Impressions: Rust

By Rich Stanton on January 7th, 2014 at 8:00 pm.

I was hunting a deer with a rock, as you do, when I heard a voice.

“We’re not going to kill you.”

A shot cracked past my head and the deer slumped to the ground. I turned around to see two guys wearing kevlar and toting M4 rifles. Having recently spawned, my offensive options were a stone and some green trousers.

“Take the deer. It’s yours.”

I scurried over to the corpse like Gollum and began hacking it to pieces with my rock. So delighted, in fact, that I didn’t hear the footsteps as one of the pair walked up, took aim, and killed me with a headshot. I heard the laughs though. I clicked respawn, and started over. Welcome to Rust.

Or to be more precise, welcome to the early Alpha version of Rust. The new game from Facepunch Studios, established by Garry’s Mod creator Garry Newman, Rust is a mix of survival and crafting that fits in the ‘a bit like Minecraft’ box. The other obvious reference is Day Z, thanks to the scattered presence of zombies, but this is a very different type of game – and the undead are due to disappear entirely.

Few videogames are sold to the public with a main enemy type that’s shortly to be removed, but Rust is that most modern of things: an early-access title. Newman himself says you shouldn’t buy it, but over 200,000 people so far have ignored this advice – an astonishing number for a game that isn’t finished and hasn’t been marketed. A carry-over vote of faith from Garry’s Mod, perhaps, or simply the luck of hitting an intersection between several hugely popular titles? We’ll return to what Early Access means later, but for now the question is what you get.

Buy Rust’s Alpha for $20 and, as is standard, you’re also paying for the ‘finished’ release down the line. At the moment you could say that the game’s core elements are in place, primarily the enormous Rust Island. Though it features small towns, and isolated hangars and concrete blocks dot the landscape, Rust Island is a place of empty plains and enormous mountain ranges. The developer-constructed buildings are sparse, because the whole point is for players on each server to construct the world as they see fit.

The first thing I saw that truly impressed wasn’t even a building, it was what was around the building. On an open field some team of ingenious and patient builders had constructed a maze-like series of barricaded routes around what was presumably their base. A giant wooden gate blocked off the main entrance, while openings led into further openings and dead-ends that, I noticed, could be seen from the windows of the central building. This was a structure designed for defence, a fortress that allowed its inhabitants easy entry but forced attackers to circle around and walk in front of firing lines. With a decent weapon, you could have held that thing solo.

The only thing that rather ruined the impact was no-one being home to shoot me. And in fact this is a minor theme in Rust, and gives the world almost an ancient quality – the vast majority of structures you come across, great and small, will be abandoned. Buildings also decay over time, and on the long hikes you’ll take there are countless follies; half-finished skyscrapers and stairs to nowhere, castles that up-close are facades, and stretches of grass filled with little but foundations and empty storage boxes. Everywhere across these servers are the marks of those that came before.

If this makes Rust sound like a surprisingly contemplative experience, it certainly can be and often is. But it also suffers from the same sort of behaviour that any PvP-focused game does, not least the enormous amount of players who enjoy blowing away newbies on sight. If I’d written this article after two hours of play it would have been all about getting killed over and over again, because that’s all that happened.

Such behaviour can’t ever be ‘solved’, of course, but Rust’s development will hopefully prioritise the kind of social features that can somewhat mitigate it. Among the major frustrations at the moment is that you can’t spawn near your mate, which combined with the fact there’s no map and the world is so big means you can play on the same server for hours without finding each other. You also can’t give a friend access to a door you’ve built, and it’s possible for cunning players to invite you indoors and then simply lock the door.

I did actually see the funny side of that last one, while committing suicide. And traps, deliberate or otherwise, are surely a major part of Rust’s future – not least because certain servers keep your character in-game and ‘asleep’ when you’re not playing. One abandoned building I explored featured a large central staircase, which suddenly terminated at the top over a large pit. Rushing up, I fell and injured myself, and looked around to see four solid walls, a corpse and a bunch of items. Had I stumbled across an old torture chamber? Perhaps the poor sod had just done the same thing as me. Whatever, it was now my tomb. With no escape possible, despite a decent inventory, I had to suicide and abandon that character.

On that note a Steam review of Rust was doing the rounds yesterday, and it’s so good I’m just going to reproduce it in full. Cracked it may be, but this also captures what is so intoxicating about this kind of PvP freedom: “I love this game, I built a house around a guy’s house and made him my prisoner. I fed him cans of tuna and cooked chicken when it was available, and sometimes I would drop spare logs of wood (when they were available). The best part is he talks to me, keeps telling me his clan’s going to raid my structure and save him… I simply respond with ‘It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the hose again’ and by hose I mean I dump charcoal on him. Great game hope the servers come up soon, I think my prisoner may need to eat.”

What can you say to that? Strange meetings are the lifeblood of games like this, and where Day Z has the constant need to visit water sources, here the great focal point is airdrops. Every so often a plane drops three packages which float lazily down on parachutes. These contain top-quality items, the kind of things you don’t just find lying around, and so any player nearby makes a dash for them.

Flashpoints can happen anywhere in Rust, but at the airdrops they’re guaranteed. The first time I went for one, I was cut down by fire from several angles. The second time, I watched from afar as three tooled-up groups of players fought for control; then as the victors examined their spoils, scavenged the nearest corpses and ran away like a hero. When, eventually, I had the luck to be in a small group near a landing spot and we shared the spoils, it was the beginning of a great afternoon blowing up people’s doors with C4.

There’s so much in Rust, despite its rough-and-ready state, to talk about – how successful raiding parties quickly turn into hoarding parties, how depressing it is to come back to your house and find it cleaned out (robbing bastards). How acquiring blueprints over time lends an element of persistence to your game, with that crafting knowledge shared across every character; so even though you lose everything sometimes, it becomes easier to build back up.

But Rust is, despite the many positives, an incredibly early version of what could be a fantastic game. That means what is good about it has to be taken in concert with the fact that some elements can bug out (I built one house that killed me every time I respawned in it), some are to be removed (those incredibly frustrating zombies), and many subsidiary elements of the world are placeholder.

What it comes down to, and I think this applies to most early access games, is you have to be time-rich and patient to get at Rust’s golden core. For those whose gaming time is a little more circumscribed, things like items falling through the map and glitches that kill your character (infrequent as these problems are) can wipe out a lot of investment and so may well outweigh the pleasure to be had. In other words, Rust needs and will undoubtedly receive a hell of a lot of polishing up. But in a few months’ time, nevermind a year? This is going to shine.

, , , .

142 Comments »

Sponsored links by Taboola
  1. Vinraith says:

    I humbly suggest that games of this genre be termed OBS (Online Bastardry Simulator). Why anyone would want to spend their free time simulating human beings being horrible to each other when there’s so much of that in real life is beyond me, but to each their own.

    • rustybroomhandle says:

      I view this as real life. Sure, the environment, tools and toys are simulated, but the bastardy is real.

      • hungrycookpot says:

        If people you murdered in real life just respawned down the road somewhere, this is EXACTLY what real life would be like.

        • Premium User Badge

          Gap Gen says:

          This is one problem, the other is that these worlds don’t have the weight of civilisation reining them in. Real societies have problems with banditry and instability, and it takes centuries to create a civil society that can limit disorder. Societies need legal institutions and police forces to maintain the peace, and if in-game factions can’t provide a monopoly of power and fair governance in their local space, you’ll always get some chaos.

          This is one problem with American idealism in foreign policy; America is pretty unique in not needing strong government to rein in sectarian or tribal disputes, and applying American libertarianism to Iraq was a disaster because most societies do need strong institutions to function and arbitrate between different factions.

