Am I the only one who's dissapointed?

[8roads]

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?

I agree.
Rimworld is great, but can it be greater

[TrashMan]

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...

And how many of those reviews are on the vanilla only RW? Because when people put those ratings, they generally count the mods as part of the game. If RW didn't have any mods whatsoever that score would be significantly lower. Not that it matters. Internet scores, with rabbid fans, rabid haters, trolls and whatnot, are not realible at all.

I don't care about the money.
And lastly, popularity means nothing. Titanic is the n01 film, is it REALLY that good? Nope.

[TrashMan]

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.

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.

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.

Why is there such a severe lack of reading comprehension?
There are plenty of games with tons and tons and tons of mods. Take Skyrim for example (which, amusingly enough, gets a lot of complaints about feeling rushed and incomplete and practically no one plays it vanilla).

The number of mods available is NOT RELEVANT. At beat, it can serve as a rough gauge of the games modability and popularity. Neither is the fact that someone might play RW without mods. Some people like to punch themselves in the balls. I personally know a guy with 500+ RW mods. Outliers and extremes are just that. It is the averages that matter.

And if almost no one plays your game without 100+ mods, then something is clearly missing, ESPECIALLY if half of those are not extra content (like, let's say Star Wars factions), but mechanical/gameplay fixes. Steel still burns FFS! The surgery mechanic is still retarded.

I know people that still play Freespace 2 vanilla, despite there being tons of campaings and mods for it. And when they do use mods, it's just 1 or 2 max. Same with Baldurs gate. Either vanilla or 1-2 mods. I have yet to meet anyone who plays Rimworld vanilla. In any forum or board I've beeen to, they might reccomend only the first vanilla run just so you see what the base game is, but rarely not even that.
And that is telling. If the gaming populace at large adpots the stance that 100+ mods are a bare minimum, then something ain't right.

A complete experience and game wouldn't require that. People would be using a few mods at average, not hunderds.

[TrashMan]

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.

I am on no crusade and I have nothing agaisnt the indie industry or indie developers.

[8roads]

I play Rimworld vanilla.
and i feel your pain.

[Adamiks]

A lot of people here got it backwards

Imo, what would be best for the game isn't implementing X mods, or creating any DLC (whether it's good or not, doesn't matter)

Rimworld doesn't need more content. I'm sure many would disagree with me here, but think about it - does the game *truly* *need* new, more content, to be playable, and enjoyable? No, not really. And by new, I mean things that aren't related to any already existing content. *cough* psycasts *cough*

The only thing Rimworld needs is to be polished, and have the current features be expanded upon
So, that's:
QoL changes - stuff such as Allow Tool, better hauling, more control when drafted (Achtung), Just Ignore Me Passing, Share The Load, Avoid Friendly Fire, rain removing filth (for performance issues), Cleaning Area & many more
Mechanical changes - Better pawn pathing, better raid AI (cause frankly, the way Tynan goes about killing killboxes is getting very questionable, solve the issue at it's core, not the symptoms)
Expansion on current features - Vehicles (add stuff in-between), Animals (prostheses, maybe Giddy up?), Medieval Tech

I understand Tynan's point about catering to not one person's taste, but many, and that we shouldn't look at the game in terms of "is it complete?"
But i do believe that changes along the lines of the ones i proposed would be deemed as good by ~90% of players, at least.
But more importantly - I think expanding on current features, rather than adding new ones, have a much bigger work-to-fun ratio. As in, Royalty is neat, sure, but the many little annoyances are still here, some of them have been talked about since almost day 1, and they do decrease the amount of fun people have when playing the game.

Polishing the game would make it much more enjoyable, than adding any DLC, no matter what kind.

[Bozobub]

You do realize the 1.1 update and the Royalty DLC are completely separate, correct?  The game IS being polished over time.

[Adamiks]

You do realize the 1.1 update and the Royalty DLC are completely separate, correct?  The game IS being polished over time.

1.1 is neat, but nowhere close enough, there's a lot more work that needs to be done
Imagine if all the time spent on Royalty was redirected towards the update 1.1
That's my point - focus 100% on updates such as 1.1, not on DLCs such as Royalty.

[RicRider]

Would you like me to to call you a yesman? An ass-kissing braindead fanboy? I could and it would probably be more accurate then your unfounded assertions.

Also, nobody owes you anything. Even if I have any issues with the current version of RimWorld and the changes in 1.1, I'll reserve that criticism for a more appropriate time and place. Not immediately after release. Not to pump your gravy train of whining. I'm not about to let grifters like you use what criticisms I may have to make your illfounded points and use the data I've got irresponsibly.

I enjoy RimWorld 1.1. You sound like you don't and therefore my advice to you is to play something else or wait for mods to update. I wish this forum had a 'mute/block' feature so I could remove the negativity you bring to the table from my life, and also others could do the same thing so you wouldn't have your childish tantrums reinforced. But until that feature is available you'll see people like me disagreeing with you.

[Pangaea]

Why is there such a severe lack of reading comprehension?

The number of mods available is NOT RELEVANT.

And if almost no one plays your game without 100+ mods

First of all, please stop with the personal attacks. It's not needed. If your argument was strong, people would be convinced.

Secondly, it seems the amount of mods is the core of your argument, but it is apparently only relevant when you talk about it, not when others make counter arguments.

Thirdly, you have no idea about the real statistics, and what you write there is clearly incorrect, merely by looking at downloads of mods from Nexus and Steam (I detest the latter and will never use it, but I digress).

