With the current direction of the game, I do think that adding weapons runs counter to the experience of Subnautica. It isn't even really about whether or not to have more weapons, it's whether or not killing should be incentivised.
Right now we don't have a reason to kill outside of self preservation. You don't go out and slay Stalkers for teeth, or break three knives trying to slay a Reaper in order to get some endgame loot. If this remains true (that we have nothing to gain from killing things, outside of not getting dead), then there is simply no point in giving us tools that are strictly for slaying. The stasis rifle alone is enough to stave off everything but Bleeders (which I have an issue with, but that's a separate issue). The lack of a clearly defined goal yet (outside of exploration) makes it hard for me to say that we shouldn't be trying to be the top of the food chain, but I definitely would prefer to move away from killing for profit.
3 weapons of mass destruction already in the game:
Seamoth Cyclops Propulsion Cannon
I've killed countless animals, on purpose or by complete accident. You might stop lethal weapons, but you can stop players massacring creatures in some very inhumane ways. I'm afraid to say lethal weapons could only serve to make this game less violent.
3 weapons of mass destruction already in the game:
Seamoth Cyclops Propulsion Cannon
I've killed countless animals, on purpose or by complete accident. You might stop lethal weapons, but you can stop players massacring creatures in some very inhumane ways. I'm afraid to say lethal weapons could only serve to make this game less violent.
It seems that after the Alterra Science update the Seamoth takes a nice amount of damage on impact. At least when colliding with bleeders. I found a nice resource rich cave with 4-6 bleeders, rammed them with the Seamoth -> took something like 20-30% damage. I always dodge the useful fish or the bigger ones, but bleeders man.. I just want to ram them to pieces. Now if the welder would actually consume energy, it would really make me think twice about my ramming manners.
Although it is a little odd that a small fish would do such damage to a sub..
3 weapons of mass destruction already in the game:
Seamoth Cyclops Propulsion Cannon
I've killed countless animals, on purpose or by complete accident. You might stop lethal weapons, but you can stop players massacring creatures in some very inhumane ways. I'm afraid to say lethal weapons could only serve to make this game less violent.
It seems that after the Alterra Science update the Seamoth takes a nice amount of damage on impact. At least when colliding with bleeders. I found a nice resource rich cave with 4-6 bleeders, rammed them with the Seamoth -> took something like 20-30% damage. I always dodge the useful fish or the bigger ones, but bleeders man.. I just want to ram them to pieces. Now if the welder would actually consume energy, it would really make me think twice about my ramming manners.
Although it is a little odd that a small fish would do such damage to a sub..
My point is that people will complain about the addition of a harpoon, when they are ignoring the fact there are currently more lethal (and inhumane) methods of killing creatures.
@TotallyLemon We are not saying that killing is bad. We just don't want items that are straight weapons. That's the direction this game is going all the time. For example, propulsion gun is a tool for moving/collecting objects, but it can also be used as a weapon. That way the game will stay more kid friendly, and it won't become too combat oriented.
Games like Amnesia add a great deal of tension by making the player helpless to threats. Subnautica aims to be immersive , and feeling exposed to dangerous fish with no means to easily dispatch them adds to the immersion. The focus should be on evading them , and I think personal defense items like the propulsion cannon should only buy a little time to escape , stunning the fish at best.
3 weapons of mass destruction already in the game:
Seamoth Cyclops Propulsion Cannon
I've killed countless animals, on purpose or by complete accident. You might stop lethal weapons, but you can stop players massacring creatures in some very inhumane ways. I'm afraid to say lethal weapons could only serve to make this game less violent.
It seems that after the Alterra Science update the Seamoth takes a nice amount of damage on impact. At least when colliding with bleeders. I found a nice resource rich cave with 4-6 bleeders, rammed them with the Seamoth -> took something like 20-30% damage. I always dodge the useful fish or the bigger ones, but bleeders man.. I just want to ram them to pieces. Now if the welder would actually consume energy, it would really make me think twice about my ramming manners.
Although it is a little odd that a small fish would do such damage to a sub..
My point is that people will complain about the addition of a harpoon, when they are ignoring the fact there are currently more lethal (and inhumane) methods of killing creatures.
Hmm yes. The contradiction is obvious.
I hope in the future, killing too many creatures will eventually lead to harmful things to the player indirectly through changes in biodiversity. If I understood correctly this is what the devs have had in mind for some time.
If they make things like stalkers faster than you (which would be way more realistic and scary) then yes, something that can scare the predators away would be nice. Even long stick could buy you some time.
