So they go to an ocean planet, with absolutely 0 intent to actually go underwater.
These mental gymnastics you're doing are getting ridiculous.
To use the Star Trek system of planet A-Z classification, how many planets (Class M, capable of supporting human life with a breathable atmosphere) do you suppose there are? IF a Class M planet was discovered, but 95% of the surface is water, would it be left alone and not terraformed into a world with large, colony supporting landmasses?
History shows that humans have always changed their environment to suit their needs when possible. Given the level of technology present in the game, the idea that humans would need to adapt to the conditions of the planet and not simply terraform into what they prefer it is unlikely. The only reason that the player is forced to build underwater bases and vehicles is the lack of large scale resources (that were probably on board the Aurora). In essence, making the best of a bad situation.
Until the game goes into final release, this is all just idle speculation. The devs release whatever information they desire, regardless if it will be used or not. The forums, a great way for the devs to get feedback from the players, are not much more than a school playground full of screaming children. We can want everything, but unless recess is over, we won't know what we'll get until we get back to class.
If there was ever a thematic progression to this game, this is what I'd imagine it is:
The Alterra Corporation sends the Aurora space craft and crew to planet 4546B. The mission's soul objective is to terraform the planet for human colonization. This process will destroy the local biosphere; however, in the future this has become routine. Countless worlds have been wiped clean to make way for humanity, and because of this very few humans have ever encountered alien life (creating a malignant xenophobia among humanity). Planets have been wiped before major ecological studies take place.
Our hero (being controlled by the player) find him/her self stranded on an alien planet, having (just like the user) never seen alien life up close before. With the planet's natural majesty still intact, the player is free to explore the would untarnished by human avarice.
Perhaps when the colony ships finally arrive, the player can convince them to spare the planet from being terraformed.
*sigh*
If nobody else is going to say this, I will.
Are you saying that because guns are a thing in real life, that everybody is going around killing each other? That Minecraft is a 100% combat game, because they decided to add a bow, swords, and damaging potions? That any game that happens to have ANY way to defend yourself is automatically a shooter?
Because that just makes o sense to me.
I could understand if people were suggesting nuclear bombs and things like that, but a few weak torpedoes, a spear gun, and a few other things? What I'm getting from your argument is, next time someone in real life is attacked by a bear, they should allow themselves to be mauled to death instead of stabbing it to make it go away. You're not suggesting here that we don't destroy everything. Everybody here agrees with that idea. What you're saying is that we should have no weapons at all. And in a place as dangerous as Subnautica is, you need something to make sure you don't end up in pieces.
Rant over.
It has nothing to do with guns or what not. Anything can be lethal, even an inch of water can be lethal. The issue is that guns are usually only purposed for one thing, which is to be lethal. All the tools in this game that can hurt animals could also have other uses, such as the knife being used to break coral and cut creepvine. It isn't JUST about killing fauna. The propulsion gun can move rocks OR push enemies away.
Outright lethal weaponry really has no place here. That is part of the reason you are given the audio clues that something dangerous is nearby or is planning to attack...usually.
So yeah, I don't think Charlie is exactly in control of development, and his opinion isn't exactly the end all be all of discussion, considering that the game's development has taken a sharp turn from his "Peaceful underwater adventure" idea.
Actually, being his company and his title:
CHARLIE “FLAYRA” CLEVELAND
Game Director
Then I'm sure he is, and his opinion is the end all, be all.
We're simply discussing why literally everything we're presented with in the game implies that we SHOULD have some form of weapon, despite the game's "Peaceful" "Non-violent" gimmick.
People need to stop pretending that making a game "non-violent" is some revolutionary amazing progressive enlightened thing.
Well, it's been brought up before but apparently flayra said something after sandy hook that he was really glad they decided to make a non-violent video game. It's been echoed throughout development. It's not that it's some kind of gimmick, but really I think that's what has been on the schedule since get-go. Alternative ways of dealing with threats, fundamental design of the game.
Think about survival horror games like the amnesia series... dangerous situation, things that want to hurt you... and you're left to hide in lockers and under beds etc. It's an element of gameplay.
THINGS WILL CHANGE, we all know that. And we'll probably be provided with a lot more tools to deal w/ the creatures. If there's a finite amount of creatures in the world, you could probably quickly make "extinct" some of the more hostile creatures if you had the means to dispatch them. I'd be really surprised if that was a mechanic they wanted to introduce.