Admittedly this is a guesstimate on my part, but it should be pretty solid based on amount of games sold vs amount of mods downloaded on Nexus/Steam: I reckon the vast majority are playing RimWorld with 0 mods. Some are playing with a handful of mods, let's say 5-20. Then you have a small minority with more mods than that. And a very tiny minority with 100+ mods.

[Bozobub]

*raises hand* Handful of mods here.  I use eight.

[ProfZelonka]

If I could, I'd play with 500 mods. Playing thru vanilla Royalty DLC, scratch that, I had to install the 4x speed up mod. I'm not saying it's unplayable without mods, it's just so much harder to do what you want without mods. For example, urgently haul items out of the rain, have your colonists not bleed out, having to click 3 tabs just to see basic info of a colonist, having to click thru every weapon to see which is best available, and so forth.

While I can "enjoy" the vanilla game, it really gets annoying without the handy shortcuts and extra content to have more fun time instead of repetitive micro managing.

Here's my beef with Royalty: What's the importance of the devs adopting some of the mod animals???

[TrashMan]

Would you like me to to call you a yesman? An ass-kissing braindead fanboy? I could and it would probably be more accurate then your unfounded assertions.

Also, nobody owes you anything. Even if I have any issues with the current version of RimWorld and the changes in 1.1, I'll reserve that criticism for a more appropriate time and place. Not immediately after release. Not to pump your gravy train of whining. I'm not about to let grifters like you use what criticisms I may have to make your illfounded points and use the data I've got irresponsibly.

I enjoy RimWorld 1.1. You sound like you don't and therefore my advice to you is to play something else or wait for mods to update. I wish this forum had a 'mute/block' feature so I could remove the negativity you bring to the table from my life, and also others could do the same thing so you wouldn't have your childish tantrums reinforced. But until that feature is available you'll see people like me disagreeing with you.

Muh negativity
Muh mute
You sound like you belong on Tumblir

The game has been in development for how long? It's been out for how long? Tell me, when IS the appropriate time for criticism? Never?

[TrashMan]

First of all, please stop with the personal attacks. It's not needed. If your argument was strong, people would be convinced.

If you truly believe that a strong argument is all that's needed to convince people, you're living in dellusion land. Real life doesn't work like that.

Secondly, it seems the amount of mods is the core of your argument, but it is apparently only relevant when you talk about it, not when others make counter arguments.

Nice stawman.
The amount of mods used at once necessary for a good game experience is the argument.

Thirdly, you have no idea about the real statistics, and what you write there is clearly incorrect, merely by looking at downloads of mods from Nexus and Steam (I detest the latter and will never use it, but I digress).

Pretty much every single person I've seen or talked to that played rimworld has 100+ mods. And I visit a LOT of boards/forums.
And also pretty much everyone agrees the game needs work.
About the only place where I find a different opinion is - unsurprisingly- here.

Admittedly this is a guesstimate on my part, but it should be pretty solid based on amount of games sold vs amount of mods downloaded on Nexus/Steam: I reckon the vast majority are playing RimWorld with 0 mods. Some are playing with a handful of mods, let's say 5-20. Then you have a small minority with more mods than that. And a very tiny minority with 100+ mods.

Everything is a guesstimate. And there are a lot of places to get mods from, and many are too lazy or don't even know how to use them or that they exist.

[Elrood]

Secondly, it seems the amount of mods is the core of your argument, but it is apparently only relevant when you talk about it, not when others make counter arguments.

Nice stawman.
The amount of mods used at once necessary for a good game experience is the argument.

Imho You are oversimplifying it quite a lot.
There is very big difference between relatively new/softcore rimworld player and veteran with few hundreds of hours.

Some who played rimworld for 20-30 hours - he will not be playing with mods. Rimworld has enough of content for such person to have a lot of stuff to learn and understand without added complexity of mods. Imho also all your QoL mods are not so important until you start to go into 20+ pawns or wherever your micromanagement skill stop working/become too annoying. 

For someone who played few hundred hours, watched few hundred hours of rimworld "science"/analysis/lets plays videos, playing without mods is plainly boring and annoying. Stuff that isn't that bothering when you have 5 pawns is really irritating when you have 40. Micromanagement is pain the ass to do all the time. All the QoL mods are a necessity. Also all content addition mods are extremely important. Those keeps are in game, giving us new/more stuff to explore and eliminating small irritations (which build up quite a lot with time).

In such a sandbox game, people who really like that will gravitate to modding quite "soon", when they will start to be bored with what vanilia has to offer, or exceed what Tynian planned as "resonable" colony size

The same will imho go for DLC.
For someone who came back to rimworld after 20, 40, even 60 hours, this DLC imho will be great. Adding new, fun content, great mechanics.

For someone who played 200+ hours with 100+ mods, like Bad Hygiene, Save the Ship 2, Hospitality, Rim arsenal, Glitterworld tech, Rims of magic, elves, androids, rimtomics.... This DLC will feel empty and small and will be really pissed off when all his mods break. His "God knows how many" hours colony savegame will break. Rage time



On the final note: I by myself, would rather have Tynian working on new features rather than QoL, at least as long as those QoL are provided by maintained mods.
Why? Cause this way I get even more new things to play with. This discovery and learning process is what keeps me in game.

The only thing this DLC messed up for me, was how out of the blue it felt for me. I had already mindset that Rimworld went into maintenance/dead phase, I had nice colony going, with few hundreds of mods, played like 60 hours on it and puff.... Broken. Patch 1.1 I didn't have the patience to fix it, most mods are already updated, few changes Tynian made I really like, so idc. New colony time.