550 Days in.... Now what? Abandon everything for Adventure mode?

[[EXDr] Frank]

So I played Don't Starve on and off for the last five years, never really making it past day 100 or so...

...But a few weeks back I decided I was going to make a serious attempt to, well... not starve and so a few weeks later, I am currently on Day 550.

I have pretty much crafted everything you can craft and explored everything on the surface. I have explored maybe about half the caves and just found the ruins.

Here's the thing: I can't bring myself to play it anymore. I booted it up yesterday and was so bored I turned it off 10 minutes later.

I mean, I did it. I didn't starve. I have created massive pigmen towns and even started to lay down a road network, I have great Armor and double meat effigies, I have piles of traps so thick that they kill anything that manages to get halfway through them, Hellhound attacks have gone from terrifying to minor inconvenience, I have camps everywhere (but no real "house") ..... but I just started thinking... why? What's the point?

I did a bit of reading and I saw that there is no end to survival mode. You will inevitably eventually make a mistake and die if you play long enough.

However there is this thing called "Adventure Mode" (or so I read, that's that point of that strange Maxwell's door thing). BUT as I understand it, you take NOTHING with you when you start adventure mode.

Once in adventure mode, you can apparently bring 4 items (I am guessing 16 if you bundle them up) between the 5 adventure mode worlds.

However, ALL the stuff I have done in survival mode does and will mean nothing in adventure mode right? I can't even bring one weapon and one piece of armor with me, right?

This feels like it wasn't thought out very well in terms of game design (I am guessing "Adventure Mode" was tacked on to the game after people complained there was no real ending or "story" to the original game) as you could play for hundreds and hundreds of days and then if you want to actually "finish" the game at some point, ALL of that means nothing. You might as well have just gone through the door as soon as you found it.

Am I missing something?

The only thing really keeping me going at this point is 1) that when I eventually do die, I will probably unlock everything and 2) I haven't turned on any of the DLC content yet and 3) I don't have any MODS turned on for this long run and am tempted to try them out in the future again. 4) I still haven't a) seen the ruins or b) rode any animal

I am conflicted, because I know from past experience that if I take a break and don't play this for a few months, I will forget where everything is and probably die shortly after trying to restart this playthrough.

Anyways, I see some of you guys have 10k hours and thousands of days, so I thought I would ask you all how you handled getting bored. Any feedback is appreciated.

p.s. Also, why did I have to watch some random (but very cool) video on YouTube to understand the "story" of don't starve... why doesn't that thing play at the start like with every other game lol?

(and is there another video I should watch to understand some more about what the hell is actually happening in the game, or would that spoil it? Does it become clear at some point in the game itself?)

p.p.s. Is Don't Starve Together also just a sandbox that goes forever? Or is there a story / adventure mode for that too?

[John]

I'd say, just go for adventure mode with a new character, you will start over in adventure mode anyway. You can bring along some items during adventure though, just not from survival into adventure.

For how to start adventure?, just make a game, change seasons into autumn only, daylight only, small map, no bosses, no hounds, find the items, go into adventure, no hassle. Then play adventure normally, do try and find Wes, check online how to find him, it's kind of annoying to find him but if you wanna "finish" the game by having all characters it's kind of an objective.

[[EXDr] Frank]

Originally posted by John:

I'd say, just go for adventure mode with a new character, you will start over in adventure mode anyway. You can bring along some items during adventure though, just not from survival into adventure.

For how to start adventure?, just make a game, change seasons into autumn only, daylight only, small map, no bosses, no hounds, find the items, go into adventure, no hassle. Then play adventure normally, do try and find Wes, check online how to find him, it's kind of annoying to find him but if you wanna "finish" the game by having all characters it's kind of an objective.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I am not sure I have the patience to build up things all over again.... I think the problem is that in reality, I "won" the game already.

It just keeps going....

[rdbury]

Originally posted by Frank:

...
Thanks for the suggestion, but I am not sure I have the patience to build up things all over again.... I think the problem is that in reality, I "won" the game already.

