Let's clarify what this goddamned game is about

Mushroom · 2019-05-17 22:59:55

I am getting so tired of this toxic mixture of whining and tryharding in recent weeks, so I got a great idea! Let's clarify what this game is about by checking it's advertisment texts and definitions. Here we go:

1) THE TRAILER

I would like to divide this for some sections, cause I don't really feel like quoting and commenting it whole, step by step. So... in-game Jason says about:

- getting older -> one minute = one minute inside the game, and you live just one hour (it's the core assumption of the game, so do not expect any longer lives in the future) - checks out

- rebuilding civilazation from scratch on server full of untouched wilderness -> also a core assumption of the game, we start as bushmen, and advance in tech to proceed and develop, also checks out (eve camp -> small village -> big town)

- being a one small link in a very long chain -> we are dependent babies, we grow up, we have babies of our own - it's just one generation of for example... 60 generation family (quite smol link I assume)

- contribution based on the "time" you are born into -> when you are born into Eve camp you make steel tools, set up kitchen, etc. When you are born into mid-game town you set up an oil rig, bring cows, etc. No further explanation needed

- "I will be one step ahead of them [players] by adding new stuff to the game every week" -> this. The most controversial part of the trailer so far. There have been people wanting a refund for lying in the advertisment of the game focusing primarly on this part. Jason isn't really adding new stuff to the game every week just how he promised, is he? Or... maybe he is. Maybe we should count bug fixes as "new stuff"? Well, I actually do count it in. It requires the same (if not more) ammount of work to implement these changes as content updates. I do not really agree with people deffending Jason by saying that "He's making this game on his own, have some respect!", because nobody really told Jason to do this on his own. It was his choice and he decided not to change/remove the original trailer anyway, so this won't justify him. However, I don't really think that he deserves being bashed for this, as we are actually getting new stuff every week. New code is implemented every week, so what's the issue here? Nobody lied, unless you count those few weeks off that were toatlly deserved IMO

- "As we rebuild civilization together, who knows where we end up?" -> Will it be utopia? Will it be total destruction? IT WILL DEPEND ON US, THE PLAYERS, WHERE WE END UP. We are given the resources, the tools to make this "new" civilization. We are also humans, who THINK. We can use these resources and tools to build, we can also use them to destroy. We have tools, which purpose is focused on either (builidng - hoe, axe; destruction - war sword). Don't you really think that it is really magical that we are actually given a choice how we want to play this game, with only advice being "who knows where we will end up?"? People tend to complain that it is Jason fault that the game is "breaking" because he added something like property fences or swords, but actually we, the players, are the ones to be accused. The developer gave us THE CHOICE, and we either FAILED or SUCCEDED based on that choice. We choose to make a water pump and save the village or make a bunch of knives and kill ourselves. This is exactly why Jason said that the griefer is important in the village. It represents the choice we are given on every single field of this game.

2) WEBSITE DEFINITION (steam is very similar):

- This game is about playing one small part in a much larger story. You only live an hour, but time and space in this game is infinite. -> it was already explained in the trailer

- You can only do so much in one lifetime, but the tech tree in this game will take hundreds of generations to fully explore. -> well, not in the current state of the game. Jason probably did not expect the players to be... that fast. If we count the appocalypse as the final tech tree step though, it actually would take more than a hundred generations to complete. Still not very convincing... Maybe some day, when we get much more high tech it will become possible.

- This game is also about family trees. Having a mother who takes care of you as a baby, and hopefully taking care of a baby yourself later in life. And your mother is another player. And your baby is another player. Building something to use in your lifetime, but inevitably realizing that, in the end, what you build is not for YOU, but for your children and all the countless others that will come after you. Proudly using your grandfather's ax, and then passing it on to your own grandchild as the end of your life nears. -> Some may complain that istead of this we are getting six thousand SID babies every life. Some like to exaggerate. I isn't the complete exaggeration, though - we get many SID babies and it could sometimes end our lineage, however it, once again, is based on the CHOICE we are given by the developer. Jason gave us the choice to stick together as intended, but many do not listen. This attitude can contribute to lineages dying. On the other hand, should we ask ourselves - do we prefer the game forcing the player to stay and contribute, possibly ruining his experiance, or the game giving the same player a choice? That is very complex topic.

- And looking at each life as a unique story. I was this kid born in this situation, but I eventually grew up. I built a bakery near the wheat fields. Over time, I watched my grandparents and parents grow old and die. I had some kids of my own along the way, but they are grown now... and look at my character now! She's an old woman. What a life passed by in this little hour of mine. After I die, this life will be over and gone forever. I can be born again, but I can never live this unique story again. Everything's changing. I'll be born as a different person in a different place and different time, with another unique story to experience in the next hour... -> Based on the stories posted by other users this is actually true. The best proof to this one, is that even the hardest critics on this forum, still DO play the game. It is the most unique experiance that many of us have ever had in gaming and it is this game's strongest thing.

3) TEN THOUSAND CRAFTABLE OBJECTS:

- "one hundred new craftable objects every week" - ok, this one isn't really true. Even if we count bug fixes as "new stuff" these definately aren't craftable objects in-game. And we definately do not get one hundred content objects every week. Sometimes we get more than 200, sometimes none, sometimes 50. It depends on the week. I know that this game was supposed to be made more than one person at start, but the video wasn't deleted after change of plans, so we could count this as fake advertising. Jason would be justified if he actually deleted the video after taking the steer by himself.

