A Dam Hard Challenge

Stormwolf1O1

By Stormwolf1O1
in Survival Mode

Recommended Posts

SnowWalker Pathfinder

SnowWalker

Posted
Posted
Just now, Stormwolf1O1 said:

I'll snap a pic next time I see one! :) 

I'm not saying I don't believe it though but just why I don't get them? I've got close to 1,600 hrs in this game, lol, why haven't I seen that? Maybe it's a recent thing? I haven't played much since I recently bought 'Defense Grid - The Awakening' which is my current addiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Thrasador Pathfinder

Thrasador

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, SnowWalker said:

I read, or heard somewhere that the well fed human body can survive for about 40 - 50 days without food, and if you don't exert yourself. Dying of starvation in just ten days in this game is so unrealistic, unless it was thirst you died from, which will kill you in real life in only a few days. Dying of thirst in this dam challenge shouldn't happen quickly either since you'd know that you have to boil as much water as possible within the first few fires that you can make. You can though, survive without water for up to 14 days if you are in a colder climate and you have a high body-water percentage. The more body fat you have means less body water percentage. Anyway, what I'm saying is that in this cold climate, and the fact that we begin a new game well fed and hydrated, we should be surviving a lot longer than ten days without food or water, especially considering that we wouldn't run out of food for a few of those days.

This has been brought up ad nauseum and covered in negative reviews I have read...

The calories burned in the game whilst doing nothing and while doing various activities are OBSCENE. The time it takes to harvest a rabbit by hand and the calories it burns to do so are one of the most unrealistic things imaginable....

It's done in part because if the calorie burn was more realistic, the game would be terribly boring due to the ease in which you could survive. If things took a more realistic amount of time the day would drag on, and you will be bored because you could get so much done in the game in one day.

If you starved slower AND all the animal meat gave the correct amount of calories  (all animal meats give about 600 more calories per kilogram than they do in the game) you wouldn't have to go out and hunt for food, or fish, or gather so regularly. Looking for food is a task that occupies the majority of your time, without it what would you do all day in the game? Stare at a wall? 

Then we would spend all day complaining about how easy and boring the game is....

I'm pretty sure that is the main reason things are the way that they are in the game.....why they can't just come out and say that is beyond me....

I guess it would make it sound like the game is boring and they didn't add enough actual activities to do in the game other than look for food, or read a skill book if you already have food....

Found the review that complained about the food issue, I wouldn't call it a "negative review" and it's from two years ago so it's less relevant. Most reviews of The Long Dark are more positive though:

http://www.reaxxion.com/6401/the-long-dark-is-a-prime-example-of-whats-wrong-with-survival-games

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JAFO Pathfinder

JAFO

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, RossBondReturns said:

I flat out got frostbite on my hands...and made it in the window with...around 10 condition...the whole of the dam video segment woulda been in 10 or less condition.

It was a brutally slow and painful death to watch.

Damn.. moving about is hard enough when you're below 10% condition.. moving through the tangled mess that the Dam's interior is now, in that condition, must have been a nightmare in itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnowWalker Pathfinder

SnowWalker

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Thrasador said:

The review called it unnecessary filler, and it's an example of "what's wrong" with a majority of survival games....including The Long Dark....

I know, lol. It's all true. How can I complain about realism in some games when I will except magic and health potions and x-ray vision in a lot of games and it's just all right :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thrasador Pathfinder

Thrasador

Posted
Posted
Just now, SnowWalker said:

I know, lol. It's all true. How can I complain about realism in some games when I will except magic and health potions and x-ray vision in a lot of games and it's just all right :D

I found that review I was trying to recall from memory and added it to my post above....

It is an old review though....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnowWalker Pathfinder

SnowWalker

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Thrasador said:

I've seen them there before, it's the luck of the draw m8....

Spawns also depend on difficulty level....

Oh I know it is, I'm just saying that I put so many hrs in the game and played all difficulties so many time, you'd think I'd get one at least once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kurja Prepper

kurja

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Thrasador said:

If you starved slower AND all the animal meat gave the correct amount of calories  (all animal meats give about 600 more calories per kilogram than they do in the game) you wouldn't have to go out and hunt for food, or fish, or gather so regularly. Looking for food is a task that occupies the majority of your time, without it what would you do all day in the game? Stare at a wall? 

Then we would spend all day complaining about how easy and boring the game is....

That seems like a rather easy balancing issue - fishing and especially hunting should be difficult. As it is finding and killing a ton of game is rather easy. Actually I'd prefer that, if food was much more scarce but more filling; it would be a big deal to find a can of spam or catch one bunny or a 3kg fish. Now it's like "okay I'll just get three more of these and come back for more tomorrow".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JAFO Pathfinder

JAFO

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, kurja said:

I play interloper. There are a lot of deer and bunnies in the game.

Just because there are a lot of 'em doesn't mean you can harvest a bunch of them as easily as lower difficulty levels though.. the weather sees to that. Fish yeah.. but even then, on Interloper it takes a lot of firewood gathered beforehand if you're gonna go for a big haul.

In other words, the costs imposed by Interloper reduce the amount you can take in one hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JAFO Pathfinder

JAFO

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, kurja said:

How is harvesting a bunny different on say stalker vs interloper? You take it to a sheltered place, harvest, profit.

Yes, rabbits recently became something of an exception.. and I never claimed food in Interloper was a problem.. just that, other than rabbits, there's a higher cost involved in obtaining it.. which is not the same thing as saying it's too costly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing