This game is about exploring and discovering cool sh*t.
Î this.
I'm a person, who believes that games can be art. Not all are and not all need to be.
Subnautica definitely is a fine piece of art with meaning and message ... why risk destroying that?
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.
Okidokey there. First I wasn't playing the pissing game with you. I have an intimate knowledge of what guns do, I offered info so you needn't further waste your typing on trying to tell me what they do. Your original argument wasn't what you stated here, you pointed out that you could turn to a gun as your first recourse in anger, I just called you on it. Second, Wratts has given us a clear example that not everyone chooses to use a tool presented to them. You do realize most of us approach a game, as if it's a game correct? Wanting a feature apropos to its nature does not mean it will be our first and only option when faced with adversity. As Wratts so clearly pointed out, even when offered he won't necessarily use it. As an aside, I have to wonder if you understand what the Use of Force continuum is, because if you think Police Officers immediately go to their sidearm in every situation, I'd say you haven't learned much about their job. Considering you claim you worked as a medic, one could safely assume you came in contact with many LEO, I'm surprised you wouldn't know that. Once again though, thank you for the job you did.
Also, while I understand your statements about opportunity, I do not believe comparing this game to that of criminal behavior is a proper analogy. Opportunity must be put in to the proper context.
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?
You seem to be focusing the topic around guns, when the thread itself is about weaponry. I have a feeling you have some strong prejudices about gun owners. You quote Wratts, but missed that he does the exact thing you call in to question. Also, quit using the lame duck argument about game ownership. That's just feeble. However if you really believe that drivel you used in response to me about my game and your game, let me make sure there is no hyperbole and spell it out for you. Why do you care what I'm doing with MY time playing a game on MY computer, that does not effect YOUR game on YOUR computer? Why do you care what my use of the tools in the game are? You don't seem to get it. Having an option doesn't necessitate said usage. Still it is my play time, maybe I start a play session and decide I will kill every living creature in sight. /gasp!!!!! "he's not playing his game right!!!!!"
Why do you care?
You use your argument as though it is for the betterment of the game, but really it seems as though your bringing in your personal biases and trying to insert them into the game play.
Before you consider ad hominem or feel personally attacked, breathe. Try to have a good day.
Why do you care what I'm doing with MY time playing a game on MY computer, that does not effect YOUR game on YOUR computer? Why do you care what my use of the tools in the game are? You don't seem to get it. Having an option doesn't necessitate said usage. Still it is my play time, maybe I start a play session and decide I will kill every living creature in sight. /gasp!!!!! "he's not playing his game right!!!!!"
Why do you care?
You use your argument as though it is for the betterment of the game, but really it seems as though your bringing in your personal biases and trying to insert them into the game play.
That's not an issue of who owns the savegame and on whose computer this is installed.
The devs are responsible for what contents the game holds and they do care about it's message. As far as i know, they specificly chose not to give the players guns, so they could not go around and shoot things like they own the place. They want to point out the delicate balance of nature and that a mankind can't always be on top of everything.
Tell us whatever you want, in the end the devs decide what's in YOUR game and what's not.
To make this more constructive, may i suggest mods? The devs had to play along with this, but if there were the possibility of modding the game, everyone could be happy.
I think that there should be only one lethal weapon in subnautica some sort of tesla gun that shoots electricity and will kill all fish in one shot. cuz...we need something to fight the big things with
Drop the megaphone, take a step back, and look at what people are telling you. As I pointed out in another post a page ago there is a difference between creating weapon that is designed to be a weapon and using something AS a weapon. As Wratts pointed out, and pointed to, the devs feel that outright weapons are not the way to go since it promotes limited thinking.
If you had the option between a stasis gun, propulsion gun, or a freaking torpedo when going into Reaper waters....most people are going to use the torpedo first over other options. It has nothing to do with discipline, it is gamer instinct at this point as we have been trained by games for years to do. If you remove the option of weapons like a torpedo, you force people to think of alternative solutions. I apparently bungled my attempt in trying to explain this, but the core point I have been trying to hammer is that if you remove an option people will find another way. So by removing the obvious answer to force, players will actually try the other stuff and get more creative...like maybe dropping a rock on a reaper's head (Not sure I want to be the first to try that though) or maybe finding some way to use the future DNA gun to manipulate their behavior. Or discover some other strategy entirely.
