There's no combat at all in this game?

[ProVegaGamer]

so basically you just run around in a open world through levels and collect items?

[Havoc]

I'd also like to know a definitive answer to that. All signs I've found point towards no combat, kind of like a Harvest Moon game, but from what I've read, there are absolutely no failstates in this, making it effectively "not a game". More like a "collecting simulator". Can someone elaborate?

[Ogami]

Originally posted by Havoc:

I'd also like to know a definitive answer to that. All signs I've found point towards no combat, kind of like a Harvest Moon game, but from what I've read, there are absolutely no failstates in this, making it effectively "not a game". More like a "collecting simulator". Can someone elaborate?

I would recommend watching this review:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_0Aij0Pa98&t=63s

He discusses exactly those points.

[Ahoy_NATO]

Just because something doesn't have failstates, doesn't make it not a game. Stardew Valley doesn't have failstates... Is that not a game now?

[Havoc]

Thank you kindly Ogami, that was exactly what I was looking for. Pass for now tho, I'm more Rune Factory, less Harvest Moon these days.

Ahoy_NATO, not sure if we both played the same Stardew Valley, but mine had very clear failstates. And I don't know how widespread this opinion is, but failstates are essential to the concept of a "Game". So no, if Yonder doesn't have any failstates, it's not a game. It's a sandbox or a simulator.

[Kastor]

Stardew had failstates? But there is nothing you can technically fail at, unless you count being KO-ed by monsters in the mine a failstate, but even then it doesnt cost you much at all.

[Ahoy_NATO]

Stardew has no required story line, no way to die, or a way to need to restart. You can play Stardew for hundreds of hours without passing a failstate. That's me being generous too if you're going to consider the mine a failstate. Which it technically isn't, since you didn't fail anything, you don't die, you don't lose any gear or material you had before entering. Grandpa's quest was so vague at the start of the game that most people didn't even know it existed.

To top it off, thinking a game needs a failstate to be a game is just depressing to say the least. This game has a beautiful story, tons of content, and doesn't require someone to fight off bad guys or restart missions.

You can pretend like Stardew has failstates all you want and accuse this game of "not being a game" but neither require you to complete anything to play it through its basic content, Stardew doesn't even have a real story, at least this game does. The initial reviews for Stardew were actually bad because of the reasons you're accusing this game of being bad. Then after it became popular all the reviews 180'd to be positive.

Maybe start looking at games as experiences, not failable quests and combat. A game is something more than a "simulator or sandbox" it's an experience and a story, something that brings happiness to people.

[𝕊𝕙𝕒𝕚𝕕𝕠𝕟]

"Fail state", I don't even dare to assume who started this trend to define games. But that is just one of its bones. A game is also an interactive media.

Stardew Valley can be very punitive when you faint, making you loose random items (including tools) and money. You can loose crops, fences get damaged over time, and if I'm not mistaken, also loose progress with the mines levels.

I personally dislike when games punish deaths. A lot of gamers claims that they need that, or else they will exploit the mechanics. I say, you just need to play in an immersive way.

[Ahoy_NATO]

It's not putting someone down, it letting them know how I view their opinion. I do think it's depressing. Only being able to enjoy a game for its combat and/or failable quests is depressing to me. I would hope people would be able to enjoy games that don't have those. You can also disagree with me about that amount of content as well, but I doubt you or anyone on this forum has actually completed the game yet and done all of its content. It has 5+ guilds all with Master quests, 5 farms to care for, an overarching story, tons of fish and animals to catch, and a pretty large open world which you're paying $20 for. Content is relative to each person but taking price into consideration is also important. This game definitely has the content for its price in my opinion.

[Havoc]

Ok to be fair Stardew Valley has two possible failstates, you can get knocked out during combat and you can pass out from exhaustion. Those are two very clearly defined failstates that will hinder your progress, regardless of severity. From the looks of it, Yonder has none of that. That's just a fact.

I don't get why people jump in here to "defend" Yonder, are "Sandbox" and "Simulation" dirty terms in this industry now? Does that make this an inferior product to normal games?

If I believe the review posted above, the core "gameplay"-loop of Yonder is collecting rocks. Barring any failstates or any tangible goals to work towards, this puts it on a level of cookie clicker. I think it looks really nice and you have a bit more of interaction with the world, so I'd call this a sandbox.

Wikipedia will provide you with a couple of definitions of a "game", but Yonder is certainly not that. Doesn't make it bad, just makes it a nieche product.

[Faybelle]

Honestly, all those opinions of people that arent into this genre... i really dont understand the point of them. We like this game, we give our opinion, a mattering one, aka, one that tries to be productive towards this genre of game. Opinions of people that do not like this genre of game, only have one goal to them, which is turning this game into something else, something that would make it different than its genre. I think that, would make this game more of a "non-game" than actually efectively sticking to the genre the game tries to be.

