I feel like Stonehearth just isn't that fun

[Ramcat]

There is some truth here. I think it has to do with a few factors.

1. Building is slow.
2. The Module system is missing.
3. Modding is missing (decentralized, in game UI, shared mods)
4. The systems that are mentioned in Update #38 are yet to even be designed and are absolutely necessary for modders to make cohesive stories and to have combat groups move together.
5. There is no adventuring. You cant move your camp, you can’t break off exploring groups, and so on.

I’m sure the list could go on.

But I think the team now sees these issues and are working a core set of systems that will let them and modders tell a story with Stonehearth. Lets hope they do a bang up job!

[Froztar]

I oddly agree with you, on one hand Stonehearth is a 3D version of Gnomoria, Gnomaria? You understand what I mean, on the other hand it is no where near as complex or interesting. Infact in comparison it’s very limited with map size, unit control, and possible classes/abilities.

One thing I’d like to see more of is customization, creating your own characters with their own stats would be nice, but at the same time I understand how a lot of people prefer the randomization. Though an entire group of only male or female members can be a bit odd, and some would prefer a more even number.

Personally I’d love to start the game with, say a Village Elder, a carpenter or two, a farmer, and a few Hunter/Gatherers.

I understand that this is my opinion, and that it may not be shared.

Now… continuing with Customization… I’d prefer to go into a character’s inventory and specifically tell them what to pick up, E.G Footman Lvl. 2 “George” over there should go pick up the mace and shield, and NOT pick up the two handed sword, why do I feel this way? I appreciate more defense than offence. Being able to look into their equipment menu and be like “ok . … Equip these items! Wonderful.” would be nice, instead of “Automatically pick up the strongest item.”

Building, this is a fun little topic. Has it improved? Yes, definitely. Does it still need work? Yes, Definitely. Why do I feel this way? Well there are still issues where you can just randomly run out of resources and the building won’t tell you to gather more, or when you mess up and you want to remove the building they can’t remove it and fill in the ground they took it from.

Should we be able to gather each and every block of dirt we collect? YES. Why? Well it would be nice to move said dirt to an upper tier area, say a plateau, or . … a hanging garden. Think about how cool that would be? build this tree house like structure and have hanging gardens and houses, all of this is mostly safe from anything below as it’s basically its own fortress, the only way in would be from the stairs down below, and you’d have guards and archers properly set up to block the entrance and deal with any invaders.

Speaking of Archers, crossbows would be appreciated, I could see an upgrade for the Archer to become like, an Arbalest (I know it’s a weapon, but you understand.) or a Long bowman. This specifically being for area defense n such.

Although, here is what I will say in conclusion, have these devs from basically out of nowhere started something interesting? Yes! Do I have HIGH hopes for this game? YES! does that mean I may be disappointed? It’s bound to happen with anything.

[genboom]

Your loose “toy” argument can be applied to every open world and role playing game ever made.
So would you define a game having very specific core mechanics and rule-sets that the players must follow?
I would then argue that the more realistic a game is the less of a game it is by that definition.

Trying to put things like games, which would probably be best defined as an “interactive experience with a goal and a failure state”, into this type of metaphor doesn’t work.

The whole point of a toy is that you change the rules arbitrarily however you see fit and any given time. You don’t really see that in Stonehearth or in any game I can think of.

What I think you mean is that you decide the goal of the game, which is completely different.

[sphr]

I may not be carrying my thoughts over clear enough?

I think the most defining feature of a toy is the lack of predetermined in-game goal, or lack of a better phrase atm.

let me try using examples.

Open world etc do indeed approach the toy concept, but only if they have enough freedom in approach to gameplay. While that is true, most of them usually have stories and arcs and scenarios. no matter how many options there are in these, they are the ones that make it more “game” and less “toy”. These … “rules?” are not quite the same as the the rules of a toy however, which is usually fundamental and contextless (wrt scenarios/stories)

While stonehearth is probably moving towards the latter, though the state of development is still mainly building up the infrastructural components (as opposed to using the components to compose a more coherent gaming experience). This is probably why it is still more of a “toy” by my feeling.

EDIT: perhaps a way to summarize my thoughts:
A game aims at delivering a game experience (including gameplay and narrative).
A toy, however, defines basic rules of interaction, but allows the user great freedom to test those interactions via experimentation.

[genboom]

I updated my post above.

I agree that you can interact with Stonehearth similarly to a toy but that it is a game and very different than a toy and that metaphor doesn’t really work and breaks down rather quickly when you really look at the way a player interacts with a game versus a toy.

[Ramcat]

I think both of you are making good points with the toy vs game analogy. Does it break down, yeah, sure, maybe. But are there things to glean from it? Yes, yes, there are.

Toy: I get to define the rules. Modding.
Game: We can share those mods with other players.

Toy: I can make hand drawn buildings, and sculpt my world.
Game: Buildings matter for defense and other game-play aspects (and we can share those buildings).

