Відео

I got exactly what I wanted. I'm pretty happy with it. Played 1-3 and gave Extraction (PS3) a go back in the day. DS1 has best atmosphere but DS2 is the better game. Pretty bummed we wont get a 2 remake. Humans like familiar things. There's no shame in that.

i really loved the video - it's really intresting and i love hearing new thoughts about the game, especially about the objectification of buddy - i hadn't had it phrased that way before, but its a really genius and all-encompassing thesis for her character. The comparison of joy to dopamine-based gaming is also pretty genius. Afaik the kidnapping/leaving has no relation to being in a new area, its just a random chance every rest. to me this absolutely balances out the joy withdrawal camp issue, as as long as you're not backtracking to the first campfire, every reset has the chance of taking away the most valuable resource there is (especially if you're in area 3 where kidnapping is an instant kill), not to mention that the withdrawal can come back almost immediately if you get unlucky. I honestly think F&H's system is wayyy more lenient - it doesnt heal you, but its absolutely trivial to make almost every bed in the game safe, and so there is basically no downside for repeatedly saving as much as you want. to be honest grinding never even occured to me as a solution to mag related decisions - it was so tedious and so fruitless considering the absolutely tiny amount mags you get i never gave it a second thought, so i suppose i would consider that part of the 'pact' made with the game to begin with. I think deciding to never savescum or grind would take away a lot of the boredom and replace it with actual, genuine pain, and also make the game a little more exciting. i agree that this should've been enforced in more places though, i think pain mode was an attempt to do it that falls completely flat. it's a little difficult to enforce without removing saving from the game entirely though, or making it autosave which might've had all sorts of other softening consequences. I TOTALLY agree about joy addiction needing to be a bigger deal - in the base game you can basically just not play with addicted party members, though admittedly definitive edition makes this significantly harder. I also think its pretty heavily implied that brad is mid-transformation during the final fights - the flashes of flesh and the "scream" ability making the joy mutant wail all but confirm it.

I couldn't deal with all the cutscenes. Go here, cutscene, shoot these guys, drive there, cutscene. Cutscene again, more cutscenes.