I think that the main purpose of the game should not be to kill every fish there is, so my idea is if REALLY big fish are added (cuthulu sized, not like reapers) then yes but they should be expensive and only effective to cuthulu and his pals and not stalkers or bleeders, but I am pro a harpoon gun but it should be expensive to make and reload to make it unpopular and only a viable strategy at the end game. my idea for recipes would be: Harpoon gun Advanced wiring kit+5XTitanium ingots+battery
Diamond barb 3X diamond
Harpoon Diamond barb+Titanium ingot
Volt Torpedo tube Power cell+3X Plasteel ingot+2X Advanced wiring kit
Blasting cap dunno, please leave a suggestion. Thanks!!
Volt Torpedo Power cell+Plasteel ingot+ Blasting cap
To conclude, big weapons for big fish, small weapons for small fish, all very very expensive.
What is this? We build colony spaceships and stasis rifles, but we're unable to build something as simple as a crossbow or even a spear? Agreed, it would be severely game breaking if one could make a long range weapon right at the beginning of the game, perhaps such things should be expensive to make and maintain, like make the ammo expensive (not energy), so it would be used as last resort or only when very wealthy. I mean we're HUMANS, all we ever do is blow stuff up, or invent things to do it more efficiently
Volt Torpedo tube Power cell+3X Plasteel ingot+2X Advanced wiring kit
Blasting cap dunno, please leave a suggestion. Thanks!!
Volt Torpedo Power cell+Plasteel ingot+ Blasting cap
Well, I'd agree but only if the harpoons can be reused. You'd still need to pick them up, of course. Also the harpoon gun should probably use mechanical power, instead of electrical, but I suppose future people are lazy. Blasting cap: Crash powder + titanium. Seems to make the most sense, for me anyway. For now the Stasis gun + recharge fins + knife are just overpowered as is. Making expensive guns doesn't really change killing much at all, just that you don't need as much time to kill something.
I'm banking on the Exo-Suit being properly implemented.
As mentioned in a previous post (Aquatic Elevator), if the Exo-Suit can withstand abyssal water pressure, there shouldn't be a damn thing a Reaper Leviathan can do to to harm it. If 'Being Grabbed By A Reaper' symptoms persist, the suit's built-in mining drill could be used as a close-quarters weapon.
Rather than killing the Reaper, I would much rather see it respond to the injury by backing off or fleeing the area entirely. Given a few repeats of the same treatment, the Reaper should eventually realize that attacking the Exo-Suit is always a bad idea. Naturally, this game mechanism would not work if the player was inside a Seamoth or using a SeaGlide.
The Cyclops is simply too large and well-armoured for a Reaper to successfully attack.
Reaper Leviathans are large and extremely scary for a very good reason... They are large, extremely scary and have the ability to kill you with one bite.
If there were any 'combat weapons' to be put out there I would rather they be a side effect to tools we use on the Exosuit. For example a drill or laser for mining being used to fend off reaper attacks. The stasis gun handles all things I would reasonably want to hunt or defend against paired with a knife. The propulsion gun lets me move rocks blocking tunnels, and throw away offenders.
Having a DNA attachment for the exosuit would let us get closer to reapers to alter their DNA. As stated mining equipment could work to drive them away. Or even just having a 'hand' could let us punch them in the eye while at the same time letting us pick up, in limited capacity, stuff we find on the floor bed. Or even upgraded versions of the swimmer 'weapons' to use for the same situations.
I would rather avoid weapons, reapers are supposed to be scary and if you do something stupid that gets you hopelessly trapped by one...you kinda deserve it.
I've been thinking a fair bit about the 'Epic Beast' situation in Subnautica recently, and have finally reached a satisfying conclusion.
Reaper Leviathans, Sea Emperors and all manner of Behemoths Still Unseen are primary NPCs in this game. They are practically unkillable for a number of valid reasons:
They are the undisputed apex predators of this world. Removing those creatures from the food chain would have disastrous consequences, particularly if an action-reaction mechanism is implemented for the planetary ecosystem. You do not want to mess around with a delicately balanced set of biological dependencies. Trust me on this one.
Humanity needs an occasional smack-down from something far more powerful. God-killing is a career choice best left to the professionals.
In a way, those Epic Beasts are the marine equivalent of Shai-Hulud, the Sandworms of Arrakis (Dune). The people who settled Arrakis (The Fremen) discovered very early on in the piece that Sandworms are a basic fact of life on that planet. Also, there were distinct benefits to be gained by staying on Shai-Hulud's good side. The Spice, rapid desert transport and The Water Of Life were simply the gravy on this deal. The Fremen were also able to use these huge, practically unkillable critters as weapons on a battlefield particularly suited to the Sandworms and their riders. That kind of tactical advantage is priceless.
