• idlethreat
    +1

    A shitty little browser game and already more engaging and usable than Rust

    • FrootLoops
      +4

      Well "shitty little browser game" is not the right sentence to use. It's as much work as non browser games, probably even more cause there are not that much development tools for that available.

      • idlethreat
        +3

        You're right. Probably not the best thing to call it. I'll consider myself rebuked.

        That being said, Rust is a horrible, horrible game and this beats it by a mile.

        • FrootLoops
          +2

          Rust is one of two games i bought on steam but never really got into it. I played it month ago, right when it was release for Linux. I should try it out again. What is so bad about it, i really don't know.

          • Civil
            +2

            It has the same problems as all the other Early-Access survival games. You hear about all the crazy things that go on from people who play the game, but don't realize that those crazy stories only account for about 5% of the playtime. The other 95% is spent grinding/farming/walking. I say this as someone who has invested a lot of time in that sort of game.

            It also doesn't help that those games are incredibly unrefined which results in bugs/glitches, exploits, and lack of meaning fully content. I mostly blame the Early Access business model for that, though.

            • Yourexwife
              +3

              I am actually going to have to disagree with you. I do see where you come from but it sort if depends on the play style you chose to employ, I suppose server size matters as well. I suppose I ought to add that I am think about the "old" rust as I have not played the newer versions. :)