Don't Sink, a sandbox adventure pirate RPG now has Linux support

Frankly, looking at the graphics in that trailer I find it kind of bemusing that it needs any options to let lower-end computers play it smoothly.

Frankly, looking at the graphics in that trailer I find it kind of bemusing that it needs any options to let lower-end computers play it smoothly.

This line of thinking always makes me laugh. A graphical style doesn't really have that much to do with how much computing resources a game needs ;)

Frankly, looking at the graphics in that trailer I find it kind of bemusing that it needs any options to let lower-end computers play it smoothly.

This line of thinking always makes me laugh. A graphical style doesn't really have that much to do with how much computing resources a game needs ;)

That strikes me as weird. No doubt true, but weird. The history of computer game graphics is marked by a tendency to use increased power to reach for more and more photorealistic and "busy" (eg explosions, lots of light sources, many moving things) environments rendered faster and faster.
So then if you have a game whose graphics are simplified with mostly static environments, in short a game whose look could have been readily produced 15+ years ago with the computing resources available then, why does it not imply using less computing resources? It's distinctly counterintuitive.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 29 Jan 2018 at 9:48 pm UTC

Frankly, looking at the graphics in that trailer I find it kind of bemusing that it needs any options to let lower-end computers play it smoothly.

This line of thinking always makes me laugh. A graphical style doesn't really have that much to do with how much computing resources a game needs ;)

Aehh... as a general statement I would absolutely agree liam... but in case of this particular game... I also don't understand where all the "graphics computing power" of my gtx (or even of my integrated graphics chip) would be used in this example.

So then if you have a game whose graphics are simplified with mostly static environments, in short a game whose look could have been readily produced 15+ years ago with the computing resources available then, why does it not imply using less computing resources? It's distinctly counterintuitive.

The reason old games could use less resources is that their engines were carefully crafted to use less to achieve more. I.e. they used every trick they could to make things look better within limitations of available hardware. That required quite a lot of effort and ingenuity.

Today developers use common bloated engines that do nothing of the sort. So unless they design their engine from scratch to be actually minimalistic, don't expect their games to be less demanding. There are exceptions of course. Such as Pico-8, or LÖVE which are made to be minimalistic to begin with: https://love2d.org


Last edited by Shmerl on 30 Jan 2018 at 4:49 am UTC

First off, dev here! (Seabass, team lead on Don't Sink)

Thanks so much for spreading awareness about Don't Sink. You are all awesome. We work really hard to support as many users as possible and to create the best game we can.

Frankly, looking at the graphics in that trailer I find it kind of bemusing that it needs any options to let lower-end computers play it smoothly.

This line of thinking always makes me laugh. A graphical style doesn't really have that much to do with how much computing resources a game needs ;)

That strikes me as weird. No doubt true, but weird. The history of computer game graphics is marked by a tendency to use increased power to reach for more and more photorealistic and "busy" (eg explosions, lots of light sources, many moving things) environments rendered faster and faster.
So then if you have a game whose graphics are simplified with mostly static environments, in short a game whose look could have been readily produced 15+ years ago with the computing resources available then, why does it not imply using less computing resources? It's distinctly counterintuitive.

Once you delve into programming and game engines it's quick to see that most developers aren't complete idiots and that instead they are relying on tools they require to create the product with the manpower available.

We use GameMaker Studio 2 because of the following reasons:

• I'm the only programmer and with a game of this scale, it would take at least a year to do it with a library like SDL. But GameMaker Studio 2 can compile to native code (C++) so the difference in performance is negligible.


• It has a workflow that allows us to create/test our ideas very quickly


• GMS2 can compile to a huge list of platforms including LINUX thanks to OpenGL. Most games on Linux rely on OpenGL but here's the kicker! OpenGL is extremely slow when compared to DirectX 11 and later. So a lot of the performance issues on Linux/Mac are the result of compatible libraries such as OpenGL.


• I learned GML (game maker language) very young and am now very comfortable with it so I very rarely feel limited by the tools given.

Our code is VERY optimized. I live stream the development daily (as of recently) and you'll often see me fighting for the guy running an IntelHD 2500 but to no avail. We batch sprites to prevent texture swaps, I avoid using shaders (GPU focused effects) unless necessary, and the logic-side of the game is extremely lightweight.