Lmfao I'm not assuming that because there are enemies that I need to kill them.
And again with the "OMG U WANT A WEAPON SO U CAN KILL EVERYTHING!!!!!" strawman.
Can we just not, for once, resort to this stupidity?
I'm "assuming" that a game quoted as being "Peaceful" and "Non-violent" should have far, FAR less violent creatures. The current state of the game is the direct opposite of the touted "Peaceful good! Violence bad!" gimmick they're going with.
Just because the creatures are violent doesn't mean you have to be. By peaceful, I mean that you must be peaceful.
Also gimmick has a negative denotation/conotation, you meant it as a jab at the game, instead of saying aspect or something along those lines.
And tbh, a non-violent game IS a "revolutionary" idea, you don't get many games like this nowadays.
Also gimmick has a negative denotation/conotation, you meant it as a jab at the game, instead of saying aspect or something along those lines.
Except that no, it doesn't. You're just looking for a reason to be offended, as though that makes your argument more valid. I was stating that it was something they chose to make the game stand out from other games. The literal definition of a gimmick.
And tbh, a non-violent game IS a "revolutionary" idea, you don't get many games like this nowadays.
There are hundreds of them. Most of the "Survival Horror" genre is this, where you have to run away from monsters or die. It is absolutely NOT a revolutionary amazing progressive thing.
The sooner we get over this, the sooner I can start taking you people seriously.
The soonder YOU grasp the idea that there MAY NOT BE LETHAL WEAPONS, the sooner we'll all stop trying to get to you. IRL, I am not against guns, not offended by guns at all. Nobody wants to get into that. This is STRICTLY a game design conversation, to force players to deal with problems in other ways.
To be honest, Leon, it seems like you just dislike the design direction of Subnautica.
Flayra has been quite vocal many many times internally and publicly how he is not interested in having weapons used in the way you wish to see.
So while I get your desire for such a game, (but not your dislike of games that do without it like Alien Isolation or Amnesia etc etc) why continuously rail against this design decision in these forums?
You consistently bring up fallacies that others make in discussion, but entirely ignore the futility of attempting to influence your own ideas that directly oppose the intended design of this product, as well as ignoring the non sequitur that reality has anything to do with a video game, or that reality should somehow guide the design of it.
Why? I mean I get it's not what you like, but why constantly go on about it if you know it's not going to change? Makes it seem like you are just arguing for the sake of it at this point.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
edited September 2015
@tyler111762
Discussing as if reality impacts design : Just because you are in a hostile world does not mandate that you must be hostile as well, especially given the powerful technology and tools at your disposal.
Discussing as if reality has no impact on design : It's a lot more engaging and interesting to not just shoot your way out of every problem you encounter.
Also, merging your thread with another existing one of the same topic.
If everybody could please refrain from making new threads with a singular argument that already exists in multiple active threads that would be greeeeaaaatt. Thanks.
@tyler111762
Discussing as if reality impacts design : Just because you are in a hostile world does not mandate that you must be hostile as well, especially given the powerful technology and tools at your disposal.
Discussing as if reality has no impact on design : It's a lot more engaging and interesting to not just shoot your way out of every problem you encounter.
Also, merging your thread with another existing one of the same topic.
If everybody could please refrain from making new threads with a singular argument that already exists in multiple active threads that would be greeeeaaaatt. Thanks.
buddy, there is a difference between saying something in text and using pictures and trying to go for a specific effect, i also cannot see the responses of people to the nuance of my post once merged . thanks though. great moderation.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
Your argument was not remotely different from what has been suggested time and time again, you've just utilized images to argue the same point.
Feel free to continue this line of discussion with me in a personal message so as not to further derail this thread.
@tyler111762 I don't mind the method in which you communicate.. I mind a dozen topics that are all saying the same thing.
when someone says something.
and then someone else draws a picture saying a similar yet differently approached way to that thing, are they equal?
not really.
You're arguing with a mod. I'm not gonna comment on this particular discussion in an on topic way, but arguing with a mod on a forum is NEVER a good idea
Also gimmick has a negative denotation/conotation, you meant it as a jab at the game, instead of saying aspect or something along those lines.
Except that no, it doesn't. You're just looking for a reason to be offended, as though that makes your argument more valid. I was stating that it was something they chose to make the game stand out from other games. The literal definition of a gimmick.