          • pwn3d says:

            @Gap Gen

            “Societies need legal institutions and police forces to maintain the peace”

            Um, no. Historically, _most_ societies have been able to function just fine without either. Granted, historically, most societies have also been bound together by strong ties based around shared identities (ethnicity, religion, kinship, etc.), but it seems like it’s only large-scale societies like our own that generate institutions to keep social order. I like the Inuit method of conflict-resolution myself, which involves song duels between opposed individuals. The rest of the community votes on which person gave the better performance, et voila! Peace maintained. No lawyers or cops needed.

            “America is pretty unique in not needing strong government to rein in sectarian or tribal disputes, and applying American libertarianism to Iraq was a disaster because most societies do need strong institutions to function and arbitrate between different factions”

            This sounds suspiciously imperialist — “‘Murica is civilized, but those people over _there_ need a strong arm to hold them in check.” Talk to anyone non-white and/or non-Christian in America, and I think most of them will be glad of strong government being present to at least provide lip-service to protecting them from discrimination and exploitation. Without equal rights legislation (i.e., “strong government”), there are lots of folks that would _still_ be openly treated like dirt in the US. Without writing a treatise on Middle-Eastern politics, it needs to be pointed out that the Iraq situation isn’t due to some intrinsic deficiency in the Iraqi people that makes them less able to work together, but instead to historical forces caused by long-term Western meddling in regional affairs.

            Anyway, about Rust: as a social scientist, I find this game and DayZ fascinating as laboratory experiments. Assuming I don’t just get griefed non-stop, they give me a window into emergent practices in terms of conflict resolution, morality, and governance within Western culture that would be more challenging to study in the “actual” world. These games don’t really constitute a separate culture outside of the culture (American, British, Malaysian, whatever) that players themselves embody, but it does demonstrate the way in which their culture influences the decisions they make within the game world (even if those decisions are a reaction _against_ “proper” morality).

            One interesting thing here is how rare it is that players actually make attempts at large-scale organizing on a community level. For the most part you just have groups of bandits, and that’s it. What does this say about the people who gravitate to these types of games, and would the same patterns of behavior be exhibited by _anyone_ who picked up Rust? Are people playing survival-style games in this fashion as an escape valve against restrictive social norms, or was Hobbes right and we’re all just a bunch of evil bastards when you get right down to it? Is this something that is unique to Western Europeans, or do people everywhere act the same way if given a chance in a game like this?

          • Universal Quitter says:

            The US did not apply “American libertarianism” to Iraq, nor was that ever the intent. They ended up with a rather British parliamentary system, because American politicians are usually smart enough to not inflict our system of government on other countries.

            Let’s not forget that the American system led to a civil war in less than 100 years.

          • pistolhamster says:

            @pwn3d

            Reason no large scale organizations happens are because people don’t have children in these games, or an equivalent of this. There is no permanent loss and no reason to protect the weak. If you added offspring to the equation, and you would be able to invoke the same terror and anxiety loss of your offspring, then I’d say you’d be nearing a simulation where societies would emerge.

            Only reason for societies / civs TO emerge are stability and security. This means fewer deaths to the RNG of Nature – and bandits – and that means you don’t lose so many kids.

          • belgand says:

            And I think that’s where it could start to get interesting. Maybe not permanent death, but if respawning in the game took, say, a month you’d start to see interesting emergent societies.

            Though I’m not a fan of it you could even find a way to emulate children and a desire to protect new players. Allow users to sign up as a mentor of sorts for new players. The newbie is assigned at random and they get some sort of benefit, but there’s also a significant detriment if that player is killed within their first month or so of playing.

        • gwathdring says:

          Are you familiar with the Gospel of Thomas (I think) or rather the Child Gospel or whatever it’s called? It’s one of the non-canon gospels in which someone wrote about a young Jesus who acted like a small child with super powers–for example multiple times he threw a tanturm at someone, smote them, and promptly resurrected them. The poor horrified bastards probably never went near children again.

      • Tei says:

        I agree with the idea that this is real life simulator.

        This game is really just how Minecraft PvP works on pirate servers, I think. Bunch of players build something, and protect that something from griefers. Is the lack of tools (like a mod to lock chest or protect a area from changes) that allow this type of gameplay. So I say that the core element of RUST is probably finished already.

        And about the appeal of this type of games… I think is strictly group oriented. This is a game for groups of friends. I think.

      • Gothnak says:

        In real life, if you kill someone, they are dead forever. If you get caught, you are also either killed forever, or locked up for what feels like forever.

        If you are the aggressor in these games, you have already weighed up what you will lose and if it doesn’t work out, you think ‘oh well’. If you are the person being attacked, you don’t know it is coming and likely lose a lot of stuff.

        It is very much based on rewarding being a bastard, and tbh, i don’t play any of those games anymore…

        We need a game like DayZ or Rust where the enemies are WAY more dangerous than other players, and then you HAVE to work together, or you’ll all die… A lot less bastardry and a lot more co-operation.

        • frightlever says:

          I was watching a Lets Play of Rust with a guy that said that about needing stronger monsters to encourage people to band together – was that you? 20 minutes watching you chop wood from a tree is not exciting.

          • plugmonkey says:

            Like Left 4 Dead. You HAVE to work together, or you die, so the game attracts people who want to work together, and consequently has a really quite lovely player community.

            With games like this, it’s not just the lack of consequences causing people to be ass-hats that’s the problem, it’s also the attrition rate of non-asshat players. In real life, we’d be stuck with the asshats, so we’d band together to put them to the sword. As it is, we just go and play something else, leaving behind an entire world of ass-hats.

          • Gothnak says:

            Hehe, nope, not. me…

            Who said anything about spending time chopping wood from a tree? That isn’t the time that is interesting in DayZ or Rust either. Combat is the exciting stuff and the constant threat, but instead of a constant threat by an unfriendly group of humans, working together to take down an AI based threat ‘could’ bring people together.

            Think a game set in ‘War of The Worlds’ or ‘The Tripods’. Yes, it’s PVP, but a gunfight between players will bring scary aliens to investigate. All the best loot is carried by the machines, but you can’t bring them down alone. Players would need to work together to kill the enemies and loot their metal corpses.

            Would that make people work together more and kill each other less?

            I always hope that if the Earth was attacked by INVADERS FROM MARS, there would be a lot less terrorist bombings between religious factions as everyone would end up working together against them. An enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that jazz.

        • TaylanK says:

          This. These games consistently miss the mark on the benefits of social behaviour, and the consequences of anti-social behaviour in real life. I was at a wolf sanctuary a few months ago where I learned that wolves do not survive for long in the wilderness by their lonesome selves without a pack (like when they are exiled for whatever reason). So the whole idea of the ‘lone wolf’ doesn’t work even for wolves. We need a game like Rust or DayZ implementing a system where the cooperation potential with another player is a lot more valuable than stealing their backpacks. You could need them for their skills (i.e. doctors, weaponsmiths, etc), for instance. As long as the only difference between two PCs is the caliber of the gun they are carrying, you will have a world of sociopaths.

    • Warduke says:

      That is awesome.. and true..

    • LionsPhil says:

      “Massively Multiplayer Griefing”

    • Premium User Badge

      Keymonk says:

      That’s the main thing that keeps me away from this, EVE and DayZ.

      • Darth Grabass says:

        I’m sure countless people have made this observation before me, but wouldn’t a lot of the DayZ shoot-on-sight activity be curtailed if only the zombies posed more of a threat? I keep thinking that larger mobs of more threatening zombies could potentially inspire more cooperation among players. So it’s interesting that Rust (which I haven’t played) is planning on eliminating them altogether. It’ll be interesting to compare and contrast how both of these games develop in regards to player behavior.

        • DatonKallandor says:

          It really wouldn’t change a bit if the non-human threat were bigger. That’s really the one worthwhile lesson we can learn from games like DayZ, Rust, EVE, etc. The old hope that if a bigger threat rolled around we’d all unite and get along to survive, is just a nice dream. We’re a nasty species with no overall redeeming features, no matter how threatened we are by the “other”. When the big nasty Evil is knocking on the door you can be sure there’s going to be a human ramming a knife into another humans back somewhere around the corner.

