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
檢舉此篇文章
This thread is about why certain species should not be added, and that's exactly what I'm contesting, which is perfectly valid. If you'd prefer we'd stay more on-task, then perhaps we can talk about who's going to pay for this new content being proposed. Should these zebras, baboons, and hyenas just be added to Vurhonga free of charge, or do you think they should be in some sort of animal pack DLC? I'm going to assume it's the latter, so there's really just one question left: do you truly believe that if they created an animal DLC pack with elephants, rhinos, and hippos, and another with zebras, hyenas, and baboons and pitted them head to head, the latter would sell better? I'll save you the trouble based on the "mixed" status that Vurhonga currently has; it wouldn't, so a thread like this might as well be asking for free animals, because the wider market doesn't care enough about baboons to pay extra for them.
Also, if I went to every other thread on this topic I'd see you with your exclamation points taking a contrarian position, so it's not like there's no precedent for disagreement here.
Cause honestly I am sick and tired of listening to the whining attitudes of players who clearly lack any sense of hunting ethics and morals! Just because it's a pixel does not mean all sense of ethics and morals should go out the window!
This thread is not about endangered species and you all are trying to highjack it to push your own agendas!
The reason you're tired is that you're fighting a losing battle on three fronts, the first being that you don't feel a hunting game with an Africa map should contain the remaining animals that most people associate with African big game hunting, the second being that you think most gamers are worried about the rights of virtual creatures and the implications of this argument in the real world, and the third being that customers with money who make recommendations for things they want to see in a game are "whining".
This thread is about endangered species not being in the game, you're the one pushing an agenda that became pointless the second lions were added, and you haven't done a single thing to refute any of my arguments beyond complaining that they exist. I'm doing this for fun and the off chance that a dev might read it, in between playing Don't Starve and watching John Wick 2. I'm not sure what fun you're having here, but I do know you're not doing anything for your side of the argument.
Oh and I have made a good number of valid points you just chose to ignore them as they don't fit your agenda! I have even made points on how they might be acceptable to be added
https://steamcommunity.com/app/518790/discussions/2/1642042464752760303/#c1642042464755119740
But have you even tried to expand on those ideas to make it so those who do oppose and yes there are more just not ones as vocal as myself. but have you done anything to expand on the ideas that might make it acceptable to others who oppose your view. The only point you have made that would make it sort of acceptable for me is the donation idea you had but then that would be up to the devs as it means taking money from their pockets.
Right, so I've added two things to the thread, namely the idea that the most popular species by real-life demand would be a good place to start, and the idea that diverting money to help real-life endangered animals would balance out the controversy and provide real change, and for some reason you're still arguing with me because you're hung up on preventing other people from killing virtual endangered animals.
You even admit you'd like to hunt them, but they have to be depicted as rabid before you'll shoot them, or accompanied by a message that virtual villagers came along and ate the virtual meat. That's just extra steps to justify something that doesn't need justification, namely the killing of animals that aren't real. It's also a lame duck excuse, honestly. You might as well just yell "IT'S COMING RIGHT FOR US!!!" before you shoot.
That aside, let's take this thread to the logical conclusion one more time. How about a bongo? A blesbok? A bontebok? An eland? a bushbuck? a klipspringer? an oribi? a tssessebe? A steenbok? A waterbuck? All I see are antelopes all the way down right there, and we already have enough of those. So let's do something we haven't seen that hasn't already been mentioned in the thread. An ostrich? A giraffe? How about an aardvark? Maybe a honey badger? But wait, all of those would require a lot of dev work above and beyond modifying existing assets and using existing knowledge, on a map that's already been around for a year. How would they recoup the cost of such a thing? Maybe a DLC?
"Steve, you're in charge of marketing, do you think enough people will pay $4 to hunt aardvarks, baboons, zebras, and giraffes to justify the effort?"
"Well, if you're going to all the trouble of modeling entirely new animals and behavior, why not just continue with the Big 5 that everyone's been asking about"
"THAT'S JUST WHINING AND CRYING!!!! YOU'RE FIRED, STEVE!!!"
Said no successful company ever.
I never said any such thing. I for one would never hunt them even in game even under the scenario I suggested. It as merely a suggestion to the devs that if they ever were to add endangered species to the game that this might be a teachable solution to add them.
As I said wanting to hunt them pixel or not just shows a lack of hunting ethics and morals.
Well said and mirrors my own thoughts on this!
I think for technical reasons, it is unlikely that there will ever be any new animals on Vurhonga Savanna (currently 9 animals) as the average player's computer would struggle. That being said, here is what I would like:
1. REMOVE Lesser Kudu from VS. They never should have been added in the first place as they are not found in southern Africa, but further north in eastern Africa. Replace them with Cape Bushbuck, which frankly would only be a slight modification of the Lesser Kudu model and a new skin. (Obviously the missions on VS would have to be slightly updated as well.)
2. Create an all-new new East African reserve. For animals, I would like:
A) Olive Baboon
B) Ostrich
C) Serval
D) Gerenuk
E) Lesser Kudu
F) Waterbuck
G) Sable antelope
H) Zebra
I) Spotted Hyena
As much as I would like hunting Rhinos and Elephants, I understand the arguments for not including them (and those are well-discussed elsewhere). If necessary, leopards would be fine, but I'd rather have hyenas since we already have pumas and lions, and (if added) servals are felines. Giraffes would be, frankly, not much of a challenge, so no need for them either.
As far as I can tell, my suggested list does not have anything exceptionally controversial, but does have several new, interesting animal-types. Some of the new models could be reworked for other, future maps, especially Australia (emus? Feral donkeys?)
And one other thing I'd like: termite mounds in the landscape.
What do you guys think ?
The funding part is always acceptable!
And unlike the others in the thread thank you for actually offering a suggestion! That would be acceptable providing it was the occasional mission or something like that where it is controlled hunting for specific reasons rather then the open and free hunting most that suggest endangered species want!
But this would be an acceptable alternative as it would be controlled within the game and for specific reasons.