Rusty Ethics
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Well, now I don't know what to think about "early access" anything. Jim Sterling had me sold as a load of total bollocks, but here it's the honor of being among the first to play something new before it gets real popular.reiniat said:
OMG, I now get the appeal of being a hipster.
It's multiplayer only? Awh... Oh well. I have enough multiplayer games I'm involved in at the moment, I don't particularly wish to add another to the list at the moment.templar1138a said:
Will keep an eye on it though.
[sub][sub]Did Cory switch up his style? Cause I like it.[/sub][/sub]
Right now it is a sound decision. If they decide to do a female model later, then so be it.Fdzzaigl said:"There are no women because of the Virus", lol right.
Makes a world full of naked men have some totally different connotations that's for sure.
But still hope they rethink that lazy decision.
Fun comic btw
Too few games are concerned with Fung Shei.
It mentions Rachel's name right in the strip.Pallindromemordnillap said:
Why are these games exclusively multiplayer in the first place? Seems no reason why you couldn't make a game like Rust single player, and yet it's exclusively multiplayer. When a big company like EA does this we all get up in arms about it, because always-online is just an annoying way to do DRM. You could say "oh well it's an online game" like WoW or whatever, but it's not, and I see no reason why it couldn't have a single player mode. I did actually consider buying it when reading about it because it looked cool, but if I'm going to have to deal with shoddy servers and other douchey players when it would just be nice to have a true sandbox.
Loving the new art. And between this and Penny Arcade (which is guess is the "Simpsons did it" of the Gaming-related webcomic world?), I'm inclined to check out Rust, just to see what all this inhumane pantslessness is about.
Corey didn't do the art. Rachel Baggs did, like last time.Redlin5 said:
It doesn't get the same hate because it's not on the same level of attention.hentropy said:
But then, I don't see why it's okay for WoW to be online only but not this. Surely both could have single-player campaigns. Or maybe a sense of community here is important.
I don't care much, because this isn't really my thing.
What would you even do in a single player version of this game? Whenever I'm the last player on a server I either get bored or stock up for when more players log on. There's no tension without other players. This game seems to be built around the threat of interacting with other real people, because without it all you're left with is a very limited version of Minecraft where the monsters don't even come to you and you can't affect the terrain.
I mean, you could peacefully chop wood and build a sprawling fort on a single player server, but why? Nothing is going to attack it. Plus all of the weapons and armor that you can make can only be used to trivialize fighting animals and zombies, which are not dangerous at all if you aren't forced to also be aware of potential player ambushers.
I mean, you could peacefully chop wood and build a sprawling fort on a single player server, but why? Nothing is going to attack it. Plus all of the weapons and armor that you can make can only be used to trivialize fighting animals and zombies, which are not dangerous at all if you aren't forced to also be aware of potential player ambushers.
That's just the thing, I wouldn't mind just playing a game like this, at least for a little while, by myself just to get a hold of the mechanics. To you know, learn how to play it before I get killed by players who are basically experts already.Compatriot Block said:
It just seems like these types of games intentionally model the whole game around multiplayer as a sneaky way to make it DRM-dependent, and it'll get awards and accolades and people won't stop talking about it, meanwhile EA even mentions "always online" the media and game bases lead crusades and get them voted worse company ever. I just guess it's all about precedent.
I won't speak for the EA thing, because that always derails a thread.hentropy said:
But I think it's a little paranoid to automatically assume that the game is multiplayer only to sneak DRM onto the users. It requires far fewer logical leaps to assume that they made it multiplayer because that's what they wanted the game to be. Not every game is required to have single-player. Diablo or SimCity I can understand, because they aren't based around player interaction. Games like DayZ and Rust fill a pretty specific niche, I think, that relies on fear of other real people.
Also, you can always play in an empty server to get the hang of things.
The thing is, I don't need to play WoW to play an RPG. There's plenty of RPGs out there for me to play, which are exclusively single-player. Same thing with shooters and TF2, L4D, DayZ, various strategy games, etc. There's single-player options, is what I'm saying. I don't think I have to take a big logical leap, if I'm an investor in a game and I'm about to spend a lot of money funding it, what's the one way to make sure that it becomes very hard for pirates to play it? Oh, make it exclusively multiplayer, problem solved. It's not really a grand mystery why we're seeing more types of these games. On the other side, if I'm a developer, my first choice would not be to make an exclusively multiplayer game, because it opens up a whole 'nother can of worms with trying to build the game around internet connections. I have the same general animosity towards something like World of Tanks, why can't I play famous WWII battles in a single-player mode rather than have to rely on other people to make it fun for me?Compatriot Block said:
Part of this simply comes from a time when I loved playing TF2- before I stopped loving it because the "human element" just got so fatally unbearable. I like Minecraft but I guess unlike others the lack of graphics also limits the game in a variety of ways. As much as it was derided, the Hearth Fire DLC for Skyrim was quite fun to me, the idea of creating my own steading and just filling it with things. While there were occasional baddies to kill, I didn't really have to worry about any number of foul-mouthed dipshits sniping me while I'm gathering wood or something. Just seems like something that could have easily had some single-player component without even working very hard on it- but chose not to do because making these kinds of games are gamer-accepted ways of doing always-online DRM.
They missed out the fourth Pannel where a flying hacker suicide kills the girls and takes their stuff while teabaging the crumpled corpses.
Alot of the player base seem like they've been banned from MOBA's or crawled out of Xbox Live.
Alot of the player base seem like they've been banned from MOBA's or crawled out of Xbox Live.
I dunno how I feel about all these early access games because I just got starbound, thought it was great, played the shit out of it till I ran out of non repetitive content, saw they updated, tried to play it again, then realized I didn't have the wherewithal to play through the first five hours of the game again to see any of the new content, same goes for minecraft.