Am I the only one who's dissapointed?

Started by TrashMan, February 26, 2020, 04:01:08 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

TrashMan

Quote from: MengDe on February 27, 2020, 05:04:32 AM
"Some mentioned CK2 and Sims4. True, I played CK2 and Sims3 (not 4, it's a downgrade), but I did with 4-5 mods tops."
O-only 4 or 5.....
You see, my mod addiction didn't start with Rimworld, it only made it worse...
Sims 3 was a good game, but also very very breakable. Might be part of the reason why you only had a few mods there. I know I did too.

My Frien, I'm an oldfag.
I've been at this game thing when games were still on tape cassetes and 8-inch floppy dicks.
My biggest hobby is modding and I've modded and played os many games I lost count.

And even with very moddable games that can accommodate many mods, I've never really used a lot, because I never felt the game needed them.
Aside from Rimworld, the highest number of mods I ever used would probably be Starsector... about 20-ish mods? That a BIG difference to rimworlds 168 I'm using ATM.


Quote
For example, I no longer know what vanilla hair and faces look like because I just use a bunch of anime mods. Would you argue this means Rimworld should be animefied, because a lot of people use those too?

No, that's a trivial thing that is NOT mechanical.

Quote
If Tynan for some reason implemented CE, which is also a big favourite, that would make me drop the game.
CE mixes too many things and it definitely not for everyone.
Personally, the shooting/targeting changes are great, ammo is so-so (gun nuts always like to go overboard), everything else (like increased lethality, limbs are already too easy to lose) I don't want. So I'm not really using it.
So the only thing for CE I would incorporate in the core game is the shooting/targeting improvement.

TrashMan

#31
Quote from: Tynan on February 27, 2020, 06:02:03 AM
TrashMan, I'll just say:

- In my opinion as a game designer a lot of the things you think would improve the game would actually make it worse, at least for the majority of players whose tastes may differ from yours. A simple example is work type disables, which if removed by e.g. Pawns Are Capable create a long list of negative design consequences in terms of clarity, feedback, storytelling, and situation diversity.

This is something is disagree with 1000000% Clarity? Whats unclear? Feedback? Storytelling?
This is why I think you aren't that good of a game designer as you think. You want to force "diversity" even if it doesn't make sense and you have to hammer it in. Basically creating false difficulty and drama and calling it good game design.

What's unclear or unintuitive about "this guy hates doing this, he's not going to be happy".
If anything is unintuitive is colonists downright refusing to do something, even if it means their death.
"I will NOT haul that artillery shell to the cannon. I don't care if we're under attack. I don't care if my family will be killed!" THAT is unintuitive. THAT doesn't make sense. THAT is forced and gamey as f***.

There is still a price to pay in forcing pawns to do what they want, and you're still going to end up without good pawns to do something, either due to injury or low skills. That's a natural soft cap/limit, while you seem to prefer hard, dare I say, unnatural limits.

If you want stories and actual human drama, first thing would be for the pawns to act like sensible human beings...you know, have some sense of self-preservation?


Quote- The things you think are easy to implement are much more difficult than you imagine. Think 10x more difficult.

Some of them might be. Vehicles definitely. Hospitality maybe. Others?
I'm sure changing metal to not burn requires weeks of testing and coding.
Or making production devices not use power when people are not using them - definitely requires the entire core code to be re-written.
There are quite a few mods out there that fix and improve that are just small xml changes or tiny pieces of code.

MengDe

What you should take away from my post is not how old either of us is, or how many games we play, or what mods we like, or how many mods we tend to use.

The point of it is: the content people like and the mods they use vary wildly, according to each individual. This is true for me, you, or anybody else. You can look at 1000 mod lists and they will all be different. Other people in this thread have reiterated this point too.

If you have an opinion about a game, it shouldn't be because "many people use a lot of mods, therefore game bad and unfinished." You don't know every user on the planet and why they might or might not use mods.

I am not talking about everything else you said, you can have all the opinions you want about Rimworld balance and how to fix it.

SpaceDorf

I am actually not dissapointed about the DLC. And I hate the way most companies use DLC's.
Day One DLC, Paywall content and so on .. so my  first thought was "NO TYNAN, not you too".

But as it turns out, the DLC was still available DRM Free, the technical changes to the game came free with the main game, some QoL improvements from mods actually made it in the game, as it happened before, and the main DLC content is technically superior to similiar Mods and opens up new possibilities for more mods.

I looked at my logged hours in steam, and thought another 1000+ hours for only 20$ that keep Tynan and his Team working, now that is a pretty good investment.

But yes I miss a lot of QoL improvements as well, which I think should be in the main game. Mainly AllowTool with its right click options and hotkeys ( WE ARE PC USERS we have more than 10 buttons and 2 wobbly sticks ) , the Fluffy Menu Collection and Animal Logic.
As for the numbers of mods I use .. I am of the faction that thinks hunting for interesting new stuff is part of the game.