So there is your argument to why lethal weapons (what a misleading title, everything can be lethal) should not be introduced. Another very good reason, the devs say no. They have said it here, and they have said it many times on steam as well. They even talk about it on the website when they talk about how the dev team was excited to create a game that wasn't about shooting everything. So I don't think that viewpoint is going to change, and devs kinda have the final say.
We are already going to get a huge drill on the Exosuit. Even without the drill, the suit is freaking huge! The damn thing is a mini-mech; almost larger than the Seamoth. You could totally b*tch slap the sh*t out of anything with it.
I can't remember where I read it, but I think the suit is also getting either a decoy gun or harpoon/grapple gun.
We are already going to get a huge drill on the Exosuit. Even without the drill, the suit is freaking huge! The damn thing is a mini-mech; almost larger than the Seamoth. You could totally b*tch slap the sh*t out of anything with it.
I can't remember where I read it, but I think the suit is also getting either a decoy gun or harpoon/grapple gun.
I'd like to have idk.. a "fend off" button for large animals like the reaper trying to get you and if you time it right you punch him right in the face and he will scatter away, not die though.. thats all the exosuit should be able to do in terms of harming things IMO
...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?
No, and I stand by my point, no matter how hard you try to misconstrue my post that way. They decided on a concept, and I hope they stick with it.
If you think that I'm saying you or anybody else is dumb with this statement, then you're mistaken, because I'm not. I'm talking about the game being dumbed down to the point where it becomes generic action game #24237463278 in the window dressing of underwater exploration. To that I say: no thank you. I technically already bought the game in Early Access, so I'd rather the devs stick to their guns, pardon the pun. There are plenty of "dumb" games where you kill stuff and the gameplay revolves around it. I have plenty of them, and enjoy them because they are fun. I don't want Subnautica to turn into one of them though, because it has so much potential to be so different.
When you make a game and feature lethal weapons, you have to model the challenge and the game mechanics around it as well. If the only purpose they serve is to kill things quickly, then that's part of what the game is going to be about. I'd rather they focus on other things with this game though: alien environments to explore, strange flora and fauna to interact with, research & development going into new tech, and plain survival. The foundations for that are already established. The foundations for combat-based survival are not. It would require extra time and work (and consequently more money) for something that IMHO the game does not need when it has already been focusing on a different breed of gameplay.
And to bring the argument full circle, while there are plenty of generic and dumb action games, there are plenty of sophisticated action games where you go around killing stuff. But they're built like that from the ground up. Subnautica's engine doesn't really seem built for that sort of gameplay, at least at the time being. It would make for a very clunky combat game. If they cave in now and add lethal weapons just because some people ask for it, the same people will soon be complaining that survival in the game is too easy, and that creatures need to be tougher and more lethal in order to justify having those same lethal weapons. It just escalates from there, making a significant portion of the game about combat.
Is that really what anybody wants when they ask for lethal weaponry in this game, or do they just want to trivialize the threat of dangerous fauna?
The CUTEST. Makes me so glad we decided to make a non-violent game.
Thank you so much for posting.
This is from May 1st of this year. Note the wording: "decided." This does not sound like the words of someone who wants to change their mind on this subject.
tyler111762Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada Join Date: 2015-05-17Member: 204558Members
so uh......... since @TerraBlade and @Nuki255 seem to be foucused on firearms debate i'll ask the two of you this. if i give you a spear gun desgined for hunting small fish, does that suddenly make the reaper leviathan any less scary or dangerous? i don't mean for you to be able to nuke the world here.
you can add simple bladed weapons or simple medium range (10 m - 15m) spear, arrow, dart launchers. i never meant this to be about giving the player a belt-fed machine gun and an RPG-7
so uh......... since @TerraBlade and @Nuki255 seem to be foucused on firearms debate i'll ask the two of you this. if i give you a spear gun desgined for hunting small fish, does that suddenly make the reaper leviathan any less scary or dangerous? i don't mean for you to be able to nuke the world here.