          Take away the consequences – by adding respawning – and you’ll get chaos, forever.

          • Premium User Badge

            darkChozo says:

            Has there ever been an open PvP game where the AI presented a major threat? Like, not “can kill you if you’re not paying attention” but “it’s essentially impossible to survive on your own against the AI”? I haven’t played DayZ much but the zombies certainly weren’t that from my experience. I’m not sure you can say that people won’t band together against an existential threat when they never were presented with one.

            I wonder what would happen if you had a PvPvE game designed in such a way that coop would be necessary to survive against the environment — think something along the lines of L4D, maybe.

          • Darth Grabass says:

            Forgive my ignorance, because I’ve never played EVE and I know next to nothing about it, but I don’t think that lesson has been learned from DayZ yet (and certainly not Rust at this point). If the zombies in Rust are just an afterthought that’s not even going into the final game, and the zombies in DayZ are just a minor annoyance at best/worst, then how could we know how people would behave when faced with a much more powerful and overwhelming non-player threat in those games?

            Obviously, nothing is ever going to stop the griefing, but after spending some time with the DayZ standalone, I do think that there are multiple things that could be done to discourage the standard shoot-on-sight style of play.

          • Amun says:

            I bet people would be less ready to take potshots at newbies if it spawned a L4D-style horde of zombies on them.

            I don’t have an opinion on how good or bad that would be though.

          • PopeRatzo says:

            We’re a nasty species with no overall redeeming features,

            Oh, I wouldn’t go that far. I think human eyebrows are very nice.

          • foodeater says:

            it’d be an interesting take on the genre to forcibly “link” players upon spawning where if they died it hurt your character’s stats. so you’d both be spending more time watching each other’s back. track how many times someone kills their teammate and if it’s enough end them all to the same “hell” server. :)

            i mean these games don’t have any meaningful rewards for making friends and not being a dick. IRL friendship is a 2 way street. let’s say you could friend people and get +5 health or better starting stats or gear or your map gets a wider range, i dunno. no it wouldn’t eliminate dicks, but it would create newer more interesting emergent dicks. :)

            or add lighting strikes or fire bombings to the game (or blue shells) :) where the worst offenders get their comeuppance. you could add a “stench of death” with flies and a noticeable aura, etc. or add a “remorse check” where characters every so often randomly come to regret their actions and suicide. these aren’t simulations, be game designers and design fun solutions.

            and there’s a reason old games used to spawn you as invincible.

            also, the comic book crossed.

          • The Random One says:

            My personal opinion is that with a stronger threat things would be even worse. If you look at those games now, the big griefing is already done by groups – notice how the guys mocking Rich were two. If there was a bigger threat those groups would quickly learn how to overcome it, and survive on their griefing’s spoils. Lone griefers would switch from just shooting you in the face to betraying you and then shooting you in the back while escaping with your supplies – if teaming up with other people was absolutely essential then you’ll necessarily lower your standards on who to trust. And finally, loners would have to deal with the aggressive NPC’s and the griefers at the same time, which just makes it easier for the griefers.

        • Premium User Badge

          keithzg says:

          The few times I played DayZ (I already owned ArmA 2) I mostly died after being chased around by gigantic swarms of zombies. Other times I just got trapped. I was quite successful at avoiding being killed by actual players, but the zombies fairly reliably got me. Again, I didn’t play it a huge amount, so maybe I’m wrong, but the times I played it seemed like the zombies *were* a huge threat . . . but that didn’t stop the people from being huge dicks to eachother (while I may not have gotten killed by players myself, I watched from afar many times while other players killed eachother).

          But I mean, hell, that’s pretty much in-genre. The entire zombie genre is mostly one big “…the real monsters were us!” moral.

      • Vinraith says:

        It’s really a perfect distillation of everything I hate about online games.

    • JFS says:

      Do we need a new term? Isn’t this simply a first-person version of exploitation or torture porn?

      • Runs With Foxes says:

        The term you need is ‘carebear’.

      • almostDead says:

        Well from the review cited in this article, and the reviews I have seen on steam for the standalone DayZ, the antics people can get up to in this game, along the lines of digital torture, rape and humiliation will keep gaming journalists in dollars for this year.

    • Runs With Foxes says:

      All competitive multiplayer games (e.g. chess) are about beating another human being. If you treat the game as though someone has a personal dislike of you and wants to degrade you, you won’t enjoy any of them. Kind of interesting that losing traditional games is okay because they’re ‘only games’ while losing online games is ‘griefing’.

      • Vinraith says:

        You’re going to compare winning at chess to shooting an unarmed, newly spawned player in the back?

        • chargen says:

          Right above you he actually uses the term “carebear” to compartmentalize anyone who doesn’t enjoy acting like this, so yeah he probably does.

      • Wounder says:

        That’s an awesome comparison, assuming your games of chess started with one person having a full complement of pieces and the other having a king and a few other pieces. Otherwise, as chess is the penultimate in leveling the playing field, it doesn’t make much sense.

        • Runs With Foxes says:

          Yeah and chess is unbalanced when you only have your king left and the other player still has half their pieces.

          Rust is kind of the other way around in that you might start off weaker than others, but it doesn’t seem to be inherently unbalanced in the sense that some players have access to things others don’t. Everyone has the potential to get the same stuff, so everyone’s on an even playing field. The balance just needs to be understood on a long time scale.

          • HadToLogin says:

            But that situation is only your fault – you let your enemy to kill your pieces.

            DayRust is opposite. It makes you start from losing and helpless position and you can only hope there’s no psychopath around who will kill you before you’ll have chance to find any means to defend yourself.

          • Runs With Foxes says:

            Yeah it’s great.

          • mrhazard says:

            This game is wonderful! I really enjoy playing the good guy in a game filled with bbandits.it is a true joy to help the battered and stop the bandits. Sure I lose but I also win frequently or at least know how to escape. Finding other cool ppl is even more rewarding. There is sooo much incentive to kill and rob but also to team up and make real life friends from those you meet. So to all you care bears out there please stop your whining and accept the fact that this is a hard game and you will need to play smarter or die. And that is why this game rocks! 120+ hours playing rust

      • Premium User Badge

        Gap Gen says:

        It’s fairly clearly established that the rules of chess are to win against one other person, but in stuff like Day Z it’s less clear. Banditry is an emergent effect, and I imagine with enough will in the community you could play it very differently, with a society carving out villages, running bus services, etc. I’d love to see a server run like that.

        • Premium User Badge

          jrodman says:

          Considering that this game lacks a victory condition, it seems clear that any concept of “winning” comes almost entirely from the players. I think this serves as a complete indictment.

        • Geebs says:

          Judging from the youtube videos (at least, the ones where somebody hasn’t just uploaded 10 minutes of pitch blackness) the community seems to be a bunch of libertarians who have smoked themselves into a state of total paranoiac rage. So basically, this is your mind on drugs.

        • Premium User Badge

          VelvetFistIronGlove says:

          with enough will in the community you could play it very differently, with a society carving out villages, running bus services

          There’s enough will for that, but the structure of these games can’t support it. There were people running bus services in the DayZ mod, but it only takes one dick to snipe the driver for lulz to ruin it.

          Carving out villages in DayZ also can’t work, because you can’t possibly defend them without 24/7 guard—and anyway, the attackers could park themselves inside your village’s location on another servers, jump into your server, and suddenly any guards you have watching outwards get shot in the back.

          I don’t think DayZ is going in a direction that will allow these things. I dunno about Rust; it’s possible, but I doubt it’s likely.

      • Phasma Felis says:

        “wants to degrade you”

        That’s what griefing is, though. From chess to TF2, most competitive games offer at least the intention that anyone can win if they’re good enough. That’s not really the case when you’re a guy with a rock being attacked by four guys with assault rifles.