Let me finish with a question : If you support a Modder on Patreon, because of the time and effort invested in the mod, does the mod become second party DLC ?
Maxim 1   : Pillage, then burn
Maxim 37 : There is no overkill. There is only open fire and reload.
Rule 34 of Rimworld :There is a mod for that.
Avatar Made by Chickenplucker

dearmad

I am not disappoitned at all. I like the way they presetned the DLC- it's truly extra content outside of advances to the core game. Nothing core to it. And it's a blast.

As for the op's list of mods "We all want added:" if Hospitality and Psychology ever made it into the core, I think I'd barf. They make the game a big pile of cheese on a plate.

mooguy

I think the game and the DLC is great.

DLC has:
- More challenge: Mech clusters bring in their own defense structures while having technology that passively damages your colony (sun blocking ect) brings a real new tactical part to the game.
- Quests that bring more late game objectives and missions with rewards/challenges
- New magic system
- More weapons, armor and body installing equipment to customize your guys.

I could spend this money going out and watching two movies. 4 hours ish of entertainment.
This dlc provides me with scores of more hours and content.
No brainier really.

The fact that this game can and has been modded so some mods struggle when updates reflects it's virtue -  it's customizability and uniqueness, not take away from it.

In the long term these DLC"s will provide more content, more money for the developers to make more content, more modders as the game gains more attention, and more content for modders to customize.

A win-win in my books.


TrashMan

Quote from: MengDe on February 28, 2020, 08:39:53 AM
If you have an opinion about a game, it shouldn't be because "many people use a lot of mods, therefore game bad and unfinished." You don't know every user on the planet and why they might or might not use mods.

I don't have to know every user, that a pointless goal.
My point still stands. A good, finished and polished game does not need that many mods.
Or do you think that RW is the only moddable game that has lots of mods? There are plenty others out there. Yet few where people use that many mods AT ONCE. They might switch between various mods in different playtrough, combines a few....If something wasn't missing for a complete experience, then people wouldn't be using that many at once.


TrashMan

Quote from: dearmad on February 28, 2020, 09:47:29 PM
As for the op's list of mods "We all want added:" if Hospitality and Psychology ever made it into the core, I think I'd barf. They make the game a big pile of cheese on a plate.

I can understand Psychology (it can feel bloated, hence why I said simplified), but hospitality?
What about it is bad? Everything added is sensible and natural.

Pangaea

Quote from: TrashMan on February 29, 2020, 03:58:09 PM
Or do you think that RW is the only moddable game that has lots of mods? There are plenty others out there. Yet few where people use that many mods AT ONCE. They might switch between various mods in different playtrough, combines a few....If something wasn't missing for a complete experience, then people wouldn't be using that many at once.

Recently I have played The Witcher 3. Like with RimWorld I only use a handful of mods (okay, a bit more in RimWorld, maybe 20, though most are small stuff), but I see people saying they use 200-300 mods. And Witcher 3 is a rather successful game too, that won a GOTY award or two. Not many will call it unfinished or claim that CDPR don't know how to make games.

Nay. With any game that has an active modding scene, and with a game somewhat accessible to modding, it will quickly have hundreds and even thousands of mods. It doesn't mean the game is crap or unfinished. It simply means there are a lot of people out there with even more ideas, and they implement some of them. And they generally do it quick, with little or no testing.

A professional game developer can't operate like that. A modder fucks up, and the 1000 people or whatever who downloaded it has a wonky game. They can remove the mod, and everything is well. If Ludon does that, a million people will have, in the worst case, a non-working game. It would be a disaster.

Whether people prefer to use no mods, a few mods, or everything ever released isn't really a comment on a game's quality. More likely a reflection of people having loved the game and played it a lot, and then wanting to try out some mods to spice it up, have a slightly different gameplay.

(True, there are some things I think are more deserving of going "core" than others, but generally the above paragraphs are fair I think).

MengDe

#39
QuoteOr do you think that RW is the only moddable game that has lots of mods?
You seem to be under the impression I just played maybe 3 games ever in my life. And funny that you mention this when one of the games I went out of my way to mention is CK2, which has a relatively big mod scene. I also went out of my way to mention I, another individual, enjoy using a lot of mods.

I go out of my way to buy certain types of games on PC precisely because I love exploring mods and using as many of them as possible, and not necessarily because I think there's anything wrong with the base game. If my mod list is ever under 20 mods, please call 911, because I can only be sick.

Yes, my experience is anecdotal, but it goes to show you really can't have generalized opinion about a game based on your personal practices. If you can't understand that despite everything that has been said in this thread, there's nothing to be done about it.

QuoteYet few where people use that many mods AT ONCE.
You don't know every user, or every game, but you know for a fact few people do it? No doubt there, no hedging? Just magically, without any access to game user data and the such, like that? Ok.

This is the last message I'll post here. I think neither of us is interested in changing their mind.

johnyoga

Quote from: TrashMan on February 29, 2020, 03:58:09 PM
Quote from: MengDe on February 28, 2020, 08:39:53 AM
If you have an opinion about a game, it shouldn't be because "many people use a lot of mods, therefore game bad and unfinished." You don't know every user on the planet and why they might or might not use mods.

