Day 12: The end

Posted by ahoodedfigure (4240 posts) -

It's 11 minutes, as I start typing this, until the end of our particular world.  Our town kept alive for a long time.  Ours was one of the few that made it all the way to day 12 since Die2Nite 1.0 was released.  I'm a bit exhausted with the game, especially after I returned home from gathering materials to find all my stuff had been stolen from my house in some petty act of resource gathering now that our town is in chaos.  Resources were hoarded and spent without regard for their other possible uses.  I never did get to put a battery in the little lamp I'd had since the beginning (which was stolen and later recovered).  I'll be clutching that, along with a can opener, come midnight.  It's more symbolic than anything, since I know we're all going to die.
 
Another of us has managed to keep 4 fat little cats alive, including one that I named Whences whom we found on an expedition in the north in happier times.  For a long while I thought they'd butchered little Whences for his meat, but it seems this sensitive soul gave him a good home.  As I said in the forums, I hope the little guys break free at the last moment and become the last survivors of the town, even though I know it will all be erased when we die.
 
It turns out there really was some remorseless removal of defensive systems, which benefited the whole town, in favor of bulking up individual dwellings. This probably resulted in more deaths than there should have been.  There's been the usual cowardly distancing from their actions, talking about how they survived because of it (I survived and didn't need to steal anything, so that logic falls through). Was a bitter coda for me, and I think it soured me to the game a bit to know that this behavior seems encouraged because when you begin a new character's life, you may get special abilities based upon whether or not you were the last to die.  If some people are likely to die BEFORE that's determined, there's a "better them than us" mentality that erodes camaraderie for the fair-weather friends of the group.
 
I'll be glad to get rid of most of these ugly survivalists, but the idea of starting over with a potentially worse group doesn't seem very appealing.  That's one problem I have with this game: unless I misunderstand, I'm always going to be seeded into a new town after my old town is lost to me.  Always.  It's not like other online games, say RPGs, where it's up to you how much time you want to put into it. I put time in whether or not my character is active at all.
 
I'd rather not have my character associated with inactivity, but I'm not sure I want to put myself through another experience of trying to get newbies to ask questions and be involved.  Sort of like that guy from Brazil; I think I may take a mental holiday.
 
In a few seconds, it's all going to end.
 

 The midnight waiting screen. "THE BUTTONS! THEY DO NOTHING!!"

The final screen, for now.  Looks like I can postpone playing a little while, since I'm not going to hit that button yet:

 
http://www.die2nite.com/?ref=Antediluvian 
#1 Posted by ahoodedfigure (4240 posts) -

It's 11 minutes, as I start typing this, until the end of our particular world.  Our town kept alive for a long time.  Ours was one of the few that made it all the way to day 12 since Die2Nite 1.0 was released.  I'm a bit exhausted with the game, especially after I returned home from gathering materials to find all my stuff had been stolen from my house in some petty act of resource gathering now that our town is in chaos.  Resources were hoarded and spent without regard for their other possible uses.  I never did get to put a battery in the little lamp I'd had since the beginning (which was stolen and later recovered).  I'll be clutching that, along with a can opener, come midnight.  It's more symbolic than anything, since I know we're all going to die.
 
Another of us has managed to keep 4 fat little cats alive, including one that I named Whences whom we found on an expedition in the north in happier times.  For a long while I thought they'd butchered little Whences for his meat, but it seems this sensitive soul gave him a good home.  As I said in the forums, I hope the little guys break free at the last moment and become the last survivors of the town, even though I know it will all be erased when we die.
 
It turns out there really was some remorseless removal of defensive systems, which benefited the whole town, in favor of bulking up individual dwellings. This probably resulted in more deaths than there should have been.  There's been the usual cowardly distancing from their actions, talking about how they survived because of it (I survived and didn't need to steal anything, so that logic falls through). Was a bitter coda for me, and I think it soured me to the game a bit to know that this behavior seems encouraged because when you begin a new character's life, you may get special abilities based upon whether or not you were the last to die.  If some people are likely to die BEFORE that's determined, there's a "better them than us" mentality that erodes camaraderie for the fair-weather friends of the group.
 