        • Premium User Badge

          keithzg says:

          Exactly. With Chess, you guarantee that two players start out the game on an equal footing, with all of their pieces. With something like DayZ, a new player is starting with instead very few pieces, while other players might have a half-dozen queens. It isn’t a fair game like Chess, it’s an unfair punishment to those who weren’t playing for longer or got unlucky. Of course, it’s also an egotistical power trip for those who got in on the ground floor and have more time to spend amassing equipment (and not to get too much into stereotypes, but there’s a demographic bias there towards young boys who are otherwise frustrated by life), and they’re liable to rationalize how it’s actually entirely fair and thus proves they’re just inherently “better”. It’s kindof Randian, really.

          • BlackAlpha says:

            You aren’t too far off from the truth. I played DayZ with an organized group for months. It’s mostly the power trip that makes the game so appealing. Then once you get over that, the game becomes a more tedious version of your usual PvP game.

          • LionsPhil says:

            It’s kindof Randian, really.

            So, when are we going to get one of these games set in Rapture?

            Letting humans use the sweat of their brow to be bastards to each-other seems like a perfect marriage of narrative and gameplay for a game about its actual downfall. :P

    • Jools says:

      Games like this and Day Z legitimately scare me a little bit. It’s not a criticism of the games, not really, but the fact that people are so willing to be such huge bastards. Sure it’s just a game, and sure there are people like me who actually enjoy the experience of being hunted and outwitting assholes, but that’s not why these people do it. They do it because they expect to be ruining someone’s experience, which is honestly pretty fucked up even in the context of a video game.

      • Shieldmaiden says:

        There’s an incredibly interesting anime (based on a series of novels, I believe) called Sword Art Online which is essentially about the way people behave in MMOs. The basic premise is that ten thousand people get trapped in a virtual reality MMO and told that if they die in game, it’ll set off a microwave pulse that will fry their brain. The same thing happens if someone on the outside attempts to remove the headset and the only way for everyone to escape is for the game to be cleared.

        Despite this, there is at least one whole guild of player killers. Some of them justify it by saying they have no evidence that people really are dying, but for the most part they’re using their situation to excuse murdering people for shits and giggles. The horrifying thing is that I can see that happening were such a situation to arise for real.

        • Premium User Badge

          strangeloup says:

          Wasn’t a fair chunk of .hack based around the same idea? It was definitely what I first thought of when I heard about Sword Art Online, but I’ve seen probably about 3/4 of the various series of the former and not seen the latter at all.

          • The Random One says:

            When a friend of mine told me the story of Sword Art Online, I pretty much spent the whole time saying “Are you sure that’s not .hack?”

    • Premium User Badge

      Chaz says:

      I strongly suspect that the majority of us that feel the same sense of aversion to these open PvP games, probably belong within a certain age range.

      Over 10 years ago I strongly suspect this might have been right up my street. Certainly in my 20’s and maybe my early thirties. But in the past several years I’ve grown increasingly weary of the whole competitive online shooty thing.

      I watched a 1 hour live stream of someone playing DayZ several days ago. It just struck me as being so dull and disheartening. Lots of tedious scavenging, only to be shot in the back by some random asshat. And then having start all that tedious scavenging for supplies all over again. It’s just a slow long winded version of Quake. Only no one starts with a pistol and the powers ups are spread thinly over a gigantic map.

      That and this Rust look about as fun as playing an online sandcastle building simulator, only to have a random beach bully come along and destroy all your hard work in an instant and kick it all in your face. With an extra boot in the ribs added just for good measure.

      Any kind of comparisons between these games and real life are also utter nonsense. How can there be when there are no real consequences. And no, losing a bunch of virtual stuff does not count. It’s not as if your family is there to reap the possible consequences of your actions. You’re not actually depriving someone of their husband, father, brother, son or whatever when you shoot someone. Maybe if a mysterious virus swept the world leaving only males between the age of 20-40 alive, then it might be a more plausible comparison. But not by much.

      Anyway, bah, humbug!

      • Runs With Foxes says:

        If you had the ability to defend yourself from the bully and outsmart him, the sandcastle simulator could be pretty interesting.

        • BenLuke says:

          And you do already.

          Well except for hackers, but that’s a different problem entirely.

        • El_Emmental says:

          “Outsmart him” doesn’t involve killing him or anyone with a good loot – you’re just becoming the bully. Sure it feels great, but you’re still a bully.

    • geldonyetich says:

      Just you wait, one day one of these games involving being horrible to strangers will be an outstanding success, enticing every mean-spirited bastard in the world to play it.

      Then is when we activate the neutering function.

    • BlackAlpha says:

      The problem such games have (Rust and DayZ) is that they actually do not represent real life well at all. In real life, there are reasons not to kill every human you see on sight. In these games, you mostly play for fun and the killing is ultimately the most fun you can have in these games. And so everyone is randomly murdering each other for no reason.

      At their core, Rust and DayZ are the usual PvP multiplayer games. Does Counter Strike represent real life accurately? No. Does Call of Duty represent real life accurately? No. Does Unreal Tournament represent real life accurately? No. Neither does Rust or DayZ. So calling them “Real Life Something Simulators” is far fetched.

      • HadToLogin says:

        Well, that’s why it’s Simulator, not “Documentary”.

        And if you look at history (or Africa), you’ll see real life is capable of much worse histories than DayZ. Slavers going after victims of various natural disasters to turn them into prostitutes – check. Killing every male in village after raping their wives and daughters – check.

        And if you think “glorious and civilized” world is anything better: breaking whole economy making lives of millions of people harder, probably causing few suicides too, but who cares about them, “bonuses are back” – check.

        • BlackAlpha says:

          And yet, you don’t see people running around the streets killing people randomly for no reason all the time. In the real world, there is such a thing as civilization and whatnot. That’s something you don’t see in DayZ or Rust.

          Obviously, games cannot include things like permanent consequences for death, family, social stability, etc, but at least they can simulate the players not wanting to kill everyone all the time by giving them some sort of incentive for doing things other than murdering each other. Since such a thing doesn’t really exist in such games, people just end up killing each other for no other reason than fun, because that’s the end game, that’s all there is to do at that point.

    • Sharlie Shaplin says:

      I think these kind of games just attract the mentally deranged. Terrorizing people at night with a demonic voice changer? Check!

    • Premium User Badge

      MajorManiac says:

      I had the exact same thought. Though I would call the genre S&M.

    • Low Life says:

      I’ve really enjoyed hearing stories of the very early DayZ (I didn’t play it myself), before it properly blew up. People didn’t know what it’s about and their behaviour wasn’t as predictable.

      There’s a turning point where people’s description of their first moments in DayZ go from “I started at this beach and had no idea where I was or what I was supposed to do, so I started wandering around” to “I heard a thunk from a bullet that just missed me, two seconds later I died”.

    • Kollega says:

      I feel I should add my own two cents, because after reading all the “humans are bastards” comments I’ve come to a small realization: everyone’s a bastard in DayZ and other such games because there’s nothing else to do. Case in point? Minecraft. In Minecraft, you build first and murder other players second, and as a result, most players cooperate to build stuff, and griefing is regarded as crime against other players which is punished accordingly, rather than as a “default mode” for every player. And don’t tell me that Minecraft is half griefers, because I played it and know for certain that way more people are busy with building things than with griefing. Maybe it was just because I played on servers with actual rules and admins, but the thing is… griefing in Minecraft is fought against, rather than accepted as “basic human behavior” or something like that.

      I’m not sure how this ties into Rust, since it’s basically Minecraft and DayZ mashed together, but I’m pretty sure that the problem is with the game mechanics or with the target audience, not with some inherent human quality of always being an asshole. As I’ve said, Minecraft is a bit similar in survival mechanics, and not everyone in its multiplayer is an asshole.