- "Paid alpha coming soon" - always note that this is an alpha version of the game, so being toxic about any experimental updates isn't very fair IMO

4) SUMMARY:

I am really trying to be objective when trying to sum up things with this game, even though I really love it. And me being objective forces me to note the fake advertising, but it also forces me to bring up one thing people tend to forget: Nobody really said that the civilization rebuilding will be peaceful. Nobody said there won't be wars. We were told that we will get unique stories and only cooperation will help us make it through. Last updates may have brought less efficiency, but they certainly brought many interesting stories, that I as the player, was promised to get and experiance. I am greatful for that. Feel free to disagree and discuss these things here.

EDIT: And do not get me wrong, I DO think that some critisism is needed, esepcially in alpha versions, but let's try to maintain some leve of the discussion here. And most importantly, let's stop forcing people to play the game the way we want them to, because they never will. There was no single update that forced players to change their playstyle- the updates were always only giving a choice and I do love that. Maybe except the temperature overhaul, but this one messed with the core mechanics of the game, so I don't really think it should count.

Last edited by Mushroom (2019-05-17 23:15:42)

jasonrohrer · 2019-05-17 23:28:36

The Steam version of that second trailer was changed to say DOZENS instead of ONE HUNDRED.

And on average, there have been dozens, easily. On average.

We're at a point right now where the problem is not too few objects, but other major glaring issues with the game, so I'm spending time working on those.

Mushroom · 2019-05-18 00:20:39

jasonrohrer wrote:

The Steam version of that second trailer was changed to say DOZENS instead of ONE HUNDRED.
And on average, there have been dozens, easily. On average.
We're at a point right now where the problem is not too few objects, but other major glaring issues with the game, so I'm spending time working on those.

I apologise, I wasn't aware that it was changed in the steam version. However, I bought the game before the steam release, so I hope you can understand that mistake.

Anyway, it was not the main issue I wanted to adress, really. The recent topics are about the war and "strange vision" of yours and some people claiming that the game isn't the game it was advertised as. In my opinion they are wrong, but we are here to discuss this.

Spoonwood · 2019-05-18 00:59:05

I haven't read all of your post, but I think there's one part worth commenting on:

Mushroom wrote:

I am really trying to be objective when trying to sum up things with this game, even though I really love it. And me being objective forces me to note the fake advertising, but it also forces me to bring up one thing people tend to forget: Nobody really said that the civilization rebuilding will be peaceful. Nobody said there won't be wars.

It's all fine to say that wars weren't ruled out by the trailer. But, it does come as worth questioning if wars are good for people playing for the sake of their lineages. Jason has said the following, and no, the trailer is not his complete vision:

jasonrohrer wrote:

As I've said many times, I want your decisions in the game to matter, at all levels. I want running a successful village to be hard, and I want you to care enough to get good at handling that challenge. I want town leadership to be necessary, because the challenge is so difficult, and I want disagreements and politics to unfold around that leadership. I want the survival of your family to really matter to you.

https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=6087

People were NOT playing for the sake of their familes survival before. One piece of evidence of that was multipurpose newcomen engine technology BEFORE the pump overhaul update. Jason made a good step by changing it so that the oil rig makers and diesel engine makers didn't need to change their playstyle to be useful to their families. He worked WITH how people were playing the game. But wars? Wars work AGAINST how most people want to play the game. And you don't seem to have any sort of convincing evidence that wars encourage people playing for the sake of their lineages. As DestinyCall and others have produced evidence for, they do the opposite.

And, no, wars are NOT about BUILDING a civilization. They are about destroying or hampering another if done offensively or protecting a civilization because someone else wants to destroy or hamper your civilization.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2019-05-18 00:59:21)

jasonrohrer · 2019-05-18 04:18:03

As I've said many times, I want your decisions in the game to matter, at all levels. I want running a successful village to be hard, and I want you to care enough to get good at handling that challenge. I want town leadership to be necessary, because the challenge is so difficult, and I want disagreements and politics to unfold around that leadership. I want the survival of your family to really matter to you.

MiniblueWarrior · 2019-05-18 05:24:56

I have looked for a while for a game like this, and I cant emphasize enough how much i love the game, from the family lines, to being reborn after an hour, to the team effort and the freedom to make choices that will either result in prosperity or chaos. I love the idea of town leadership and and the challenge being so difficult it requires cooperation, that is honestly my favorite part. The depth of the crafting system is certainly outstanding.

That being said, and I am not trying to be negative, but the idea that I wont be able to continue with the same family and help it progress further without being lucky or continually committing suicide makes it hard to develop a connection or a sense of meaning to the family you are with. I am not saying the option to leave a family or be born to another shouldn't be available, but it would be nice to also have an option to rejoin the same family and continue to work towards the success of the town you have come to love.

I am by no means an experienced player and I typically don't participate in forums like these, but I just really enjoyed the experience so far and wanted to share my thoughts. I hope this game continues to grow and can't wait to see how it develops even further.

edit: I forgot to add, If I am being ignorant please let me know, my intention is not to be unaware.