The “module” system described in the Kickstarter is the heart of turning the current toy into a game. A mod I want to make is a “hard” mode module. A big cat gets released into the wild by a trader as a kitten right near your village. At night it hunts your people. If it gets one, it divides into two cats. And hunts two people at night (maybe a week delay in game time). This progression continues until you stop all play and go hunt down every big cat in the forest.

Update #38 where Radiant talks about creating systems that would allow such things fills my heart with hope. As a player to deal with the threat of the cats I do need to be able to take control of the village and put them in cat hunting mode - I don’t mean control each movement of each Hearthling but being able to direct the “will of the people”.

I think such stuff is necessary to even get close to the stuff promised in the Kickstarter. The bunny race, elemental planes, etc, etc. To interact with those things will take more control than we have now as both modders and players.

[Briarpatch]

Sounds like a great scenario, I look forward to playing it if it ever becomes a reality.

[Obsidiox]

I was about to reply in agreement; thinking I haven’t played that long but haven’t found the game to be much of a challenge… Then I realized - it’s an alpha. I always think the point of alpha is to get features working so a game can be implemented around those features. In my opinion, it’s great that the alpha is polished enough for me to confuse it with a completed game.

So I withhold all my opinions on overall fun-ness till later.

edit - that doesn’t mean I don’t like any of the ideas above, I like many of them.

[wminsing]

I agree with the above post that at this point Stonehearth is more of a ‘software toy’ than a game at this point, and it might continue to develop that direction more than the ‘traditional’ direction. There’s nothing wrong with software toys; some of the stuff I play with the most falls into that category. But one thing that keeps a software toy fresh is having it be complex enough that the longer you play with it the more interesting the behavior becomes and the deeper you can delve into certain aspects of the game. And right now Stonehearth definitely lacks depth to a lot of the subsystems. For example:

1. Building- fairly well developed, but other than cosmetic differences and the avaliability of resources stone vs. clay vs. wood construction makes no gameplay difference
2. Combat- Much better developed over the last few Alphas, but once you have a ‘standard party of 4’ (or two of them) combat can basically be run on autopilot.
3. Farming- This area needs all sorts of depth added. Right now you plop down your standard sized plots anywhere and food is churned out. The only thing you need to worry about is having the right farmer to field ratio. But ideally (to me) you should need to worry about stuff like soil quality, water access, climate and weather should play a role, some stuff just doesn’t grow in certain climates, etc, etc. Water modeling improvement would play a role in this (I want to build irrigiation canals, yes I am weird like that)
4. Trapping- again, really not a lot to this; create zones, trapper does his/her thing with no further input
5. Trading- so I admit that I haven’t build the new trade stall stuff introduced a few alphas ago (because you need a level 6 carpenter and I have better uses for that wood), but again there’s no real decisions here; traders show up, buy/sell, you are done. More could be done so that attracting traders, protecting them, and so forth, was more interesting.
6. Empty world- again getting better (much better over the last few Alphas), but there’s really not a lot in the world besides you and your enemies. More ambient life, neutral or allied beings, etc. Right now there’s very little reason to explore.

Now, folks might say ‘but I don’t want a lot of micromanagement’ and I totally here that. But the alternative can’t be there’s NO decisions to make in those areas.

-Will

[oldmacman]

If you’re a Linux or OS X gamer, this is not a game or a toy. It’s an undefined wait to see if your money will ever bear fruit.

Marvel at how even this far into development, Radiant (Riot) don’t seem to know what features are required to transfer from alpha to beta. Gasp in amazement as the three ugly sisters of StoneHearth (macOS, Linux and multi-player) are once more drop kicked into the long grass with promises of magical appearance at some unspecified (and unspecifiable) point in the future.

I’ve enjoyed the development process as well, but how long will Riot bankroll a seemingly never ending alpha story?

[groms]

@Ramsis

Maybe you’ll build a house or two, an ungodly task that will put some of your Hearthlings out of commission as they try to understand what they are actually supposed to do with the task you’ve given them. Some of you will be unlucky and you’ll watch as they get stuck, maybe you’ll be lucky and the building will take you less than a half hour to have been built completely.

This … really this is the most annnnnoying part.
Yeah, most of the buildings get build now but then again some will not be build … and then there is the scaffolding … I really need a console command for destroying ai placed ladders and scaffolding.

To the classes and the crafting.
I really would like to see all classes that are planed, I want a magma smith and a mage.
As for crafting, it is partly to fast. Why should I craft bronze stuff when iron or steel is only 5 minutes real time away.
The progression is too fast in most of the crafting areas but then again you need it that fast to survive the hard mode …
Balancing!!!

BUT big but huh!
the game itself is very fun for me to play, even when I start mit 2346325 world and it may look like it is everytime the same, it isn’t.
Every new kingdom is a new story of new hearthlings, new exploration and new dangers.

For me Stonehearth gives me the feeling of the game Settlers back.
Even with all the flaws and there are still alot, it is fun.
Yeah, the devs need to fix a lot of broken stuff (why can I not place boxes on another anymore …) and they have to add a lot of content that is still missing.
And yes, the game is too long in a alpha(hmm it is more loike a beta) state
But still, I like it very much and it is fun to play for me and the community here on the forum is one of the best I have ever seen, I love you girls and guys.