Frankly, there is more skill involved in evading a Reaper than merely killing one. Yes, I was chased away by a Reaper that suddenly materialized in front of me, but I had been listening to its roars for a full ten minutes prior to sighting it. I've come to accept the fact that I can't kill a Reaper, so I might as well concentrate my efforts on not letting them kill me. In a particularly tight spot, I might even shoot one with the Stasis Rifle to buy enough time to reach the Seamoth. I've considered the possibility of luring a Reaper into a shoal of Floaters, hoping to incapacitate it on the surface for a while. Not particularly game to try this one out until I've collected enough Floaters to play hell with the Cyclops.
The Epic Beasts should be considered as legitimate obstacles to achieving specific goals too early in the game. Furthermore, their existence encourages players to find novel solutions to the threats that they pose. Using a Terraformer to tunnel under a Reaper's territory, or building a walkway over it. Playing the old cat and mouse game. Luring a Reaper into a tight cave. Shoot Floaters at one with a Propulsion Cannon, and so forth.
Remember, kids... "Be more of a tool-user, and you'll be less of a Useless Tool."
If there were any 'combat weapons' to be put out there I would rather they be a side effect to tools we use on the Exosuit. For example a drill or laser for mining being used to fend off reaper attacks. The stasis gun handles all things I would reasonably want to hunt or defend against paired with a knife. The propulsion gun lets me move rocks blocking tunnels, and throw away offenders.
Having a DNA attachment for the exosuit would let us get closer to reapers to alter their DNA. As stated mining equipment could work to drive them away. Or even just having a 'hand' could let us punch them in the eye while at the same time letting us pick up, in limited capacity, stuff we find on the floor bed. Or even upgraded versions of the swimmer 'weapons' to use for the same situations.
I would rather avoid weapons, reapers are supposed to be scary and if you do something stupid that gets you hopelessly trapped by one...you kinda deserve it.
Perhaps the suit can launch stasis depth mines. They could shoot out like the smoke launchers on armoredvehicles. Of course, players would have to craft reloads. Perhaps the charges contain ink that can conceal the suits position and allow the player to retreat.
Id just like to maintain the feel of wonder and mystery in this game, any weapon that is more dangerous than what we have now would destroy that for me (multiplayer would do that too for me but thats another story)
I hope in the future, killing too many creatures will eventually lead to harmful things to the player indirectly through changes in biodiversity. If I understood correctly this is what the devs have had in mind for some time.
Could it be that this could be a reason we don't have lethal weapons? We are supposed to be a scientist in an unknown ecosystem, and history has shown just how fragile those can be. So by limiting ourselves we not only try to limit our footprint on the ecosystem, but also remove the 'itchy trigger finger' syndrome. I don't own a gun, even though I've been trained extensively, because I don't want that to be my first recourse if I become to angry or stressed. That isn't to say I can't be dangerous or resourceful if need be, but that I don't go for the most lethal option FIRST.
As for using the seamoth to kill things...anyone can misuse equipment to lethal effect. All a weapon is really is an instrument of force. However there is a difference between misusing something to make a weapon, and having something that was always intended to be a weapon. The devs have said that they want to avoid the latter, but have shown they are willing to allow the former.
[/quote]
I don't own a gun, even though I've been trained extensively, because I don't want that to be my first recourse if I become to angry or stressed. That isn't to say I can't be dangerous or resourceful if need be, but that I don't go for the most lethal option FIRST.
[/quote]
You definitely shouldn't have a gun if you fear you would use it in anger or stress. You would likely make all of us responsible gun owners look bad. Thank you for that. However where your rights end, mine begins. You all seem to think having a gun in this game would turn everyone into crazed DPS gamers shooting up game. The real question is, why do you care what I do in MY game?
You definitely shouldn't have a gun if you fear you would use it in anger or stress. You would likely make all of us responsible gun owners look bad. Thank you for that. However where your rights end, mine begins. You all seem to think having a gun in this game would turn everyone into crazed DPS gamers shooting up game. The real question is, why do you care what I do in MY game?
It has less to do about anger and stress and more to do with options. I've seen what guns do, and just how lethal they can be. As a medical professional, and former medic, I can tell you they are not the producer of clean little holes you see in media. So the point was that I don't own a gun since I know that they are nothing but a lethal weapon, and while I can still injure someone if need be with things around my house I would be less likely to outright kill them. I have a vow not to kill if I can ever avoid it, massive physical trauma though you can survive.