Last edited by MiniblueWarrior (2019-05-18 05:26:44)

CatX · 2019-05-18 07:57:18

Mushroom wrote:

The developer gave us THE CHOICE, and we either FAILED or SUCCEDED based on that choice. We choose to make a water pump and save the village or make a bunch of knives and kill ourselves.

But here is the problem, and I think your post helped make it more clear:

What is failing or succeeding?

To the normal player, succeeding is surviving, building civilization, leaving the place a better place to work in for your kids and grand kids.

A normal player might maybe decide that the only right thing to do was wage war on a different clan and steal their resources in order to ensure survival, in order to succeed.

But to a griefer, succeeding is none of these things.

The ordinary griefer will be born into a town, if they can they will kill the last female, perhaps stay to see that everone dies out, and then they will not rebuild the town and ensure that their kids and grand kids are better off. The griefer will, when there's nobody around to harass, suicide and be born into a different town.

The griefer plays outside of what the intention of the game mechanics is.

What to us is SUCCEEDING is to the griefer FAILING, and what to the griefer is SUCCEEDING is to us FAILING.

This is bug, not a feature.

And of course, the griefer will use the new game mechanics and wreak havoc on towns that are not his family's, but they will not do so to ensure the survival of their own family. They'll do it because they're playing a different game than the rest of us.

What Jason really means to say I think, although he hasn't come around to seeing it that way yet, is that "some conflict is necessary", and there I agree.

But griefing is an entirely different beast.

And trust me, even if we managed to remove all griefers from the game, there would still be conflict. There would still be people who were viewed by others as griefers, people who are not really griefers in the strictest sense, because their goal is survival even if the others don't see it. Those are the people Jason is thinking of, I think. Not the trolls.

Last edited by CatX (2019-05-18 07:58:32)

Mushroom · 2019-05-18 09:10:10

The point of my post was to sum up the advertisment of this game and to check if it really suited what we got, actually. Not what Jason later wrote on the forums.

However,

I've noticed something interesting:

Spoonwood wrote:

People were NOT playing for the sake of their familes survival before. One piece of evidence of that was multipurpose newcomen engine technology BEFORE the pump overhaul update. Jason made a good step by changing it so that the oil rig makers and diesel engine makers didn't need to change their playstyle to be useful to their families. He worked WITH how people were playing the game.

Isn't it the same with griefers and swords? Griefer's playstyle was focused on killing - now, they can continue killing (playstyle is not changed) but other families and invadors (contributing to the family line). I might be wrong, but after playing a bunch of lives after the update I've noticed a decrease of in-family griefer attacks. Haven't seen anyone to be cursed in a week. I think that it exactly is what Jason wanted.

CatX wrote:

What to us is SUCCEEDING is to the griefer FAILING, and what to the griefer is SUCCEEDING is to us FAILING.

That might be a huge obstacle in building towns, but once again - it is based on the choice we are given. Wanna kill your entire family? Here's the knife! However, remember that they probably will fight back, and that they are given tools to fight back. What is that...? You don't want it anymore? Well, grab that axe and go chop some trees.

I know that everyone would like to remove griefers from the game, but that is not gonna happen, because it's PEOPLE on the other side of the screen. And people tend to be different. Soo, if we can't do anything about that, then maybe let's actually start to treat them like a feature of some kind?

MultiLife · 2019-05-18 09:30:05

I still don't see how things like apocalypse fit in or how I'd know to expect things like that to be added. Or a magical sword that only kills non related people...
And Jason said he was joking when he listed griefer in the important people in a town list.

Last edited by MultiLife (2019-05-18 09:31:52)

Mushroom · 2019-05-18 09:39:49

MultiLife, your argument doesn't make any sense, because you could link that to basicaly every single thing in the game. How I'd know magic cameras that take paper and convert it to images on the webside would be added? How I'd know to expect magic property fences that only people I choose can open to be aded? You wouldn't. I think that it is the entire point of the "new stuff" we are getting. One can argue that some of the things are "magical" and don't make sense, but note that this is a game. If you wanted, you could describe 90% of the items in game thit way.

I understand that you don't like the apocalypse, but do not try to enforce the statement that you were cheated in any way, by Jason adding it to the game.

As for the joking part, thanks for correcting me. Guess I can't hide behind Jason's words in that issue.

Last edited by Mushroom (2019-05-18 09:40:50)

MultiLife · 2019-05-18 09:42:44

Mushroom wrote:

MultiLife, your argument doesn't make any sense, because you could link that to basicaly every single thing in the game. How I'd know magic cameras that take paper and convert it to images on the webside would be added? How I'd know to expect magic property fences that only people I choose can open to be aded? You wouldn't. I think that it is the entire point of the "new stuff" we are getting. One can argue that some of the things are "magical" and don't make sense, but note that this is a game. If you wanted, you could describe 90% of the items in game thit way.
I understand that you don't like the apocalypse, but do not try to enforce the statement that you were cheated in any way, by Jason adding it to the game.
As for the joking part, thanks for correcting me. Guess I can't hide behind Jason's words in that issue.

Haven't said I've been cheated or I want my money back. O_o
My issue is that it's tiresome to not be able to expect things like that and then get them, and they are not small things to expect in a civilization building game, apocalypse and swords that affect only non related people and whatever else. Language I can easily expect, cameras yes. Property, sure. I don't like the fence but I can expect fences and walls too.

Last edited by MultiLife (2019-05-18 09:48:02)

CatX · 2019-05-18 11:59:33

Mushroom wrote:

Isn't it the same with griefers and swords? Griefer's playstyle was focused on killing - now, they can continue killing (playstyle is not changed) but other families and invadors (contributing to the family line).

Well, I think what you say is clever, and it makes sense. And this is exactly what brought down Ned Stark. Taking for granted that other people think the same way, that their values and way of reasoning is the same. That if there is a core in you that is honorable, then that core will exist in the the griefers' hearts as well. Ned was wrong and it doomed him.

You can't look at griefers that way if you want to play the game. You have to recognize them for what they are: Trolls. They'll follow no rules. They'll take every new feature added, test them for weaknesses and find ways to diminish the game.

This is the real strength of having griefers around though, as long as you are aware of it. Not that they make the game more exciting, they don't, but that they are able to uncover the weak spots and help us fix them.

Mushroom · 2019-05-18 12:05:12

@MultiLife

Well, it sounded like you felt cheated, especially that I was talking about fake advertising in the topic.

I don't really get your point. Do you want the game to be predictable? I actually like to be suprised by these things. I liked the apocalypse, even though I certainly did not expect it to be in the game. Does it make it worse that we would not expect it to be there?

Also, I don't see how anyone could not expect swords or any other weapons coming to the game about human civilization. Talking about them as some "magical" thing isn't very fair, though. There are many things that aren't working as they do in real life, because, once again, it is a game. Swords only allow you to kill other kins because of the gameplay issues. Imagine how would the forum look like right now if the sword could kill anyone...

Last edited by Mushroom (2019-05-18 14:13:01)

Mushroom · 2019-05-18 12:20:13

@CatX

What you are saying makes sense and it makes me feel kinda dumb for beliving that griefer's playstyle is focused only on killing. Maybe you are right that their goal is to specificly ruin someone else's experience... didn't really think about that.

I have to admit that I have griefed a few times in the past lives. The first one was to check what it feels like and it gave me some adrenaline actually. The feeling of being chased, of trying to make so much harm before I am revealed. It actually felt pretty good. I prefer building though, so I'm pretty much done with griefing, but I always thought that the griefers grief for that feeling and adrenaline. Now they can experiance that WITHOUT killing off THEIR families and eventually kinda contribute to their families' survival. I thought it is win-win situation. That's why I liked the sword update very much.

But what if you are right and they want EXACTLY THEIR FAMILY to die? I don't think we can have any possible defense in the future. It is just impossible to avoid them this way. It is very sad and what is even sadder - it pictures the human selfish nature. We can't bash developers for players being dicks, because there is nothing they can do about that.

On the other hand, if I am right, and 'most' of the griefers actually just want to kill people for fun, then we should see huge decrease of in-family sabotage in the coming days. I actually experienced less family griefers (I though that they still are out there, but instead of hiding tools they grab a sword and invide other villages) this week, but I can't make statements about current state of the game based only on my personal experience.

Last edited by Mushroom (2019-05-18 12:23:14)

CatX · 2019-05-18 12:42:29

Mushroom wrote:

We can't bash developers for players being dicks, because there is nothing they can do about that.

The one thing I hope for is that Jason will come out and say that griefing, although it is impossible to build in mechanisms to stop it, is not playing the game as intended.

It might not do much to stop the griefers, but I believe it would be an encouragement for other players who otherwise might decide to leave if they get killed off too often.

I so love playing in a town where people are kind and trying to be useful!!!

MultiLife · 2019-05-18 13:30:04

Mushroom wrote:

@MultiLife
Well, it sounded like you felt cheated, especially that I was talking about fake advertising in the topic.
I don't really get your point. Do you want the game to be predictable? I actually like to be suprised by these things. I liked the apocalypse, even though I certainly did not expect it to be in the game. Does it make it worse that we would not expect it to be there?
Also, I don't see how anyone could not expect swords or any other weapons coming to the game about human civilization. Talking about them as some "magical" thing isn't very fair, either. There are many things that aren't working as they do in real life, because, once again, it is a game. Swords only allow you to kill other kins because of the gameplay issues. Imagine how would the forum look like right now if the sword could kill anyone...

Sad to hear you are assuming like that, as that makes you come off as really hostile. Even the first sentence of your post is; you are starting a discussion with a very strong view on the topic and then let it bleed into your communication with others. What's the point of coming to talk about it if I'm just instantly assumed to be something just by talking here?

Also, you are simplifying things in ridiculous ways here which really makes me question if I want to continue discussions.
I say it's tiresome to get things like apocalypse out of nowhere (literally just the dev talking about it with a friend once caused it to be implemented), then you say I want the game to be predictable. I say the sword behavior is not good and you say it's crazy how people wouldn't expect swords. That's not what it is. Of frigging course I expect tools and weapons, but I do not expect swords to magically hurt only people outside of my family; them not behaving like weapons do in the game I see as bad design and on top of that, swords as a whole is a poor solution to an issue of favoring your family and being wary of others.
Another issue here is that you liked that surprise of an apocalypse, but cannot understand the feelings of people who didn't like that (talking how others do "toxic whining, tryharding", instantly being hostile against them, being exclusive). To some, the apocalypse turned their expectations of the game upside down and made them sad and confused over the experience this game should be giving them.

