4.0 A new threat update - Bandits?

Riamus said:
That really doesn't change anything significantly. Consider the kind of game this is. You are meant to play the game over and over again. It might not be a rogue-like, but it has a similar expectation that you'll play many games of it instead of only once or twice before setting it aside for years. In a typical game (we'll say RPG since stories are very common in them, including branching stories), having multiple endings or branching stories provides replayability because it gives you something to work towards, even if 95% of the game is the same. The expectation is most would probably play 2 or 3 different ways to see different endings and then set it aside for awhile before possibly trying other endings/branches. Because of that, it adds those extra couple games worth of replayability and works well.

Now, look at this game. Most players, if they like the game, will play dozens of games already, without any story. Add a story and what do you get? Something you are interested in the first time you play, but then don't care about. That doesn't improve replayability unless it draws someone back for a game when they had no intention of playing the game anymore, which would be a pretty low percentage of players, and not those who are regularly playing the game. Add a story with multiple endings and what do you get? If you're already playing dozens of games, you'll play the different endings and then there's no reason to care about them again because you already know the stories. That doesn't increase replayability because you would have been playing those games even without the stories. Again, only those who are no longer playing the game but are interested in the stories might come back because of the stories for a number of games up to the number of story endings or branches before setting it aside again. And again, that's a small percentage of players, and doesn't include those actively playing the game. For this game, a story of any kind, regardless of branching or multiple endings, won't have any real impact on replayability. The game is already very replayable and a story doesn't really change that.

I'm not saying they shouldn't include a story, but don't expect it to have any real impact on the game beyond just answering some questions we might have. There is also a good indication that the story may be limited to Navesgane and not RWG or custom maps, though that hasn't been confirmed.
Click to expand...
There’s no point in playing the exact same game over and over again without a break; there are other games out there, too. You can take some time off and come back to it later.
 
bartek251 said:
There’s no point in playing the exact same game over and over again without a break; there are other games out there, too. You can take some time off and come back to it later.
Click to expand...
That is unrelated to whether or not a story of any type really improves replayability in any meaningful way in this specific game.
 
Riamus said:
Yes, this happens now any then and has for a long time. I am pretty sure that zombies are sometimes set to attack random things (be dumb). They will choose to attack a tree or wall or fence or whatever else. This may still be considered rage mode, but can trigger before any damage happens to the zombies and when you're right on the ground and not jumping.
Click to expand...

The solution, in my opinion, is to have separate AI settings for normal vs bloodmoon/screamer horde behavior. The destruction mode and dumb zombies (forgetting paths, not seeing long paths) were added to stop zombies from being so predictable on horde nights when you are in your base defending.

But when you are exploring POIs and traversing the land and handling wandering hordes those obfuscaters just serve to make the zombies act weird and not focus on the player. I want zombies tracking me through a POI and coming back to get me if they fall off a ledge. The A17 AI was bad for horde nights because it was so exploitable and the fact that all the zombies knew which block to break to open up a complex path to get to your location was jarring. But that relentless terminator-like behavior made POI exploration scary fun.
 
Roland said:
The solution, in my opinion, is to have separate AI settings for normal vs bloodmoon/screamer horde behavior. The destruction mode and dumb zombies (forgetting paths, not seeing long paths) were added to stop zombies from being so predictable on horde nights when you are in your base defending.

But when you are exploring POIs and traversing the land and handling wandering hordes those obfuscaters just serve to make the zombies act weird and not focus on the player. I want zombies tracking me through a POI and coming back to get me if they fall off a ledge. The A17 AI was bad for horde nights because it was so exploitable and the fact that all the zombies knew which block to break to open up a complex path to get to your location was jarring. But that relentless terminator-like behavior made POI exploration scary fun.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think having a different AI (or modified AI) for horde night versus normal could be good. If nothing else, making it so zombies don't walk/run right past you when you're out in the wilderness or even in a POI would be good. I can't tell you the number of times I've opened a door in a POI and watched a zombie run past me and down the hall, sometimes even out the door to the outside. Sometimes they only go a few meters before turning around to come back and attack me, but other times, they completely leave and sometimes don't come back if they happen to get far enough that they lose track of where I am and just start wandering around wherever they happen to stop. That kind of behavior makes no sense.

It's one thing if there is something in the way that makes it so they can't reach you, even if it's not horde night. I can completely understand a rage or destruction mode then. But when the path is perfectly clear and they just go past you, that isn't a good thing.
 
bartek251 said:
There’s no point in playing the exact same game over and over again without a break; there are other games out there, too. You can take some time off and come back to it later.
Click to expand...
bartek251 said:
I doubt it, considering people are expecting a finale to the game rather than having it dragged out endlessly.
Click to expand...
I agree that there needs to be a story. That being said your comments about it being "dragged out endlessly" is something I will vehemently disagree with. I would rather this be a live service game with DLC microtransactions (like ARK) than have it just finished and left alone (most Bethesda titles). I think if they would have finished the game with it's story 4 years ago without the emphasis on 1.0 and the graphics then for sure I wouldn't be playing this as much or at all. So if anything I am glad they are still working on the game.

