

First we removed all of the explicit quests. This brought us back to where we started. Our goal as developers then became to find a way to teach players about the early game in such a way as to allow them to figure it out for themselves.

Designing this way is a lot harder. We could no longer simply tell people what to do, but instead, after dozens of playtests and many UI passes, created an interface which gently and neutrally showed them what they could do created an environment where players could enjoy the game exactly as they felt was correct.



Updated crafting interface

In Don’t Starve, the player’s progression in the world closely follows their progress through the crafting menu. You collect stuff so that you can build things that let you collect more exotic stuff that leads to even better things. We don’t explicitly tell you that you should collect the ingredients build an axe so that you can chop down trees so that you can build a fire so that you can survive the night. We just present you with a prominent, navigable list of crafting recipes, and we kill you if you get caught outside for too long without a light source. Oh, and we also delete your saved game, because we’re kinda mean.

After a player experiences this loss first-hand a couple of times, they catch on. By the time they’ve figured out how to survive the first in-game night, they have a pretty good mental model of how the game works, and are busy coming up with their own goals for the next day. They have learned how to learn about the game, and hopefully their curiosity about its underlying systems has been piqued enough that they want to continue playing.
Ongoing development

Our game is currently in Early Beta, and it has been incredibly rewarding watching waves of players go through this learning process and teach themselves how to play. Since the game is not yet complete, players tend to hit the content wall around day 50 or so, where they have seen most of what is currently in the game.

It was thus really amazing to see the power of internal motivation, finding groups of self-motivated players creating their own ‘challenge runs’ on our forums once they got to that point. They were coming up with new sets of self-imposed goals that changed the nature of the game, such as trying to play without eating any meat, or by starting fights with every creature that they find. They weren’t doing this to get achievements or even to get a high score.

They were doing it because they were having fun.

Sony - Playstation pushed klei to add achievemets for the playstation plataform

Regards...

[YumoS]

many negativity here. why not appeal both parties? people who dont care will dont care even if achievements are added and achievement hunters get what they want. i say yes for achievements. Most games have tons of unneeded achievements but dst could have some cool achievements which would make fun to get.

[Rellimarual]

21 minutes ago, YumoS said:

many negativity here. why not appeal both parties? people who dont care will dont care even if achievements are added and achievement hunters get what they want. i say yes for achievements. Most games have tons of unneeded achievements but dst could have some cool achievements which would make fun to get.

Because it’s a multiplayer game, and as the console players have explained, playing with other people who are focused on achievements ruins the game for everyone. There are plenty of other games out there if you want to be led by the nose like a sheep

[fimmatek]

33 minutes ago, YumoS said:

many negativity here. why not appeal both parties? people who dont care will dont care even if achievements are added and achievement hunters get what they want. i say yes for achievements. Most games have tons of unneeded achievements but dst could have some cool achievements which would make fun to get.

Because Klei doesn't want to lead the players in any directions, but wants them to find their own ways. But this was already explained many times here.

But there are other reasons too. Let's say there is an achievement "Kill the Bearger". How is "kill" defined? Dealing it the most damage? Or landing the last hit? Or dealing a minimun % of damage, so that many people can get it at the same time? Or neither, just simply "participating" at the killing of the bearger? In the first case people would argue "But I gave it the most damage, you did almost nothing!" "But I killed it, it died under my hit!", in the latter case you could hit it once and get the achievement by sitting there while the others kill it. And then we didn't even mention if it gets killed by a treeguard, in which case the players would blame how stupid this game is that it prevented them from getting that sweet achievement. Or let's say someone makes 100 tooth traps and kills bearger with them: people would again argue if the player actually "killed" it. The point of this game is to be creative, play in your own style, not to follow some given patterns or play it "the best way".

Another problem were the mods and console commands. Klei decided to give the players a huge freedom by letting us use mods and commands (which I and many people really like). Now, killing bearger for the achievement would be a minute for every noob by reading the guide "how to get all achievements with console commands" and the achievements would lose their sense. Okay then, let's say achievements cannot be earned in worlds where the console was used. Achievement hunters will say: okay dokay, we'll make mods that solve this problem. Klei could say then, okay, no mods can be allowed to get achievements. (There would be still the question if client-only mods could be allowed, because they don't change the game, but many of them still help a lot.) But then Klei would practically ban people who like to play with mods from getting the achievements and they had to chose: mods or achievements. And this is definitely not what Klei wants. 

[Captain_Rage]

The achievements in The Forge was a completely different story. It made sense to hone your skills, perform tiny challenges or try diverse tactics. It added some variety to The Forge, which was extremely repetitive by nature (which  was not a bad thing, and here the achievements served to spice things up a bit).