You repeat "it's a game" as if I am saying otherwise. "It's a game" doesn't nullify critique when it comes down to choices how things are made or problems are solved in this game. "It's a game" doesn't mean I can't have issues with ways things happen, work or are implemented. I never go and scream about things but that doesn't mean I should stop critiquing because "it's a game". I critique, because I care. I critique, because I believe there are better ways to solve things.

Anyways, I think the core problem is that people can have REALLY different expectations from the game and a lot is left ambiguous. Then when people get the experiences they love, they love the game and want more. Then when they get experiences they dislike, they go on their way to "whine" and talk about it. Demand things, ask for things. Some feel cheated, some don't. Some want their money back, some want to put more money in.

Last edited by MultiLife (2019-05-18 13:34:04)

Mushroom · 2019-05-18 14:41:49

@Multilife

You are right about the first sentance of this topic making me sound hostile and some people might think that I am instantly assuming their opinion is worse than mine. I'm sorry for that, should've used some better words. For justification I can just say that I was posting it really late and I actually was very tired. However, I am trying to be as polite as I can during the further discussion and actually get to something with talking.

Now, for the other things, I don't really made a statement that you want the game to be predictable. I ASKED. I asked after saying that I don't understand your point. Of course I don't think you want the game to be predictable, but I do want you to explain your point of view about this.

Also, you didn't really say that the sword behavior is broken. You said that you don't really see how you'd expect magical swords to be added/how'd the magical swords fit in the game. I replied that, first - as you say, it's crazy that someone wouldn't expect swords in this game. Because it really is, and by saying that I'm not trying to implify that you are stupid by not expecting them, I'm trying to implify that you actually MUST HAVE expected them. Second - I'm trying to justify the swords "magical" characteristics connecting them to the gameplay issues. I'm not responding "it's a game" to every argument. I'm responding "it's a game" when someone says that swords do not behave like they do in real life and I'm saying that if they would behave like they "should" it would ruin the game.

I do respect that others may not like every update I do. I actually said that "I understand that you don't like the apocalypse". But I do not like when someone makes such statements without any explanation. It's really hard for Jason to develop the game with responses like this: "I don't like that and that and many others don't like it either".

Of course the critique is very important, but every statement has to be explained somehow.

Also, the whole "whining" thing was actually reffering to recent topics, where people actually got very salty and did not preserve the level of discussion as it should be. Also, apologies for that if it touched anyone here.

I am aware that you cannot justify anything by saying "it's just a game", but sometimes you can. And in my opinion, in this particular case, you can. I explained why ealier, don't want ro repeat myself.

And the last case - about that "feeling cheated" thing. I made a post that was reviewing the advertisments of the game and checking how much of that was really implemented. Most of the thoughts in the given traler/description is very vague (especially considering items). Then you replied that you still don't see this and that to fit in the game. First thing I thought is that your reply was pretty much off-topic as you were mentioning the specific things not fitting in the game. Then I thought that maybe you just feel cheated by Jason promising something that he didn't fulfil - these specific things being something against of what the game was promised to be. But they are not, as I replied, so you shouldn't feel cheated. You the replied that you don't actually feel cheated, so tell me what was your point in the first comment? I am not trying to prove you wrong about the apocalypse right now, I just don't understand the reply and why it was posted under this specific topic.

futurebird · 2019-05-18 14:51:20

MultiLife wrote:

Of frigging course I expect tools and weapons, but I do not expect swords to magically hurt only people outside of my family; them not behaving like weapons do in the game I see as bad design and on top of that, swords as a whole is a poor solution to an issue of favoring your family and being wary of others.

This is worth repeating.

I do think that some people were a bit rude in the way they came at Jason about a change they (rightly IMO) didn't like. I think we should give Jason some credit since most of the changes he makes even some initially unpopular ones are mostly good for the game.

That said. I think the complaints about the game not always staying true to the main vision and attraction: building civilization. Are really important. And it seems like Jason is looking to address these concerns.

The sword is much better, the language update was brilliant. Give me some storage tech, more character models and a way for men to be fathers and I'll be ecstatic. Even if those changes don't come the game remains very good.

The sword just felt like a sideline and it wasn't balanced well. That's expected to happen some of the time with a live development process and without our feedback it would take longer for that balance to happen.

I just wish we could talk about IDEAS that we hate without attacking the people who have those ideas. That includes not calling people who dislike a change to the game whiners.

MultiLife · 2019-05-18 17:49:23

Mushroom wrote:

Now, for the other things, I don't really made a statement that you want the game to be predictable. I ASKED. I asked after saying that I don't understand your point. Of course I don't think you want the game to be predictable, but I do want you to explain your point of view about this.

That was a terrible way of asking. Instead of saying: "Do you want the game to be predictable?", ask "Wouldn't the game just be predictable?", if you really have to even drop in a sentence like that. I really dislike when people ask in a way which heavily implies assuming and that makes me disinterested in discussing, as I feel like I'm gonna be talking to a wall which reflects my sentences intrepreted already in their own ways as it seems to be prone to assuming. So, let's see if I can explain further.

Mushroom wrote:

Also, you didn't really say that the sword behavior is broken. You said that you don't really see how you'd expect magical swords to be added/how'd the magical swords fit in the game. I replied that, first - as you say, it's crazy that someone wouldn't expect swords in this game. Because it really is, and by saying that I'm not trying to implify that you are stupid by not expecting them, I'm trying to implify that you actually MUST HAVE expected them. Second - I'm trying to justify the swords "magical" characteristics connecting them to the gameplay issues. I'm not responding "it's a game" to every argument. I'm responding "it's a game" when someone says that swords do not behave like they do in real life and I'm saying that if they would behave like they "should" it would ruin the game.