So, if you have a constructive suggestion as to how a non-combat genre game can be a better non-combat genre game, feel free to test this beautiful game and give your opinion. Else, i really don't see why you're here...

[ProVegaGamer]

Would be nice to have a demo to try out before buying it. But i will check out some videos. Thanks.

[Illudium]

Originally posted by Lynna:

Honestly, all those opinions of people that arent into this genre... i really dont understand the point of them. We like this game, we give our opinion, a mattering one, aka, one that tries to be productive towards this genre of game. Opinions of people that do not like this genre of game, only have one goal to them, which is turning this game into something else, something that would make it different than its genre. I think that, would make this game more of a "non-game" than actually efectively sticking to the genre the game tries to be.

So, if you have a constructive suggestion as to how a non-combat genre game can be a better non-combat genre game, feel free to test this beautiful game and give your opinion. Else, i really don't see why you're here...

That doesn't seem quite fair. I came here prior to buying because I have some hesitations, and I figured the forum would be a good place to see other people who've asked similar questions. Unlike OP, I don't really need combat or death, but the review Ogami posted does kind of sum up my hesitation about the game. It's very pretty, but to me, the collecting and gathering is a means to an end, while this game uses it as an end in itself.

Stardew Valley, to me, wouldn't have been any worse without the mines or combat, those weren't the draw. What I liked, though, was that it had a very real sense of progression. Whether it was clearing/upgrading the farm, improving your tools, fixing the community center, filling out collections, or just improving your relationships with the other villagers, the game was filled with things that made you think "hey, I've improved my situation in this game. I've made progress, I've accomplished some sort of personal objective." By the same token, I tend to get bored by the openness of sandbox games quickly once the story and side missions are completed.

To be honest, this game kind of sounds like it lacks those elements, like if all Stardew had was the foraging element. That's not necessarily good news, but it's something I'm glad to hear, and it's more information than I would likely have received just by reading the reviews. As long as people aren't outright trolling or ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, I'm glad to see voices from all sides on these boards, whether positive, concerned, or critical.

[EmoIncantation]

So far been playing the game I like just running around and relaxing and chill pace most games nowadays are so focused on quick fast paced combat this is a nice break from playing rage enduceing games. You do have taks and quest to do but overall the main goal of the game is to clear all the darkness from the land and build up your farm and help villagers . I have not experienced death unless going into deep water not technically death but does transition you back to land. But to each there own if you are hesatant on buying watch a youtube review before making a purchase. Good luck and have fun.

[Zeph Grey]

I think the problem people are having here is one of definition. The term "game" litterally refers to something that can be won or lost. You succede or fail. The flip of a coin, the throw of a ball, whatever. There is a target, and it can be missed. The problem is, the definition of "game" is no longer the same as the definition of "videogame." While some videogames are definitely games in the traditional sense, not all are. This is basically a venn diagram with two circle and a huge overlap, but neither circle resides completely within the other.

If we're going to look at Stardew Valley, it has plently of losing points. You can be knocked out, faint, fail to catch a fish, and so on. It is both a videogame and a game in a classic sense. Yonder, while certainly a videogame, has no losing. Aside from missing a jump, or missing an anual event (which just leaves you waiting til next year) you can't really lose. As far as I can tell, you can't even fail to catch a fish. So, if were are to use the win/lose definition of "game," no, it's not a game, just a videogame.

That all stated, everyone has their taste. Some need challange, some don't. Some only need it some of the time. Yonder may not be for everyone, but if you want to chill as opposed to rage (I get enough of that in my work life), it's a sweet, quiet little videogame with charming imagery and mosying pace. There's nothing wrong with that.

I would hate it if I could only enjoy one kind of videogame. If I had to choose between action, or simulation, or casual, or whatever. Luckily I do not. No one has to. But they can if they like.

Yonder is a cute little videogame. Something like a pacifistic Legend of Zelda. It's not a challenge, it's an escape. There's room for both.

[Peridot]

To put this topic back on track,

there are quests in the game. I did one which was slightly a puzzle (I'm still at the beginning). A villager had something stolen, and I had to go around and ask the witnesses what they saw and then say who did the crime. It wasn't very hard, but it def has more elements than just "run around and pick stuff up"

But yes, this is a casual game, a relaxing one where the main goal is either exploration, farming or crafting.

There are these areas in the game that is "darkened", corrupted by evil energy I'd say, and you need to collect spirits to cleanse them. These small areas usually unlock something, a new area, a treasure chest, etc. Some spirits are easy to find, some a little harder.