Translated to subnautica, the scientist we are supposed to be may wish to have a gun since we tend to shoot what makes us afraid. What if Reapers, as nasty as they are, are to keep some part of the ecosystem in check? That killing even a handful in the 'pod' that spawns might have serious repercussions up and down the food chain? Therefore the scientist would be more willing to misuse equipment but keep themselves away from anything outright lethal in case they panic.
Having lethal weaponry would remove the drive to find alternative ways to deal with some of these creatures. DNA manipulation would be the ultimate form of pacification without killing, and it is coming.
It has less to do about anger and stress and more to do with options. I've seen what guns do, and just how lethal they can be. As a medical professional, and former medic, I can tell you they are not the producer of clean little holes you see in media. So the point was that I don't own a gun since I know that they are nothing but a lethal weapon, and while I can still injure someone if need be with things around my house I would be less likely to outright kill them. I have a vow not to kill if I can ever avoid it, massive physical trauma though you can survive.
Former Police Officer and multiple tours in Afghanistan. Tell me again how it isn't like what you see on film. I know better than most but I'm sure some here will benefit from that little piece of knowledge. Again, thank you for knowing you shouldn't have a firearm, because that is point; having a lethal tool should the situation warrant it. I genuinely hope you are never confronted with an armed assailant. I would however like to thank you for your service to your fellow man, you guys play a vital role and I've worked with/known many medics.
Translated to subnautica, the scientist we are supposed to be may wish to have a gun since we tend to shoot what makes us afraid. What if Reapers, as nasty as they are, are to keep some part of the ecosystem in check? That killing even a handful in the 'pod' that spawns might have serious repercussions up and down the food chain? Therefore the scientist would be more willing to misuse equipment but keep themselves away from anything outright lethal in case they panic.
Having lethal weaponry would remove the drive to find alternative ways to deal with some of these creatures. DNA manipulation would be the ultimate form of pacification without killing, and it is coming.
Again why do you care what I do in MY game? What you're saying is what has been repeated here already, you fear what you will do in YOUR game because you don't think you'll have the discipline to not reach for the most convenient and simplest resolution to your problem. So you want to impose a control method for your own inability to control your actions, on everyone else.
Hippies/tree huggers. Not regular human beings. Weak-willed players who cannot choose to use the inferior strategy given superior options. People who need to grow up because they can't make their own decisions when they decide against something.
These are the things you think of people who argue against adding lethal weaponry to this game? Any more double-standards and insults you wish to add to that, Kodasa?
For someone who claims that this kind of discussion here devolves into flame wars, you pour a lot of gasoline into the fire yourself there. :P
The problem I have, is with the way people make that argument. They say "Oh it takes away from the strategy, it takes away from the experience." They make it sound like it's a problem with other people and they're "Much better human beings than the rest of us because they voted against guns". When you're given tools in a game, you don't always have to use them. But they make it seem like adding guns is going to turn every single subnautica player into some kind of psychotic fish murderer.
Speak for yourselves, sure, but don't make it seem like the rest of us are going to be affected in the same way. They say it like they're worried about other people, but all it really smacks of is being worried about themselves being too weak willed to resist.
I don't care what they do with lethal weapons, add them in, don't add them. But until a decision is made, the people arguing against them, need to come up with something better than what they've currently got. Because I for one am sick of being tarred with the gun happy psycho brush. These people arguing against it assume "Every player will take this option, and then it'll take away from their experience and my own!" If this were multiplayer, that'd be a more reasonable view, but this is a singleplayer game, the point of the game being play it your own way, regardless of the tools added. People arguing against lethal weapons need to stop acting like they're concerned about everyone else's experience and just admit they're only concerned about their own. Which means they're concerned they won't be able to resist the urge to kill the fish and that'll offend their delicate sensibilities.
This is very passive aggressive, as are most of the arguments I've seen for adding lethal weaponry into this game that attempt to belittle anybody who disagrees.
I am concerned about other people's experience with the game and how it would potentially shift the focus of the game. Just the possibility of a multiplayer mode in the distant future compounds this. But even disregarding that possibility, if you drop direct weaponry into the game, it will diminish the survival aspect of it. You'll have people who whine on reviews and elsewhere that it's "too easy" or whatnot. It takes away from the aspect of trying to figure out how to make do with the things the game gives you to survive. Poor reception means less sales, less sales means less recognition. Which would be a shame because the game has a good concept; the whole "scientific exploration of an advanced mankind" shtick is a decent enough excuse which has been used plenty in the past in sci-fi. The devs decided that they want players to be creative if they want to kill creatures, and not just have direct weaponry like in shooter games. This is not a shooter game. There are plenty of those out there already. Like any game, it can use anything it can get to distinguish itself from an ocean of same-y games.