      • Reapy says:

        Players are kids, knocking into things to make a reaction. The ‘rewards’ are sound effects, animations, game play satisfaction and the like. Good design should ensure the rewards for ‘preferred’ behavior are greater than the negative.

        In the game journey, the designers talked about early on having player collision, but just for a goof, people would sometimes bump into one another and send them off a cliff. They removed the collision to make sure there was no form of negative interaction available in order to facilitate a stronger bond between characters.

        It seems the only interaction in game with another player with rewards is shooting them. The experience of power and manipulation that ensued in the article here was because those two guys had nothing better to do to generate enjoyment with their time in the game.

        Many of these sandboxes need to find the right mechanics to drive players towards an expected behavior, it is part of the design, and is doubly challenging with a sandbox as the rules are never quite as rigid as more ‘traditional’ games.

    • bstard says:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_be_a_Complete_Bastard

      All you tosspots dont know nothing yet ;) But this Rust game sounds nice, although a bit hardcore so it could trigger some rages.

      • Premium User Badge

        Chaz says:

        I have that, and the Bachelor Boys: The Young Ones Book. Ah, good times.

      • Sharlie Shaplin says:

        I remember playing the Spectrum game, good times.

  2. BTAxis says:

    This game is so very much not for me.

  3. FurryLippedSquid says:

    I lost a day to this recently, but decided to opt for a “PvE now, PvP later” server so I could get to grips with the game.

    It was an incredible amount of fun.

  4. Uglycat says:

    The Steam review link is broken :>

  5. almostDead says:

    Well I don’t think there’s much physicality to it in the western world, with regard to ‘horrible’. Especially amongst the gamer demographic.

    Spending their days stuck in traffic, having to be fake nice to most everyone they interact with, the ‘horrible’ is restricted to passive-aggressive snark. I think people want to add some physicality to their meanness.

    Being able to be true-to-nature swines in a Lord of the Flies world must be a great release. I don’t have the friends for it and from everything I have read and seen about RUST you need a group.

    • SkittleDiddler says:

      I avoid these types of games precisely because I have to deal with the same kind of psychopathic noodleheads in the real world. That’s a serious bummer for me — the idea of the survival genre strongly appeals to me in theory, but nothing I’ve played so far has really scratched that itch because of the reprehensible player base.

      Even the most altruistic players in these games turn out to have a deep sadistic streak when it all comes down to it, and I don’t think that kind of behavior can be attributed to the stresses of “real life”. Humans are just all around nasty pieces of work.

      • almostDead says:

        I agree completely that humans are, naturally, intrinsically tribal and nasty.

        This was my point. Having to semi-mask it all the time in daily life, leads to being able to release it in games like RUST.

      • aldrenean says:

        Humans are *not* intrinsically nasty, but just like any animal, we become nasty under duress and untenable conditions. Given scarce resources, of course people will turn on each other. It’s not “sadistic,” it’s the survival instinct. Granted, there are definitely people being sadistic, and getting a laugh out of another’s misery… but they’re a relatively small portion of the playerbase, and most players grow out of that either with age or with a bit more time into the game.

        If you trust anyone besides a real-life friend in an openly PVP game, it’s no one’s fault but your own when you get stabbed in the back.

        • almostDead says:

          I disagree totally that humans are not intrinsically nasty. But I don’t know the science.

          However, to enjoy these games you need IRL friends to play with. If you don’t, you will not enjoy these games. I find that regrettable.

          • Premium User Badge

            darkChozo says:

            “Intrinsically nasty” isn’t a scientific distinction, it’s a moral one. Even then, what “intrinsic” means is rather philosophical; we’re always being affected by our situations. To take the extreme case, most people wouldn’t it consider it particularly evil to, say, kill someone in defense of your own life. Kill someone randomly on the street is generally more frowned upon.

        • SkittleDiddler says:

          “If you trust anyone besides a real-life friend in an openly PVP game, it’s no one’s fault but your own when you get stabbed in the back.”

          And you’ve just proven my point. I hope you realized the irony when you were getting ready to type that.

          • mrhazard says:

            No the fault lies with the one who does the backstabbing and in a game like rust you will be labeled a backstabbing bandit and everyone will shoot you on sight. Western justice style

  6. almostDead says:

    That was supposed to be a response to Vinraith’s top comment. But this commenting system is not good, and when I press edit that dosen’t work either.

  7. GernauMorat says:

    Links are broken. Good review though

  8. mukuste says:

    I can’t get over how much the art direction in this game looks like blatant satire of the greenbrown shooter trope; yet isn’t. It’s just SO BLAND.

    • FurryLippedSquid says:

      It’s actually a thing of beauty while playing, and is far from the grey/brown tint of modern shooters.

      Sunrises and sunsets are particularly spectacular.

    • Deadly Sinner says:

      You mean a game that takes place in nature uses colors primarily found in nature? What a shock!

  9. Premium User Badge

    Paraquat says:

    So this is basically The Road without the overarching theme of redemption in a world with no hope.

    • Premium User Badge

      Jalan says:

      The Road, except it’s the alternate take where random boys keep following the man around and each time one of them gets tired he murders them to sleep.

  10. Viceroy Choy says:

    Griefing is fun…for about 20 minutes…when you’re doing it. Otherwise, it becomes a fucking tedious chore to attempt to get anything done (I’m looking squarely at you MineZ).

  11. hypercrisis says:

    An online community with a sense of humour? Haven’t seen that in a while. I’m sold.

    • phreddo says:

      I dunno. Every server I’ve been on has been really…juvenile. Lots of yelling, screaming and namecalling in sidechat. It kind of stepped on my enjoyment of the game. Hopefully I’ll find a decent server eventually.

      • aldrenean says:

        Text chat tends to get filled up with a few loudmouths, usually complaining about their latest death. Voice chat is local only and where any actually important communication happens. There is definitely a juvenile element, DayZ type games seem to attract the preteen crowd in disproportionate numbers, but I have found numerous people willing, if not to cooperate, at least to communicate.

    • ividyon says:

      Sorry, a review doesn’t tell you anything about the community, because the majority of players you will meet lack the interest and/or mental prowess to write reviews.

  12. Premium User Badge

    Dingbatwhirr says:

    I like the look of this a lot. Seems to have potential. My major concern at this present moment is that we start to see some more systems added to encourage a bit of tentative and wary cooperation rather than just senseless killing. Hoping Garry Newman will deliver on this one.

    Even better would be if, in a surprise twist, all future updates were designed instead by Gary Numan. Then everything would probably have a gothic, synthpop 80s feel to it.

    Which would be totally awesome.

    • Premium User Badge

      Jalan says:

      The “Here in your car, you’ll hardly be the safest of all” update.

      • Premium User Badge

        Dingbatwhirr says:

        Exactly. Not forgetting the memorable “Are ‘friends’ electric or are they just bastards who will blow a hole in your torso as soon as your back is turned?” update.

  13. Strangerator says:

    I’m hoping this becomes the kind of game that makes for good stories, like Eve. Right now, you’ve got the phase where the wilderness is fraught with small roving bands of petty murderers and robbers. I’m guessing that before long you’ll have major factions arise which build more solid infrastucture and begin offering protection for a price. I look forward to not playing this.

  14. Blackcompany says:

    Those guys with guns, in the game…they had a chance to do something really special in gaming. Something noteworthy.

    They could have given you the deer. And a weapon. Or even just the deer. And walked away. In peace.

    That would have been noteworthy. That would have really been something worth talking about. Something special in gaming.

    But this? What they did? This is the reason why I – and a goodly number of other people I know – do not play online games. Why we never will. Why these servers will always have a smaller population than they do.

    Because we get treated like assholes, by assholes, on a daily basis. And its the last thing we want to come home and deal with in our free time, whilst trying to relax.

