The Sustainability debate


WildGPS

Recommended Posts

As I read more and more of this forum, I sense an interesting divide among the most passionate fans of The Long Dark. While late-game sustainability seems to be a hot topic in many threads, I haven’t come across one active thread dedicated to the issue.

Some fans want future updates to the game to allow for more sustainability in the late game. Such as the ability to craft whetstones, ability to cure meat, ability to craft clothes for all parts of the body, renewable source of fire-starting (bow-drill), etc. 

Others in the game feel that adding these aspects would wreck the fragile vulnerability that is the main theme of The Long Dark. While this argument may not be able to escape the fundamental disagreement of what The Long Dark should be, I wanted to start a thread where passionate fans can intelligently and civilly argue and counter-argue their rationale for what the final version of The Long Dark should look like regarding sustainability. 

Ideally, I would love to hear from Hinterland specifically giving the developers’ perspective on this issue as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I like the constant struggle early on, but as I start to get bored I imagine my character getting that way and looking to go find people since, by that time, no one has found my character.

example, in a new run I started in TWM, pretending I was part of the plane crash. I spawned and made my way to the cabin. Not much there and pretty beat up. I had suffered frostbite and a permanent 10%. :( Alas, I managed to survive, go up top, and all around for 50 days or so, nearing the 2 month mark on that mountain and thinking, it might be time to go find civilization since no rescue crew came for the plane......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Different people believe themselves to be set and ready to go once they find a rifle or the full kit of tools and weapons. I think that rather than have a mid-game 'lull', it would be better to instead, have new challenges present themselves that aren't initially there at the start. I.e. secondary disasters, more hostile wildlife (or npcs) brought about by resource exhaustion etc:

We partially already have this in the game with unpredictable weather and random item placement each game. These are things that shake things up mid game, so much that even if you are set up and ready to go, you can still get screwed over out of nowhere. I think that the balancing act needs to just be extended. Add food preservation and the like, but also have challenges that continue to test your ability to use those new means and tools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I would like to see this tackled would be to have injuries and conditions that you suffer throughout your game have a very small but permanent affect on your character's abilities to carry out basic tasks and functions. That way, the longer you survived, the more likely it would be for these effects to accumulate, gradually making it harder and harder to continue successfully surviving, but without having to arbitrarily impose worsening environmental conditions (weather, wildlife, resource availability) on the player at arbitrary time-points in order to maintain late-game challenge (this is something that's always struck me as being a slightly inelegant solution - early, mid and late-game, if that's how you define progress in TLD comes at different times for different players or play-styles).

In theory, if you kept your character out of trouble, didn't get injured or sick, didn't starve or get hypothermia, you would be able to live nigh-on forever. But this would be so difficult to achieve that there would almost always be a natural progression to the difficulty curve that was actually based on how you played and how successful you were (or weren't), rather than on blunt, unrelated restrictions imposed by the mechanics.

Then you could bring in as many long-term, craftable, recyclable survival tools and/or infinite natural resources as you wanted, but still have a counterbalance to it - as a part of the character's health mechanics. And it would make sense intuitively: in such a situation, a person probably would become gradually more and more worn out by the toil of lone, unassisted survival in a hostile environment like we have in TLD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's not really much in a human that can be directly affected by electromagnetism though. Unless you have a pacemaker or other medical implant in which case you're not going to be living to see the Long Dark if the storm was that severe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My long dark stories always play out exactly the same. When I start a new game, if I can survive the first couple of days, I tend to get very successful. This is where I run into problems. Not with boredom so much, as was suggested above, though that does happen too. No, my problems usually rear their head around the 50 day mark. That's when I've been successfully surviving. And then I get confident. Which, from my experience with TLD is exactly the same thing as overconfident. I'm a little less wary when walking through the woods. Less on the lookout for fluffies. Or I'm a little too brazen with navigating on cliffs. Or I'm convinced that I can definitely make that run from Trappers to Coastal Highway with just a couple of hours left in the day, because the weather is so clear and anyways I know the map pretty well. It's always something. But after over 1100 hours of gameplay, I can safely say that about 10% of my deaths are attributable to freak occurrences that have me screaming "B.S" at my computer, and the other 90% are attributable to sheer hubris. That's what keeps me coming back. I love a game that punishes hubris so absolutely. And yet it gets me every time. I guess this post doesn't have anything to do with sustainability, but it seemed appropriate.

 

As for sustainability, I like the OP's idea. As far as gameplay goes, I think we'll have to see where the Devs take the idea of sustainability once they implement seasons (if it ever happens.) My hope would be that while playing in the sandbox, they would program the game such that the seasons would progress in the sandbox. If so, some measure of long term sustainability would definitely have to accompany that feature. Otherwise the game would become unplayable. As with everything in TLD, we shall simply have to wait and see what the Devs have in store for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, WildGPS said:

As I read more and more of this forum, I sense an interesting divide among the most passionate fans of The Long Dark. While late-game sustainability seems to be a hot topic in many threads, I haven’t come across one active thread dedicated to the issue.