Broke ahh ninja crying about DLC ahh video 😂😂😂😂😂

I find it interesting how you ended up learning this supposed bad habits, 'cause you didn't learn them when it came to power generation. What I learned from the very start of the game of babysitting every process and what not, is that it sucks ass, it's very tedious and repetitive. So when I got to automate the stuff that up until that point I had to hand craft, it felt relieving, as if I was untethered from having to babysit everything myself. I also experienced that same relief you mentioned when moving on from biomass power and unlocking coal. That you don't have to babysit the generators constantly and can have the peace of mind that the power will always work so long as you set it up properly. Mind you, I'm not a new player, this was my thought process back in 2019 when I first touched the game, I have dumped way too many hours into the game during the years since I wonder if this difference was due to the mentality you went into this with, expecting this to be closer to an automation game or a survival game that focuses on finishing a set goal and that alone, for the game's numbers goal post to be the main driving factor for you to play. You seem to have ended up getting too focused on the elevator phase completion numbers above all else, and I also wonder if that might be what bled into around half of the negatives you brought up, 'cause I feel they are victim to scale, or rather the lack thereof. The elevator goal post being so low that you don't actually end up automating the elevator parts is probably your best take in this department, that has been an issue all throughout the early access. Most players just fill a container with however many materials are needed to build the parts rather than automate them, at least for the first 3 phases. Phase 4 before 1.0 had way higher requirements since it was the last one in the game, enough so that it was unreasonable for people to just handmade the stuff needed, meaning that was the one phase people actually automated parts for. I did wonder when they reduced the requirements if the same would end up happening with phase 4, and tho you seem to have indeed not automated them, I can't say if that's a big enough sample yet. What I haven't heard up until now is someone that's playing just for the elevator phases, at most the only criticisms I have heard about it are that it is just an annoyance that locks people out of the toys in the toy box they want, so that's a new one. I'm unsure how this one can be solved, even making it so that you have to automate x quota of parts per minute for y amount of time feels extremely pointless when it's open to the exact same issue, where a player can just stockpile however many materials they need to have the factory running for the required time. This would change nothing besides having to have several machines running and have them belt into the elevator rather than a single machine hooked up to a storage bin. As for the world, tho I do agree it's not subnautica in the way it pushes you to visit every location, that feels like an unnecessary comparison when the game wasn't setting out to do that to begin with. The main reason to explore and expand is when you want to scale up, looking up for new resources or more of what you already have, does require you to expand into new biomes to get them. Also something that you didn't mention, is that there is one massive benefit to exploring, specifically for crash sites, and that is that there are materials next to them. These materials are there even if you haven't actually gotten to the point in the game where you can make them yourself, you can very much find tier 8 products when you have barely set up your first coal power plant. They aren't enough to live off of when you actually need them, 200 supercomputers ain't a supply you can rely on for the whole game, but they do let you progress in the milestones and techtree way faster. For an example, you mentioned that you started to tinker with sommersloops during the last 10h of your playthrough. I went out to get as much stuff as I could around 10-15hs into mine once I unlocked the parachute, and ended up with enough stuff to have upgraded dimensional depots, sommersloop item duplication and power augmentors before I was even done with steel, amongst other goodies that let me rush milestones. As for item transportation, I agree that tractors and trucks are pretty meh, they are very jank to use, I heavily disagree with drones and specially trains also being just glorified belts. The only statement I agree with when saying that belts are superior, that being, that they are faster, more reliable and more resource efficient, is that they are the most reliable way to transport stuff, a belt can never malfunction and will always output the same no matter how you set it up. The main benefit to other methods is expandability, setting up a single belt will always be faster than setting up a train track, but the idea is to put more effort upfront for an easier time down the line. Building a single belt for something you have no plans to ever expand on is the best choice, but if you are building something that will reasonably need expanding beyond just upgrading the belt's tier, a train is a reasonable choice. Setting up a train system is considerably more effort intensive than just setting up an equal length belt, but once set up it's much easier to spend 20 seconds setting up a timetable for a new train, than to go and add half a kilometer worth of belts to wherever you need them. This becomes especially noticeable when you want to move something a considerable distance after a train network is already set up. If you need to get resources, say a full biome or even two, and already have a train network that spans 2/3 of the way, the effort of expanding gets increasingly lower due to already built infrastructure, whereas a belt always has to be built from scratch. To this end, trucks and tractors are clearly the worst since tho you can add more vehicles to a route, you have to always manually set up the pathing when making a new route. Trains are the winner, tho they need way more infrastructure than drones, their throughput relative and cost is several times better. Drones are decent, but reserved for stuff you only need very little output of, you can't expect drones to handle anywhere near a full mk6 belt worth of stuff. You say you had truck lines that you had to manually run every couple of hours, that sounds more or less the kind of situation I would employ drones for, and I would be employing trains for those cases where you have several belts running for god knows how long. Personal transportation being a bother I feel was more of a failure to upgrade more than anything else. Ziplines are good for relatively short distances, but I wouldn't use them past steel outside of moving through undiscovered terrain, since they are easy to set up and avoid most terrain obstacles and enemies. Oil and beyond tend to required you to move a full biome, or sometimes more, in order to get to it, leading to oftentimes having to make trips of several kilometers between your factories. As you said, these kinds of distances are extremely tedious to get through, either on foot, hypertube or ziplines. Oil is the point in which I tend to upgrade to hypertube accelerators and trains to make those travels a minute at most, tho often times shorter. You said it wouldn't have been worth the effort, but over a playthrough not having a good way to travel definitely ended up costing you way more time than however long it would have taken you to build it, bored time at that. Hypertube accelerators are based on the principle of your speed when entering a hypertube being based on how fast you entered them in addition to a small speedboost the entrance will give you. The logical way to abuse this is to put several very short hypertubes in a row to build up speed rapidly. the two main ways to use this are to either go into a hypertube with all of this speed, this is most useful when within a big factory, to get from point to point, or when the distance is not something that can be covered in a line, most commonly due to caves or very tall cliffs. The other method is a cannon configuration, where you build an accelerator where the end hypertube is angled in such a way to send you flying with all the speed you got, this is mostly used for long distance travels. The two main downsides to accelerators are the cost, each entrance consumes power, so spamming them can be prohibitively expensive on your power supply when you first unlock hypertubes, tho this becomes less of a concern by the time you can get fuel generators running. And the other being how rigid they can be, they can only be taken at the entrance and you have to build another one wherever you plan to have another entrance, also each one tends to only lead to a single place, unless you make a very fast one that launches you well above a full biome or even most of the map, and then have a jetpack or something to maneuver around. The alternative is trains, the main downside is that they are not as fast as accelerators, trains have a maximum speed, around 60km/h on flat ground, accelerators aren't capped so you can go fast enough to break the unreal engine if you feel like it. The main reason to use trains for personal transportation is that you can hop on a train in any point of the network and get to any point rather than having to look for a specific place to hop on. Bonus points for it being automatic if you feel lazy since you can just turn on the autopilot to go to a certain train station and it will get there for you without further input, let's you have a minute to double check numbers or planning out layouts. continues in comment because i ran out of space

