>>439775I may, but I need to play it a bit more then write up stuff. It was like this with Minecraft and a lot was able to be changed or added because a few of us got in the input before it became absurdly popular with 1,000s of people sending 100,000s of ideas to them.
The biggest problem with much of the stuff that "could" be done is both dev-burnout on the project and how much their customer's baseline PCs can handle. If you make everything in the game world from above the ground destructible and possible useable, you open up a lot, but that requires PC power.
This also increases survival chances in the game world and can possibly negate much of the current gameplay as a result. Which may undermine what hooks people into the game (fighting for their lives in adverse and limiting conditions). I suppose the latter still boils down to player knowledge and skills IRL in order to know how to survive in the game as well. Stupid and unlucky people would still get killed after all, but smart and lucky people wouldn't have a bit of a problem. It may be boring for them.
Right now, the game doesn't seem like a survival game, unless there's a real ending where you are rescued. It is a "how long before you die" game. Perhaps when story mode is developed this will have a rescue ending.