you can add simple bladed weapons or simple medium range (10 m - 15m) spear, arrow, dart launchers. i never meant this to be about giving the player a belt-fed machine gun and an RPG-7
I wasn't trying to get into a 'firearms debate', I was trying to explain (clumsily) that if you have lethal weapons as an obvious option then players are trained and more likely to take that option before trying anything else. By not having it as an obvious option then you make players work a little harder and smarter to come up with a solution to the problem at hand. Simple analogy, how much fun would MacGyver have been if instead of using things around him to engineer a creative solution he just shot or killed everyone? With the powerful stasis gun, the propulsion gun, and the knife-that-cuts-anything....I'm not sure what more you really need.
As for bladed weapons, we have the knife with two upgrades. One of which makes keeping food up out in the field a breeze. So I'm not sure what adding spear, arrow, or dart launchers would really add to the game. Heck, at one point I would have supported a reeling harpoon gun until I realized that you could just stasis a fish before swimming up and taking it. Or cooking it with the heated knife upgrade. So while I am all for options, at this point those things wouldn't add any kind of 'meaningful' option.
Simple analogy, how much fun would MacGyver have been if instead of using things around him to engineer a creative solution he just shot or killed everyone?
That's actually a very good analogy. It will be most interesting if the game encourages the player to come up with creative solutions to different threats.
From what I heard about the new hyper-agressive stalkers and bonesharks, we may need leathal weapons, unless of course they change that or give us some other defense.
I have long advocated, and continue to, the adding of lethal weapons as a alternative that is neither better or worse in terms of difficulty. Kill loads of stalkers? Now you may have peeper overpopulation, but on the other hand, you don't have to worry as much about stalkers. Give multiple ways to solve problems, each with their own risks and rewards.
Most of the arguments against weapons follow three paths. The first is that it will make the game easy if people can kill everything. This would only be the case if we had overpowered weapons. The second if that the mere existence of lethal weapons will make killing the focus of the game. This is simply silly, as every other survival game has weapons, and yet killing is not the point of the game. The third is that it is simply not what the devs want to do with the game. Well, I can't argue against that, it's their game and they can do what they like with it, but they should not become to rigid in their idea of what the game should be. At the moment the community is divided on this issue, but if people were united in support of something, the devs should not dismiss it.
There is one other argument against them, which is that the lack of weapons makes the game more kid-friendly. But really, not having lethal weapons is not making the game non-violent, it is just making all the violence directed at the player. Also, this game is one of the scariest games I have ever played, and I would not let a kid who is too young to handle the sight of some fish being killed play it. And finally, games like call of duty and GTA are filled with five year olds, cursing away and conducting all sorts of violence. Weather that is a good thing is doubtful, but it happens one way or another.
NeskahUnited States of AmericaJoin Date: 2015-05-15Member: 204513Members
I'd like to see more lethal, long-range weapons, but something creative. Just straight up adding an underwater machinegun kind of ruins the idea behind Subnautica. I'd like to see something new and different.
04LeonhardtI came here to laugh at youJoin Date: 2015-08-01Member: 206618Members
I like the idea of something like a Warp Cannon to mount on the Exosuit or Seamoth
A large, unwieldy experimental weapon that creates a wormhole that sucks in anything around it, teleporting it to the other side of the map, harmlessly removing it from the situation. The collapse of the wormhole could result in an explosion, but anything that could be harmed by it would already be sucked in. Most it would do is make a crater on the seafloor.
Something like a harpoon gun, or Half Life 2's Crossbow would be incredibly useful as well.
Add a Dive Reel to it and you got a fishing speargun.
I honestly just prefer it if we had equipment that stunned, shrunk, pushed and warped hostile creatures away. I think the incorporation of lethal weapons is just too.. cliche.
I honestly just prefer it if we had equipment that stunned, shrunk, pushed and warped hostile creatures away. I think the incorporation of lethal weapons is just too.. cliche.
I'd honestly just prefer it if we had equipment that stunned, shrunk, pushed and warped hostile creatures away. I think the incorporation of lethal weapons is just too.. cliche.
>A shrink ray
Now there's an idea.