Your critique of the game hit the nail on the head for me, my runs, even with the extra manpower of my 3 friends, inevitably became slogs after a while. I haven't played the 1.0 update, but I doubt I ever will, if these issues won't be fixed. The claustrophobic output per resource node mixed with slow building mechanics and trains that unlock way too late just kill the love I have for building large, optimized, modular factories. As much as I want to scale my factory up to my hearts desire, I just simply can't afford the amount of time it takes to actually do that in this game. Love the review

6:23 CLEAN!

Unfortunately VR Subnautica I have played. It is worse than Below Zero IMO. Its is blatantly unfinished and incredibly buggy with many of the games interactions and items being horribly broken. Its less like you're playing VR subnaughtica but like you Glued your monitor to your face and randomly rebound the keys with no tutorial as to what keys and buttons do what. Menu's float into walls and out of view constantly, swimming barely works and only works consistently if you swim directly forward to backward from where you're looking. And like implied above there is no tutorial popups or anything to tell you what buttons are bound to what

I feel like a number of criticisms here would be better placed as criticisms of the visibility of options available to the player. For trucks, for instance, a feature of them is that any vehicle that goes off it's path or gets stuck will, eventually, turn into a ghost vehicle and then translate back to where it should be on the path. For the issues with ziplines and personal transportation, Not only have others mentioned zipline options, but there are also ways of making hypertubes faster, as stacking the exit of a tube directly into a new entrance will provide a small but significant multiplier to the speed at which a player passes through the tube, which does compound. (Generally known as a hypertube cannon, for it's primary use as, well, a cannon, but not limited to that.) I also see you talking about alien artifacts coming into play only in the very end of the game, but to me that feels as much like a limited amount of pointers towards finding SAM early on as anything. Since as long as SAM is available, most uses of Alien Artifacts are just gated behind steel production. It's also one that seems particularly notable, given how much the Dimensional Depot exists as a solution to one of your major gripes. (allowing easy access to building resources, depending on how many depots are built, and how much they're upgraded) Ironically, SAM used to have the same rocks as a discoverability feature as Quartz, Sulfur, and Caterium do, but they were removed when it was fully implemented into the game and means to discover it early replaced them, beyond just finding a node while exploring. Related, early exploration actually significantly changes up how the game plays as a whole, since drop pod supplies allow shortcutting milestones or potentially even skipping entire technologies. (I've seen players talk about using drop pod supplies to build Geothermal power early and thus entirely skip Coal power, for instance) The tragedy is that among all the very many ways I've seen to progress, it feels like you ended up running into one of the least fun ways to play Satisfactory. I do agree with the idea of giving the Space elevator a parts/time requirement might help lock out that method: It feels like even just having a required part rate that outstripped the rate of handcrafting might solve a big chunk of that issue, especially once multiple project parts come into play. (And I do generally like your narrative and exploration notes. It is the point where the game is most lackluster, and it feels like there are ways it come have been designed without detracting from the core "minecraft, but with factories" loop. It just feels like a victim of narrative being put in as an afterthought. Quite literally.)