It just keeps going....

The game is meant to be played over and over. The worlds are randomly generated and you'd have to play many times to see everything that might appear. And each character has different strengths, weaknesses and quirks, so you have to switch up your tactics depending on which one you're playing. I guess the game does require some patience and a certain willingness to not get attached to the progress you've already made. If you stop exploring and taking risks then the game does get repetitive, but I think you can say that about any game.

[[EXDr] Frank]

Originally posted by rdbury:

Originally posted by Frank:

...
Thanks for the suggestion, but I am not sure I have the patience to build up things all over again.... I think the problem is that in reality, I "won" the game already.

It just keeps going....

The game is meant to be played over and over. The worlds are randomly generated and you'd have to play many times to see everything that might appear. And each character has different strengths, weaknesses and quirks, so you have to switch up your tactics depending on which one you're playing. I guess the game does require some patience and a certain willingness to not get attached to the progress you've already made. If you stop exploring and taking risks then the game does get repetitive, but I think you can say that about any game.

Yea, ok, but it still needs an "end" -- other than me just dying. I mean, that's why they tacked on "adventure" mode, right?

[John]

Well, adventure mode is not meant to be played like survival. You can do some proper prep work for the next adventure map, but the whole deal with it is to go from one adventure map to the other until you completed adventure mode. That will probably take several tries, but might be worth it. After all these years i completed it somewhat over a month ago, was worth it.

[Koodah]

Running out of things to do in vanilla don't starve is an excellent time to try the dlc and/or adventure mode. The only reason I have over 350 hours in DS is because I switched over to play the dlcs and adventure mode when vanilla DS started to get boring. Currently I'm trying to learn the ropes with both Shipwrecked and Hamlet and once I've done that, I'm planning a long term game - play at least a year in RoG, world hop to Shipwrecked, play another year there, and then ditto with Hamlet. I also still haven't made it further than world 5 in adventure mode yet but I plan to one day to complete that too.

Personally I find vanilla DS starts to get too boring/repetitive after about 100 - 150 days. I'm always amazed when people are still playing a world for hundreds or thousands of days (without world hopping) and I often wonder how they don't get bored... Klei have outright said that the original design philosophy for don't starve took a lot of inspiration from roguelike games and the core gameplay loop is designed around permadeath & starting over. If this kind of thing isn't your jam, that's fine but this is essentially what the game was designed to be. It wasn't designed to be the kind of game that has a clear end point.

Adventure mode was designed to be a challenge to the survival skills of experienced players, an opportunity to prove that you can not only survive starting over but that you can survive that in an even harsher series of worlds. It does include an epilogue but it's a super minor part of the game imo. If you don't fancy trying to beat adventure mode you can just look up the epilogue on the wiki or youtube.

Also it's not entirely clear from your post but are you aware that entering Maxwell's door to adventure mode doesn't mean that you lose your massive base and everything you've done in survival mode...? Yes, you do start in adventure mode with absolutely nothing - however whenever you die in adventure mode, you will respawn outside Maxwell's door in your ongoing survival mode world. Everything in your survival mode world will be exactly as you had left it and you can just return to playing survival mode where you left off or you can hop straight back in the door for another shot at adventure mode.

If you manage to successfully complete adventure mode, there may be one change when you get back to survival mode (which can be "undone" by successfully completing adventure mode again) but everything else in your survival mode world will be exactly the same as you left it. If you want to be spoiled on adventure mode, this wiki page (and the linked adventure mode guide on that page) is comprehensive - https://dontstarve.wiki.gg/wiki/Adventure_Mode

I'd definitely recommend jumping into adventure mode or playing a new save with one or more of the dlc. They're a big shake up from what you're used to and very worth playing imo - adventure mode is definitely the challenge it was intended to be, RoG is vanilla DS on steroids, and both Shipwrecked or Hamlet are almost like playing a completely new game. And either way, this game can stay paused while you do so and you'll be able to come back to playing it again later, if you want to.