Look into this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hotzn said:

Look into this thread.

Thank you, @Hotzn There is some good conversation in that topic as well.  This issue is clearly one that has been on player's minds since the release of Alpha. My intent was to pull together all of these conversations that have happened throughout time in one place for all players, newbies and veterans, to discuss.

15 hours ago, CalNieDaGtarGuy said:

Afterwards, I tend to get bored once I feel safe.

@CalNieDaGtarGuy, I think a lot of people feel this way, even those that do want the possibility of long-term sustainability.  Personally, I like @Pillock's idea of avoidable, although hard to avoid, permanent damage afflictions.  That would certainly add some excitement at all phases of the game.

9 hours ago, MrNicoras said:

No, my problems usually rear their head around the 50 day mark.

Interesting that you called out that time frame as a marked change in play.  I know that you listed it as the time hubris kicks into high gear, but I believe, at least in Voyager mode, that is also about the time when the developers removed the player's protection from things like cabin fever. It is clear that developer's attempts to ramp up difficulty in the mid/late game are already working to some degree. Looking forward to see what they decide next. 

In my head, I was also thinking something similar to @MrNicoras regarding seasonality.  For instance, if the developers start the sandbox in late Spring, then Summer is nice and easy, Fall is more difficult, Winter is a beast, and if the player makes it through the Winter they are rewarded with a new set of saplings, reishi mushrooms, rose hips, maybe even a new map that is only accessible after the first thaw, etc...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, MrNicoras said:

I can safely say that about 10% of my deaths are attributable to freak occurrences that have me screaming "B.S" at my computer, and the other 90% are attributable to sheer hubris

100% agree... I made a lot of stupid things when I take the control...

I think that the only thing that would make the game playlable for ever, is that developer teams consider some way to change the landscape, maybe with seasons or more heavys storms that ruin houses and bridges, ruin roads, fishing shelters, where was a large lake, now are 100cm snow, maybe a sudden and violent shaking of the ground, I want to die not because I can´t start a fire, when Iam playing interloper, I get frustrating when I start a fire with matches, so I prefer not to go out, just because I don´t want to spend a match in a cave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think part of the issue is that the game's premise inevitably starts to lose salience/coherence after a certain period. Initially, Will Mackenzie is a grounded bush pilot struggling to come to terms with the fact that he's now stranded in the wilderness. This is the Castaway/Survivor Man stage. Everything is a threat, you have virtually no resources, and surviving more than a few more days seems unlikely. Three days prior you were sitting in a Northern Canadian bar, drinking whisky with the other patrons and thinking of your girl back in Vancouver. Now you're in the woods...wearing tennis shoes. The extent of the geomagnetic disaster isn't really made clear as far as I'm aware, but it seems reasonable that Will is probably focused, at least initially, on getting home. The devs could keep you in this mode if they wanted to. They could remove sewing kits, tools, etc. and force you to simply crawl the maps looting canned foods and random articles of clothing until you eventually exhausted the resources and expired, all the while searching hopelessly for a rescue party or a link back to civilisation. Now THAT is the hardcore you vs the wilderness survival experience! But that probably wouldn't encourage people to fire up a new game and try their hand at loot scavenging all over again knowing full well that their survival is ultimately capped at 20, 40, or 90 days due to the limited supply of canned food resources. Not to mention the knowledge that there is no goal, no hope of rescue or indefinite survival. A compelling display of the fragility of the human in the face of mother nature at her most unforgiving, sure. But unlikely to offer much replayability.

Instead, they give you the opportunity to improve your situation. You gain tools, craft clothing, learn to hunt, etc. But even after finding a hatchet and a knife, maybe even a rifle, Will's mind still has to be on getting rescued or somehow finding other people, right? He doesn't just resign himself to the wilderness after 10 days of walking around. (this reminds me of Bear Grylls drinking his own urine after being out in the bush for all of four hours...desperation!). So even after a couple weeks, after some basic tools have been found and some rudimentary survival skills attained, the story is still one of "oh shit, I need to find help and get out of here"!

But after 100 days, with Will now wearing a full outfit of wolf and deer hides and able to snipe a buck at 50m with a handmade bow, the story's implied objective has subtly shifted. No one's coming. There is no rescue party, and you're going to live for the rest of your miserable life in this frozen wilderness. Well then, at this stage I think it makes sense for the game to adopt some of the more cliched survival game tropes, and allow the player to begin to build a new life for himself out here in the bush. After all, if you can gather and cure maple saplings and guts, and craft them into a deadly bow/arrow, then I think the suspension of disbelief could also allow you to build some snow storage for your meat, a rack to cure hides, a sled to allow movement across the map, allow the crafting of all clothing items, allow the use of a fire-drill when the matches run out, etc.