It won't affect me directly since I tend to run "challenge" playthroughs in some games. For example, case in point: not using any firearms in Mirror's Edge on Hard mode. Game design theory states clearly: you give players a hammer, and they will see nails everywhere. This applies to the majority. A common line of reasoning in these players is "why should I artificially gimp myself?" When I talk to people about Mirror's Edge, they say how easy it was because the AI is stupid and they can easily gun them all down. They clearly played a different meta-game than me, because relying only on your platforming and unarmed combat skills makes the game a much more satisfying challenge; the level designs are perfectly tuned and figuring out how to beat the game with this simple, self-imposed restriction is a puzzle in itself which requires good timing, skill with the controls, spatial awareness for the level's layout, and clever strategy.
Survival in this game is already plenty simple. As mentioned upthread, you already have several tools of mass destruction in this game, they don't even require a lot of creativity or skill to use. I hope a lot of them get tuned down and survival in this game is made harder by default. It starts out as daunting, but the difficulty quickly drops off once you've acquired certain tech.
So my reaction to "give us lethal weaponry in this game!" is purely allergic. What I understand in that request is: "please dumb this game down." Because we all know how to point and shoot in games, so the pixels turn dead. That's easy.
This is very passive aggressive, as are most of the arguments I've seen for adding lethal weaponry into this game that attempt to belittle anybody who disagrees.
I am concerned about other people's experience with the game and how it would potentially shift the focus of the game. Just the possibility of a multiplayer mode in the distant future compounds this. But even disregarding that possibility, if you drop direct weaponry into the game, it will diminish the survival aspect of it. You'll have people who whine on reviews and elsewhere that it's "too easy" or whatnot. It takes away from the aspect of trying to figure out how to make do with the things the game gives you to survive. Poor reception means less sales, less sales means less recognition. Which would be a shame because the game has a good concept; the whole "scientific exploration of an advanced mankind" shtick is a decent enough excuse which has been used plenty in the past in sci-fi. The devs decided that they want players to be creative if they want to kill creatures, and not just have direct weaponry like in shooter games. This is not a shooter game. There are plenty of those out there already. Like any game, it can use anything it can get to distinguish itself from an ocean of same-y games.
Finally a cogent example of why deadly weapons shouldn't be included, and from a business point of view no less. Man I was almost with you...
So my reaction to "give us lethal weaponry in this game!" is purely allergic. What I understand in that request is: "please dumb this game down." Because we all know how to point and shoot in games, so the pixels turn dead. That's easy.
...Until this. I can understand your need to self-aggrandize to make your point in the context of a rebuttal. We get it, you are one of those gamers out there will not instantly pick up the kill stick when offered. However instead of sticking to a more intellectual path, you slip in to logical fallacy by making generalizations which reeks of character assassination of those who oppose your view point. But hey, at least your not passive aggressive right? You assume that because we request such a thing that we will turn to it immediately and in essence in to the gamers that aren't you basically. Because you approach something a certain way, those who don't are "dumb". However you don't even know what we will do, but because of your prejudices you think by just requesting a feature that it is a forgone conclusion. Judgmental much?
I'd like to add to the conversation by saying, the developers said Subnautica should not be called a survival game, but an adventure game, people whining about it being too easy on reviews.. that would just show they dont understand what Subnautica is about.
It has less to do about anger and stress and more to do with options. I've seen what guns do, and just how lethal they can be. As a medical professional, and former medic, I can tell you they are not the producer of clean little holes you see in media. So the point was that I don't own a gun since I know that they are nothing but a lethal weapon, and while I can still injure someone if need be with things around my house I would be less likely to outright kill them. I have a vow not to kill if I can ever avoid it, massive physical trauma though you can survive.
Former Police Officer and multiple tours in Afghanistan. Tell me again how it isn't like what you see on film. I know better than most but I'm sure some here will benefit from that little piece of knowledge. Again, thank you for knowing you shouldn't have a firearm, because that is point; having a lethal tool should the situation warrant it. I genuinely hope you are never confronted with an armed assailant. I would however like to thank you for your service to your fellow man, you guys play a vital role and I've worked with/known many medics.
Lets not play the 'who has seen worse shit' game. While I am sure you have seen your share, I was the one who had to put people back together and occasionally was forced to write letters. I've had a gun, used a gun, had guns pointed at me, and what have you. I'm not anti-gun, and have argued their case in other situations. But I don't wish to own one since the only time I could possibly need one is home defense and I would be more likely to not only kill my assailant but possibly the innocent the bullet hits when it travels through my apartment complex's walls. The point I was trying to make has nothing to do with my 'self control', and my not owning a gun has to do with weighing my life against a potential innocent.