I don't have to know every user, that a pointless goal.
My point still stands. A good, finished and polished game does not need that many mods.
Or do you think that RW is the only moddable game that has lots of mods? There are plenty others out there. Yet few where people use that many mods AT ONCE. They might switch between various mods in different playtrough, combines a few....If something wasn't missing for a complete experience, then people wouldn't be using that many at once.

I agree. Why do I need 150+ mods to have a halfway decent game setup? The modders finished to game and help make it sorta complete...

Bozobub

#41
Except vanilla RimWorld is an excellent game.

Opinions are like that, deal with it; not everyone agrees with you.  Over 1 million copies sold and "Overwhelmingly Positive" reviews on Steam completely invalidate your drama, that simple.  You're whining about a $35 game and $20 *optional* DLC, 3 movies' worth of cash combined, that can potentially give back hundreds, or even thousands of hours of enjoyment, if you like the game at all.  And if not, WTF are you buying the DLC for?!

Nor could you, I'll note, play a single mod without the base game.  Yeah, RW "sucks" soooo much, yet you play your modded game all the same, don't you?  Yeah, whatever; talk to the hand... ::)
Thanks, belgord!

Jibbles

#42
Quote from: Tynan on February 26, 2020, 07:38:04 PM
RimWorld isn't like an FPS or RPG where it has a bounded story; it's a fully open simulation game. So it always has ways to expand.


The other thing is - no matter how much one adds to RimWorld, you'll never reach a point where nobody can think of anything else to do. It's just impossible. So I don't think a reasonable to say there are 'holes in the base game' just because you can think of things to add, or because modders are capable of adding value. It's not a useful standard.

The reason is because you're setting a standard that is categorically impossible to fulfill. By this standard, any game in this genre will always have 'holes'. We've worked on RW for 7 years now and one can still note that it could be added to. In fact my list of desired improvements only gets longer over time. The bigger the game gets, the bigger it can get.

Holes in the game (by my definition) is a mixture of things:  Parts of the game obviously lacking. Also includes issues that get in my way from enjoying the game and sour my overall experience, even after taking long breaks. Some are easy/quick to fix, others not so much. Some require polish, others require content. Idk what made you come to the conclusion that they are just simply things we can think of adding to the game.

Response sounds awfully similar from like 3 years ago. You're brushing off feedback. You go on about how there are many ways to expand the game but you're usually quick to make excuses not to do it. Obviously, I don't expect all the flaws to be fixed. I don't expect for everything to be perfect. That would be unreasonable & impossible to accomplish.

Quote from: johnyoga on February 29, 2020, 07:22:30 PM

I agree. Why do I need 150+ mods to have a halfway decent game setup? The modders finished to game and help make it sorta complete...

I too have a long list of mods I won't play without, don't feel the NEED to mod in most of the games I play.  Honestly it's getting old hunting and testing, it's time consuming and not reliable.

I know Tynan likes to keep expectations low. I hope there will be better communication with future updates.  The lack of communication with this last one sucked, and the type of interactions I've noticed throughout the year makes things like "time spent on update" questionable.

RicRider

Quote from: Bozobub on February 29, 2020, 10:14:13 PM
Except vanilla RimWorld is an excellent game.

Opinions are like that, deal with it; not everyone agrees with you.  Over 1 million copies sold and "Overwhelmingly Positive" reviews on Steam completely invalidate your drama, that simple.  You're whining about a $35 game and $20 *optional* DLC, 3 movies' worth of cash combined, that can potentially give back hundreds, or even thousands of hours of enjoyment, if you like the game at all.  And if not, WTF are you buying the DLC for?!

Nor could you, I'll note, play a single mod without the base game.  Yeah, RW "sucks" soooo much, yet you play your modded game all the same, don't you?  Yeajh, whatever; talk to the hand... ::)

Good advice, for people. But you are literally talking to zombies on autopilot about their mission to expose the corrupt gaming industry that makes (insert victim/scapegoat here) look bad. At least when I read TrashMan's whining I get the impression he's on a mission to show how Indie game developers are 'criminals' who deserve to be exposed for the 'bad programmers' they are. I don't get the sense that he's a gamer; he's a grifter, plain and simple. A bit like some real world e celebs I know but is probably mad that he doesn't have his own platform and fan base that can create havoc on Twitter for him.
##Coding Scrub##

dmitriid

#44
I'm not disappointed by the DLC in the least. It adds much needed additional content to the game.

I'm sort of disappointed with 1.1 though. Performance improvements and high-definition support are god-sent (especially on a Mac). But... No QoL improvements?

"Allow everything" is still hidden behind a right-click in an item in a submenu in the "Architect" tab (Allow tool is a must).

Bill/order selection is still drop-down menus with "you blinked, you missed" descriptions (Dub's menus are a blessing).

Research is still "click once, wait, click next research" (Research tree's functionality is a blessing).

etc. etc.

Yes, these will be brought back again by modders. But if modders can do that (including significant reworking of the UI etc.), surely the developers of the game can add them, too?

EDIT: also, things like "build from inventory", smart carrying of items around (though this is implemented if I'm not mistaken, pawns no longer run around empty-handed), better caravan packing and management etc. etc.