[[EXDr] Frank]

Originally posted by Koodah:

Running out of things to do in vanilla don't starve is an excellent time to try the dlc and/or adventure mode. The only reason I have over 350 hours in DS is because I switched over to play the dlcs and adventure mode when vanilla DS started to get boring. Currently I'm trying to learn the ropes with both Shipwrecked and Hamlet and once I've done that, I'm planning a long term game - play at least a year in RoG, world hop to Shipwrecked, play another year there, and then ditto with Hamlet. I also still haven't made it further than world 5 in adventure mode yet but I plan to one day to complete that too.

Personally I find vanilla DS starts to get too boring/repetitive after about 100 - 150 days. I'm always amazed when people are still playing a world for hundreds or thousands of days (without world hopping) and I often wonder how they don't get bored... Klei have outright said that the original design philosophy for don't starve took a lot of inspiration from roguelike games and the core gameplay loop is designed around permadeath & starting over. If this kind of thing isn't your jam, that's fine but this is essentially what the game was designed to be. It wasn't designed to be the kind of game that has a clear end point.

Adventure mode was designed to be a challenge to the survival skills of experienced players, an opportunity to prove that you can not only survive starting over but that you can survive that in an even harsher series of worlds. It does include an epilogue but it's a super minor part of the game imo. If you don't fancy trying to beat adventure mode you can just look up the epilogue on the wiki or youtube.

Also it's not entirely clear from your post but are you aware that entering Maxwell's door to adventure mode doesn't mean that you lose your massive base and everything you've done in survival mode...? Yes, you do start in adventure mode with absolutely nothing - however whenever you die in adventure mode, you will respawn outside Maxwell's door in your ongoing survival mode world. Everything in your survival mode world will be exactly as you had left it and you can just return to playing survival mode where you left off or you can hop straight back in the door for another shot at adventure mode.

If you manage to successfully complete adventure mode, there may be one change when you get back to survival mode (which can be "undone" by successfully completing adventure mode again) but everything else in your survival mode world will be exactly the same as you left it. If you want to be spoiled on adventure mode, this wiki page (and the linked adventure mode guide on that page) is comprehensive - https://dontstarve.wiki.gg/wiki/Adventure_Mode

I'd definitely recommend jumping into adventure mode or playing a new save with one or more of the dlc. They're a big shake up from what you're used to and very worth playing imo - adventure mode is definitely the challenge it was intended to be, RoG is vanilla DS on steroids, and both Shipwrecked or Hamlet are almost like playing a completely new game. And either way, this game can stay paused while you do so and you'll be able to come back to playing it again later, if you want to.

Thanks for the detailed reply, it has given me a bit to think about. The thing is, I haven't even explored all of the caves (and haven't even started on the ruins) so there is still stuff to do. I know that if I die, there is no way I am going through all the BS of getting up and running for the first 100 days. So yea, I just kinda hang out in limbo with my safe day 500 character, with no desire or motivation to play anymore.

Do you think I should completely explore the caves and ruins before going into Adventure mode? Or will the experiences there help very little in adventure mode?

There is zero connection between adventure mode and survival mode. Nothing. I can't even bring a weapon with me. It might as well be an option in the menu as opposed to a door you find in the woods.

This disconnect is the main problem for me. I just can't motivate myself to open the door when it kinda feels like I already "won."

I would take issue with one thing you suggested, and that is that rogue-likes with perma-death can't have a clear end-point.

FTL and Everspace are both great roguelikes with permadeath (both very different in implementation), but they have a VERY clear structure and story start and end that keeps things moving along.

Another good example would be Rimworld. It has EVERYTHING you could want in a sandbox, feels endlessly re-playable and yet the fact that there is this distant goal of getting your shipwrecked survivors off the world really moves the game along...

It still manages to be a story. DS screws that up I think. And I am not sure why, because it doesn't seem hard to think that people would want to escape this nightmare world so ideally a door in the woods would lead back to the real world, not some new game mode.

I think you are mixing up two different subgenres: sandbox and rogue-like with perma-death.

