Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
548 
Denunciar este mensaje
Try the steps here, see if any of them help you. Sometimes Steam screws up the installation of the dependencies.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2991669138
The idea is: People who don't like Achievements already bought the game, if they add it new people would then buy it, it's counterintuitive and somehow "childish" of them not to add it.
It's just an opinion, but there's a bunch of people who only buy games with such important features, mainly because it would give them a thousand reasons to play and that there's not much difference between a pirated copy and owning a game without achievs.
We can agree that one wouldn't support a game that "doesn't support them back" simply because the devs (being close minded "old school" dudes) don't like the idea to add them, right? ... but I doubt that will ever make sense to them.
I wish Steam were like Playstation on this matter, "no achievements no deal", for the sake of their users enjoyment and not the devs (dis)likings.
Not everything is about more money. Chris didn't get into game development to get rich, he did it to make the games he wants to make. And he knew not everyone would like the games he wants to make and is fine with them simply skipping them. Not every game is meant to be attractive to all users.
If a user is so dependent on achievements that they won't buy any game that doesn't have them, then this isn't a game they would be apt to like anyway. Achievements, being explicitly goals to work towards set out by the devs, are basically the antithesis of what Kenshi is, a game where it just lets you loose into the world with no direction or objectives. Any goals or objectives you work towards are purely your own, that you chose to set out for your own reasons.
Then to top all this off, achievements would not be a simple thing to add. The game currently has no way to track them at all, so that would have to be manually programmed by the devs, who are supposed to be working on Kenshi 2 now. Then you have to spend time deciding and balancing all the different achievements. All for a feature the dev has no interest in anyways.
not every game has to have them. why should game companies be forced to add something so arbitrary?
if one doesnt like a game without them, they can pass on the game. in this case, the Dev doesnt want them as Shidan pointed out. It goes against how he saw his game he wanted to make. so no achievement's.
example.
I usually avoid games that have MP. or focused solely on it. as its not something I enjoy. long as it has a single player focus first, then I'm fine with it.
just shows people have different tastes. I'm not gonna go to that game and demand they make it single player only. ill just find something else to play instead.
You can agree that every dev would want you to experience everything the game has to offer, right? Achievements are there for that, make sure you do. It doesn't necessarily tell you how to play, but "after you're done playing and ran out of ideas" you can then chase them. Every individual approaches them differently, but without them there's just a void, something missing.
Makes sense, right? It reminds me of the Helldivers 2 Dev team opinion on DLSS, not wanting to "spend time" on something that would benefit all, because of "more content" would be better. Yeah, right! Not necessarily the same person would work on both.
Makes no sense. Achievement is a feature to every game that has no drawbacks whatsoever to the players. MP and SP are "mutually exclusive" as in they cannot happen at the same time, but players may be able to choose between them. It's like saying you won't be playing Elden Ring because it has "MP" on it. Unless you meant "MP without a SP option"
not every game is gonna have what everyone wants. that's why they are all generally different from each other.
Achievements is universal, like I said, could you say the same to Hunger and Thirst? You're clearly reaching..
Yeah, not every game is gonna have what everyone wants, but they could easily try, right? Without breaking any gameplay by adding "Hunger & Thirst".
By giving what people want and is how companies thrive, yeah? (it may be a reach but) That's why I would rather buy BG3 than this, even though it's 10x more expensive and would give me the same hours of playtime or even more.
edit. and never say your going to pirate the game or advocate others to do so.
Much thanks for the answer. Just wanted to make sure you were aware of this.
and it is so fitting to not have any.
would litterally force people to play like the devs say, which is completly against the spirit of whole game.
- If achievements are hidden, they won't tell you how to play but congratulate you when you do.
- If they're not particular to a specific playstyle, but revolved around random things happening to you (specially bad ones haha) it'd be a hell lot of fun, instead of a frustrating experience.
- If you don't like 'em, don't do 'em.
But anyway, they won't happen, 1st of April is over lmao
If Chris were to do achievements, I think they'd be like this. Terrible things happening to you that you don't want, and have little control over. xD
Well, to be honest that's an easy way to immortality