    To those truly sadistic jerks who pulled this stunt: When your game is devoid of other people to play with in a year or so; when you look around, bored, at the declining player base, the good news is…you won’t have to wonder why.

    Congrats: You are the problem.

    I wish more games these days were offline, or co-op. This always online, forced multiplayer garbage is slowly killing gaming for me.

    • aldrenean says:

      Save your drama. There have been so many excellent single-player focused games, even in this exact genre, over the last year or two, I know you cannot possibly have played them all. If you don’t like multiplayer games, don’t play them. It’s extremely obvious that others like them quite a bit, and since you have nothing to add to the conversation that isn’t subjective, why are you even posting? Or reading the article in the first place?

      • Tukuturi says:

        I didn’t realize this was an objective conversation. Last time I checked, this was a website about opinions and feelings in regard to interactive multimedia, which is what ol’ boy expressed.

      • El_Emmental says:

        “If you don’t like multiplayer games, don’t play them.”
        Huuuur duuur – read the post you’re responding to.

        The idea that you shouldn’t have any responsibility and shouldn’t behave yourself when playing a game online WITH OTHER PEOPLE (and not NPCs) ranks pretty high on the level of immaturity.

        You’re the reason why we need admins on servers 24/7: the very second the admin disconnects, WHEE LET’S GO BACK TO CHEATING/TKING/GRIEFING and the server lose a third to half of its population.

    • almostDead says:

      Well they aren’t going to go away because enough people who play games have at least one other friend that will play with them and work together.

      • PopeRatzo says:

        No, they aren’t going away because he online component helps them combat piracy. Let’s not pretend there is anything about multiplayer games that’s there for the benefit of customers.

        • almostDead says:

          I am a very autistic black and white kind of person, and even I wouldn’t say something like this.

        • Premium User Badge

          keithzg says:

          …wow. Just, wow.

          Honestly, the online component is what makes me interested in this game. You could probably just run your own server and not let anyone else on if you really didn’t want to play with other players. But you might be better served by playing fewer video games and spending more time with people, judging by your assertions here.

        • RProxyOnly says:

          Agreed.

    • The Random One says:

      They did something noteworthy. So noteworthy, in fact, that Rich noted it in his article.

    • Reapy says:

      I think there has honestly been a much larger push recently in co op games. There have ALWAYS been a shortage of co op multiplayer games, there have always been few options. At least now there are many that are pure co op, and even more that can be your friends vs the world. There are a ton of 4 player multiplayer games that you can fill with friends only. Even DOTA 2 or LoL can be a great experience with a team of all friends, not a steep requirement.

      Though it is hard to meet new people online if you are not actively searching. Not only that, but even at 34 I often feel on the high end of the age range, especially in some more action oriented style games. Basically it is pretty hard for me to relate to a 16 year old beyond talking about game mechanics, they are in just wildly different places.

      Really what has made me jaded is that the “RPG” element has been played up a lot in games recently, mostly because they open the door for micro transactions I think. But before the RPG was there, everyone would enter the game with an equal opportunity, and it becomes very easy for me to respect my opponents when they take me down so thoroughly with the same set of tools that I have rather than having assault rifles against my rock.

      The truth is that it that some people just lack the tools to be successful the majority of time they are online in a game, and the ones that allow grinding or gear collecting to have enough power to win will appeal immensely to the type that have time, but not the ability, to succeed often.

      The other trend has the the rise of class based gameplay to force teamplay. This often means that one player will never have all the tools to deal with all situations, and that larger groups of established friends will succeed due to being able to coordinate classes, while as a loner getting online to play solo it will lead to a frustrating experience.

      I tend to prefer single player style games, but I find “human AI” a much better opponent. At times they are as predictable as bots, and the granularity of skill levels is smoother. It is just difficult to find a game that starts everyone equal, and allows limited success as an individual.

  15. PopeRatzo says:

    I’m curious: How many people who buy into the “Early Access” fad and lay out money for an alpha are still interested enough to play the game when it gets released?

    Something bothers me a lot about this new trend of selling unfinished games. It’s just another symptom of the damage Kickstarter has done to gaming.

    • almostDead says:

      For my personal anecdote, I agree with you, I played Don’t Starve from the very, very beginning, and am totally burnt out on it now, even before all the content is completed. I won’t touch Prison Architect again for a long, long while either.

      For my personal opinion, I couldn’t disagree more. In fact, my opinion is the polar opposite with respect to kickstarter. I think it is the ONLY thing keeping me interested in gaming, that creative individuals can put their careers and time where their mouths are and say…

      ‘gamers, you have complained about cookie cutter, and bland AAA experiences, well this different thing is what I want to do. Pay me and I will do it’.

      If you would then say, ‘well they just reskin old games or there’s a ton of 2d sidescroller clones that come out’, I would say, so what, the market seems to accommodate them, and every so often you get Spelunky. Also, I want risk taking, that also occurs when publishers are not involved.

      In fact, I would go as far as to say, crowdfunding, and other variants of it, like the ‘maker’ artisan craftsmen sites are going to have to play a huge part in the future of employment.

      • PopeRatzo says:

        you have complained about cookie cutter, and bland AAA experiences, well this different thing is what I want to do. Pay me and I will do it.

        You have that a little bit wrong. It’s “pay me and maybe I will do it”.

        What’s wrong with, “buy a share of stock and I will do it”? Why does it have to be, “give me money for nothing and maybe I will do it”?

        Basically, it’s trying to take the risk out of making a game. Who’s to say that’s a good idea? Maybe there should be something at stake. It’s a business model for a generation that is scared to fail. Who want guarantees. Money up front.

        I don’t see anything like a masterpiece coming out of kickstarter games, and I see this “too scared to fail” to be a destructive influence on all game developers. If a game is far along and you want to do some pre-sales, that’s one thing. Kickstarter makes it too easy to just not deliver and create a new entity and burn people again.

        • El_Emmental says:

          You do realize Kickstarter campaigns never cover all the cost of making a video game, right ? Unless you’re going for a short 2D platformer, most other games require a budget of several millions. The only few games who managed to reach 2 or 3 millions actually have a development budget reaching between 5 to 20M. Where do they find that money ? their personal savings, bank loans, external investors (publishers or not), like they used to do before Kickstarter took off.

          It doesn’t take all the risks at all, it just make more projects “possible” – with the 2M from the KS campaign and the 30k backers, banks are more likely to loan you money, publishers are more likely to fund the rest of the development.

      • PopeRatzo says:

        In fact, I would go as far as to say, crowdfunding, and other variants of it, like the ‘maker’ artisan craftsmen sites are going to have to play a huge part in the future of employment.

        If that’s the case, then the future is going to be very bleak indeed.

        I’m not sure it’s such a good idea to have peoples’ survival depend upon a good trailer and people’s charity. Is the notion of an honest transaction between producer and purchaser really too difficult to handle?

        And the ‘maker’ artisan craftsmen that are worth a damn actually put prices of the things they make. They’re not selling an idea of maybe doing something and sending it to you next Tuesday for a cheeseburger today. Don’t confuse ‘makers’ for ‘kickstarters’. They are not interchangeable terms.

    • Premium User Badge

      Chaz says:

      I have a few early access games in my Steam list that I kick started. I don’t actively play them though. I just fire them up every now and then out of curiosity to see what stage of development they’re at and how things have changed. I don’t have any intention of really playing any of them until they’re pretty much finished.

      But if buying into a game in this way ensure that it actually gets developed in the first place, then I’m all for Kickstarter and early access buy in’s. Without which these games just probably wouldn’t exist.

      If you burn yourself out on it whilst it’s still in alpha or whatever. Well then that’s your own fault.

    • Sedatives says:

      Not everyone buys the “early access” games to play them right away. At least I sometimes will buy a game because the price is lower than the assumed launch price, while I at the same time can go in for a quick sample if I get curious about what it’s going to play like. If I don’t like it during alpha, or don’t play it during alpha, I’m still getting the finished game for as cheap as it’ll only be a year or later after release, only I get it at release. Not such a bad price, compared to what you’ll usually get as a “pre-order discount” (5-10€ for most games I’ve pre-ordered).

