so which version is the actual game people play?

[Dalollypop]

DST or DS. i have both and dlc reign of terrror for DS, which one do i play solo. even if this is the multuiplayer one you can still singleplayer. kinda confusing which is the offical version that people play.

[||scamper||]

dst but people still play ds for hamlet i guess

[Dalollypop]

oh i dont have that, so i guess i'll paly this solo

[Alucard †]

DST
DS is only worth it for Hamlet and Shipwrecked content.

[tools guy-kun]

Originally posted by platnuimchester38:

dst but people still play ds for hamlet i guess

I believe there’s mods to bring Hamlet content into the game. It might be Tropical Experience.

[Pokion]

*peaple

[kovec]

I prefer the original DS experience. I log into DST only to get the daily reward.

[UNBREAKABLE]

DS is the original Don't Starve experience without the watered down difficulty and multiplayer bloat. The 2 exclusive DLC's Shipwrecked and Hamlet give experiences not present at all in DST, literally 2 worlds of content. You can travel between all 3 DLC's in a single world and transfer items and mechanics between them, making DS arguably have a lot more content than DST for solo players.

There's still lots of DST content not in DS of course; but they already added a lot of the things that would have made sense to port over anyway. Most of the changes and extra characters in DST don't make sense for DS because it is 100% a singleplayer rouge-like that was never designed for multiplayer. Half the DLC characters (and the re-works of the many existing characters) in DST would be useless in DS for example.

If you want multiplayer with your friends or strangers though and prefer the more expanded take on Reign of Giants, this is what you want to play of course. Original DS and its DLC are still worth though and is a better solo experience IMO if you don't care for the multiplayer or extra features that offer nothing to just 1 player.