A lot of people find fun in playing a game over and over. Look at the forum join dates. Many of us have been playing for a better part of a decade now. There are multiple parts to this, but a few things include the game generally being enjoyable, the open world sandbox nature of the game offering a large degree of replayability, newer games being less interesting or in early access, etc.
 
Kyoji said:
I agree that there needs to be a story. That being said your comments about it being "dragged out endlessly" is something I will vehemently disagree with. I would rather this be a live service game with DLC microtransactions (like ARK) than have it just finished and left alone (most Bethesda titles). I think if they would have finished the game with it's story 4 years ago without the emphasis on 1.0 and the graphics then for sure I wouldn't be playing this as much or at all. So if anything I am glad they are still working on the game.

A lot of people find fun in playing a game over and over. Look at the forum join dates. Many of us have been playing for a better part of a decade now. There are multiple parts to this, but a few things include the game generally being enjoyable, the open world sandbox nature of the game offering a large degree of replayability, newer games being less interesting or in early access, etc.
Click to expand...
There no need for this to be a live service game. They should finish the game and spend time making a new one. That doesn't mean they shouldn't actually finish it (meaning all planned features, improvements to performance and graphics, etc.) being also finished.

But I don't think they are talking about the development dragging out endlessly... I'm pretty sure they meant a single game not having an "official end" to it. But that's not the kind of game this is anyhow. Even with a story, players aren't going to just finish the story part and stop their game. They are going to play until they feel like it's time to end. Then they'll start over and do it again... and again... and again. The story is inconsequential beyond just providing some background story. And faction based quests connected to the story will also just be background and maybe if they are enjoyable enough people will want to keep running through them each game, but otherwise they'll go through them and basically ignore the story or will ignore those quests and the story if they aren't really that much fun or different from normal play.
 
Riamus said:
There no need for this to be a live service game. They should finish the game and spend time making a new one. That doesn't mean they shouldn't actually finish it (meaning all planned features, improvements to performance and graphics, etc.) being also finished.

But I don't think they are talking about the development dragging out endlessly... I'm pretty sure they meant a single game not having an "official end" to it. But that's not the kind of game this is anyhow. Even with a story, players aren't going to just finish the story part and stop their game. They are going to play until they feel like it's time to end. Then they'll start over and do it again... and again... and again. The story is inconsequential beyond just providing some background story. And faction based quests connected to the story will also just be background and maybe if they are enjoyable enough people will want to keep running through them each game, but otherwise they'll go through them and basically ignore the story or will ignore those quests and the story if they aren't really that much fun or different from normal play.
Click to expand...
Everyone will have their own likes and dislikes. When I said live service I was commenting that rather than finishing the game 4 years ago I would prefer what we have now even if some of it released as a paid DLC. The graphics overhaul made a big difference and many new features have been added. If I had to pick between the game finishing previous to what we have now then I would gladly pay some money to continue the journey.

For example the developers could have started to complete the game now, but instead added the bells and whistles a large contingent of the player base have been asking for which is to bring the survival revival. If the developers push for completion I do not think the game would be anywhere near as good.

So my point isn't that they cannot add in the features they want, but rather the fixation on "completion" is, in my estimation, bad.
 
Kyoji said:
I agree that there needs to be a story. That being said your comments about it being "dragged out endlessly" is something I will vehemently disagree with. I would rather this be a live service game with DLC microtransactions (like ARK) than have it just finished and left alone (most Bethesda titles). I think if they would have finished the game with it's story 4 years ago without the emphasis on 1.0 and the graphics then for sure I wouldn't be playing this as much or at all. So if anything I am glad they are still working on the game.

A lot of people find fun in playing a game over and over. Look at the forum join dates. Many of us have been playing for a better part of a decade now. There are multiple parts to this, but a few things include the game generally being enjoyable, the open world sandbox nature of the game offering a large degree of replayability, newer games being less interesting or in early access, etc.
Click to expand...
The game absolutely must not contain microtransactions; such games shouldn't exist at all as far as I'm concerned, that sort of thing only belongs in mobile games.
A much better idea is to expand the game with a sequel and build it using Unreal Engine 5.
Or they could finish the game and then work on porting it to Unreal Engine 5 though that would take them about three years.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, people always want to suggest changing the engine. That really doesn't help with a game that is practically finished. It is mostly just wasted time. To get the benefit from a different engine, you need to start with that engine, or at least change early in development. Otherwise it is just a port. Consider a console to PC port of a game. Any such port is essentially a 1:1 port, meaning that you get the same limitations to controls and graphics and everything else that was there for console. The game will not feel like a PC game because it's just a port. Porting to a new engine works in a very similar way. Sometimes it can provide certain benefits, while also providing certain problems. But overall, it's just a port with no real value.

