Pheta @ Pheta @fedia.io

Posts

0

Comments

5

Joined

1 yr. ago

I've played the game while it was in early access, and now that I've played quite a bit (not all) of the game, I'd like to give my thoughts for anyone stumbling on this or keeping an eye on the game and trying to make a decision.

First, the main feature of the game, beyond the aesthetic of an environmentalist version of post-apocalyptic world, is the airships. It's a mobile base that is both a vehicle and where you do everything. The idea is nothing new, but the execution is done pretty well, in my opinion. There's basic rooms, but you can unlock more rooms through exploration and research, which can result in some pretty interesting base designs and configurations.

As far as a survival crafting game goes, it doesn't do too bad to stand out in the sea of similar games, as the game originally began based around not having combat in it at all, but has since adopted some combat mechanics due to popular demand. The environmentalist messaging and themes are very obvious, and it jumped on the bandwagon fairly early on, before the themes got too worn out, so it isn't stale storytelling at the very least.

Now, for the changes between early access and 1.0, I will say it's pretty drastic. I played the very early versions of early access, as well as most major updates that came out between then and now, and the difference is striking. First, in the beginning, you'd have to use a deck mounted extractor (think resource gathering laser tool) to gather materials, and you'd be able to acquire a portable version of the tool later on. In the 1.0 version of the game, that is turned on its head, where you get a portable one first, with deck mounted ones that don't require energy later (for automation and convivence purposes). Resources feel much more in demand in the 1.0 version, as there is more to craft and upgrade, so you'll be gathering and going through materials just as quickly. This is partly because most of the gameplay in early access involved exploring, with the underdust locations being the primary story progression areas. This meant that while you were exploring around, you'd be collecting materials passively, and because of this, you'd end up with tons of materials whenever you'd normally pivot to upgrading your base - right after getting a upgrade, or needing space for new facilities.

The 1.0 version is much more streamlined in that story and story required equipment is all marked out for you, meaning you can beeline from one place to the next without much wasted time; great if you're in a hurry or a journalist, but it does hurt the pacing in terms of resource scarcity. Not to say that resources are any more or less rare, they're very abundant, in fact. However, due to adding some new resources that are used interspersed throughout the crafting process for more complex items means that you will always have a deficiency somewhere.

I mentioned progression and story being streamlined in 1.0, but in truth it has had a massive overhaul, with proper zones to halt early players wandering into areas they do not have the tools to actually make use of, and to segment story into decent chunks. The game has more side grades for equipment than before, and they add interesting choices for gameplay, although due to the late adoption of combat, the upgrade system for combat is relatively shallow.

From my perspective, it was a promising survival game that focused more on base building and dealing with size constraints, and the interplay with base building, which has developed into a proper, feature complete game. The gameplay may not be for everyone, but it is clear it had a vision for what the game would be, and successfully achieved that goal.

Based on what I've played before the 1.0 release, I know that there is more content and mechanics to encounter, so I'll reply with an update once I've properly finished the game and can give a more comprehensive review.

I'm sorry this is so off-kilter that I'm not sure what mental hoops you jumped through to end up like that. Laws are made entirely on morals. It's why murder is illegal, theft is illegal, and insider trading is illegal. It's always been about morality, and the key here is to get enough people to agree with you that it becomes a general consensus among the general public, or at least make it widespread enough to have it be important for the lawmakers.

You could create an initiative called "stop killing animals", and you wouldn't be a dick, you'd just be another extremist vegetarian. It's not hard to see where vegetarians got the reputation from. If you tried to insist you hold a moral high ground without clearly explaining why you think something is wrong, and got angry that people don't agree with you, then you'd be a dick.

The whole point is getting people to agree to these morals, and its difficult due to how entrenched a lot of people are in their own heads or scriptures. But the fact that the initiative is pulling these kinds of numbers proves that it's not being a dick to ask for laws to back up customer rights that people feel are being violated.

As far as what you're saying here:

I'm fine with having more consumer protection and making it clear if a company is selling ownership or temporary access. Right now it's often not clear and that is definitely an issue. But completely making the sale of temporary access illegal is just strange.

I'm unsure of what you mean by 'temporary access'. Are you referring to the practice where corporations are trying to take advantage of selling licenses for games? Courts in the US have ruled that if you bought a license, you own that copy of the license as it typically took the form of a storage media- like a game cartridge or a DVD. The only difference in modern day is that computers and storage media are cheaper than ever, so laws haven't caught up with digital distribution.

Companies abuse this legal loophole by not damaging the 'license' for the game that you own, but by making the contents of the 'license' defunct and inoperable. That's a heavily legal gray zone, even back in the early 2000's, and the only reason they get away with it is because the average citizen doesn't have the income to dispute these obvious violations of consumer rights due to income disparity. They know that, and it emboldens them.

As far as this part:

If you dont agree to temporary access, then don't buy it. There are many games that are being sold DRM free, you own them completely, and they'll work forever. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy something they don't agree with.

I'm not sure if this is your honest thoughts, or put out there in good faith even. The argument 'just don't buy it' is reductive and fails to address the problem. It always has been, and always will be. It's the equivalent of 'just find a better job', 'just earn more money', or other bootstrap advice. The free market is incapable of policing itself. If your belief is that voting with your wallet is effective, that just shows how uneducated you truly are.

I'm looking at picking up the Kingdom Heats bundle, since it recently came to steam, I'm not sure of what else though.

Pretty sure divinity isn't a killstreak.

If they paid based on results, you'd be in sales. Everywhere else, you're a wage slave. On the hourly side, they try to wring every second of work they can out of you, and anything else is a 'loss'. It's the same for salaried employees, the measurement is just different. Instead of work efficiency, it's work hours. The rest is just politics.