Heres the thing, you spend a while talking about how taking the time to automate things feels like a waste of time in favor of using yourself to manually fill the gaps. And then you complain about dead time in the game caused by waiting for resources to finish being made. You are creating the problem you hate. Lets use your nuclear pasta example. If you had spent some effort to automate nuclear pasta, not only would you not have had to sit there for a stupid amount of time handcrafting(which I personally only utilize in the earlygame forced parts and to handcraft SAM fluctuators to jump ahead on alien technology since that tree is admittedly very flawed due to being heavily reliant on a part you cannot automate without manufacurers. Then your automatic pasta factory would keep running, and by the time you have the other final phase parts automated, that 1000 pasta would be made. The power to set and forget means the time spent setting up logistics, nice looking factories, transportaion networks, or automated factories rewards the player with backstock of already automated materials. Being stingy with your resources is a self created problem and "fluff and waiting" are the consequences of not engaging with the games systems that you said didn't have a purpose. As for your complaint about resources limiting what you can build, the only resources used in building that you will use on a scale that the time between you using it won't allow a sufficient backstock to build with are easy to produce en masse and by utilizing the dimensional depot, the use for mercer spheres you completely ignored, you can have on tap access to your backstorage from anywhere as early as you have access to steel(once again implementation of that part is iffy due to SAM fluctuators being poorly implemented as a manufacurer part). The point being that a lot of the systems you wrote off as pointless or wasteful are the solutions to many of the problems you experienced playing the game. To address another critique, the world is built in a way where there are multiple regions the player can start in, and for any semblance of balance sake that means there are some regions of the map that you will have little incentive to establish in for that playthrough. The region you started in for example, is incredibly far away from any other start spot and while great for your basic parts factories and steel plants, by the time you have transportation that makes establishing there worth it it probably isn't worth building there, it makes repeat playthroughs with different start locations more unique and interesting, as while they all have basic resources available, each start region has different challenges to overcome, the game is not designed to utilize the whole world every playthrough, which adds to replayability.

You have fallen into the same hole as people calling minecraft boring because they can beat it in 10 minutes and then what are they supposed to do? The main point in minecraft is not beating the game, the same is for Satisfactory. You are treating a game about expressing yourself, building huge factories and most importantly optimising the crap out of everything, as if it was a linear puzzle game where the goal is simply to finish the task that the game gives you. Satisfactory is mainly about you as a player setting your own goals in how much you want to make per minute, not about completing the goals that the game creators tell you too. Satisfactory is a playbox where you are free to do as you please and if what you find "fun" is just placing down machines on the ground and then waiting for the items to be processed fine do that. But don't critique minecraft because you are an uncreative person. And yes the game should maybe be more clear on that the goals it gives you are more about locking powerful items to the endgame but at the same time its given you so many opportunities to do fun things. I mean in your video i can see you haven't even automated fuel for your jetpack which is such a huge part in making the exploration fun. And you go an complain about mobs being annoying to kill when you have gone out of your way to not get any of the fun weapons that the game gives to you. Also you cant say there is no reason to explore simply because you never built a factory complex or big enough to require that many powershards. I think the main problem with this video is as i have said that you are treating Satisfactory as if it were a linear puzzle like experience, not as the sandbox that its meant to be.

While there is plenty I agree with here (making elevator deliveries rates instead of amounts and the lackluster story), a lot of it seems dependent on gripes about how you cheesed the system and the game didn't stop you. If you know what you are doing is circumventing the games' systems and think your experience is worse off as a result, then perhaps you should play it the way you think is intended or encouraged. It's a bit like playing an RPG and complaining that because the game lets you use the developer console to kill enemies and complete quests. Just because you CAN do it doesn't mean you HAVE to.

You finished satisfactory with 1 truck station? I wonder if that’s a record of some sort 11:02

Dude, all I hear from this synopsis is that you repeatedly avoided engaging with game mechanics and are punishing the game for not punishing you enough for engaging with them. Saying this game does not engage creativity is ridiculous. You are inferring incentive in the same way someone could mistakenly infer incentive in minecraft. Even with subnautica, there's tons of similar "I didnt engage with the game therefor this is bad" observations someone else could go out of their way to make too. I have no idea why you made so many references to Subnautica other than this is just a game you like and wanted to play something else the whole time. They are not the same game, and not all that comparative in what they are.

You make a good point about how finite space elevator requirements incentivises manual crafting instead of a fully automated solution. I really agree that a focus on products / minute would solve some of that issue. I thought about that a lot while playing the game- I set up some really intricate and effective logistic networks that focused on efficiency and high raw resource bandwidth, and really enjoyed setting it all up. But I felt a lot of that effort was wasted as I got into the late game, just needing to set up a handful of final machines and wait.

Thanks for a really interesting self imposed challenge. - Not transporting items by hand - Continuously build space parts (I guess I will have to sink the items when the platform doesn't need more) - Not building items by hand except for the very beginning - Not using belts for transporting long distances.