Not having an ending (in games as well as film and literature) is often times explained away by "letting you decide what happened" or some artistic nonsense... But with a very few notable exceptions, I can't shake the feeling that the writers just got lazy, ran out of ideas/time and/or never finished the story for other reasons external to the game/film/book.

So yea, basically, in a nutshell: I think Don't Starve is an amazing game that is kept out of the top 100 of all time classics for the reason that it doesn't tell a compelling story to keep you engaged when things get a bit grindy or boring in the sandbox...

I watched the trailer online and it explained more to me about the whole DS universe than I had learned in the previous 100 hours of DS. That feels like a screw-up to me. That feels like a game with a rich story and lore that never gets around to telling it...

Kinda feels to me like there should a DS main game which is a mix of Survival and Adventure, and once you beat that you get the option of playing hardcore endless survival mode and people can compare their days on some multiplayer ranking or whatever.... It is exactly that mode on most games that I never bother playing because it seems to make more sense to try out a new game with that time instead.

Yea, that's it. Thinking out loud helped me figure it out. Basically a more fleshed out version of Adventure mode with story elements should be the actual game and the survival mode should be an extra. That's what doesn't feel right.

Anyways, the issue is that I have limited time to game. And when I still have 2,000 plus games sitting unopenedin my library (some of them considered to be some of the best games of all time, aka top 100 classics), it is very hard for me to convince myself to play another week of DS when I could play and finish Dues Ex or Titanfall 2 in that time...

...So yea. thanks for the info, but I am still unsure... I will probably forget about it for a year, forget how to play, then load up my Day 500 game and die immediately, rage quit and never play again because I won't want to do all the start-up stuff again... :-)

Or MAYBE I will play with the DLC. Unsure, the new monsters sound cool but I think these kinds of games often over-complicate an already good balance with DLCs... I am not sure if managing wetness and heat is going to be more fun or just more "work."

p.s. Yes, DST is different and feels endlessly re-playable in a way that Don't Starve does not I think because it is a multiplayer game and the other person adds in an element of uncertainty that always keeps things fresh.

[rdbury]

FWIW I just passed 1100 days in my current playthrough on vanilla and I haven't even entered the caves yet. And yes, that's glacially slow but somehow I still find things to do. I know what you mean about not wanting to risk losing your current progress by exploring new territory. I've got my farms set up the way I want, bee boxes well placed, a few pretty much continuous sources of food (though not as much in winter), and I've got a half dozen or so trap farms scattered around to deal with hound attacks. So I think I have a lot to lose if start playing around with caves and new worlds etc. But if it's a choice between risking what I have by exploring new areas and giving up because the game is getting repetitive then I'll choose to risk it. Anyway, I think there's something to be said for starting over from scratch every so often. Each map is different with different challenges and new territory to explore. Plus playing is just a lot more relaxed when you already know how to deal with most of the danger. Who would have thought DS would be a good way to unwind after playing a more stressful game, but that's kind of what it is for me now.

[[EXDr] Frank]

I hear ya man... To really make my point, since my last post 24 hours ago, I started playing the Titanfall 2 campaign and it was amazing and fun. And its already like halfway over. And that is precisely why I probably won't play DS for a long time, if at all.

Its not like its a choice of repetitive DS or nothing. Its the choice between that and some of the best games ever made.

At the rate I am going, I am probably only going to finish about another 200 games or so in my life. I am just trying to find the ones to play that I will get the most out of.

This is all becoming quite philosophical lol...

[Koodah]

Originally posted by Frank:

Thanks for the detailed reply, it has given me a bit to think about. The thing is, I haven't even explored all of the caves (and haven't even started on the ruins) so there is still stuff to do. I know that if I die, there is no way I am going through all the BS of getting up and running for the first 100 days. So yea, I just kinda hang out in limbo with my safe day 500 character, with no desire or motivation to play anymore.

Do you think I should completely explore the caves and ruins before going into Adventure mode? Or will the experiences there help very little in adventure mode?

There is zero connection between adventure mode and survival mode. Nothing. I can't even bring a weapon with me. It might as well be an option in the menu as opposed to a door you find in the woods.