The point I was ACTUALLY trying to make, and you seem scarily incapable of comprehending, was that people act on the options presented to them. As a former police officer then you know that most crime is done by opportunity. If the opportunity isn't readily apparent, then usually people for example will pass on by cars that have had valuables left inside. The same logic applies to applying force in defense or opposition. If one has access to a gun, most would use the gun and would look at you crazy for suggesting any less.
Translated to subnautica, the scientist we are supposed to be may wish to have a gun since we tend to shoot what makes us afraid. What if Reapers, as nasty as they are, are to keep some part of the ecosystem in check? That killing even a handful in the 'pod' that spawns might have serious repercussions up and down the food chain? Therefore the scientist would be more willing to misuse equipment but keep themselves away from anything outright lethal in case they panic.
Having lethal weaponry would remove the drive to find alternative ways to deal with some of these creatures. DNA manipulation would be the ultimate form of pacification without killing, and it is coming.
Again why do you care what I do in MY game? What you're saying is what has been repeated here already, you fear what you will do in YOUR game because you don't think you'll have the discipline to not reach for the most convenient and simplest resolution to your problem. So you want to impose a control method for your own inability to control your actions, on everyone else.
First off, this isn't your game and I'm fairly certain you are not a developer. Second, as has been pointed out, guns would remove a lot of the creativity to deal the problems in subnautica. It's the same reason one generally wouldn't see a gun in point-and-click adventure games. Why deal with the puzzles and creative use of inventory items when you could just shoot the source of the problem?
Guns, and the ability to easily kill your problems, can be the bane of games and even make them boring. Survival horror is a great example. You naturally feel much more dread and fear when your ability to fight back is limited or complicated by use of force. But the moment you can easily dispatch the enemies coming after you, you will begin to lose this fear. I've played enough horror games with guns to know that if I'm conservative enough to build a stockpile of weapons/ammo, the horror and dread fades rather quickly.
Outright lethal weaponry would just make the game boring and trivialize the creatures that should have our respect for their deadliness. As Wratts pointed out, why would a player purposefully hold themselves back if they have the option? If you feel that is a matter of self control, then in the end do we really need it?
There are already enough lethal weapons in this game. Plus if the developers hold to their vision and make your actions effect the world. Then this is all a mute point, going around killing animals will have impact to your bio and I am hoping with serious side effects.
I want the world to feel my actions and I feel the worlds response in a game like this. I think this is what will make this game great.
This will allow players to adjust accordingly and maybe even start being more careful how they drive as well.
Cheesus Christ people could you please stay on topic, who cares if youre anti gun or not this is a gaaaame. EDIT: Your discussion just sucks up so much space that could be used about talking about the game..
Let's not forget what the devs want for their game. Realistically it would be very difficult to kill many of the predators with a spear gun. People are also forgetting that the Transfuser has yet to be implemented. It will drastically change gameplay. One of the possibilities is that players can use it to make aggressive creatures benign - removing the need for violence.
This game is about exploring and discovering cool sh*t.
Comments
Right now we don't have a reason to kill outside of self preservation. You don't go out and slay Stalkers for teeth, or break three knives trying to slay a Reaper in order to get some endgame loot. If this remains true (that we have nothing to gain from killing things, outside of not getting dead), then there is simply no point in giving us tools that are strictly for slaying. The stasis rifle alone is enough to stave off everything but Bleeders (which I have an issue with, but that's a separate issue). The lack of a clearly defined goal yet (outside of exploration) makes it hard for me to say that we shouldn't be trying to be the top of the food chain, but I definitely would prefer to move away from killing for profit.
Seamoth
Cyclops
Propulsion Cannon
I've killed countless animals, on purpose or by complete accident. You might stop lethal weapons, but you can stop players massacring creatures in some very inhumane ways. I'm afraid to say lethal weapons could only serve to make this game less violent.
Although it is a little odd that a small fish would do such damage to a sub..
I hope in the future, killing too many creatures will eventually lead to harmful things to the player indirectly through changes in biodiversity. If I understood correctly this is what the devs have had in mind for some time.
my idea for recipes would be:
Harpoon gun
Advanced wiring kit+5XTitanium ingots+battery
Diamond barb
3X diamond
Harpoon
Diamond barb+Titanium ingot
Volt Torpedo tube
Power cell+3X Plasteel ingot+2X Advanced wiring kit
Blasting cap
dunno, please leave a suggestion. Thanks!!
Volt Torpedo
Power cell+Plasteel ingot+ Blasting cap
To conclude, big weapons for big fish, small weapons for small fish, all very very expensive.