Thanks. I get all my weird ideas when I'm tired. That, and I misspell and screw-up sentences. XD With that said, who wouldn't want a shrunken leviathan in a tank? Maybe even a reefback?
i'm cool with things like a fishing spear and bow, since those fit into the theme of what the devs want. But still give us a little extra offensive power. Now as much as I want to go around the map and purge of the ocean of reapers. I want it to be something that is possible to do but a difficult challenge unlike now where it just impractical as all hell.
But i'm cool with makeshift weapons and offensive tactics, for example if you drop your knife and pick it up with the propulsion cannon then fire it at something. That should do a massive a mount of damage well firing a heated blade will do a lot of damage it will also keep damaging as it cooks the animal from the inside out as long as it has power. Or say you use the repulsion cannon to push a boulder, that could insta kill most animals and almost kill a reaper. Simply put making use of the environment as well as combining tools to make something more aggressive i'm cool with.
But adding in weapons that allow you to just swimming around committing aquatic genocide i'm not ok with.
I'm 100% for having weapons in-game (though that may just be my experience talking). If you don't want to have the option to shoot a Reaper in the face, then don't build a weapon that can shoot a Reaper in the face. Simple as that. In contrast, don't try to prevent people who DO want to tell the Reaper who's boss from doing so.
I'm 100% for having weapons in-game (though that may just be my experience talking). If you don't want to have the option to shoot a Reaper in the face, then don't build a weapon that can shoot a Reaper in the face. Simple as that. In contrast, don't try to prevent people who DO want to tell the Reaper who's boss from doing so.
you seem kinda new here. thats not how the anti weapons people operate. free will and player choice isn't their ball game.
if you are given a weapon, you will kill everything, end of story.
just like when people talk about weapons in real life. it's reality vs feelings
I also wants to be able to research an improvement that would let me send high voltage pulse along the hull of my vehicles so ward off/stun aggressive animals.
Comments
I'm a person, who believes that games can be art. Not all are and not all need to be.
Subnautica definitely is a fine piece of art with meaning and message ... why risk destroying that?
Okidokey there. First I wasn't playing the pissing game with you. I have an intimate knowledge of what guns do, I offered info so you needn't further waste your typing on trying to tell me what they do. Your original argument wasn't what you stated here, you pointed out that you could turn to a gun as your first recourse in anger, I just called you on it. Second, Wratts has given us a clear example that not everyone chooses to use a tool presented to them. You do realize most of us approach a game, as if it's a game correct? Wanting a feature apropos to its nature does not mean it will be our first and only option when faced with adversity. As Wratts so clearly pointed out, even when offered he won't necessarily use it. As an aside, I have to wonder if you understand what the Use of Force continuum is, because if you think Police Officers immediately go to their sidearm in every situation, I'd say you haven't learned much about their job. Considering you claim you worked as a medic, one could safely assume you came in contact with many LEO, I'm surprised you wouldn't know that. Once again though, thank you for the job you did.
Also, while I understand your statements about opportunity, I do not believe comparing this game to that of criminal behavior is a proper analogy. Opportunity must be put in to the proper context.
You seem to be focusing the topic around guns, when the thread itself is about weaponry. I have a feeling you have some strong prejudices about gun owners. You quote Wratts, but missed that he does the exact thing you call in to question. Also, quit using the lame duck argument about game ownership. That's just feeble. However if you really believe that drivel you used in response to me about my game and your game, let me make sure there is no hyperbole and spell it out for you. Why do you care what I'm doing with MY time playing a game on MY computer, that does not effect YOUR game on YOUR computer? Why do you care what my use of the tools in the game are? You don't seem to get it. Having an option doesn't necessitate said usage. Still it is my play time, maybe I start a play session and decide I will kill every living creature in sight. /gasp!!!!! "he's not playing his game right!!!!!"
Why do you care?
You use your argument as though it is for the betterment of the game, but really it seems as though your bringing in your personal biases and trying to insert them into the game play.
Before you consider ad hominem or feel personally attacked, breathe. Try to have a good day.