Nobody here said they are not behaving like in real life and indicating that's the issue. They are not behaving like weapons in this game do, for magical reasons. They had to be made to behave differently to force in new kind of conflict. 1: I believe this was a terrible way to encourage conflicts in an attempt to have players favor their families over others, 2: randomly a weapon was given special powers and now it adds into the mass of inconsistencies this game has. Explaining new players how sword behaves sounds absolutely ridiculous. And I repeat, to me, that's just bad design, bad choice. And thus I critique it, and see it as an example of "things you wouldn't expect", as it doesn't really make sense at all. I would for sure expect conflicts and swords, but not a sword which "only hurts people not related to you and has a different cooldown and can be dropped and...". It's still going towards a good direction.

Mushroom wrote:

I do respect that others may not like every update I do. I actually said that "I understand that you don't like the apocalypse". But I do not like when someone makes such statements without any explanation. It's really hard for Jason to develop the game with responses like this: "I don't like that and that and many others don't like it either".
Of course the critique is very important, but every statement has to be explained somehow.

Sure, but there are so many discussions about this, I wasn't expecting to go over these things again. I came in to say that while there is a trailer and there are things to be expected, people have different expectations and things such as apocalypses and weird swords will certainly cause issues and make people confused over expectations. That's all.
And yes, ofc saying "I don't like it" is not enough, it's not real critique, but literally everyone who has been vocal about their dislikes have offered plentiful explanations and options, ideas and suggestions.

Mushroom wrote:

Also, the whole "whining" thing was actually reffering to recent topics, where people actually got very salty and did not preserve the level of discussion as it should be. Also, apologies for that if it touched anyone here.
I am aware that you cannot justify anything by saying "it's just a game", but sometimes you can. And in my opinion, in this particular case, you can. I explained why ealier, don't want ro repeat myself.
And the last case - about that "feeling cheated" thing. I made a post that was reviewing the advertisments of the game and checking how much of that was really implemented. Most of the thoughts in the given traler/description is very vague (especially considering items). Then you replied that you still don't see this and that to fit in the game. First thing I thought is that your reply was pretty much off-topic as you were mentioning the specific things not fitting in the game. Then I thought that maybe you just feel cheated by Jason promising something that he didn't fulfil - these specific things being something against of what the game was promised to be. But they are not, as I replied, so you shouldn't feel cheated. You the replied that you don't actually feel cheated, so tell me what was your point in the first comment? I am not trying to prove you wrong about the apocalypse right now, I just don't understand the reply and why it was posted under this specific topic.

People are asked to refer to the trailer to understand the game. However, people get certain expectations from it. You were going through point by point how the trailer sets up an expectation people should see. So I came in and said that things like apocalypse understandably flips a lot of players' expectations of the game, and causes uproars of confusion and disappointment, which causes outcries in forums. I do not feel cheated personally, as I have understood I do not understand Jason's vision and design choices. But I do feel dissatisfied with certain choices that are made. And I am dissatisfied with certain explanations certain things get. Some players do feel cheated, and I came in as a messenger to explain why would that be: expectations, misunderstandings, and visibly odd things added which go against the game's own rules (weapon behavior).

And a bad design choice can't be stamped with "it's just a game" stamp, imo. HOWEVER, Jason is free to make his decisions. His decisions do come in unexpected and that way cause commotion. And that commotion happens because players care for this game.

Last edited by MultiLife (2019-05-18 18:11:43)

Peaches · 2019-05-18 19:34:50

tbh I agree with everything in the OP, I've notied the vocal playerbase is a bunch of whiners who are too dead-set on making Jason's game into something he never intended it to be. They're "failing" as players when they fail to accept or understand things like fences or when they refuse to move forward to move sophisticated clothing in favor of rabbit loincloths.

You play an experimental game, you get weirder updates. Shut up and have some fun, dangit.

Mushroom · 2019-05-18 20:02:40

MultiLife wrote:

That was a terrible way of asking. Instead of saying: "Do you want the game to be predictable?", ask "Wouldn't the game just be predictable?", if you really have to even drop in a sentence like that. I really dislike when people ask in a way which heavily implies assuming and that makes me disinterested in discussing, as I feel like I'm gonna be talking to a wall which reflects my sentences intrepreted already in their own ways as it seems to be prone to assuming. So, let's see if I can explain further.

Well, that is your interpretation of my words. I can only assure you that this was not my intention to idicate that you are in any way not interested/unconvicable. I am not sure however if your intension is the same, as you keep picturing me as a person who not only is deaf to any arguments but also tries to make others seem less reasonable than they really are. I will loose any interset in further discussion on this topic if the tone of this discussion isn't changed.