This disconnect is the main problem for me. I just can't motivate myself to open the door when it kinda feels like I already "won."

I would take issue with one thing you suggested, and that is that rogue-likes with perma-death can't have a clear end-point.

FTL and Everspace are both great roguelikes with permadeath (both very different in implementation), but they have a VERY clear structure and story start and end that keeps things moving along.

Another good example would be Rimworld. It has EVERYTHING you could want in a sandbox, feels endlessly re-playable and yet the fact that there is this distant goal of getting your shipwrecked survivors off the world really moves the game along...

It still manages to be a story. DS screws that up I think. And I am not sure why, because it doesn't seem hard to think that people would want to escape this nightmare world so ideally a door in the woods would lead back to the real world, not some new game mode.

I think you are mixing up two different subgenres: sandbox and rogue-like with perma-death.

Not having an ending (in games as well as film and literature) is often times explained away by "letting you decide what happened" or some artistic nonsense... But with a very few notable exceptions, I can't shake the feeling that the writers just got lazy, ran out of ideas/time and/or never finished the story for other reasons external to the game/film/book.

So yea, basically, in a nutshell: I think Don't Starve is an amazing game that is kept out of the top 100 of all time classics for the reason that it doesn't tell a compelling story to keep you engaged when things get a bit grindy or boring in the sandbox...

I watched the trailer online and it explained more to me about the whole DS universe than I had learned in the previous 100 hours of DS. That feels like a screw-up to me. That feels like a game with a rich story and lore that never gets around to telling it...

Kinda feels to me like there should a DS main game which is a mix of Survival and Adventure, and once you beat that you get the option of playing hardcore endless survival mode and people can compare their days on some multiplayer ranking or whatever.... It is exactly that mode on most games that I never bother playing because it seems to make more sense to try out a new game with that time instead.

Yea, that's it. Thinking out loud helped me figure it out. Basically a more fleshed out version of Adventure mode with story elements should be the actual game and the survival mode should be an extra. That's what doesn't feel right.

Anyways, the issue is that I have limited time to game. And when I still have 2,000 plus games sitting unopenedin my library (some of them considered to be some of the best games of all time, aka top 100 classics), it is very hard for me to convince myself to play another week of DS when I could play and finish Dues Ex or Titanfall 2 in that time...

...So yea. thanks for the info, but I am still unsure... I will probably forget about it for a year, forget how to play, then load up my Day 500 game and die immediately, rage quit and never play again because I won't want to do all the start-up stuff again... :-)

Or MAYBE I will play with the DLC. Unsure, the new monsters sound cool but I think these kinds of games often over-complicate an already good balance with DLCs... I am not sure if managing wetness and heat is going to be more fun or just more "work."

p.s. Yes, DST is different and feels endlessly re-playable in a way that Don't Starve does not I think because it is a multiplayer game and the other person adds in an element of uncertainty that always keeps things fresh.

There are no caves or ruins in adventure mode, so getting used to them wouldn't help you in adventure mode. Also a more fleshed out version of adventure mode wouldn't work for the actual game - adventure mode is way, way harder than survival mode. So many people would just give up entirely on the game after a few attempts. That's why adventure mode is essentially optional so that experienced players can take on the challenge if they want to but no one has to do it. (Storywise it's very minimal, as is the rest of DS storywise). I've attempted adventure mode at least 15 times, most of those times didn't get past world 1.

Also I don't actually play roguelikes much - I was just telling you what Klei has said in interviews about designing this game and their intentions for it. I actually own FTL and a few other games that have been described as roguelike but didn't really get into any them when I tried them.

Personally I think you're missing out on around 3/4 of the game by only playing vanilla DS and not even trying the rest of it. It seems to me like you're hung up about your idea of what you think DS should be instead of taking the game for what it actually is. Also you've now realised that your gaming preferences lie elsewhere such as with games that have better story immersion (story definitely isn't DS's strong point!), so that's cool. I'm definitely in favour of switching games if you're no longer feeling into it - I did that earlier this year, I still want to go back to that other game someday but not as much as I want to spend my limited gaming time on DS Shipwrecked & Hamlet.