      The 20 euros asked for Rust isn’t a terrible lot, so it’s not that big a gamble, even if it turns out to be terrible.

  16. Jakkar says:

    A voice from the quiet past of the MMO world here… There was a German MMORPG back in the early 2000s by name of Neocron, a post-apocalyptic FPS with a strong emphasis on crafting, corporate affiliations and clan activities. It was free-combat except in a tiny minority of inner-city zones, leaving the red light district, the abandoned districts and the sewers – as well as the ten square kilometre wasteland outside completely open to fairly fast-paced FPS shooting, with about the same clunkiness and interface as System Shock 2 and Deus Ex 1.

    The odd thing?

    Back then, trolling wasn’t an internet fashion. Neither outright malice nor a Randian obsession with individual success and efficiency had taken hold of the genre at that point. Combat was free and open, and yet… Barely anyone ever killed each other. The danger was there, and it was deliciously tense. I’ve mugged, I’ve murdered, and been mugged and murdered in turn. I was even assassinated in a planned hit once, cornered by two well-armed rival clanners and lectured on the subject of vengeance before they gunned me down as I tried to run.

    It was wonderful.

    Then humanity joined the internet.

    I don’t think that sort of game can exist anymore without strictly whitelisted servers and a heavy admin presence, and that just wouldn’t be quite the same, anyway.

    • Jakkar says:

      Anyone else foolish enough to buy into the MMO ‘Darkfall’ some years back will know what I mean… I’ve never seen a deathmatch on that scale before or since. Or the fortresses where a hundred players would strip off their clothes and climb into bulging, rippling pyramids of polygonal flesh and textured skin while high level mages cast fireballs into the mass, levelling the victims resistances while levelling their own magical skills, as healer mages resurrected those too weak to survive the periodic blasts of damage, levelling their own skills in the process.

      It was pure horror. I felt like I was hunting Colonel Kurtz down the river after a few days in that game.

      • Premium User Badge

        Gap Gen says:

        That’s amazing.

      • Premium User Badge

        keithzg says:

        Wow.

        See, though, this is why I’ve always been really attracted by the idea of MMOs, it’s just so insane what humanity will get up to if you give them a complex enough world to run rampant in. The static zoo of Warcraft and its clones, by contrast, holds no allure for me, especially since it holds much of what makes all MMOs potentially terrible (childish assholes running around, often endless grinds, etc) without that unpredictable human element. And when it does emerge, they quickly quash it, since it’s usually seen as a bug (see the terrorist-style plague attacks in WoW, for example).

      • Renogon says:

        You and I had some different experiences in Darkfall, although I was part of Murderherd and in launch month we had a no alliance policy, Kill on Sight to everyone that wasn’t murderherd, even friends we met in towns we’d kill for shits and giggles. We we’re the first target of the goonsquad in that game, and obviously our strategy didn’t work(well the fact that our guild city didn’t have gates, because the dev’s thought launching without you being able to build gates was a good idea, ruined that city. No one had the levitate, or launch spell when we were sieged and they were able to just come in and wreck all the buildings). The first month was awesome when everyone was on the same page, and pvp was fun, I had plenty of times in that month me, or a small group, would get fucked up from one guy who was just that damn good. The 50
        + murderraids we had where we just walked around killing everything we saw was good fun as well. But once we decided to join an alliance it lost my appeal. Suddenly you had to stay logged on to be in a ‘pain wall’ for people to hit and cast on. You had to stay in your capital and train skills. Although I still had some good fun, I was mad that the dev’s set it up that way. Aventurine or w/e their name was murdered that game, they thought that by making skills so hard to train you had to fucking macro every night while sleeping they’d keep a playerbase, keep the kids that HAD to hit the roof. In reality, the politics would of held everyone in that game if the skills were near Ultima Online (You could have a fully pvp-able char in a few days, if you macro’d or just was comitted, a week tops being casual) I never seen a game with a huge political system as darkfall for how young it was. I came back to darkfall and enjoyed it SOLO even, even with a new fresh char that I had to skill up again (Which they KIND-OF fixed). But by that time it was mainly dead, there were like two-three alliance/guilds that held everything. I really despise the Dev’s for making such a good game, and adding shitty choices to it to make everyone hate it after 4 months. And the fact that after I sunk 60 bucks into DF, I have to pay for DF: Unholy Wars (I presume the ‘finished’ product’) Is even more of a fucking slap in the face. FUCK YOU AV. I feel bad for the people who didn’t experience DF in it’s prime, when my guild’s town got sieged, and it looked like there was a army of mini guns spitting spells over our walls was fucking amazing. And peeking over the wall while on a roof of a building to see the glimmer of hundreds, upon hundreds of people coming to kill us because they hated us so much was awesome (It was only scale plate, lol, the best anyone crafted at that point). That sieged, a friend of mine in RL saw, bought a computer just to play the game. Atleast he enjoyed it for almost a year before he sizzled, I just didn’t have the heart to grind something ten times worse of a grind then WoW for a ‘full pvp sandbox envirement.’ Though one time when I killed a skilled up guy with a brand new fresh toon with a newby 2h sword was fucking hilarious. He hate whispered me afterwards and I just rofl’d till i couldn’t breathe, he attacked me first.

    • Premium User Badge

      keithzg says:

      I do feel like, with some very careful setup, you could accomplish the same thing. In real life, it’s (in large part; there are many other factors, admittedly) the elaborate setup of society that we have which prevents people from killing and stealing left and right. If a game involved the tools to properly administer and run a functioning society, the players themselves could enforce such things. Certainly a few lone wolves wouldn’t be able to stand up to a small unified town with a functioning level of technology, if you modeled and simulated enough aspects of the scenario. I really do think it’s possible to set up emergent gameplay in a sandbox and not have it just be an endless deathmatch. You have to be very careful how you design the system and extremely comprehensive in the tools you give the players and the realism (or at least cohesiveness and logic) of the world, but I mean, it works in real life, after all. So if you provide the aspects of reality that allow that, then you could in principle provide that.

      (For example, if you need an entire forge or foundry to do metalwork, then random assholes aren’t liable to have the tools to destroy your town walls very easily unless they themselves gang up together—and they aren’t going to stay together for any amount of time without some sort of internal social controls. I hate being killed pointlessly by griefers, but I’d fucking love a game where even though I died it was defending some oasis of civilization from a barbarian horde of griefers.)

      You’re definitely right though that there was a time when it was far, far easier. The general tenor of internet culture has gotten far more juvenile as the last decade has progressed.

    • Reapy says:

      Multiplayer was MAGIC back then. Pure magic being in an online world. It made people take it more seriously and fall into a light roleplay.

      Still, even in the UO beta I recall trashing NPCs for loot and sitting in a ganking group outside of town almost immediately.

      Yet shadowbane we comfortably leveled up with a loose alliance of mutual XP gain, turning on thieves the moment they looted a party member’s bag.

      I never did get darkfall, but it led me to mount & blade (in interview they said the horse combat was like m&b, and I was like, oooh, what is m&b), one of my all time favorite games, so yey for that I guess :)

      But even then the game systems are what drove behavior, but back then I think the newness of connecting online held a lot in check. It is so casual to reach out to each other over hundreds of miles now, that that magic is gone and we rely even more on the rules and systems in place to generate ‘good’ behavior.

      Even so, it is quite easy to portray your assassination in a way that felt as though it was griefing and game wrecking, rather than a fun experience.