My personal favorite part of the game is when I've just got a decent outfit established, I'm finally armed with a bow and a quiver of arrows, and I can go out in search of proper game. The hunting, fire building, harvesting, skinning, cooking gameplay I find very rewarding. Rare animals, randomized spawns, and smarter AI for the predators could all extend the freshness of this gameplay and stave off the 50+ day rinse/repeat that most advanced players inevitably fall into. Come to think of it, in some ways, the late game (after much of the man-made resources have been exhausted) begins to feel like a "frontier homesteading" game, or a "rebuild after the apocalypse (no zombies)" game. Perhaps that's ultimately what I want, which may not be what Hinterland has in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see injuries from using tools, especially edged tools. Every time you hack up a branch with an axe, or havest a carcass with a knife, there's a risk of injury. Even popping-open a locker with a prybar should carry some risk. When your condition is good, this risk should be miniscule, but the likelihood should ramp up fast when very tired or cold (probably when suffering condition loss from hungry and thirst too). The likelihood should be higher for low condition (blunt) tools and reduced with high relevant skill. Mostly, such injuries would be a laceration requiring some basic first aid, but occassionally you lose a finger (permanent condition loss) - this severity risk might increase with tool condition (sharpness) and cold/tired states.

These small, and potentially cumulative, incidents add an element of risk in the mid to longer terms as well as a trade-off between doing less and being safe, and pushing the boundaries of human endurance to achieve more.

Adding a voice-cue to near misses will highlight the danger to players. For example, if there's a 1% chance of mishap and the RNG comes up with a 3, then a voice-cue saying, "Man, I could have had my finger off with that thing; I need to be more careful".

Thoughts?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never understood the "wanting to live indefinitely" argument. One of the biggest issues one would have if they were left alone in the world is the will to survive. Particularly if it were in such harsh conditions. Everyday you look out it's more of the same. Wolves want to eat you, weather wants to kill you and the elation of simply starting a fire gets you through the night. Even if your base was a fully stocked supermarket on an island paradise, boredom, loneliness and a lack of hope would take a severe toll.

 

After a couple of months game time, our hero must have come to the realization he is alone in the world and would start questioning whether the struggle is worth it.

 

If they added npc's to the game and the struggle was to find civilization, at least there is an end game. As it is, you get to a certain point in the game and you think "should I continue" as it is the answer is "why". So I start over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-04-19 at 10:57 PM, CalNieDaGtarGuy said:

In honesty, I prefer the first few days of the game in which there is a constant struggle. Afterwards, I tend to get bored once I feel safe.

I also prefer the first days above late game but we still have exploration and that's not 100% safe and that's what makes it fun 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A big thank you to everyone who has chimed in on this issue.  So, what I'm mostly hearing is that the main complaint against late-game sustainability is not so much that it would break the theme of isolation and vulnerability.  The main issue is more of a "where's the next challenge?" element and inevitable boredom that follows. If that is the case, that gives me significant hope that the developers can balance the benefits that come from more renewable resources with challenges that only present themselves 50, 100 or even 200 days into a game. Am I understanding the issue completely, or are there more sides to consider this from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎4‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 11:09 AM, WildGPS said:

 

Some fans want future updates to the game to allow for more sustainability in the late game. Such as the ability to craft whetstones, ability to cure meat, ability to craft clothes for all parts of the body, renewable source of fire-starting (bow-drill), etc. 

Others in the game feel that adding these aspects would wreck the fragile vulnerability that is the main theme of The Long Dark.

Are you kidding me? Curing meat can go horribly wrong and you can lose the entire batch. Try canning, one little error, and your entire batch of canned food can end up killing you should you consume it. With a season cycle in the works, it would make sense to have renewable resources, and just because you can create something doesn't mean it won't wind up breaking on accident, and if it is something that relies heavily on the seasonal availability of something, (for instance, saplings) then you break one particular item and if you don't have a backup you're out of luck and possibly dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/22/2017 at 10:23 AM, WildGPS said:

A big thank you to everyone who has chimed in on this issue.  So, what I'm mostly hearing is that the main complaint against late-game sustainability is not so much that it would break the theme of isolation and vulnerability.  The main issue is more of a "where's the next challenge?" element and inevitable boredom that follows. If that is the case, that gives me significant hope that the developers can balance the benefits that come from more renewable resources with challenges that only present themselves 50, 100 or even 200 days into a game. Am I understanding the issue completely, or are there more sides to consider this from?

While I do admit that the late game, and the game overall can use some more material gameplay, I myself, and many others, have enough of a hard time already reaching over 50 days. If sustainability could be implemented through different means, then we could solve the problem of actually not being able to survive as long as we should be (aka more than 50 days). 

34 minutes ago, Erkkipappers said:

I think when NPC are addet to game you should me able to trade with them.

In Story Mode I'm expecting this to happen; not to trade, but to actually act with them and do certain actions such as backstabbing, socializing etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, CalNieDaGtarGuy said:

I think trading would make it far too Minecraft-y. It needs to be more of a societal thing. @EricTheGreat12 had the idea I was thinking of. In a real life survival situation, you wouldn't trade so much as share or steal.

PAHAHAHAHA ...... no

You have very little idea about how actual human psychology works, do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.