The devs are responsible for what contents the game holds and they do care about it's message. As far as i know, they specificly chose not to give the players guns, so they could not go around and shoot things like they own the place. They want to point out the delicate balance of nature and that a mankind can't always be on top of everything.
Tell us whatever you want, in the end the devs decide what's in YOUR game and what's not.
To make this more constructive, may i suggest mods? The devs had to play along with this, but if there were the possibility of modding the game, everyone could be happy.
Drop the megaphone, take a step back, and look at what people are telling you. As I pointed out in another post a page ago there is a difference between creating weapon that is designed to be a weapon and using something AS a weapon. As Wratts pointed out, and pointed to, the devs feel that outright weapons are not the way to go since it promotes limited thinking.
If you had the option between a stasis gun, propulsion gun, or a freaking torpedo when going into Reaper waters....most people are going to use the torpedo first over other options. It has nothing to do with discipline, it is gamer instinct at this point as we have been trained by games for years to do. If you remove the option of weapons like a torpedo, you force people to think of alternative solutions. I apparently bungled my attempt in trying to explain this, but the core point I have been trying to hammer is that if you remove an option people will find another way. So by removing the obvious answer to force, players will actually try the other stuff and get more creative...like maybe dropping a rock on a reaper's head (Not sure I want to be the first to try that though) or maybe finding some way to use the future DNA gun to manipulate their behavior. Or discover some other strategy entirely.
So there is your argument to why lethal weapons (what a misleading title, everything can be lethal) should not be introduced. Another very good reason, the devs say no. They have said it here, and they have said it many times on steam as well. They even talk about it on the website when they talk about how the dev team was excited to create a game that wasn't about shooting everything. So I don't think that viewpoint is going to change, and devs kinda have the final say.
I can't remember where I read it, but I think the suit is also getting either a decoy gun or harpoon/grapple gun.
I'd like to have idk.. a "fend off" button for large animals like the reaper trying to get you and if you time it right you punch him right in the face and he will scatter away, not die though.. thats all the exosuit should be able to do in terms of harming things IMO
If you think that I'm saying you or anybody else is dumb with this statement, then you're mistaken, because I'm not. I'm talking about the game being dumbed down to the point where it becomes generic action game #24237463278 in the window dressing of underwater exploration. To that I say: no thank you. I technically already bought the game in Early Access, so I'd rather the devs stick to their guns, pardon the pun. There are plenty of "dumb" games where you kill stuff and the gameplay revolves around it. I have plenty of them, and enjoy them because they are fun. I don't want Subnautica to turn into one of them though, because it has so much potential to be so different.
When you make a game and feature lethal weapons, you have to model the challenge and the game mechanics around it as well. If the only purpose they serve is to kill things quickly, then that's part of what the game is going to be about. I'd rather they focus on other things with this game though: alien environments to explore, strange flora and fauna to interact with, research & development going into new tech, and plain survival. The foundations for that are already established. The foundations for combat-based survival are not. It would require extra time and work (and consequently more money) for something that IMHO the game does not need when it has already been focusing on a different breed of gameplay.
And to bring the argument full circle, while there are plenty of generic and dumb action games, there are plenty of sophisticated action games where you go around killing stuff. But they're built like that from the ground up. Subnautica's engine doesn't really seem built for that sort of gameplay, at least at the time being. It would make for a very clunky combat game. If they cave in now and add lethal weapons just because some people ask for it, the same people will soon be complaining that survival in the game is too easy, and that creatures need to be tougher and more lethal in order to justify having those same lethal weapons. It just escalates from there, making a significant portion of the game about combat.
Is that really what anybody wants when they ask for lethal weaponry in this game, or do they just want to trivialize the threat of dangerous fauna?
In this very thread we're in right now, there's a link to a more recent thread where a dev says the following: This is from May 1st of this year. Note the wording: "decided." This does not sound like the words of someone who wants to change their mind on this subject.
you can add simple bladed weapons or simple medium range (10 m - 15m) spear, arrow, dart launchers. i never meant this to be about giving the player a belt-fed machine gun and an RPG-7
I wasn't trying to get into a 'firearms debate', I was trying to explain (clumsily) that if you have lethal weapons as an obvious option then players are trained and more likely to take that option before trying anything else. By not having it as an obvious option then you make players work a little harder and smarter to come up with a solution to the problem at hand. Simple analogy, how much fun would MacGyver have been if instead of using things around him to engineer a creative solution he just shot or killed everyone? With the powerful stasis gun, the propulsion gun, and the knife-that-cuts-anything....I'm not sure what more you really need.