In the vanilla game it would be thorn in the eye to have arbitrary goals set for no reason. It is a challenging sandbox experience in itself, and players decide their own challenges. Once you have achievements on Steam, there is no way to turn them off. This is extremely pesky. No, thank you, let's not ruin the good things about Don't Starve Together.

[Sinister_Fang]

I know a way both groups can win. How about they just add in the accomploshrine into the steam version? That way people who want to do a pointless, repetitive task for a reward that's meaningless can do so. And everyone else can just laugh at them.

[minespatch]

1 minute ago, Sinister_Fang said:

How about they just add in the accomploshrine into the steam version?

Yeah, they can build it if they really want on know.

[brbrmensch]

1 hour ago, Sinister_Fang said:

I know a way both groups can win. How about they just add in the accomploshrine into the steam version? That way people who want to do a pointless, repetitive task for a reward that's meaningless can do so. And everyone else can just laugh at them.

inb4 griefers make hammers and eat gears

[Rellimarual]

I really don’t want people seeking achievements coming on my server, tbh. If they want to contribute, have fun, fight bosses, and explore, then fine, but I don’t want people who don’t enjoy the game for its own sake showing up and bugging me to help them with some totally meaningless trophy.

[DatShadowJK]

Remember how Klei added an Accomplishire as a grudge item towards Sony since they forced them to make achievments? Klei does not like having a list of achievments on their game since it makes players feel like they HAVE to do this. It also contains spoilers to the game on what you can do. The game is about figuring it out. People who play this game LOVE to figure it out on their own. This is a game that is not like Minecraft or Terraria, it DOES NOT HAVE A TUTORIAL. 

This game is meant to be hard.

Also, imagine if someone pops up to your server and says “plz kill dfly i need achivemnt i need plzzzzzzzzz”

This game gives you a free will to do what you want, stay in the caves or not stay in the caves, up to you! Fight the boss, run away from it, hire slaves to kill it not reccomended, its your choice!

In the Forge, the achievments were different, you could choose to do them or not, but it does not interfere with gameplay, I personally just played Forge to get the Pugna War Chests and meet new friends who ain’t obnoxious and who were not all like “pik wilsun” “deathluss plz or nub” “keel boss or u nub” “wickerbottom gets forge hammer” “maxwell is worthless mage slave (this one actually happened on a server)”

And also think about how Klei would have to remove Console Commands AND Mods to Achievments if people keep spawning in Multiple Dark Swords and killing Dfly and Fuelweaver at the same time in Godmode. That would ruin the game, since Mods and Console is really good for demonstration and just for fun

[YumoS]

21 hours ago, fimmatek said:

Because Klei doesn't want to lead the players in any directions, but wants them to find their own ways. But this was already explained many times here.

But there are other reasons too. Let's say there is an achievement "Kill the Bearger". How is "kill" defined? Dealing it the most damage? Or landing the last hit? Or dealing a minimun % of damage, so that many people can get it at the same time? Or neither, just simply "participating" at the killing of the bearger? In the first case people would argue "But I gave it the most damage, you did almost nothing!" "But I killed it, it died under my hit!", in the latter case you could hit it once and get the achievement by sitting there while the others kill it. And then we didn't even mention if it gets killed by a treeguard, in which case the players would blame how stupid this game is that it prevented them from getting that sweet achievement. Or let's say someone makes 100 tooth traps and kills bearger with them: people would again argue if the player actually "killed" it. The point of this game is to be creative, play in your own style, not to follow some given patterns or play it "the best way".

Another problem were the mods and console commands. Klei decided to give the players a huge freedom by letting us use mods and commands (which I and many people really like). Now, killing bearger for the achievement would be a minute for every noob by reading the guide "how to get all achievements with console commands" and the achievements would lose their sense. Okay then, let's say achievements cannot be earned in worlds where the console was used. Achievement hunters will say: okay dokay, we'll make mods that solve this problem. Klei could say then, okay, no mods can be allowed to get achievements. (There would be still the question if client-only mods could be allowed, because they don't change the game, but many of them still help a lot.) But then Klei would practically ban people who like to play with mods from getting the achievements and they had to chose: mods or achievements. And this is definitely not what Klei wants. 

They dont want to lead you in any directions? sry, but they do. of course you have different ways but the goal is always the same. if you want to go forward in the game you simply have to do the tasks they give you.Like kill x mob to get x item to get y item to kill z boss etc...

And the argument that people could cheat the achievements is also unreasonable because this happens in every single game. Its not like you get something as a reward for getting all the achievements. its just a challenge. People who cheat or mod the achievements can do it and they are doing it. That is not the point here.