Erumore: Spends the whole review being critical of the game. Erumore at 34:09: Now it's finally time to get critical. Devs: *chuckles* I'm in danger.

"I was hoping for a world with a history to unravel, alien monuments to uncover, and an intriguing narrative to piece together to provide motivation when slogging through some of the duller tasks. In other words, I was hoping for Satisfactory to be a cross between an automation game and Subnautica." I bought Satisfactory in early access after finishing Subnautica, looking for the exact same things you were. I was somewhat invested Satisfactory at first, but it didn't take long to realize that it was missing something. It could not scratch that Subnautica itch (granted no game has) because like you said, the main motivation when playing Subnautica is curiosity and it is indeed the best motivator a game can give you. Subnautica almost immediately had me on the hook, feeling like I HAD to uncover the secrets of 4546B. There are very few pieces of media that have given me that same feeling of intrigue as Subnautica did. Another great video essay, sir! Please continue to make these.

Open world design can work (but often doesn’t) Linear design can work (but often doesn’t) Both devs and fans need to stop leaning on high level design trends and accept that the devil is in the details.

On my wishlist for future soulslikes - whether made by From Software or other studios - is that we finally get rid of stamina meters and slow movement. Most importantly, I want to get rid of lock-ons. Make a combat system that doesn't need one. Lock-ons are a band-aid, not a real solution.

Absolutely on point regarding the intro

Currently playing through TotK. Def feelin what you’re saying. Deep in muh plums 5:25

pretty much everything youre saying here applies to Minecraft as well. And while I could go at length about how minecraft is lacking in actual progression and meaningful story and such at the end of the day it has carved out its niche as a sandbox game and other games have filled out the other aspects, such as Vintage Story for the survival and progression side of things. Satisfactory is just a chill sandbox game, others like Factorio and Subnatica fulfill the needs for more challenging progression or story etc. I used to share many sentiments you have, and I'm not saying the game is perfect. I do wish the wildlife was a bit more of a threat. Maybe something on the level of Grounded, but other than that most things I could think of would end up altering the core appeal of the game. What my time sink and interest ended up being was creating aesthetically pleasing structures while still being functional, and I really enjoyed the blueprint system. I made an R&D building which had multiple catwalks and lights setup for building blueprints, making a modular frame machine that I could later plop down as many as I wanted and just hook up conveyor feed lines to them was multiple hours of back and forth designing to make it all fit in a small package and look good.

Future tech that places structures by quantum whatever. Vehicles still can't fucking turn in place. Really game developers? All the other physics breaking crap and this is where you adhere to current reality? So disappointing.

Totk does not even need crappy lore to be bad

I enjoyed the video very much! And the comments critical of it are about what I expected, and I somewhat agree with all sides. I think your critiques make a lot of sense, but your approach sounds a bit bizarre, as scaling everything inordinately feels like part of the fun. But the interesting thing is that I have my own major issues with the game which you didn't particularly address, which just goes to show that we all have different expectations when it comes to finding things "satisfactory"! My complaint stems from those moments when you build a large, perfectly aligned array, and realise something needs to slot in between, or there's a cliff in the way, or some other obstacle that forces a redesign. Everything is so huge and the first person view so restricting, that you can immediately foresee the next 30 minutes getting swallowed up in the automation equivalent of backtracking. It's probably just expectations after Factorio, but without being able to play around and rectify mistakes near instantly, I found the building part severely unfun. Once I started clipping all my conveyors and building exclusively in the sky it became a bit better, but I also knew that my tools would never improve to a point where I could step back and treat it like gamified 3D modelling software, so I hit an existential wall and quit. It was great to hear some slightly overlapping thoughts though, and you made me realise that I simply really enjoy Zach-likes, while I have a deep appreciation for but only sort of enjoy this genre of automation game~!

Thanks for the video! How did you end up naming your character Majora’s Musk?

Thank you for the video, my good man; as I watched it whilst automating my grooming routine.

