Too formulaic, no true diversity --- Add diversity of colony style

[gipothegip]

If you start to analyze the game from a philosophical angle, Rim World sounds ridiculous both in the beginning and in the end.

We start with the wrath of the Gods, in a sci-fi game... Really? Year 5500...and Mankind still believing in Gods?...oh well okay... (I really hate to see my pawns praying as part of Joy, I personally would make it mandatory so that if any colonist is witnessed praying, that would be a death sentence to be...floated, lets say.)...anyways.

You missed the point here. Year 5500 in this game doesn't mean 3500 years of steady advancement across the board.

The lore follows the idea that civilizations can both progress and regress. A concept common in futurism, and occasionally science fiction. Anyway, the idea is that is possible for civilizations to destroy themselves or their environment such that they lose progress is the cataclysm, or that social movements like ludism cause them to revert technology.

That's not to mention your philosophical (sociological?) bias that any advanced civilization would drop religion, or that socially advanced people would stop being religious in any manner. Religion could (and probably would) change (given human history), but nothing dictates it will go away (although atheism may become more acceptable).

I don't think it's any surprise that tribals, who are supposedly inadvanced and would lack scientific understanding and explanations, would have religion.

Then we have the "Ending", which is to launch to search for another planet, which is unclear in the sense as the game provides no single reason as to "why" we are leaving. Is the planet about to explode like Superman's Krypton? I mean... once the player sets a strong settlement that is self sufficient / sustainable...why would we want to start all over elsewhere?

I agree with this, especially given the distance between stars. Any planet they could possibly observe / know about not in their own system (especially given that the Rim is considered sparce) would be seen as it were years ago, possibly hundreds. Especially as there are no transversable  wormholes in Rimworld, so word about these planets would also take years. A prospectful Glitterworld could collapse or disappear (as lore states happens to the worlds advanced beyond Glitterworlds) within such a time frame. Any other civilization would be subject to collapse as well.

So launching to another planet and hoping it's better is a bit like playing darts blind folded with a moving t arget.

I started playing Rim World after a friend recommended it to me while talking about Sid Meier's Civilization series and in that game, the fourth installment had different "Endings" like Cultural Victory, Conquest/Domination, Spaceship, Religious...argh...

So far, I have always launched the ship after 5 to 6 in game years and start a new game in a different biome, but never stayed longer than that as most players seem to be doing. And considering that we (not me) have the Gods and permanent like long term settlements, the game could use this to enrich the storyline to create alternative endings too.

I too would like more end game options, and different types of advanced civilization.

* What upset the Gods in the first place? The Gods sent what? Mechanoids to raze mankind? Well... How about we develop the Colony into Archeology and create Deep Drills that allows us to recover "buried" shut down scythes that were destroyed by "Resistance" habitants attempting to survive, and use those "salvaged" mechanoids to load and read their "chips" and then find a directive with a link to communicate with the Creators, and try to NOT repeat the same "mistake" that cause the first Wrath of the Gods?

snip

Then again of course... religious are irrational and games with Gods don't need to make sense...Well, at least I once got a game with a pawn that was Religious and was incapable of Intellectual, so I don't feel completely  isolated in Rim World.

Well, the "wrath of the gods" isn't literal, but perceptual. More something of an unexplained phenomenon or such destroying the planet.

Also that last little bit is assinine.

There is, for example, the concept of Deism, which is an approach to religion based on observation of nature and logic, and independent worship, as opposed to arbitration, blind faith, and groupthink. Granted some faith is involved (and it could still be wrong), but generally there are no miracles, magic, or dogma you assume of all religion behind Deistic interpretations.

My point being, your assumption that all religious people are anti-intellectuals who believe in non-sense is offensive.

[Bozobub]

Well, I'm not fully on board with "offensive"; however, as an actual Deist, I appreciate the mention nonetheless.  I've gotten to the point where I just say I'm an atheist, when asked; it's shorter, easier, and just about identical in terms of dealing with the Universe, as it's presented to us .  Most proselytizing/evangelizing types hate us just as much as atheists, anyway, if not more ("blasphemers", rather than "heathen", to be specific).

A rather large number of astronomers and astrophysicists identify as "Deist" in at least some manner, by the by.