As for your problem with stonehearth, it is good that you wrote about it

[Nukeacitrus]

As a Dwarf Fortress player, I feel that the sense of danger is just as important as having excellent creative tools at my disposal. Playing the game on normal mode was too dull for me, but after changing to Hardmode I get way more joy out of the game, giving me a sense of accomplishment.

I’m the kind of player that usually likes the early stages of a town, rather than the later, since that’s where the challenges usually are. I’ve yet to meet the real enemies of this game (I’ve heard stories), but I wish that the game would provide a constant threat to my hearthlings, and this goes beyond just getting attacked.

Random events would really spice things up for me, like a sudden plague affecting your plants, hearthlings getting sick/hurt and needs to rest, or a big nasty beast deciding to make the woods outside your town its home.

But if I were to play easy mode, I would quickly get bored with the game. In the end, this is all subjective, and it’s impossible to make a game that will speak to everyone.

OP: I hope you find your way back into enjoying the game!

[Soul]

(For me) I do love this game as a whole and play it every so often.

I think the biggest turn off (right now) is the building process. Not the bug’s that we get, ladder/scaffolding or just will not complete build bug’s (those will be conquered eventually) but the length of time it takes from start to finish is a major time hog. Even when speeding up time to force it, it still seems excessive, let alone watching it in normal speed. Too me, this throws off the pacing and makes me pick up my phone while it’s being built.

I performed a little test and had my Son(7) sit down and play the game only to find him after the 3rd (default) prefab building get built that he said he wanted to do something else. Did the same with my other Son(16) to have somewhat the same result. I asked them why they wanted to stop? Conclusion: Too slow / Takes forever to build a town.

By no means is this a thorough test or anything but it did point to an area that may need to be looked at

[Hieronymous]

The combat needs more tactical depth, honestly. There’s just not much there. It’s send your blob at their blob and the biggest blob wins.

Need things like formations, significant tactical differences between weapons (long reach, armor penetration, knockback, etc) and so forth.

Full destruction and reconstruction of buildings etc. would help a lot too – let monsters destroy walls and so forth.

[boomboom]

I think the biggest drawback right now is the lack of interactions between hearth kings and other things on the map. I could build a madrive city and fill it with hearthlings, but it just doesn’t feel lived in. Hearthlings ither are doing a job, sleeping, or standing around. Buildings feel like they only exist to bring up my town score.

[Wiese2007]

like you have seen at the moment they do more idle thinks like moan or looking at their tools - soo there will be more idle/freetime tasks ^^ little by little xD

[sphr]

add more fue… ahem… I mean materials to the discussion.

The difference between games and toys

interesting quotes, which clarified what I meant in earlier post, suggesting that stonehearth be enjoyed as a toy in addition to just the game part.

Playing a game means submitting to an external set of rules defining particular things you are supposed to achieve: goals, achievements, points, a certain amount of exploration or action, kills, items, whatever. Playing with a toy, though, is about satisfying not an external set of conditions, but a far more nebulous internal set: through play, you are experimenting with how doing something makes you feel. The aim is not, in the end, to satisfy something outside yourself; it is play itself in the most basic, self-delighting sense.

Are there clear divisions between these things? A lot of the time, no. People pretty much can’t help themselves from being playful; and the best games always seem to permit playfulness as well as simple game-playing.

EDIT: just an example of some of the the type of “internal rules” I’ve used:

• fixed settlement philosophy and building styles (these are not enforced by game, so it must be my own “internal” ones). May include terrain (e.g. build a town on island, on cliff, underground etc)
• hearthling management policies (e.g. how big a military? what mix? reservist program?)
• logistics management policies (where to place what stockpiles. well, a little lacking atm due to mechanics provided)

What I suggested, as a possible means of extending the fun (assuming it is finite) provide-able by a a fixed version of stonehearth (assuming there is no further improvements), is to vary these “internal” rules to try to experiment or create a different experience.

This is, of course, in parallel with the hope that the game is improved, both in the “game” aspects as well as in the “toy” aspects, which will add more fun potential. (or from DF community’s perspective: there are probably not enough different ways of losing yet, to make losing interesting… )

To summarize something relating back to OP:
there are basically 2 ways to get more fun with Stonehearth (or any other video-game I think):

1. Wait for developers to add more features/content.
2. Increase the number of ways you can squeeze fun out of the existing features/content.

I basically prefer to start immediately with the latter, while hoping for the former to happen soon.

[Taxibutler]

One thing that i agree/disagree on is the multiplayer, now i’m not sure, but i think they will have it as a Co-op or a 1v1 which would be awesome which would add a new way to see the game

[estosan]

Honestly OP has a pretty decent point. The game is too simple which would be fine if we could be afforded more in game customizabilty. We technically cannot even build cultures from scratch which annoys me a little.

[MoonSight]

Could you explain what you mean by ‘cultures from scratch’?

Because in my eyes we’re doing that by default considering we only have one tool to begin with