MultiLife wrote:

Nobody here said they are not behaving like in real life and indicating that's the issue. They are not behaving like weapons in this game do, for magical reasons. They had to be made to behave differently to force in new kind of conflict. 1: I believe this was a terrible way to encourage conflicts in an attempt to have players favor their families over others, 2: randomly a weapon was given special powers and now it adds into the mass of inconsistencies this game has. Explaining new players how sword behaves sounds absolutely ridiculous. And I repeat, to me, that's just bad design, bad choice. And thus I critique it, and see it as an example of "things you wouldn't expect", as it doesn't really make sense at all. I would for sure expect conflicts and swords, but not a sword which "only hurts people not related to you and has a different cooldown and can be dropped and...". It's still going towards a good direction.

Originally this thread wasn't even supposed to be a discussion about war swords good/bad. That is the reason I misunderstood your first comment. But as we are speaking of war swords, it seems that in your opinion the main flaw of the war sword is it's inconsistency related to other weapons in the game. We have to ask ourselves a question if we really want weapons in the game to always work the same? We already have snowballs (they are considered as a weapon by many), which have little to no relation in behavior to any of the weapons present in the game. I think it is the actual point of the new weapon to work in different way than any of these that were before it. Otherwise it gets repetive, and nobody likes repetive things. Saying that it now has some magical powers is strickly negative and teased way to define it. This is where my argument about gameplay relation strikes - we do not need strict consistency about things like weapons.

MultiLife wrote:

Sure, but there are so many discussions about this, I wasn't expecting to go over these things again. I came in to say that while there is a trailer and there are things to be expected, people have different expectations and things such as apocalypses and weird swords will certainly cause issues and make people confused over expectations. That's all.
And yes, ofc saying "I don't like it" is not enough, it's not real critique, but literally everyone who has been vocal about their dislikes have offered plentiful explanations and options, ideas and suggestions.

And the reason I came in was to review the trailer/description to check if the people who reffer to the trailer as if they were promised something different than (in this case) swords were cheated. I wanted to check if they are right to say that they feel cheated. And I came to a conclusion that they are NOT, because neither the trailer nor the description say ANYTHING related to that issues, and is very vague itself. So we cannot justify our complainments by saiyng that we were promised something else than we got beacause we WERE NOT.
I am glad that we agreed about the critique though

MultiLife wrote:

People are asked to refer to the trailer to understand the game. However, people get certain expectations from it. You were going through point by point how the trailer sets up an expectation people should see. So I came in and said that things like apocalypse understandably flips a lot of players' expectations of the game, and causes uproars of confusion and disappointment, which causes outcries in forums. I do not feel cheated personally, as I have understood I do not understand Jason's vision and design choices. But I do feel dissatisfied with certain choices that are made. And I am dissatisfied with certain explanations certain things get. Some players do feel cheated, and I came in as a messenger to explain why would that be: expectations, misunderstandings, and visibly odd things added which go against the game's own rules (weapon behavior).
And a bad design choice can't be stamped with "it's just a game" stamp, imo. HOWEVER, Jason is free to make his decisions. His decisions do come in unexpected and that way cause commotion. And that commotion happens because players care for this game.

I also (belive me) feel dissatisfied with some of the decisions. But I certainly do not have any thoughts of being "cheated". This was the whole point of this thread, once again - to make a summary of what things we should be feeling cheated or lied about and what things we shouldn't be feeling that way. You refer to some players that actually do feel that way, when they actually shouldn't be. I can clearly see your point now, and I do understand that you are trying to justify that group of players (even if you aren't a part of it) who feel cheated, by pointing out certain events throughout the development of this game. But you also have to see my point, that in the light of the trailer their complaints are groundless, as no hoax was commited in advertisment (at least in that case).

If you were standing in defense of players who feel cheated by the "100 craftable objects every" week quote (I now know it was changed on steam, but it remained the same on YouTube), I would be standing right next to you, because they actually would be right. Nobody really complains about that thing now, because most od us have huge respect to Jason anyway, though (Dunno if that's the issue here, it's just my guess).

Last edited by Mushroom (2019-05-18 20:11:42)

Léonard · 2019-05-18 20:41:12

Peaches wrote:

I've notied the vocal playerbase is a bunch of whiners

I'd rather be a whiner than a useless "yesman" robot who doesn't think twice about anything.

See, I can do it to you as well.

Tarr · 2019-05-18 22:10:04

Peaches wrote:

tbh I agree with everything in the OP, I've notied the vocal playerbase is a bunch of whiners who are too dead-set on making Jason's game into something he never intended it to be. They're "failing" as players when they fail to accept or understand things like fences or when they refuse to move forward to move sophisticated clothing in favor of rabbit loincloths.
You play an experimental game, you get weirder updates. Shut up and have some fun, dangit.

When things are broken people should be vocal about it. It's why we're getting buildings finally looked at again when they were deemed basically cosmetic after the week of the temperature update. Jason wanted shelter and clothing to be just as important if not more important than the yum mechanic and it missed the target. If were weren't vocal about things they'll end up like how railcarts are in game and just be left untouched and forgotten.

Actually showing Jason how broken the sword in video is what pushed the question: How do we fix this? Blocking fenced towns and then killing the inhabitants opened up the dialogue: How do we fix fences? As a developer these are things Jason wants in the game and that's great, the problem is we as players need to show when things aren't okay.