And tbh, a non-violent game IS a "revolutionary" idea, you don't get many games like this nowadays.
There are hundreds of them. Most of the "Survival Horror" genre is this, where you have to run away from monsters or die. It is absolutely NOT a revolutionary amazing progressive thing.
The sooner we get over this, the sooner I can start taking you people seriously.
First off just because something isn't 'revelutinary' does not make something less worthwhile. That same argument could be applied to any form of media, every trope and type of story that can be done has been done. Nothing in this game or any other is especially 'new' but the implementation itself is unique and interesting. Ergo, while subs, survival, critical thinking, base building, and ect. are all concepts that can be found in other games, the unique blend that you see in Subnautica is unique because no other game in recent memory has combined these particular elements into one game.
All games have a 'gimmik', and that isn't in itself a bad thing. The trouble starts when a 'gimmik' is all a game brings to the table and soely relies on it to make a game 'fun' or 'interesting' without any other substance to back it up. However this is largely subjective to the observer and their preferences, so in turn the point a gimmick falls flat is largely opinion orientated and not something that can really quantified. Example, SAW is gorn and that gorn is largely the draw of the movie franchise. The gorn being it's 'gimmick' and largely what props the movie up. However another movie such as maybe 'Hunt for Red October' is a thriller about a defection, but good acting, story, action, and other things help prop up the gimmick of it being a thriller about a russian sub defecting to the US. See the difference?
The fact that Subnautica is trying to distance itself from violent solutions is indeed a 'gimmick'. But the rest of the gameplay works and is working to prop it up with more substance. You can indeed load up a proximity defense module and claim this is 'violence'. But the key is it is meant more for defense then offense (though you can preemptively chase a reaper away with it). Therefore you never eliminate the threat entirely (which makes gameplay boring) but at the same time you have means to reduce or eliminate a threat temporarily.
You and people who are asking for lethal weapons are asking to outright eliminate threats. This would make the game in the long run boring, even for you; as the focus on AI and having to balance the game around such an approach would either leave the game unsatisfying by being able to just kill anything that comes your way. Or it would make the game so dangerous that the violent solution is the only real viable one. Not to mention that it would decrease the desire to find more unique solutions (do a series of complex tasks/strategies or just blow away to obstacle?).
If you can give some actual thought out reason as to why the game would be better for having a more aggressive stance...then please postulate one. So far I have yet to see any reason beyond 'it's cool' or 'it would make this easier'...which at this point maybe that is EXACTLY why they don't want to put in such weapons. That it would make the game easier. Case in point, how much easier would any slender man game be if you could just shoot slender?
First off just because something isn't 'revelutinary' does not make something less worthwhile. That same argument could be applied to any form of media, every trope and type of story that can be done has been done. Nothing in this game or any other is especially 'new' but the implementation itself is unique and interesting. Ergo, while subs, survival, critical thinking, base building, and ect. are all concepts that can be found in other games, the unique blend that you see in Subnautica is unique because no other game in recent memory has combined these particular elements into one game.
I never devalued the game for not being revolutionary. I was making a point that people need to stop pretending that "Non-violence" in a video game is some rare, amazing thing that never happens ever.
All games have a 'gimmik', and that isn't in itself a bad thing. The trouble starts when a 'gimmik' is all a game brings to the table and soely relies on it to make a game 'fun' or 'interesting' without any other substance to back it up. However this is largely subjective to the observer and their preferences, so in turn the point a gimmick falls flat is largely opinion orientated and not something that can really quantified. Example, SAW is gorn and that gorn is largely the draw of the movie franchise. The gorn being it's 'gimmick' and largely what props the movie up. However another movie such as maybe 'Hunt for Red October' is a thriller about a defection, but good acting, story, action, and other things help prop up the gimmick of it being a thriller about a russian sub defecting to the US. See the difference?
The only people saying a gimmick is bad are the ones that pretend it's derogative just so they can feel offended.
The fact that Subnautica is trying to distance itself from violent solutions is indeed a 'gimmick'. But the rest of the gameplay works and is working to prop it up with more substance. You can indeed load up a proximity defense module and claim this is 'violence'. But the key is it is meant more for defense then offense (though you can preemptively chase a reaper away with it). Therefore you never eliminate the threat entirely (which makes gameplay boring) but at the same time you have means to reduce or eliminate a threat temporarily.