While Subnautica has its charm, I am very much happy than Satisfactory isn't Subnautica (The only thing it could have more of is probably enemies). The factory must grow and nothing is more satisfying than building an excessively large mega-factory that uses trains to transport all resource nodes on the map to a central location in which those recourse are used in a giant amalgation of machinery and manufactory that needs minutes to simply fly across and which visibly slows down your computer. While I generally feel that the blueprint and copy-paste options aren't as great in Satisfactory as other factory building and that Satisfactory has a scale problem (Something you didn't encounter with how little factory you built), It is generally a fun game to build giant factories. Your arguments againt Satisfactory can in many cases work the same for Minecraft, a game that also needs intrinsic motivation to really build stuff instead of simply rushing to fight the ender dragon and being dissapointed about how Minecraft didn't force you to build a castle. This also goes into your problem with transport. You never made a factory capable of enough troughput that Trains, drones, and just generally buildings were essentially free (Since resources were created much faster than used.) and never needed trains instead of conveyers, since you didn't transport 20k Iron ore and 10k Copper ore from the desert to the Jungle per min etc., something that would be crazy to do with conveyer belts. Also, I disagree that the map is large. It is about as large as can be expected from a handbuilt map, but you can still get from one end to the other in less than a minute in phase 3, which doesn't scream overly large to me. Also, you can create pets of the lizard doggos, not only the enemies are interactable, though, I agree that other than Nuclear nobelisk, no weapon feels truly 'endgame'. One thing (And probably only one thing, sorry) that I agree with in the video, is that phase goals with a needed throughput would be cool. Any proposed way of doing this, however, doesn't work, at least as far as I have seen. It would just make people create a stack big enough to reach the required throughput for the required time instead, ending up doing exactly the same. Regarding your complaints to idling, you are simply playing the game wrong. Waiting for something to be produced is the perfect time to either begin creating a new factory and production line or exploring to find mercer spheres and hard drives in the early game or somersloops and hard drives in the later game.

I find that Satisfactory is a game that works off of intrinsic, not extrinsic motives. My buddy likes his big floating platforms. I like my contiguous boxes and crawl spaces. In our world, it's immediately clear who built which factory. Regardless of who built it, you can bet that it'll be built to the capacity of the local resources, with exactly the right number of fabricators and a set of labeled outputs. We like our spreadsheets, and I really appreciate the level at which I can express myself through the game's mechanics. Satisfactory meets the player where they're at. If they want to make conveyor spaghetti and don't care to be particularly efficient space-wise, sure. If they want to spend all their time building decorations and arches to make things look nice, do that. There's nothing stopping the player from crafting just about everything by hand if that's what they find to be entertaining. The automation tools will be there when you, the player, are ready and willing to use them. Satisfactory will accept any method that gets the player over the finish line. You don't need an engineering degree to succeed, though it certainly does help. Satisfactory is a cozy automation game where there is no time pressure-no scarcity. Any answer will do so long as it pleases you. The part that irks me most about this review of the game is that it seems to lack imagination. It has a certainty to it that denies and actively rebuts the notion that anyone could possibly like this game. Satisfactory does praiseworthy things on the technical end, but there’s no way around the crafting menu when it’s just so efficient. That there aren’t enough resources to construct large factories. The review, while eloquent and well presented, strikes me as you putting blame on anything other than yourself for your experience. Your gameplay and comments suggest that you interacted with the game’s mechanics as little as possible. To this end, it feels like you’ve missed the point as you present many alternatives that you’d rather play. It’s ok to say that a game’s not for you, or even that you don’t get it. No game’s perfect, and they won’t all appeal to everyone. Your commentary strikes me as a matter of taste, and that you need a bit more structure to enjoy yourself.

This deserves way more views

The classic saying is, “given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game.” You’ve done the unthinkable and _unoptimized_ the fun out of the game by manually crafting and transporting items. Somehow, despite your laser focus toward the completing the game, your play through wasn’t even substantially faster than my own. Yes, I agree that the game does become quite tedious when you employ the most tedious strategy it will physically allow. I will be the first to say that Satisfactory has problems, but this is an unreal take. I have lots of little nitpicks with this critique (like you could just set zipline sprinting as a toggle if it was bothering you that much), but I’ll skip past them and instead hit on what I believe is the core argument of the video: “What reason does Satisfactory give me to set up automation over doing everything manually?” My answer is right in the game’s title, because it’s satisfying. The main marketing push for the game was to show you that your hard work will directly translate into satisfying mosaics of inputs and outputs. Downtime is an opportunity to kick back and enjoy watching your precious handbuilt creation chug away at its current task. If you’re not the kind of player who likes watching trains perfectly flow into a station, then no version of Satisfactory would be to your liking. It would have to be a different game with a different title, and at that point what does a critique have left to offer?