Simply being a part of killing bearger could give you the achievement and noone would argue with you that you only hit the bearger 1 time.

 

20 hours ago, Sinister_Fang said:

I know a way both groups can win. How about they just add in the accomploshrine into the steam version? That way people who want to do a pointless, repetitive task for a reward that's meaningless can do so. And everyone else can just laugh at them.

if killing bosses is pointless and repetitive maybe they can dumb the game into the bin and thats it. because the games core element consists of many pointless repetitive stuff. Its not like you do these so called pointless things because you get the achievement. you still go kill bosses... Or you still do these repetitive boring farming of sticks and grass.

[fimmatek]

8 minutes ago, YumoS said:

They dont want to lead you in any directions? sry, but they do. of course you have different ways but the goal is always the same. if you want to go forward in the game you simply have to do the tasks they give you.Like kill x mob to get x item to get y item to kill z boss etc...

i don't agree with this. Most of the things in don't starve aren't needed to be done, they just make the life easier or better. You don't need any walking cane, you'll get from A to B anyways, you don't need the eyebrella because you can make an umbrella instead. You don't need thulecite, because you can make quite good armor, weapons and other stuff without it already. You don't even need a base, you can play and survive nomad if you wish, just by hunting koalaphants.
Also fighting is a quite optional thing in DST, you can avoid it in most cases. Lure the hounds into a beefalo herd, hire pigs for spiders, chase that koalaphant to a tentacle or a tall bird etc... even bosses are optional, even deerclops and bearger if you lure them away from base. 

Of course I agree that there are ways which are definitely better/faster/more efficient than others, but these aren't obligatory and as DatShadowJK said, there is no tutorial in this game. I guess Klei didn't just simply forgot to add one...

About the rest, yes, I know that people cheat in every game, but that didn't make me want achievements more. My question here is: what for would you like achievements, to show them off or for the feeling that you actually accoplished something? Because in the first case if people simply cheat, who would believe that you got your achievements in a legit way? Or in the second case, without the achievements you wouldn't be proud after you killed bearger the first time (or after getting any other of the achievements)?

I hope I was clear and not harsh or too hard, I just really don't see how steam achievements could make DS/T better.

[YumoS]

52 minutes ago, fimmatek said:

About the rest, yes, I know that people cheat in every game, but that didn't make me want achievements more. My question here is: what for would you like achievements, to show them off or for the feeling that you actually accoplished something? Because in the first case if people simply cheat, who would believe that you got your achievements in a legit way? Or in the second case, without the achievements you wouldn't be proud after you killed bearger the first time (or after getting any other of the achievements)?

I hope I was clear and not harsh or too hard, I just really don't see how steam achievements could make DS/T better.

As i stated at my first comment on this thread. we and everyone else has different opinions. i like achievements which make sense. (kill 1,000,000 times this or do this task is of course not included.) I like the challenge and i like to finish them. they are called achievements for a reason. You dont like them and think they are not needed. thats fine. They can add achievements and people who care do them and others dont. is that not simple and both parties are happy. you are still playing games even if they have achievements, right?

[Sinister_Fang]

3 hours ago, YumoS said:

if killing bosses is pointless and repetitive maybe they can dumb the game into the bin and thats it. because the games core element consists of many pointless repetitive stuff. Its not like you do these so called pointless things because you get the achievement. you still go kill bosses... Or you still do these repetitive boring farming of sticks and grass.

Yeah, the game has some repetitive aspects to it (all games tend to be a little repetitive to some degree) but I wouldn't say that gathering resources is pointless. With the goal of the game being to stay alive, an abundance of resources helps. But wasting time and resources just for a little image saying you did a thing, with no actual reward ingame, now that's pointless.

[YumoS]

1 hour ago, Sinister_Fang said:

Yeah, the game has some repetitive aspects to it (all games tend to be a little repetitive to some degree) but I wouldn't say that gathering resources is pointless. With the goal of the game being to stay alive, an abundance of resources helps. But wasting time and resources just for a little image saying you did a thing, with no actual reward ingame, now that's pointless.

maybe i couldnt explain it good enough. achievements are based on challenging parts of the game which are definetly not pointless.... like killing bosses. the achievement is just the bonus of it. you still do it.

[Maxposting]

On 14. 12. 2017 at 4:01 AM, minespatch said:

In the wiki, they mentioned something about science/ingenuiity points which helped build more objects.

yes , you could destroy normal non placable items ( not the special ones ) to get them so you could craft placable one

like 4 rabbits to build bee hive

4 pickaxes to build birdcage ect.