The idea of eliminating threats making gameplay boring is your opinion. To me, it means making the game far less tedious when I want to go outside my SeaBase.
And in what way is driving a submarine into the center of a cluster of fish and releasing a damn Lightning Cannon considered not violence?
You and people who are asking for lethal weapons are asking to outright eliminate threats. This would make the game in the long run boring, even for you; as the focus on AI and having to balance the game around such an approach would either leave the game unsatisfying by being able to just kill anything that comes your way. Or it would make the game so dangerous that the violent solution is the only real viable one. Not to mention that it would decrease the desire to find more unique solutions (do a series of complex tasks/strategies or just blow away to obstacle?).
And here we have the "YOU JUST WANT TO MURDER EVERYTHING AND WILL NEVER PLAY THE WAY I THINK IS RIGHT" strawman. Quoted text discarded and ignored.
If you want people to take you seriously, never tell them that you know what they're going to do before they're even able to do it.
inb4 more pseudo intellectual yet hilariously closed minded walls of text about how I'm an evil heartless monster that just wants to murder the entire ocean for fun
You and people who are asking for lethal weapons are asking to outright eliminate threats. This would make the game in the long run boring, even for you; as the focus on AI and having to balance the game around such an approach would either leave the game unsatisfying by being able to just kill anything that comes your way. Or it would make the game so dangerous that the violent solution is the only real viable one. Not to mention that it would decrease the desire to find more unique solutions (do a series of complex tasks/strategies or just blow away to obstacle?).
And here we have the "YOU JUST WANT TO MURDER EVERYTHING AND WILL NEVER PLAY THE WAY I THINK IS RIGHT" strawman. Quoted text discarded and ignored.
If you want people to take you seriously, never tell them that you know what they're going to do before they're even able to do it.
inb4 more pseudo intellectual yet hilariously closed minded walls of text about how I'm an evil heartless monster that just wants to murder the entire ocean for fun
No what I said was that wanting lethal weapons was wanting to outright remove a threat whereas the current equipment only reduces the threat's influence. Being able to outright remove the threat reduces tension and thus most of the engaging aspects of the game. I never said that you just want to murder everything. But even giving the option would still mean that the game would have to be balanced around the option, which would lead to the two possible outcomes I stated. Again, the option to outright remove the threat would make the game easier, which in turn would need to be balanced somehow, most likely by bigger threats not so easily eliminated and therefore reducing the effectiveness/viability of any approach that isn't outright aggressive. Or it would make the game so easy that it would just quickly become boring since to make the non-aggressive options easier the AI doesn't put up as much of a fight.
At this point you are just looking to pick a fight on this topic, and took the flimsiest excuse to play victim. I never said I know you would do anything, that you would murder everything, or that you are a heartless monster. That is on you, and if you are that eager to pick a fight no wonder you haven't gained much ground on this topic.
I've made a conscious decision to just suck it up and use the range of tools that UWE have provided in Subnautica. Not a huge fan of seeing their capabilities Nerfed in any way, though.
Suggest that any of these items are over-powered, and I will vehemently suggest that you get an immediate CAT scan, Baby.
I still want to punt Bleeders into a low orbit and cackle gleefully as they burn up during re-entry.
Not aiming to x-out the Stalkers, Bone Sharks and Sand Sharks, because they are there for a reason. Need to have those apex predators, folks.
As for Mister Reaper? Avoid. Pretty much 100 per cent achievable, actually. That boy sure loves to yodel.
My evil alternate-Universe twin might suggest rigging a rostrum (bow-mounted hypodermic) on the Cyclops, hook it up to a bank of HP oxygen cylinders and shank that SOB right in the face. Just for being a totally disagreeable marine creature. A diving equipment company called Farallon made (or still make) a similar device called a 'Shark Dart'. It's basically a compressed CO2 cartridge warhead fitted to a speargun projectile (btw: not a 'harpoon gun'. Whaling vessels carry those). It's supposed to be more 'humane' than shooting sharks with conventional .303, .44/40 or 12 gauge powerheads or 'bang-sticks', but I think that argument is a pile of steaming blimp guano.
There's nothing humane about turning sharks into writhing balloon-animals with a spritz of high-pressure CO2. At least a powerhead strike delivers a relatively quick, clean kill... If you absolutely must kill them at all.
I used to carry a short sling-spear ('shark billy') equipped with a .303 powerhead while diving. Roughly about the same time that 'Jaws' was released, actually.