  17. hemmingjay says:

    This game is a cooperative player’s dream. It’s fun to work together on a pvp server and protect each other in a makeshift village full of politics, but it’s also fun on a NO PVP server where the only danger is survival and potential boredom, which still offers an incredibly realistic experience. The idea that you can spend days gathering resources, building a crude home and hunting while trying to survive. The entire time to be alone and cautious. Suddenly, the JOY! Another person is there. Are they friendly? Is your lonely struggle over? Or are they dangerous psychos who intend to kill and loot me? Paranoia is often defeated by lonely desperation and that is how most will die in a real apocalypse setting.

    Rust will teach you about yourself and I don’t just mean the ADHD crew that rage quit after 2 hours of killing “noobs” because there is nothing to do.

  18. weirdoo says:

    My friend got raped in the game, seriously, he was running around naked when all of a sudden couple of dudes sporting machine guns lead him to a shack and tell him to bend over, they then proceed to make hardcore moaning noises. When they “finished” they told him to bugger off.

    This game, man

    • Premium User Badge

      Gap Gen says:

      This is why an apocalypse wouldn’t be fun or exciting. Even if you survived, you’d have to deal with this kind of thing on a daily basis. Hell, some people in the world still do; even in the West pretty much all women have to worry about it on some level.

      • TWChristine says:

        I haven’t read many post-apocalyptic books, but from what I have, The Stand seems to be the only one to actually address that issue.

        • Akke says:

          Death of Grass, by John Christopher, does address it as well. It’s much shorter, realistic and brutal than the Stand. Not really brutal in the description of violence, but brutal in how quickly people cross a certain line.

  19. akbarovich says:

    well I’m going to be the lone dissenter and say that I really enjoy games of this nature where you have to compete with other players to survive, and I don’t think they’d be nearly as fun if the competitive nature were removed. If you want to play co-op zombie fighting, why not play Left 4 Dead? I found DayZ compelling precisely because gunning some random guy down and taking his loot was so gratifying! and comparing people’s behavior in online games and moaning about people’s behavior in the real world is quite ridiculous. It’s like playing a multiplayer FPS and moaning that the other players only want to kill you in-game. The entire point of games like DayZ and rust is that there’s no rules saying that you have to play the game a certain way and be cooperative and not gun down newbies for their can of beans. if you’re gunned down when you’ve just spawned, it’s no biggie – you have nothing to lose anyway! and if you had a lot of loot – well you had a means to defend yourself and they had a reason to take you down.

    • hemmingjay says:

      I agree with you for games like Day Z and it’s clones. However, Rust was designed to offer multiple playing styles by design, one of which is NO-PVP server setting. Some people are looking for a roleplaying scenario where survivors are working together to build a utopia and it’s shattering when hackers come in and kill everyone or some 8(or 80) year old literally shoots every moving thing on the screen with no complex decision making or game play intent.

      Different strokes for different folks.

  20. doublethink says:

    This game is pure brutal PvP. This game is a wonderful unicorn.

    Spreading Christmas cheer via in game voice: (which is directional, by the way)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNpVMIXsV7Y

    Instead of blowing the door down with C4 and raiding a base he simply asked the defender to open the door via in-game chat:

    • mukuste says:

      Those videos are repulsive on some level to me. At least now I know that I don’t want to play this game.

  21. Viking45 says:

    So many thoughts on this issue… Long post warning!

    Disclaimer: I have played Rust but not a lot – my thoughts come mostly from DayZ – but I think they are valid here as well.

    First of all – I love DayZ and the likes because it both triggers and tickles my instincts in so many ways.
    Other games can give me adrenaline and get me pumped, but nothing compares to the this..
    I can be running around in DayZ looking for something or nothing, always being paranoid even if there are only 5 people on the server that has a 260 square kilometer map!

    Games that have permadeath or removes all your gear, effectively reducing you to nothing again is a completely different experience than any “arena based shooter” where upon death, you are fully armed and back in action in about 5 seconds. It`s not possible to compare these different types of games!
    No other game has ever given me a bad conscience – not even that silly airport scene in MW2, which had a huge opportunity but did not realize it`s potential for various reasons. But killing another well-armed player in DayZ that I know has spent hours collecting that precious loot can be a tough thing.. which is why I try to never shoot on sight, but I don`t know if the other guy feels the same way!

    I don`t see the problem with people having different playstyles, and that really caters to the feeling and authenticity of a post-collapse of society.
    Some shoot on sight – either because of paranoia or just to be assholes, some wants a friend (discussion about Altruism would be interesting here!) and some just want to survive and be left alone – maybe a bit of voyeurism involved as well.

    You just never know the behaviour of the person you encounter – so exciting! And I suspect, realistic in the current scenario.
    The type of games that only create diffuse rules and not a “set goal” within it`s world creates enormous possibilities, almost only constrained by the players mind.

    Rocket has talked about more reasons for altruistic behaviour which is very interesting and something I see discussed in the comments here and I do agree that this should be addressed but not for the same reasons as many of you, as I previously stated.
    I want this because it would enhance gameplay – not to stop people from shooting on sight, even though that could be a side-effect. More stuff to do = more fun! More interaction = more fun!

    It seems that every comment here is a statement and not a question up for discussion, so I would like to try that, hoping that this could lead to an interesting discussion..
    – Why do you play games like this?
    – Is true altruism possible – and how does it relate to these types of games? (can one do a selfless act without expecting anything in return?)
    – Do you play this game in the same manner as you would behave in a similar real-life situation?

    Sorry if my English is bad, it`s not my native language! (Edit: spelling mistake)

  22. LordMidas says:

    All this talk of Bastardry gives me a thought. In a game like perhaps there should be a Bastard monitor, which can gauge just how much of a Bastard you’re being. Whether it’s constantly killing those who are ranked noob or locking others in rooms.

    The more of a Bastard you are the more hostility from Zombies and the like you receive. Which makes the whole survival thing a lot harder for you.

    And if you reach Complete And Utter Effin Bastard level it literally rains rocks in your face.

    That could potentially quell the Bastardry right there.

    • Viking45 says:

      I don`t think there should be a system within the game to punish a player in games like these.
      It works well enough in arena shooters that has friendly fire involved – shoot a team mate for no reason and you are an asshole (accidents can happen ofc) – punishment ensues.

      I like the bandit system in DayZ more, where other players could punish someone for being a bastard (though the system was flawed in my opinion).

      • Premium User Badge

        VelvetFistIronGlove says:

        The bandit system in DayZ was flawed, but it did work, somewhat crudely. It split the world into two teams: those you knew to be PKers, and those you couldn’t always be sure about.

        Whereas with it gone, it’s everyone you meet you can’t be sure about. You can take a risk and try to be friendly, but it’s a very big risk if the other guy is armed—and if you’ve got the drop, there’s really no consequences for shooting them just to be safe.

  23. Premium User Badge

    strangeloup says:

    Hm. I’m kinda glad that this got posted, because I wasn’t apparently paying enough attention to realise that this was an online game, and thus inevitably full of arseholes. As a result my interest in it has entirely evaporated.

  24. frightlever says:

    “I love this game, I built a house around a girl’s house and made her my prisoner. I fed her cans of tuna and cooked chicken when it was available, and sometimes I would drop spare logs of wood (when they were available). The best part is she talks to me, keeps telling me her clan’s going to raid my structure and save her… I simply respond with ‘It puts the lotion on its skin, or it gets the hose again’ and by hose I mean I dump charcoal on her. Great game hope the servers come up soon, I think my prisoner may need to eat.”

    • Frye2k11 says:

      Cool man you really got her. Doesn’t it worry you at all that out of all possible actions you could have taken, you chose an abusive role, playing out a torture scene of a psychopath?

  25. Hencts says:

    my classmate’s mother-in-law makes $87 every hour on the computer. She has been without work for 10 months but last month her payment was $21413 just working on the computer for a few hours. read,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, http://www.Bay95.com

  26. chandler191 says:

    Why the fuck? Is the picture of my//our base on the last picture? Not being offensive or anything but why?