>>537375209
Yeah, I'm sad how fast you can progress after your first playthrough, once you know what you're doing.
On my current world I've decided to stick at least a year with each "tech level" so I won't bother with copper until at least next in-game spring, so I can focus on agriculture and maybe build a mound as a megastructure for fun.
Also I want to migrate every time I get enough new tech, just because I hate tearing down old builds but also don't want my bronze age mudhut next to my medieval cottage.
>with much harder settings and longer months
maybe just settle in harsher climates if you want a challenge?
>make up arbitrary checklists of things I need to do before I am allowed to progress?
>How the hell do you guys play games like vintage story or even minecraft and decide to keep playing long after you've gotten the best gear, a functional base, etc?
I mean it is a mindset thing I think. I totally get if that's not your thing, but I derive a lot of fun from making nice looking and time period appropriate bases and sacrifice functionality for aesthetics.
Though I'm glad about how VS at least has more incentive to build stuff over MC. Like in Minecraft at least when I played in Beta 1.7 you could get a functional base in a 3x3 square plus any room you need for storage. Everyhting beyond that was just you being creative for shits and giggles.
But in VS if you build a blacksmithy, it has an actual purpose, since all the crafting stations, molds etc do take up space so it does make sense to build an extra room or building for that.