Never saw a single bloody shark that had half a mind to chew on me. In Australia. In known feeding grounds. Nada. Zip. Bupkiss.
In the end, I handed the powerhead in at the nearest cop-shop.
My reasoning was this: It was just another piece of diving kit to lug around. Needed a pistol permit to legally use it, too. The real decider was that *IF* I ever got within knife-fighting range of a predatory species, I'd probably lose that bout in fairly short order. Wouldn't even see it coming, anyway.
So, in a roundabout sort of way... The moral of my rambling yarn is: "You Never See The One That Gets You."
We may play as a scientist BUT, the aurora is a COLONISATION ship, it would transport humans and animals to new worlds and turn them into another "earth". We would introduce the new animals into the ecosystem and not care about the pre-existing life, (After all, the aspect that we can eat the fish is purely for the game, if this were real life we probably wouldn't be able to digest it.) So if destroying the ecosystem using flora and fauna from earth is NOT bad, then why can lethal weapons not be introduced, but that's not what i'm getting at. The whole reason we went to the planet in the first place was to change everything to suit us. So, in conclusion, we may be a scientist but the only reason we need to adapt to this world is because the ship crashed, and we have no other choice.
TERRAFORMING. One might assume with with the Terraformer tool, which can make islands and other landmasses, that when the planet is terraformed for colonists, there will be continents for people to live upon. They won't be living under the sea unless you think that gills will be a standard feature for humans. Assuming that the Aurora wasn't supposed to crash, it probably had large-scale terraformers that could make giant landmasses from orbit, limiting the need for underwater operations.
So they go to an ocean planet, with absolutely 0 intent to actually go underwater.
These mental gymnastics you're doing are getting ridiculus.
We can assume the aurora wasn't headed to the ocean planet. The other planetoid in the background already has land, why would they waste resources terraforming a water world when there is a planet with land masses pre-existing?
The Aurora is actually a terraforming vessel. I'd guess the colony ship isn't due to arrive until the terraforming process is complete.
It's fairly safe to assume that the water-planet was its original destination, as there would be far less work involved in raising a bit of habitable terrain on a world that already has two out of the three basic prerequisites for human habitation to commence: A breathable atmosphere and liquid water? Check!
Raising terrain would pose absolutely no problems. The Survivor has access to a handy-dandy portable Terraformer sometime around mid-game.
Okay... Maybe a slight problem exists with those Reaper Leviathan critters. Could even be far worse things lurking below the H.P Lovecraft layer.
Simplest solution: Don't poke around down there unless you're willing to dance with the devil.
My only real gripe is that spine-chilling howling noise that Jelly-Rays make. If the Devs could replace it with a gentle 'cooing' noise that properly befits their peaceful nature, I'd consider that a genuine act of kindness. O.o
We can assume the aurora wasn't headed to the ocean planet. The other planetoid in the background already has land, why would they waste resources terraforming a water world when there is a planet with land masses pre-existing?
What? Where are you getting this information?
It was already descending towards the planet when it was hit with the pulse.
What, were they gonna stop there for a swim?
And just because a planet has land doesn't mean it's habitable.
The air could be made entirely of fart gas and it'd rain lava.
We can assume the aurora wasn't headed to the ocean planet. The other planetoid in the background already has land, why would they waste resources terraforming a water world when there is a planet with land masses pre-existing?
What? Where are you getting this information?
It was already descending towards the planet when it was hit with the pulse.
What, were they gonna stop there for a swim?
And just because a planet has land doesn't mean it's habitable.
The air could be made entirely of fart gas and it'd rain lava.
I never said that?
I don't know why you are quoting something I never said?
I would however appreciate a response to my post that was directed at you.
04LeonhardtI came here to laugh at youJoin Date: 2015-08-01Member: 206618Members
edited September 2015
I quoted Arznix's comment and it put your name in. Weird.
In regards to your comment, sorry I must have missed it.
I dislike the design direction of Subnautica because it goes directly against everything they've been preaching to us about it being a "Peaceful, fun, non-violent exploration game!" with their adding of a million and one hostile monsters that can kill us. This is why I say that people need to stop pretending that 'Non-violence" some amazing and revolutionary thing for a game to do. Because they're simply NOT doing it.
They've dialed back the number of hostile creatures in each biome, but there are still no other peaceful creatures announced or even visibly planned.
