安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
0 
檢舉此篇文章
Giving Duskers an ending would ruin it's main feature: replayability.
I stopped playing ages ago for this reason but would definitely play it again if there were an ending. I'd even be happy to pay for it if the ending were offered as DLC.
Maybe the developer would consider offering this as DLC so those of us who REALLY do want an ending can have that goal. It would be a good way for the developer to raise some more 'credits' and it would be interesting to see how many people buy the DLC as it would settle the argument concerning the appetite of players for a game ending.
Just a thought!
:-)
I've generally been of the mind that there is no ending because it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Scientists do some crazy experiment and discover that the future has witnessed the end of humanity. So they send something forward in time to find out what happened. Not someone, something. I think the player is an AI. There are five main threads to follow, and each corresponds with an infestation type (though which exactly is which could be up to some debate.) The wiki refers to them as (with the infestation I think they represent): Singularity (Sentries), Pandemic (Swarm), Grey Goo (Slime), Super Predator (Leapers). Except there is one that has no infestation: Cosmic Event. And what does the player do when they reach the end of the line, either running out of fuel or having no more exploration that can be accomplished? They tear spacetime a new one, returning to their point of origin where they were deposited in this bleak future. The other calamities are, ultimately, inevitable. Perhaps they could have been prevented, but in the end the fact of the player's very presence is what dooms humanity.
Comparing an arcade puzzle game like Tetris with Duskers is just plain wrong.
Plenty of games have both an ending and replayability. Take one of the oldest games: Nethack. That game is a much better comparison than Tetris.
Then again, I also believe High Scrap is the best way to play campaign, so I'm a filthy casual. ;)
Procedural content is not easy to do, but it should not be completely random. The trick should be to make sure that there is logic to it, and that it feels like some effort was put into making the game playable and have progress.
I really love the concept of this game, but I must say it feels like it was just left in some unfinished state.
If the real goal is to string together the story of how humanity died by collecting logs over the course of 20-50 games, then at least make it so that each log you find is actually remembered by the game. But it would be much better if the game actually took into account which items you would begin with and that it would make sure you actually would have enough fuel and such to continue the game. That there was some way to plan your trip and actually make it a puzzle game overall, rather than 90% luck, 10% puzzle.
As it is now, its mainly about brute forcing the game with the goal of.. finding logs? Which also seem to be completely random.
I already have an endless game with no winner...its called watch all the porn on the internet. Don't need to pay for it either :)
Its a conclusion, but not an ending, as contradictory as that sounds. It leaves me with my most favourite question in all of media "what if..."
I dont want an ending. It spoils that ambiguity. Sometimes the best stories are the ones that keep you thinking long after they have finished because they never really ended. Which, in a game, really fosters that replay value and imagination.