Why Rust is The Best Game Ever

Living_Brain

When in doubt, overclock
Feb 8, 2012
1,426
0
0
Yagami_Kira said:
Zira said:
Generic game about zombie survival without female characters is "the best game ever"?

I'd rather play Pong. :p
My biggest problem with dayz and rust is that its not even zombie survival. Its "attempt to survive other player douchebaggery" because they make it incredibly difficult to actually work together, and very easy to just be a raging dickhole.
Technically, Rust won't even be about zombie survival. Heard they're gonna get rid of the whole zombie aspect. Can't say I'm disappointed.
 

Laser Priest

A Magpie Among Crows
Mar 24, 2011
2,013
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Do gamers really need another reason to behave like sociopaths?
Who said they need reasons? They'll do so regardless.

But this is a perfect example of why Rust is a game I have no desire to even touch.
 

SadakoMoose

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2009
1,200
0
41
I REALLY hate mentioning this, because it seems pedantic, but the continued use of the phrase "Machiavellian" is kind of ignorant of the actual life and legacy of Niccolo Machiavelli.
At NO POINT did he ever say that "The ends justify the means".
This has been covered before by other sites, and likely other commentors on this forum, but it's important to note for sake of truthfulness.
http://tinyurl.com/mhb2vxt
Again, in light of widely available, modern, evidence, this should not be a common misconception.
 

The Wooster

King Snap
Jul 15, 2008
15,305
0
0
SadakoMoose said:
I REALLY hate mentioning this, because it seems pedantic, but the continued use of the phrase "Machiavellian" is kind of ignorant of the actual life and legacy of Niccolo Machiavelli.
At NO POINT did he ever say that "The ends justify the means".
And at no point did I attribute that phrase to him. There is some debate as to whether The Prince was meant to be satire, but even if it was, your complaint about the term "Machiavellian" is groundless. The term isn't based on his character, but on the work that defines his legacy. In the same way, authoritarian governments are often called "Orwellian," and shit-hole slums are often called "Dickensian."
 

PhantomEcho

New member
Nov 25, 2011
165
0
0
As an individual with borderline personality disorder, (the term now attributed to those you call by the defunct term of sociopath), I find it incredibly disturbing to see people throw the word around so willy-nilly in regards to players of a video game.

One can be ruthless and conniving in a game without causing another harm. There is no shame it enjoying such a thing.

One can be treacherous and yes, even downright cruel, without inflicting any suffering upon another. There is no shame in enjoying this either.

That so many people respond with the same inane, insufferable complaining about how these games only attract 'vicious sociopaths' and 'evil' people... now that is another thing altogether. First of all, a SOCIOPATH is not by definition a 'monstrous, evil person'. They are emotionally stunted, largely self-interested individuals whom often go through their entire lives struggling with issues of not being able to 'feel' the way they should.

It's an incredibly lonely, dreadfully frustrating and depressing condition.

It's also a pathetic excuse to avoid saying what you really mean. What you really mean to say is that 'Mean people who do things I don't like play those games and I don't want to deal with it." That's a perfectly REASONABLE reason not to play. Why not say as much? Which idiot was the first to trot out this "Everyone who plays 'x' style of game is a terrible person, why do they still make these games/they're giving gamers a bad rap/whatever else I care to whimper about before slinking away into the anonymity of the internet." anyway?

Do those of you following suit actually GAIN anything by repeating the same thing over and over again? You're certainly not earning any respect, except for from the same obnoxious lot who're spouting it off before and behind you. You're definitely not making your point look more reasonable.

On the one hand are people having fun. On the other, you calling them monsters for playing a video game.

I don't suspect this will stop any time soon. This seems to be all that the internet does, anymore... generate false controversy and fight like petty children demanding the 'green cup'. All I can do is hope that one person about to say something foolish reads this, pauses for a moment, and decides to walk away in silence.

I certainly wish I had done the same.
 

Fiairflair

Polymath
Oct 16, 2012
94
0
0
The last frame is Machiavelli, right?

"A prince, therefore, being compelled knowingly to adopt the beast, ought to choose the fox and the lion; because the lion cannot defend himself against snares and the fox cannot defend himself against wolves. Therefore, it is necessary to be a fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify the wolves." - The Prince

You and Cory clearly have the fox aspect down pat. But how might one be a lion in a game like Rust?
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
Will have to have a look at this if/when it gets out of early access, surviving and thriving in games like that is awesome. The "douchebagarry" is what make them fun, making another players scheme fall apart or busting up a raid and winning the fight. Then you have all your own shenanigans you come up with, sometimes you win sometimes you lose. Losing your stuff is lesson to learn so adapt and survive, most games cannot match that emergent gameplay.
 

Peregrin130

New member
Nov 18, 2009
18
0
0
Killing someone in his sleep to steal his meagre property, subjecting his friend to psycholgical pressure and enticing people to violently raid other people is not "Lannister".

It's... "Clegane". At best.
 

Yagami_Kira

New member
May 18, 2012
67
0
0
J Tyran said:
Will have to have a look at this if/when it gets out of early access, surviving and thriving in games like that is awesome. The "douchebagarry" is what make them fun, making another players scheme fall apart or busting up a raid and winning the fight. Then you have all your own shenanigans you come up with, sometimes you win sometimes you lose. Losing your stuff is lesson to learn so adapt and survive, most games cannot match that emergent gameplay.
Please do not use the term emergent gameplay to describe a death match game with resource management. Just because Rocket started that crap incorrectly doesn't mean you have to repeat it.
 