I mean we're HUMANS, all we ever do is blow stuff up, or invent things to do it more efficiently
Blasting cap: Crash powder + titanium. Seems to make the most sense, for me anyway.
For now the Stasis gun + recharge fins + knife are just overpowered as is. Making expensive guns doesn't really change killing much at all, just that you don't need as much time to kill something.
As mentioned in a previous post (Aquatic Elevator), if the Exo-Suit can withstand abyssal water pressure, there shouldn't be a damn thing a Reaper Leviathan can do to to harm it.
If 'Being Grabbed By A Reaper' symptoms persist, the suit's built-in mining drill could be used as a close-quarters weapon.
Rather than killing the Reaper, I would much rather see it respond to the injury by backing off or fleeing the area entirely. Given a few repeats of the same treatment, the Reaper should eventually realize that attacking the Exo-Suit is always a bad idea. Naturally, this game mechanism would not work if the player was inside a Seamoth or using a SeaGlide.
The Cyclops is simply too large and well-armoured for a Reaper to successfully attack.
Reaper Leviathans are large and extremely scary for a very good reason... They are large, extremely scary and have the ability to kill you with one bite.
Let's keep it that way.
Having a DNA attachment for the exosuit would let us get closer to reapers to alter their DNA. As stated mining equipment could work to drive them away. Or even just having a 'hand' could let us punch them in the eye while at the same time letting us pick up, in limited capacity, stuff we find on the floor bed. Or even upgraded versions of the swimmer 'weapons' to use for the same situations.
I would rather avoid weapons, reapers are supposed to be scary and if you do something stupid that gets you hopelessly trapped by one...you kinda deserve it.
Reaper Leviathans, Sea Emperors and all manner of Behemoths Still Unseen are primary NPCs in this game. They are practically unkillable for a number of valid reasons:
Remember, kids... "Be more of a tool-user, and you'll be less of a Useless Tool."
Be creative.
Could it be that this could be a reason we don't have lethal weapons? We are supposed to be a scientist in an unknown ecosystem, and history has shown just how fragile those can be. So by limiting ourselves we not only try to limit our footprint on the ecosystem, but also remove the 'itchy trigger finger' syndrome. I don't own a gun, even though I've been trained extensively, because I don't want that to be my first recourse if I become to angry or stressed. That isn't to say I can't be dangerous or resourceful if need be, but that I don't go for the most lethal option FIRST.
As for using the seamoth to kill things...anyone can misuse equipment to lethal effect. All a weapon is really is an instrument of force. However there is a difference between misusing something to make a weapon, and having something that was always intended to be a weapon. The devs have said that they want to avoid the latter, but have shown they are willing to allow the former.
I don't own a gun, even though I've been trained extensively, because I don't want that to be my first recourse if I become to angry or stressed. That isn't to say I can't be dangerous or resourceful if need be, but that I don't go for the most lethal option FIRST.
[/quote]
You definitely shouldn't have a gun if you fear you would use it in anger or stress. You would likely make all of us responsible gun owners look bad. Thank you for that. However where your rights end, mine begins. You all seem to think having a gun in this game would turn everyone into crazed DPS gamers shooting up game. The real question is, why do you care what I do in MY game?
It has less to do about anger and stress and more to do with options. I've seen what guns do, and just how lethal they can be. As a medical professional, and former medic, I can tell you they are not the producer of clean little holes you see in media. So the point was that I don't own a gun since I know that they are nothing but a lethal weapon, and while I can still injure someone if need be with things around my house I would be less likely to outright kill them. I have a vow not to kill if I can ever avoid it, massive physical trauma though you can survive.
Translated to subnautica, the scientist we are supposed to be may wish to have a gun since we tend to shoot what makes us afraid. What if Reapers, as nasty as they are, are to keep some part of the ecosystem in check? That killing even a handful in the 'pod' that spawns might have serious repercussions up and down the food chain? Therefore the scientist would be more willing to misuse equipment but keep themselves away from anything outright lethal in case they panic.
Having lethal weaponry would remove the drive to find alternative ways to deal with some of these creatures. DNA manipulation would be the ultimate form of pacification without killing, and it is coming.
Former Police Officer and multiple tours in Afghanistan. Tell me again how it isn't like what you see on film. I know better than most but I'm sure some here will benefit from that little piece of knowledge. Again, thank you for knowing you shouldn't have a firearm, because that is point; having a lethal tool should the situation warrant it. I genuinely hope you are never confronted with an armed assailant. I would however like to thank you for your service to your fellow man, you guys play a vital role and I've worked with/known many medics.
Again why do you care what I do in MY game? What you're saying is what has been repeated here already, you fear what you will do in YOUR game because you don't think you'll have the discipline to not reach for the most convenient and simplest resolution to your problem. So you want to impose a control method for your own inability to control your actions, on everyone else.