You asked this forum how other people are playing Don't Starve for so long without getting bored and I explained it from my perspective. People who are out there playing thousands of days with just vanilla DS & no dlcs, well I confess I don't fully understand that either. (DS wouldn't be my choice of chill game but I can kind of see how it could possibly turn into that for someone). From what I've seen in the Don't Starve subreddit, the vast majority long term megabasers are either playing with all of the dlcs or they're playing DST. People playing vanilla DS only are a pretty small minority of the players these days.

DST is also a sandbox with no real ending (other than whatever goals you set for yourself) and lacking in story immersion, so it probably wouldn't be your kind of thing either. Klei updates DST with new content and reworks playable characters in it from time to time which helps it to hold people's attention but it's still missing the stuff that's important to you, I think.

[[EXDr] Frank]

Originally posted by Koodah:

DST is also a sandbox with no real ending (other than whatever goals you set for yourself) and lacking in story immersion, so it probably wouldn't be your kind of thing either. Klei updates DST with new content and reworks playable characters in it from time to time which helps it to hold people's attention but it's still missing the stuff that's important to you, I think.

Yes, I think it was a good idea to talk through all this, helps me focus my limited gaming time more efficiently. Thanks for the productive chat.

I understand of course that I can't change DS (nor should I) but I think talking about the things I would change help me realize why I am enjoying it less as time goes on.

Sounds like I might as well just give Adventure mode a try before taking a break... and then maybe playing a new game with all the DLC a year later...

[JimmyT]

I agree that it was a mistake to make Adventure Mode something completely separate from Survival Mode despite only being accessible from a Survival Mode world. It would have been better if Adventure Mode was an ultimate challenge that you had to prepare for from Survival Mode. At least I think the teleportato pieces should have been necessary to unlock Maxwell's Portal. Adventure Mode does not feel like a final challenge, it feels like a side mode.

[[EXDr] Frank]

Exactly. Yea, I mean, they could have just had the door lead to one final tough world (Maybe you are in the same place as this Maxwell fellow for that world) where you could use the skills from the first world AND at least a couple items to survive long enough to collect the 4 pieces of a machine, which, once assembled, builds a door that takes you home. End of game, roll cool credits that finally explain the whole story and what happened... UNLESS you click on "keep playing" in which case you can return to your now two-connected worlds to tie up any loose ends (essentially continuing survival mode as long as you want). OR SOMETHING like that.

I am surprised no one has made a mod a bit like this.

[Zilkenian Davenport]

I don't know if someone mentioned this, because the posts here are very long (and I'm sure full of interesting information, it's just that I just woke up, sorry), but you could also find all the things in the world (box thing, potato, the levers, the ring...) and make the Maxwell's head.

In the adventure mode, that sends you to the next level, but in normal mode, it sends you to a new world, with a character of your choice, but with all the skills you've already learned, as well as any items you want to bring with you.

I've restarted worlds this way many times once they got stale.

[[EXDr] Frank]

Originally posted by Zilkenian Davenport:

I don't know if someone mentioned this, because the posts here are very long (and I'm sure full of interesting information, it's just that I just woke up, sorry), but you could also find all the things in the world (box thing, potato, the levers, the ring...) and make the Maxwell's head.

In the adventure mode, that sends you to the next level, but in normal mode, it sends you to a new world, with a character of your choice, but with all the skills you've already learned, as well as any items you want to bring with you.

I've restarted worlds this way many times once they got stale.

Yea I was thinking about doing this but honestly I'm just don't feel like re-creating my whole systems of bases.

Okay, here's the real issue. I won the game. I survived for a long time and did/found pretty all the important stuff. But the game doesn't actually end. Its over, but it isn't. it's like in Civilization when you win the game says: "DO you want to keep playing?" EVEN after the game is done.

honestly I think it's just kinda bad game design. Which sucks, because most of the game is great.