Grimh

New member
Feb 11, 2009
673
0
0
I don't know...
It just feels like very elaborate deathmatches to me.
Rust might be better than DayZ with cooperation though.
But neither are done yet so I shouldn't be too harsh I guess.

I'm holding off for now though.
I'd be way too stubborn with being a good guy and probably go insane or something.

Also zombies are boring use dinosaurs instead.
 

iseko

New member
Dec 4, 2008
727
0
0
Soooooo... If you play this game for like every day for a year. And then you go on a 3 week holiday. You log out but your character is sleeping in the game and everyone can loot your hard earned stuff/kill you?

Is there like an advanced building option? I.e. building a floating fortress of doom that will rip out your eyes if you so much as look at it? Just so you have a safe spot to log out and store said valuable belongings. If not then damn... Harsh game.
 

wAriot

New member
Jan 18, 2013
174
0
0
nekoali said:
It doesn't say good things about humanity, does it? That freed of laws and consequences, this is what people turn to...
Because clearly video games are real life, they make people violent, racist, misogynistic and psychopathic.
Wait, no, they don't.
 

Requia

New member
Apr 4, 2013
703
0
0
Lotet said:
canadamus_prime said:
Remind me never to play Rust with you. ...or play Rust PERIOD.
Yeah, out of all the reviews I've seen of this game, they tend to have people with friends who play Rust having lots of fun while people who play alone have varying degrees of fun, never as happy as the people with buddies. Not even close.
So make some damn friends in the game. I've done these sort of backstabby team play based games before. A social player with a sense of teamwork is always an asset, most people were being held back by a resentment of the need for allies or refusal to see fellow players as real people.
 

nekoali

New member
Aug 25, 2009
227
0
0
wAriot said:
nekoali said:
It doesn't say good things about humanity, does it? That freed of laws and consequences, this is what people turn to...
Because clearly video games are real life, they make people violent, racist, misogynistic and psychopathic.
Wait, no, they don't.
Except that is the complete opposite of what I was talking about. That games like this show what some people would be like if their actions had no consequences to themselves. See "Griefer".
 

NoeL

New member
May 14, 2011
841
0
0
nekoali said:
wAriot said:
nekoali said:
It doesn't say good things about humanity, does it? That freed of laws and consequences, this is what people turn to...
Because clearly video games are real life, they make people violent, racist, misogynistic and psychopathic.
Wait, no, they don't.
Except that is the complete opposite of what I was talking about. That games like this show what some people would be like if their actions had no consequences to themselves. See "Griefer".
I'm not sure it's really appropriate to call players of a game like this "griefers" when griefing is an encouraged game mechanic. People might be momentarily upset when they get screwed over by other players and lose all their hard-earned loot, but it was the constant risk of that happening that makes the game engaging for them. I see "griefing" as entering another player(s)'s personal space and acting in an obtrusive manner that's outside the player(s)'s expectations of what's acceptable. For example, going onto a peaceful Minecraft server and destroying a town people have spent weeks making without the expectation that it could be compromised is griefing, but going onto a survival PvP server and looting/destroying another player's secret bunker isn't. They made that bunker with full understanding that an unfriendly player could destroy it and take their stuff. That action is permissible within the rules of the game - they have the expectation that their work could be destroyed.

I don't really see games like this as significantly different to any other PvP game. Tricking someone into raiding an opposing camp is no more dickish than throwing a hadouken in Street Fighter. In the end it all comes down to the mindset of your opponent. Edge guarding in Smash Bros. might frustrate and annoy a casual player, who will see you as a dick, but is perfectly accepted among more involved players. The game then becomes about getting your opponent in a position where you can exploit edge guarding and trying not to let them do the same to you, rather than having a "fair" fight on the ground. For noobs of Rust/DayZ/whatever it's not very fun to get ganked by other players, and I get that, but you have to understand and appreciate the utility of ganking in the meta game. The purpose of the game is to outwit, outplay, outlast (or maybe that's another "survival" game...), and if psychological manipulation helps a player win then the good players are going to have that skill set. If you don't have those skills, or have no desire to hone those skills, then you're not going to have fun with the game. It doesn't make the good players bad people (as opposed to griefers, who ARE bad people), although it arguably makes them... not more dangerous, but more competent (which would only make them more dangerous if they had malevolent intentions). To use another example, a good FPS player will be much better at surveying the world around them and identifying the most advantageous locations for massacring people, but those skills only make them a danger if they intend to shoot people.

Kind of ranted there. In any case, I don't think people that enjoy playing survival games are bad people, though I can understand why people would be uncomfortable being around someone that was really good at those kinds of games.
 

irishda

New member
Dec 16, 2010
968
0
0
Fun fact: Machiavelli's quintessential work is actually a satire, and he doesn't support being a dickhead.
 

BernardoOne

New member
Jun 7, 2012
284
0
0
nekoali said:
I couldn't play this for the same reasons I couldn't get into Walking Dead or Falling Skies. It's the same basic plotline. Something Bad has happened, most people are gone, any kind of central authority and law is gone. People devolve into little more than wandering raiders screwing each over for resources or fun instead of trying to rebuild... It doesn't say good things about humanity, does it? That freed of laws and consequences, this is what people turn to...
Wait what? There is no plotline at all. Something bad has happened and most people are gone. What happens after this depends solely on the players. I already saw many servers with people working together to build cities and creating Police forces that go after raiders.