I am concerned about other people's experience with the game and how it would potentially shift the focus of the game. Just the possibility of a multiplayer mode in the distant future compounds this. But even disregarding that possibility, if you drop direct weaponry into the game, it will diminish the survival aspect of it. You'll have people who whine on reviews and elsewhere that it's "too easy" or whatnot. It takes away from the aspect of trying to figure out how to make do with the things the game gives you to survive. Poor reception means less sales, less sales means less recognition. Which would be a shame because the game has a good concept; the whole "scientific exploration of an advanced mankind" shtick is a decent enough excuse which has been used plenty in the past in sci-fi. The devs decided that they want players to be creative if they want to kill creatures, and not just have direct weaponry like in shooter games. This is not a shooter game. There are plenty of those out there already. Like any game, it can use anything it can get to distinguish itself from an ocean of same-y games.
It won't affect me directly since I tend to run "challenge" playthroughs in some games. For example, case in point: not using any firearms in Mirror's Edge on Hard mode. Game design theory states clearly: you give players a hammer, and they will see nails everywhere. This applies to the majority. A common line of reasoning in these players is "why should I artificially gimp myself?" When I talk to people about Mirror's Edge, they say how easy it was because the AI is stupid and they can easily gun them all down. They clearly played a different meta-game than me, because relying only on your platforming and unarmed combat skills makes the game a much more satisfying challenge; the level designs are perfectly tuned and figuring out how to beat the game with this simple, self-imposed restriction is a puzzle in itself which requires good timing, skill with the controls, spatial awareness for the level's layout, and clever strategy.
Survival in this game is already plenty simple. As mentioned upthread, you already have several tools of mass destruction in this game, they don't even require a lot of creativity or skill to use. I hope a lot of them get tuned down and survival in this game is made harder by default. It starts out as daunting, but the difficulty quickly drops off once you've acquired certain tech.
So my reaction to "give us lethal weaponry in this game!" is purely allergic. What I understand in that request is: "please dumb this game down." Because we all know how to point and shoot in games, so the pixels turn dead. That's easy.
http://forums.unknownworlds.com/discussion/comment/2221653#Comment_2221653
Finally a cogent example of why deadly weapons shouldn't be included, and from a business point of view no less. Man I was almost with you...
...Until this. I can understand your need to self-aggrandize to make your point in the context of a rebuttal. We get it, you are one of those gamers out there will not instantly pick up the kill stick when offered. However instead of sticking to a more intellectual path, you slip in to logical fallacy by making generalizations which reeks of character assassination of those who oppose your view point. But hey, at least your not passive aggressive right? You assume that because we request such a thing that we will turn to it immediately and in essence in to the gamers that aren't you basically. Because you approach something a certain way, those who don't are "dumb". However you don't even know what we will do, but because of your prejudices you think by just requesting a feature that it is a forgone conclusion. Judgmental much?
That was from quite some time ago, I wonder how many opinions and viewpoints and design decisions have been altered since then.
The point I was ACTUALLY trying to make, and you seem scarily incapable of comprehending, was that people act on the options presented to them. As a former police officer then you know that most crime is done by opportunity. If the opportunity isn't readily apparent, then usually people for example will pass on by cars that have had valuables left inside. The same logic applies to applying force in defense or opposition. If one has access to a gun, most would use the gun and would look at you crazy for suggesting any less.
First off, this isn't your game and I'm fairly certain you are not a developer. Second, as has been pointed out, guns would remove a lot of the creativity to deal the problems in subnautica. It's the same reason one generally wouldn't see a gun in point-and-click adventure games. Why deal with the puzzles and creative use of inventory items when you could just shoot the source of the problem?
Guns, and the ability to easily kill your problems, can be the bane of games and even make them boring. Survival horror is a great example. You naturally feel much more dread and fear when your ability to fight back is limited or complicated by use of force. But the moment you can easily dispatch the enemies coming after you, you will begin to lose this fear. I've played enough horror games with guns to know that if I'm conservative enough to build a stockpile of weapons/ammo, the horror and dread fades rather quickly.
Outright lethal weaponry would just make the game boring and trivialize the creatures that should have our respect for their deadliness. As Wratts pointed out, why would a player purposefully hold themselves back if they have the option? If you feel that is a matter of self control, then in the end do we really need it?
I want the world to feel my actions and I feel the worlds response in a game like this. I think this is what will make this game great.
This will allow players to adjust accordingly and maybe even start being more careful how they drive as well.
This game is about exploring and discovering cool sh*t.