[b0rsuk]

All major religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are about suspending logic and believing despite all evidence. Deism and related concepts are extremely rare, to the degree that probably no one in this thread met a deist. At this point it should be clear bringing up purely theoretical religion which is compatible with logic is insult to everyone's intelligence. It's splitting hairs for the sake of argument. Vast majority of religious people are irrational, and in practice they get to define what a religion is.

Your argument is similar to saying "Clovers don't have three leaves, because there exist four leaf clovers.". It's technically true, but totally irrelevant and misleading. Also, I don't have hard data on this but religious people themselves often put religion as an alternative to science and reason. An alternate, irrational viewpoint is precisely what attracts them to religion.

[Bozobub]

Um...  No.  The exception proves the overgeneralization is false, that simple.  Here's another exception:  Buddhism.  Literally nothing in Buddhism contradicts reality in any way, and in fact the notion of "we create our own reality" works quite well with many aspects of quantum mechanics .  Shinto is another great example.

While certainly various "holy books" can be (and pretty much always are) quite addled and riddled with errors, there is NO evidence for or against Deity, Itself, and I highly doubt there ever will be.

You're looking at the inevitable divide between "philosophy" and "science"; neither can ever really gainsay or "disprove" the other .  Go ahead, try to prove "ethics" with science, sometime; good luck, we've been trying as a species for millennia.  Conversely, you're not going to explain away physics and/or simple, empirical fact with a purely philosophical argument o.o'.

[Vlad0mi3r]

Team I don't think we are on topic anymore, I think we are way way away off it. There is a thread on religion in the off topic part of the forums maybe take it there.

Just saying.

[Yoshida Keiji]

I consider myself Spiritual but not Religious and I favor Buddhism a lot. While I wasn't technically indoctrinated by my family, many Japanese practices have a Buddhist background and its hard not to feel an inclination towards it. I did however had indoctrination attempts from other family members not of my house who tried to take me into Christianity (converted Japanese which is rare to an extent).

As of present day, Im meeting and talking with Muslim people for I would like Japan to extend refugee vacancies for all seeking safe passage, knowing what Middle Eastern people are going through. I'm aware 9-11 was a Controlled Demolition and not a Terrorist attack. But basically, the ideas such as Blacks enslavement, intolerance towards diversity clearly seen these days with Trump as a Democratic Nation leader and all that really frustrates me.

But game wise speaking, Rim World has many kills by raids and it's super common to hear about Organs Harvesting and Cannibalism. We can kill and torture here as much as we want. We have couples that have a heart animation while they are bedded, and I would like to perform the same action to downed raiders. Why doesn't RW have rape? We have enslavement too.

I'm not the kid of guy who believes a game will affect a players mental health in anyway. As a teenager, I started listening to Heavy Metal and many people who were in the Christianity branches would come and harass me saying that:

"If you listen to Heavy Metal, when you grow...:"

* You will become pedophilic.
* You will get AIDS.
* You will become an addict.
* You will become a thieve and murderer.
* You will end up in Jail.
* You will beat women.

...and at the end...20 years later and none of the above.

So for a free minded game, there should be more than what we currently have, including polygamy, we have gays but so far I never had two pawns of the same gender sleep together and make love. We have lots of Diseases but AIDs is not present which is strange to me. Sculptures as Arts but no Music... I want to do a Tribal Woodstock like.


http://imgur.com/a/lRBbT


http://imgur.com/a/B2bFv


http://imgur.com/a/jAUiG

I would love to be directed to official statements about Rim World as Gaming Magazines or any respectable media interview of Tynan and Ludeon developers about all the concepts within here. I bet many believers would be against this game. But if we want more realism and variety, well mankind has proven very creative in that.

[gipothegip]

All major religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are about suspending logic and believing despite all evidence. Deism and related concepts are extremely rare, to the degree that probably no one in this thread met a deist. At this point it should be clear bringing up purely theoretical religion which is compatible with logic is insult to everyone's intelligence. It's splitting hairs for the sake of argument. Vast majority of religious people are irrational, and in practice they get to define what a religion is.