I'll be glad to get rid of most of these ugly survivalists, but the idea of starting over with a potentially worse group doesn't seem very appealing.  That's one problem I have with this game: unless I misunderstand, I'm always going to be seeded into a new town after my old town is lost to me.  Always.  It's not like other online games, say RPGs, where it's up to you how much time you want to put into it. I put time in whether or not my character is active at all.
 
I'd rather not have my character associated with inactivity, but I'm not sure I want to put myself through another experience of trying to get newbies to ask questions and be involved.  Sort of like that guy from Brazil; I think I may take a mental holiday.
 
In a few seconds, it's all going to end.
 

 The midnight waiting screen. "THE BUTTONS! THEY DO NOTHING!!"

The final screen, for now.  Looks like I can postpone playing a little while, since I'm not going to hit that button yet:

 
http://www.die2nite.com/?ref=Antediluvian 
#2 Posted by Bigandtasty (3203 posts) -

Sounds like a pretty interesting social experiment thing. Sounds hard to strike a balance between using resources for individual players and making sure there's enough to go around.
 
I'll consider it if I eat a red ring of death during Arkham Asylum or Red Dead Redemption (knowing my luck, I totally will).
 
Also, dude's wearing a vault outfit. Nice.

#3 Posted by ahoodedfigure (4240 posts) -
@Bigandtasty:  There's an implicit reference to Fallout in a lot of the imagery they use, though nothing so overt that it would violate copyright or feel like pandering. There's only references to real-world stuff (a pouch of  thinly disguised "ness-quik" acts as a weed killer in-game, which I found pretty funny), not 1950's future retro, but yeah, around the edges you pick up that they're trying to rope a bit of that market, or maybe they just like the aesthetic, the ugly juxtaposed against the pristine.
 
It does definitely feel a bit like an experiment. With the option to build up your own hut at the definite disadvantage of the entire town, some of the most heated battles will be over things like that, where innocent mistakes turn into lynchings, and people can slip by and hide tons of equipment for themselves if they're smart about it.
 
The good moments, though, are when everyone in a sense beats the game by working together.
 
How many red rings have you got so far, out of curiosity?  Our old XBox Normal has been chugging along since we bought it 5 years ago.
#4 Posted by Bigandtasty (3203 posts) -
@ahoodedfigure:  Bought a 60GB Pro in March 2009; got red ring in December 2009 less than an hour after I was done with my last class. This year, I'm a few days removed from finals and no red ring yet, but I'm still wary.
 
It's a shame that being out for yourself is somewhat rewarded, but at least people have to cooperate sometimes -- and if people DO get selfish, they contribute to the death of everyone, whether or not they realize it.
#5 Posted by ahoodedfigure (4240 posts) -
@Bigandtasty:  If only they got a pariah mark or something, I think I'd feel better about it.  There were some who DEFINITELY sacrificed others for their own good, although thankfully that wasn't too common until the end.
 
I read that some red rings come from the fact that the system never had a quality heat sink.  I don't know how easy it would be to mod it for that, but I also wonder if there are other defects that contribute to this ridiculous level of attrition.
#6 Edited by Jeust (10768 posts) -

 It's a shame that being out for yourself is somewhat rewarded, but at least people have to cooperate sometimes -- and if people DO get selfish, they contribute to the death of everyone, whether or not they realize it.    

That's why it is a social experience. If something like a zombie apocalypse happened, you would have to watch your ass, or you'd become zombie food fast. 
 
I'll give a play! That's for the great blogs you are putting about the game.  
  
One question. Is there any benefit to the recruiting people? If there is, post your link, and I'll register.
#7 Posted by ahoodedfigure (4240 posts) -
@Jeust:  I get some distinctions for people registering under my username. It doesn't give me any direct reward unless people actually make purchases I think, but it won't be any imposition to people who register using it either. It also gives me awards if enough people register, but those awards are just little badges or whatever.  I'd appreciate it if you did, but it's certainly not required.
 