your style of critique is among my favorite, and is very reminiscent of another fantastic analytical and quite eloquent critic, matthewmatosis. It really is quite surprising to me that your channel for whatever reason, isn't much, much larger, because you clearly deserve it. I find myself in agreeance with your insights constantly, and you are an asset to the gaming community for not being afraid to identify so clearly why certain things about many, many games, need/can/should do and be better. cheers

This is the first video of yours I have a major disagreement with, the crux of which is the alien artifact you avoided mentioning. I'm not sure why you deemed Mercer Spheres worthless, but to me they made the entire game come together by solving the "investment dilemma". They allow you to turn your older, inefficient factories into feeders for a permanent source of building materials. Heck, they would've even benefitted your playstyle a lot by drastically reducing manual transportation times. Once you have factories feeding something into dimensional storage, that item is essentially limitless for building purposes and can be removed from the "upfront investment" cost. Building hypertubes doesn't cost any more than the time it takes to travel between endpoints if the materials are in dimensional storage. Huge megafactories are perfectly feasible in a normal playthrough thanks to dimensional storage. I find they are the most brilliant aspect of Satisfactory's game design because you obtain them through exploration and use them to build yourself permanent upgrades to your building ability. I can't imagine any factory games without a feature like it now. I agree the world still kinda fell flat. Not enough creatures or reason to build in different biomes. Still more fun exploration & combat than TOTK.

interesting critique, sounds almost like ToTK's building system but as a game, with the same silly restrictions ToTK had

Makes me wish for a 3d first person version of the Submachine series... also reminded me of another old flash game called "Endeavor" you might wanna check out too.

The Asian chick in the dlc was hot. Idris is the worst actor on earth and almost ruined it for me, I think the devs knew how much he sucks and added the option to shoot him for just that reason, which of course I did.

I liked this dlc but I when I drained the water in shadow keep I felt it crossed the line. It finally became clear there running out of ideas for good levels. It had some good bosses and some amazing vistas but the story was so underwhelming. The worst part is if I want to replay the dlc I have to get to late game which can take a really long time.

Right. I wont buy it then. Thanks for the warning.

Best way I can describe botw and totk is quantity over quality I bought Tears on release, but honestly after getting out of the tutorial and playing for like 3 hours, I just turned off the game, and haven't played it since. I might go back and at least try to finish the main story, but the idea of playing botw 2.0 with the same copy-pasted content is just exhausting

None of the DLC bosses are meant to be fought alone. Sure you can do it, with enough patience and bashing your head against a wall, but it isn't the intended method. Given that Revered Spirit Ashes are one of only two upgrades the DLC introduces and with how often you can use your Summons, I thought this was pretty obvious.

But hey now you can change the colour of your car and display your photos in your apartment right guys? /s

2:26 Funny how they actually went in a new direction with night reign 😂 What do you think of this new change?

My issue with the DLC in a nutshell is that it's too big for its own good.

34:02 Well...

This game badly need a real stoyline /lore ...elden ring lore is remind of "Emperor has no clothes" expression lol ,

I agree with your "centrist" take. Ultimately it IS the players that decide but if the game developers give the option and makes said option clear, then how could one blame the gamer?

Based af

It is 95% the responsibility of the developers to make the game fun for all players. Sure, as a player you have to engage with the game in good faith, but the *entire job* of game design is to guarantee that someone doing that has a good experience. Open worlds nearly throw away the ability to guarantee the players have the intended experience. The amount of freedom you give your players needs to be met with an equal amount of challenging, designed experiences. BotW pulled off a magic trick in dazzling players with the freedom it offered, but players had to stay on a narrow path to not trivialize all the difficulty. TotK gives you all the tools to trivialize its entire difficulty almost immediately, which is why so many more people seem to be able to see through its flaws this time around. Open worlds with shallow repetitive content is designing games for the lowest common denominator, which may be good business, but does not have much lingering staying power. It's really fascinating to me to see so many people who supposedly loved BotW repeat all my criticisms of the game, but only about TotK.

Like others have said, link should have went to the past. You can keep the map but show the difference between.