Your argument is similar to saying "Clovers don't have three leaves, because there exist four leaf clovers.". It's technically true, but totally irrelevant and misleading. Also, I don't have hard data on this but religious people themselves often put religion as an alternative to science and reason. An alternate, irrational viewpoint is precisely what attracts them to religion.

My point was basically that it isn't true of every religious person and their beliefs (that is, that they're anti-intellectuals).

I was saying that there are four leaf clovers, not that three leaf clovers don't exist.

[Trylobyte]

Let's not get into religious debates in a thread about video game playstyle diversity, guys.

[Yoshida Keiji]

The more complex and inaccessible you make the base game the fewer people play it.

[...]

But sometimes I just want to kick back and build a little colony without worrying too much about development tracks and optimized power distribution.  By making vanilla incorporate more 'hardcore' elements then you turn away the more casual players because the game's not as accessible.

[...]

It's always worth remembering that those of us who frequent the forums are typically the more dedicated players, and thus often the more skilled, more analytical players.  Surviving an ice sheet on Extreme might be easy...  for us.  But the people who post on the forums are generally a small subset of the whole community that plays the game.

Just something to keep in mind.

For me this is simple formula:

* When I want to just chill, I play console games. Even a joystick with a single button does it.
* When I want to hardcore game, I play Computer games. Because they are more difficult and better developed.

An easy comparison is Civilization for Computer and for PS3. The console version requires basically zero strategy skill to beat the game.

[b0rsuk]

A game like Rimworld could very easily incorporate religious wars and racial hatred. It's actually strange it doesn't exist in the game, because racial hatred is, ahem, natural. I read a story about a baboon painted white by a farmer as a revenge. The baboon's pack ran away screaming when they saw him. Later, the white baboon was found dead, bearing teeth marks of its kin.

I understand why the decision was made. There's no need to make people more used to intolerance, even in a fictional setting. It's enough that mere mentions of this subject make people jump at each other on an internet forum.

[Razzoriel]

Let's not get into religious debates in a thread about video game playstyle diversity, guys.

You have no idea how atheism promotes lack of playstyle diversity.

[mumblemumble]

Whos to say there wouldn't continue to be religion, even on a glitterworld? What makes you think scientific advancement is mutually exclusive with faith? Does this mean you think christian surgeons or scientists are myths?

This kind of thinking, as well as saying all religious people are irrational is a pretty big form of bigotry, I hope you know.

Also, to those who say they think any religious person is anti intellectual, it sounds like you've never talked to more than a dozen religious people, and conflate stupidity (which exists everywhere) with religion.

As for diversity, I still think a dynamic system of morphing, changing psyche of the pawns would be great for this : pawns gaining / getting over fears, developing character traits through significant events / correlations of positive / negative feedback... as it stands now, everything seems rather static, rather than fluid, even addiction : I would say addiction would be more gradual, in how it becomes an addiction, its withdrawal, ect. Make anybody capable of being any kind of person under the right circumstances, with age locking people into their ways a bit. This would cause divirsity which isn't "random", and has a method to the madness... Course, I figure people will fight over what the methods are CAUSING the madness.

As for "racial hatred" I think its important to segregate caution towards outsiders of the "group" (racial, religious, political ect) and out and out hatred, as they are very different. Everyone who isn't trained to do otherwise is cautious over the unknown, and tends to value their own kin slightly more, but this isn't racism. I also think the above method would work great, as you can see WHY a pawn developed racial hatred in their life : maybe they were in a xenophobic group, maybe they experiences a very negative experience with that race, and lump everyone in : just like it happens in real life.

And another important thing : is to distinguish causing FACTORS from things which "always cause". Bullets to the head are a causing FACTOR in death, but obviously not everyone shot in the head dies. So saying things which others said might cause you problems didn't cause you problems is an anecdote, where as we should base decisions on larger amounts of data and trends we notice, correlations and such.

[b0rsuk]

I think this is too much fuss in a game where a stray bullet to the brain can instakill a pawn.

[maculator]

Sorry to be offtopic, but how do I unsub a thread?
I get notifications about this thread every day and I just want it to end :/
If a mod reads this you can delete this post, I just want to get out of here.

[Yoshida Keiji]

REPLY * UNNOTIFY * MARK UNREAD * SEND THIS TOPIC * PRINT


(...for MY own sake, screw everybody else...sad...)