If it was a freeform social experience it would be different. Because there's structure, and because there's rules (there pretty much has to be for it to be a worthwhile game), those rules influence how people interact. If you were told "don't worry, when we all die from the zombie apocalypse we'll all be resurrected in other towns that are starting over, and the last one of us to die will get hero advantages for a few days, so let's fight over the remaining resources like animals to try to outlive one another" it doesn't feel quite like a simulation, unless you want to talk religion :)
#8 Edited by Jeust (10768 posts) -
@ahoodedfigure said:

" @Jeust:  I get some distinctions for people registering under my username. It doesn't give me any direct reward unless people actually make purchases I think, but it won't be any imposition to people who register using it either. It also gives me awards if enough people register, but those awards are just little badges or whatever.  I'd appreciate it if you did, but it's certainly not required.  If it was a freeform social experience it would be different. Because there's structure, and because there's rules (there pretty much has to be for it to be a worthwhile game), those rules influence how people interact. If you were told "don't worry, when we all die from the zombie apocalypse we'll all be resurrected in other towns that are starting over, and the last one of us to die will get hero advantages for a few days, so let's fight over the remaining resources like animals to try to outlive one another" it doesn't feel quite like a simulation, unless you want to talk religion :) "

Post your link either way. I'll register by it. 
 
Depends on your view of social experience. Even if there weren't at play artificial rules that press the mentality of "so let's fight over the remaining resources like animals to try to outlive one another", if an apocalypse happened, not all, but some would do just about anything to survive. Even as there are some degree of artificiality to the question, I'd say it is an endearing experience. 
#9 Posted by ahoodedfigure (4240 posts) -
@Jeust:  There would, however, be a better chance that those folks who decided they were the center of the universe would get pounded into the ground by the group that decided to work together. You don't really get that option without a lot more organization in d2n.  There are ways to kill people I've heard, but it's always indirect, and restraining them is a bit drawn out.  When chaos erupts it changes the rules, making it harder, actually, to enact justice.  But anyway:
 
  http://www.die2nite.com/?ref=Antediluvian  
 
Click on this and it should work. Thanks :)
#10 Edited by Jeust (10768 posts) -

 When chaos erupts it changes the rules, making it harder, actually, to enact justice.     

Justice is an abstract concept created by Man. In nature, justice equals to the will of the strongest. Be it a group or an individual. Isn't it?
#11 Posted by ahoodedfigure (4240 posts) -
@Jeust:  I disagree, since I think many human beings at least have an inherent will to justice. As to the particulars that's up for debate, but I think a lot of us get really pissed for a very long time if we're wronged, and we'll go after the person who wronged us, even to the point where it might seem irrational.  The fact that we have a justice system at all is actually a response to this desire, preventing it from being a matter of instinct (although there are many different justice systems. Yemen's system is a good example of something that most Westerners might find alien, but it seems to serve their cultural beliefs well enough).
 
As for strength, it depends on how you define that, since one of the cool things about the human animal is its ability to overcome overt "strength", whether that be ganging up on a bully (which is what a people will do if they've lived long enough in a culture that's comfortable and has supported them, which is what I'm referring to in the case we're talking about. You could argue that this group reaction FORMS as a result of a group or individual who, if not countered, would be the strongest), sneaky murder, individual misdirection, or creation of a justice, ethical, or religious system which diverts or corrects behavior.  The measure of strength, then, changes.  You might say it's often the gang that is the bully in current systems.
 
But it really depends on what you consider to be "strong." If you say strong is defined as whatever wins, then the definition is cyclical and doesn't mean a whole lot.  If it refers to muscle, there are examples where this fails, even within the animal kingdom.
 
Then again, I don't look at human beings as completely separate from animals, and I don't think human nature is so easily defined.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.