As for bladed weapons, we have the knife with two upgrades. One of which makes keeping food up out in the field a breeze. So I'm not sure what adding spear, arrow, or dart launchers would really add to the game. Heck, at one point I would have supported a reeling harpoon gun until I realized that you could just stasis a fish before swimming up and taking it. Or cooking it with the heated knife upgrade. So while I am all for options, at this point those things wouldn't add any kind of 'meaningful' option.
That's actually a very good analogy. It will be most interesting if the game encourages the player to come up with creative solutions to different threats.
I have long advocated, and continue to, the adding of lethal weapons as a alternative that is neither better or worse in terms of difficulty. Kill loads of stalkers? Now you may have peeper overpopulation, but on the other hand, you don't have to worry as much about stalkers. Give multiple ways to solve problems, each with their own risks and rewards.
Most of the arguments against weapons follow three paths. The first is that it will make the game easy if people can kill everything. This would only be the case if we had overpowered weapons. The second if that the mere existence of lethal weapons will make killing the focus of the game. This is simply silly, as every other survival game has weapons, and yet killing is not the point of the game. The third is that it is simply not what the devs want to do with the game. Well, I can't argue against that, it's their game and they can do what they like with it, but they should not become to rigid in their idea of what the game should be. At the moment the community is divided on this issue, but if people were united in support of something, the devs should not dismiss it.
There is one other argument against them, which is that the lack of weapons makes the game more kid-friendly. But really, not having lethal weapons is not making the game non-violent, it is just making all the violence directed at the player. Also, this game is one of the scariest games I have ever played, and I would not let a kid who is too young to handle the sight of some fish being killed play it. And finally, games like call of duty and GTA are filled with five year olds, cursing away and conducting all sorts of violence. Weather that is a good thing is doubtful, but it happens one way or another.
A large, unwieldy experimental weapon that creates a wormhole that sucks in anything around it, teleporting it to the other side of the map, harmlessly removing it from the situation. The collapse of the wormhole could result in an explosion, but anything that could be harmed by it would already be sucked in. Most it would do is make a crater on the seafloor.
Something like a harpoon gun, or Half Life 2's Crossbow would be incredibly useful as well.
Add a Dive Reel to it and you got a fishing speargun.
>A shrink ray
Now there's an idea.
Thanks. I get all my weird ideas when I'm tired. That, and I misspell and screw-up sentences. XD With that said, who wouldn't want a shrunken leviathan in a tank? Maybe even a reefback?
Kudos.
It'd be perfect, too. Turn a Reaper Leviathan into something the size of a biter fish.
So instead of instant death you get
I mean we already have tiny versions of existing creatures in the game
Got this pic heading to the Grand Reef. It's a baby Spadefish
But i'm cool with makeshift weapons and offensive tactics, for example if you drop your knife and pick it up with the propulsion cannon then fire it at something. That should do a massive a mount of damage well firing a heated blade will do a lot of damage it will also keep damaging as it cooks the animal from the inside out as long as it has power. Or say you use the repulsion cannon to push a boulder, that could insta kill most animals and almost kill a reaper. Simply put making use of the environment as well as combining tools to make something more aggressive i'm cool with.
But adding in weapons that allow you to just swimming around committing aquatic genocide i'm not ok with.
There are more people that want some kind of weapon than want no weapons at all c:
when we hit 150 votes i'll cap it off and say that is our vote. but from the looks of it, the majority want some kind of weapons
for better or for worse....
yes. yes they have.
You could actually just use a crossbow, since they work underwater.
I mean we already stole the gravity gun from Half Life, let's take the crossbow too
you seem kinda new here. thats not how the anti weapons people operate. free will and player choice isn't their ball game.
if you are given a weapon, you will kill everything, end of story.
just like when people talk about weapons in real life. it's reality vs feelings