Eves spawning constantly to the same spring was broken for multiple reasons: First off, it was possible to basically be placed in a unwinnable situation where you just spawn to bad springs, this was highlighted by setting up trapped spawn points around a village where any Eve unfortunate to spawn there would just die repeatedly. Second, we're seeing an issue now where Eves either have to assimilate into the town nearest to her or run far away as there just isn't enough resources around a developed town for Eve to flourish. Now third, we're starting to see a new thing appear due to how springs and Eve work, we're starting to see feral Eves starting to try to take over towns due to how cheap an Eves life is. Where as normal players have something to lose, a feral Eve has zero consequences for trying to kill everyone in town. If she's killed she'll just pop up nearby or at another town where she gets another chance, rinse and repeat.

At the end of the day Jason wants to make the very best game possible, and the very best game possible isn't a genocide simulator featuring naked people in a desert deleting horses while stacking carrots for nutrients.

Spoonwood · 2019-05-19 01:33:31

Peaches wrote:

tbh I agree with everything in the OP, I've notied the vocal playerbase is a bunch of whiners who are too dead-set on making Jason's game into something he never intended it to be. They're "failing" as players when they fail to accept or understand things like fences or when they refuse to move forward to move sophisticated clothing in favor of rabbit loincloths.
You play an experimental game, you get weirder updates. Shut up and have some fun, dangit.

Rabbit loincloths are the most insulating type of clothing on that part of the better. If you think that something else is better than a loincloth on bs2 for purposes of a family surviving, you are wrong and probably don't understand the fertility mechanics.

Loom clothes are NOT more advanced than rabbit clothes in terms of a lineage surviving, except the cape. They are equally or LESS advanced than rabbit clothes.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2019-05-19 01:34:34)

RodneyC86 · 2019-05-19 01:41:31

Spoonwood wrote:

Peaches wrote:
tbh I agree with everything in the OP, I've notied the vocal playerbase is a bunch of whiners who are too dead-set on making Jason's game into something he never intended it to be. They're "failing" as players when they fail to accept or understand things like fences or when they refuse to move forward to move sophisticated clothing in favor of rabbit loincloths.
You play an experimental game, you get weirder updates. Shut up and have some fun, dangit.
Rabbit loincloths are the most insulating type of clothing on that part of the better. If you think that something else is better than a loincloth on bs2 for purposes of a family surviving, you are wrong and probably don't understand the fertility mechanics.
Loom clothes are NOT more advanced than rabbit clothes in terms of a lineage surviving, except the cape. They are equally or LESS advanced than rabbit clothes.

Except that ultimately, rabbit fur DO insulate better. Why isn't everyone wearing rabbit fur these days?

I think the issue is cloth is just basically too expensive. It should , in an advanced settlement, actually easier to acquire than rabbit fur. Ive read sources that say a typical sheep shorn once can provide enough wool for 4 or 5 sweaters. Of course, this would break the game. But the current rate of needing 6 sheep shorn to make ONE sweater is ridiculous. I think one sheep shorn to make on huge ball of yarn which can be cut into smaller balls. Then the textile revolution can actually begin proper.

Loom clothes not decaying is huge. Also, I like the trouser pockets

This would not make rabbit fur obsolete though. It still has better insulation would remain the clothing of choice for people actually venturing out far from town. Which makes sense, those are outward bound gear.

Last edited by RodneyC86 (2019-05-19 01:42:16)

One Hour One Life Forums

#1 2019-05-17 22:59:55

Let's clarify what this goddamned game is about

#2 2019-05-17 23:28:36

Re: Let's clarify what this goddamned game is about

#3 2019-05-18 00:20:39

Re: Let's clarify what this goddamned game is about

#4 2019-05-18 00:59:05

Re: Let's clarify what this goddamned game is about

#5 2019-05-18 04:18:03

Re: Let's clarify what this goddamned game is about

#6 2019-05-18 05:24:56

Re: Let's clarify what this goddamned game is about

#7 2019-05-18 07:57:18

Re: Let's clarify what this goddamned game is about

#8 2019-05-18 09:10:10

Re: Let's clarify what this goddamned game is about

#9 2019-05-18 09:30:05

Re: Let's clarify what this goddamned game is about

#10 2019-05-18 09:39:49

Re: Let's clarify what this goddamned game is about

#11 2019-05-18 09:42:44

Re: Let's clarify what this goddamned game is about

#12 2019-05-18 11:59:33

Re: Let's clarify what this goddamned game is about

#13 2019-05-18 12:05:12

Re: Let's clarify what this goddamned game is about

#14 2019-05-18 12:20:13

Re: Let's clarify what this goddamned game is about

#15 2019-05-18 12:42:29

Re: Let's clarify what this goddamned game is about

#16 2019-05-18 13:30:04

Re: Let's clarify what this goddamned game is about

#17 2019-05-18 14:41:49

Re: Let's clarify what this goddamned game is about

#18 2019-05-18 14:51:20

Re: Let's clarify what this goddamned game is about

#19 2019-05-18 17:49:23

Re: Let's clarify what this goddamned game is about

#20 2019-05-18 19:34:50

Re: Let's clarify what this goddamned game is about

#21 2019-05-18 20:02:40

Re: Let's clarify what this goddamned game is about

#22 2019-05-18 20:41:12

Re: Let's clarify what this goddamned game is about

#23 2019-05-18 22:10:04

Re: Let's clarify what this goddamned game is about

#24 2019-05-19 01:33:31

Re: Let's clarify what this goddamned game is about

#25 2019-05-19 01:41:31

Re: Let's clarify what this goddamned game is about

Board footer