If you play the game for yourself and experience some of the late-game combat, you'll understand why the minimum specs are what they are.

One last note regarding older games...
Don't Sink uses 4k (4096x40096) texture pages which aren't even supported on extremely old GPUs. Games from 15 years ago couldn't run at 720p (1280x720) with water reflections, LUTs, Scaling shaders, or anything else like that. Especially not at 60 fps.

If you watch the trailer, you'll notice the zooms, transparencies and smooth scrolling and realise that it isn't so much pixel graphics as low-resolution art on a modern engine. A stylistic choice if you will. And the wavy, blurred reflections in the water weren't made with old-school blitter magic. The style might seem retro, but the game isn't.


Anyway, I'm keeping my eye on this. I like three fourths of "sandbox adventure pirate RPG". It's just the "sandbox" part that turns me off a bit. Sandbox is like open-world but without proper goals and story progression.

Graphics questions aside, I wonder about this. Maybe it's just a lousy trailer, but it doesn't look like there's a ton going on. You go into shops, you sail off to not obviously do anything in particular, you find yourself in combat for reasons that are unclear but with no obvious tactical options--your ship just stays at one edge of the screen lobbing cannonballs at the other ship which lobs them back. No maneuvering, no boarding, no nothing. And there's no real indication that you loot any fat merchant ships, seek any buried treasure, maroon anybody, fall victim to any black treachery by piratical rivals (or commit any) . . . in general, do anything piratical.
Hopefully this bland feeling is just the trailer giving the wrong impression.

First off, dev here! (Seabass, team lead on Don't Sink)

Since there were a couple of posts since, I wanted to highlight that the developer has dropped by to respond to comments here (it'd been sitting in the moderation queue).

OpenGL is extremely slow when compared to DirectX 11 and later.

Might want to give a trigger warning before whoppers like this. :)

It's probably true for GameMaker's OpenGL backend though.

If you play the game for yourself and experience some of the late-game combat, you'll understand why the minimum specs are what they are.

Thanks for stopping by.
You need to put some of that stuff in the trailer. Nobody goes and buys a game about piracy on the high seas because they were impressed with the squeaky-clean shops in the towns.

Sounds interesting.
Hope it isn't built with permadeath , or they at least make it optional.

Sounds interesting.
Hope it isn't built with permadeath , or they at least make it optional.

It has persistent saving but no permadeath. You just get returned to the last island you were on. So you lose at most, a few minutes of progress.[quote=Purple Library Guy]

If you play the game for yourself and experience some of the late-game combat, you'll understand why the minimum specs are what they are.

You need to put some of that stuff in the trailer. Nobody goes and buys a game about piracy on the high seas because they were impressed with the squeaky-clean shops in the towns.

Unfortunately since the game is in early access the current trailer reflects how the game looked/played on day one release. Once again manpower is a huge limitation. I can produce another trailer but it would require another 6-8 hours which is an entire work day. We plan to update the trailer soon but for now we aren't entirely focused on sales as much as we are on the game's development. We want to further improve the game for now and when we feel it is ready for a bigger audience we will absolutely create a new trailer.

At worst right now you are purchasing a game that runs better, has more than 6x the content, supports Linux, and has some improved features when compared to the current trailer.

Sounds interesting.
Hope it isn't built with permadeath , or they at least make it optional.

It has persistent saving but no permadeath. You just get returned to the last island you were on. So you lose at most, a few minutes of progress.

If you play the game for yourself and experience some of the late-game combat, you'll understand why the minimum specs are what they are.

You need to put some of that stuff in the trailer. Nobody goes and buys a game about piracy on the high seas because they were impressed with the squeaky-clean shops in the towns.

Unfortunately since the game is in early access the current trailer reflects how the game looked/played on day one release. Once again manpower is a huge limitation. I can produce another trailer but it would require another 6-8 hours which is an entire work day. We plan to update the trailer soon but for now we aren't entirely focused on sales as much as we are on the game's development. We want to further improve the game for now and when we feel it is ready for a bigger audience we will absolutely create a new trailer.

At worst right now you are purchasing a game that runs better, has more than 6x the content, supports Linux, and has some improved features when compared to the current trailer.

Fair enough.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 31 Jan 2018 at 5:35 pm UTC