They are using Unreal Engine in an upcoming game. If they ever make a sequel to this game, then maybe that sequel will use Unreal Engine. Or maybe it won't. Either way, there's practically no chance they'll port this game to Unreal Engine.
 
Jost Amman said:
Why?
What would an engine change really bring to the game? :unsure:

3 wasted years.
Click to expand...
Jost Amman said:
Why?
What would an engine change really bring to the game? :unsure:

3 wasted years.
Click to expand...
A lot of players complain about the graphics, but the rest accept them given the engine's limitations. Personally, I find the visuals ugly too, but I accept them because of the engine constraints; compared to what Unreal Engine 5 offers, the game supposedly has lower requirements, yet playing at max settings in 1080p demands as much power as running Cyberpunk 2077 on Ultra with ray tracing.
 
If you put the engine of a Lamborghini into a Ford Puma, would you expect the Ford suddenly to look like a Lamborghini? Though, its fuel consumption will almost be like that of a Lamborghini

;)



(Silly car comparison maybe. But look at the similarities: Without changing all the graphics and animations as well there won't be any improvement to the look of the game. And we know there is better graphics possible with the unreal engine at the high end. But I would assume an AA developer like TFP can not afford to shoot for that level of graphics, especially while using voxels as an additional complication)
 
Riamus said:
Yeah, people always want to suggest changing the engine. That really doesn't help with a game that is practically finished. It is mostly just wasted time. To get the benefit from a different engine, you need to start with that engine, or at least change early in development. Otherwise it is just a port. Consider a console to PC port of a game. Any such port is essentially a 1:1 port, meaning that you get the same limitations to controls and graphics and everything else that was there for console. The game will not feel like a PC game because it's just a port. Porting to a new engine works in a very similar way. Sometimes it can provide certain benefits, while also providing certain problems. But overall, it's just a port with no real value.

They are using Unreal Engine in an upcoming game. If they ever make a sequel to this game, then maybe that sequel will use Unreal Engine. Or maybe it won't. Either way, there's practically no chance they'll port this game to Unreal Engine.
Click to expand...
They could port the game to a new engine after finishing it and release it a few years later as a remake to make some extra money; on the other hand, it’s risky, as the overhaul would cost tens of millions of dollars with no guarantee that the version with updated graphics would actually sell. It would be much easier to simply create a sequel on the new engine first.
 
bartek251 said:
A lot of players complain about the graphics, but the rest accept them given the engine's limitations. Personally, I find the visuals ugly too, but I accept them because of the engine constraints; compared to what Unreal Engine 5 offers, the game supposedly has lower requirements, yet playing at max settings in 1080p demands as much power as running Cyberpunk 2077 on Ultra with ray tracing.
Click to expand...

If you look at the demos made for Unity, that engine would be able to show far better graphics than 7D2D. But 7D2D is using voxels and that for one makes a unique appeal to the game but also costs a lot of resources and FPS. You can not compare the game with most other games who just (trivially) use the technique that the GPUs are designed and optimized for.
 
meganoth said:
If you put the engine of a Lamborghini into a Ford Puma, would you expect the Ford suddenly to look like a Lamborghini? Though, its fuel consumption will almost be like that of a Lamborghini

;)



(Silly car comparison maybe. But look at the similarities: Without changing all the graphics and animations as well there won't be any improvement to the look of the game. And we know there is better graphics possible with the unreal engine at the high end. But I would assume an AA developer like TFP can not afford to shoot for that level of graphics, especially while using voxels as an additional complication)
Click to expand...
Yes, it will be much easier and cheaper to create the next part of the game on a new engine, but on the other hand, The Fun Pimps cooperates with Behaviour Interactive, so they have more people, more money,
 
bartek251 said:
The game absolutely must not contain microtransactions; such games shouldn't exist at all as far as I'm concerned, that sort of thing only belongs in mobile games.
A much better idea is to expand the game with a sequel and build it using Unreal Engine 5.
Or they could finish the game and then work on porting it to Unreal Engine 5 though that would take them about three years.
Click to expand...
Again I am not proposing that as a baseline. I am saying that if I had to pick between the game ending 4 years ago versus having to buy DLC like ARK then I would prefer the later. This isn't uncommon. Age of War, Civ, etc all do this. The cosmetic upgrades are a nice middle ground for the developers to continue funding the continuation of the game while not being overbearing.

Rather than a new game I would prefer a DLC after the kickstarter goals are met and the game has reached financial completion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top