Why does everyone hate Starbound?

[TheKid]

[Ad Bot]

[McZealot]

I know I'm late for this but:Overwatch hasn't added any "pointless garbage", Ana is a good character and the game lacked supports. That's pretty much the most major addition, other than that that I don't see how the game is shallow to begin with.

After playing Starbound for 24 hours or so on steam I feel like I didn't get my moneys worth highly due to the fact that the game costs more than Terraria, advertises more content than Terraria and in my opinion it makes it look like a competitor or a replacements of sort to Terraria, and that's the expectations I had going into the game. In the hours I played I didn't feel like I was playing anything new, and that was my major problem with the game. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely adore the lighting system and the style of the game is spectacular, but honestly I just feel like they were doing all of the wrong things with the game. I didn't even have much motivation to try with many bosses either, highly due to the game (in my opinion) not seeming to welcoming or as simple as it was to fight a boss in Terraria. Also, I was really put off from the intro of Starbound because I really didn't like the whole quests thing, again this was when I played in early access where you couldn't skip any of it, but it really set me off from the game honestly.

I have almost 300 hours in Terraria and that's what I love about it, you feel progression in the game even when things are getting harder and that's something I didn't feel with Starbound, I played it like it was an exploration heavy game and it didn't really carry much content that way. Heck, I don't even know the objective for the game if there is any.

Unrelated but god now that I think of it Terraria had some incredible updates compared to Starbound, and when that massive update came out in like 2014 it added so much content and the gameplay was absolutely amazing. I played Starbound almost all of June through the start of July and I was not remotely bored with it because of how much there was to do and how much of a difference expert mode made.yeah true, I hit post too soon because I was adding onto my post

wait what that wasn't even related to your point
also you're very wrong and they're an AAA company so I'm not sure why you've brought it up

in fact your original point was only slightly related to the topic since you talked about another indie game dev

I'm confused now

I don't own Starbound so I can't say anything about the game. All I know is that the game was apparently disappointing because it of the development and it could've been more than it was in the end and blah blah. Either way now they've released the 1.0 'Full Release' and I guess it's much better now because everybody's loving playing it now.Overwatch isn't even a good example if you want to talk about 'adding pointless garbage'. Over the past 2 months they've been balancing the game, adding fixes, and added in a new hero in. Looking at the type of game OW is I'm positive in the future they'll be adding in new maps and gamemodes along with new cosmetics as well.

How can you have such persistently bad opinions?

This is probably a discussion for another topic. Basically the game does this neat little trick where it makes the water super muddy so you can't tell if its shallow or not or even when you've hit the bottom.

what?????????? overwatch is a competitive multiplayer game and you're calling it "short" like its supposed to have some sort of campaign

also they added a new freaking character what else do you want out of it

LMAO, Overwatch. I meant Overgrowth, the early access ninja-bunny game from 2008 that is still in development.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/25000/

When I said "adding cool props" I literally meant that most of their dev work has been adding props and decals for a mission editor while the main game remains shallow.

wait what that wasn't even related to your point
also you're very wrong and they're an AAA company so I'm not sure why you've brought it up

in fact your original point was only slightly related to the topic since you talked about another indie game dev

I'm confused now

I was semi-responding to Sir Dooble's post about the problems with the Starbound devs, and showing a comparison between 2 examples of good and bad slow development.

[kongo]

Starbound's music is extremely well made and sets a great atmosphere and emotion when it plays, it's just un-explainable, it's just incredible

i've never heard the western battle music in-game so i have to say even the music let me down

[Clownfish]

i like how novakids are barely in the loving game they're just a player race and ship and that's loving it forget you

[gr8dayseth]

oh wow lol
but man I forgot overgrowth was a thing

[Remurr]

i've never heard the western battle music in-game so i have to say even the music let me down

it's only in the gladiator missions :(

[SimpleFish]

but man I forgot overgrowth was a thing

[Maxwell.]

i like how novakids are barely in the loving game they're just a player race and ship and that's loving it forget you

weren't they a stretch goal

[McZealot]

oh wow lol
but man I forgot overgrowth was a thing

yea i was really confused to see 3 paragraph rants about the quality of overgrowth. i was like "wtf i didn't know people still played that game" so i went to google it to see what year it came out and pulled up the overwatch site. whoops

[Landmineman4000²]

i like how novakids are barely in the loving game they're just a player race and ship and that's loving it forget you

They could put space trains in the game and house them there
But that's to much effort, knowing how they removed the racially unique S.A.I.L because it was to much work to write all those 20 lines of text in 7 different personalities

[sir dooble]

I completely disagree.

There's nothing saying people can't make simulators or interactive experiences. I disagree that they truly fall under the label of "games" and meet the requirements of such. While they can be fun, they lack very specific qualities which we've known for the longest time are required to properly teach people something, and the very nature of games means that they're required to teach people how to do something. Whether you recognise it or not, you've never not played a true game that has taught you a skill or concept and got you to practice, demonstrate and "grok" it.

If you enjoy these types of "games", then that's just fine and more the power to you, but they only represent technical innovation, not design innovation.

I just think you overthink the concept of a game. It doesn't need to teach or have an ultimate goal to be a game.
You gave some non-digital games to illustrate your point earlier, but there are others that I believe debunk it, such as 'Duck Duck Goose', 'Ouija Board', 'Chinese Whispers' or 'Tag', which have no end goal, no learning to win, no progress, or even an ending.
Yet these are still games. Their only ultimate goal is to be fun, and that's what constitutes a game. An interactive experience designed to entertain. Whether it's a video game, a sport, a cardgame, a kids game or a parlour game.

I think that perhaps you're hung up on a textbook definition or something your uni lecturers said.
But your definition of what constitutes a game doesn't match the consensus of the general public.
'Game' is fine being a vague term and doesn't need to be split up. That's why we have genres to distinguish the variety of things under the 'game' umbrella.

[otto-san]

I completely disagree.

There's nothing saying people can't make simulators or interactive experiences. I disagree that they truly fall under the label of "games" and meet the requirements of such. While they can be fun, they lack very specific qualities which we've known for the longest time are required to properly teach people something, and the very nature of games means that they're required to teach people how to do something. Whether you recognise it or not, you've never not played a true game that has taught you a skill or concept and got you to practice, demonstrate and "grok" it.

If you enjoy these types of "games", then that's just fine and more the power to you, but they only represent technical innovation, not design innovation.

how loosely are you defining "skill" here? every game has to teach the player its mechanics, and starbound, minecraft, etc. all do this to some degree (minecraft sucks at it but it still does it) and rely on teaching the player how to explore their world, the basic means of progression, how to avoid threats, etc. the combat in starbound and terraria is at least as deep as any action RPG, and what else would you be mastering in those?

and i would disagree that these games have made no design innovations. minecraft in particular implemented procedural generation into its design in a way that has had a massive influence on other games. this isn't just a pretty new neat feature that wasn't possible before, it would not be the same game without it, it's fundamental to its game design. when you say "technical innovation" i would assume you were talking about superficial graphical or software experiments that don't improve or hurt gameplay necessarily, not major aspects of their design

[McZealot]

apparantly Dungeons & Dragons isn't a game. whoops

[bestguy22]

what is Starbound?

[Satan From Wreck-It-Ralph]

oh my god starbound is so mind numbingly boring
i was told its better than it used to be
but its not
its even worse