When we get a vast majority of peaceful creatures to hostile creatures, my stance will change.
Weapons would make it easier to kill opposition in stead of trying to outsmart them.
Why wouldn't you kill al predators if you could? nothing would stop you except your ammunition
Well, I'm a huge gun nerd and I WANT WEAPONS IN SUBNAUTICA... but man... WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU KILL ALL OF THE PREDATORS? Where would be all the fun then, huh? A Reaper or shark get's in a way and it gets nasty, well... screw you, die... but why would anyone kill them all???
I have sometimes this feeling, that it's not US, gun nerds, who is dangerous here, but those who say things like you've just said. Because only a maniac could come up with something so stupid (even for videogame standards) like killing all the dangerous fauna the very fist moment you get a gun.
People have rifles and other various firearms for centuries now, and don't know how you, but last time I checked, there were still predators out there in the wild...
I think you've misunderstood the "peaceful, fun, non violent exploration game" to somehow mean that the world itself would not be dangerous or without challenge.
That's never been the case, I assure you.
I've played the very first prototype ever when they used NS2 models as placeholders and there was only white sand and water and nothing else. I've ran the PAX booth for Subnautica in Boston, many many months prior to Early Access - where we demo'd to 90k attendees and spoke of dangerous environments without weapons and talked about the importance of ecosystems.
The design direction of Subnautica has never wavered, not from the original pitch, prototype, demonstrations, to now.
But I see that your confusion of a description may be an indication that it needs to be adjusted.
Comments
To use the Star Trek system of planet A-Z classification, how many planets (Class M, capable of supporting human life with a breathable atmosphere) do you suppose there are? IF a Class M planet was discovered, but 95% of the surface is water, would it be left alone and not terraformed into a world with large, colony supporting landmasses?
History shows that humans have always changed their environment to suit their needs when possible. Given the level of technology present in the game, the idea that humans would need to adapt to the conditions of the planet and not simply terraform into what they prefer it is unlikely. The only reason that the player is forced to build underwater bases and vehicles is the lack of large scale resources (that were probably on board the Aurora). In essence, making the best of a bad situation.
Until the game goes into final release, this is all just idle speculation. The devs release whatever information they desire, regardless if it will be used or not. The forums, a great way for the devs to get feedback from the players, are not much more than a school playground full of screaming children. We can want everything, but unless recess is over, we won't know what we'll get until we get back to class.
The Alterra Corporation sends the Aurora space craft and crew to planet 4546B. The mission's soul objective is to terraform the planet for human colonization. This process will destroy the local biosphere; however, in the future this has become routine. Countless worlds have been wiped clean to make way for humanity, and because of this very few humans have ever encountered alien life (creating a malignant xenophobia among humanity). Planets have been wiped before major ecological studies take place.
Our hero (being controlled by the player) find him/her self stranded on an alien planet, having (just like the user) never seen alien life up close before. With the planet's natural majesty still intact, the player is free to explore the would untarnished by human avarice.
Perhaps when the colony ships finally arrive, the player can convince them to spare the planet from being terraformed.
It has nothing to do with guns or what not. Anything can be lethal, even an inch of water can be lethal. The issue is that guns are usually only purposed for one thing, which is to be lethal. All the tools in this game that can hurt animals could also have other uses, such as the knife being used to break coral and cut creepvine. It isn't JUST about killing fauna. The propulsion gun can move rocks OR push enemies away.
Outright lethal weaponry really has no place here. That is part of the reason you are given the audio clues that something dangerous is nearby or is planning to attack...usually.
Actually it's something he's said MULTIPLE times over several months. This tells me it's a recurring theme.
Actually, being his company and his title: Then I'm sure he is, and his opinion is the end all, be all.
Well, it's been brought up before but apparently flayra said something after sandy hook that he was really glad they decided to make a non-violent video game. It's been echoed throughout development. It's not that it's some kind of gimmick, but really I think that's what has been on the schedule since get-go. Alternative ways of dealing with threats, fundamental design of the game.
Think about survival horror games like the amnesia series... dangerous situation, things that want to hurt you... and you're left to hide in lockers and under beds etc. It's an element of gameplay.
THINGS WILL CHANGE, we all know that. And we'll probably be provided with a lot more tools to deal w/ the creatures. If there's a finite amount of creatures in the world, you could probably quickly make "extinct" some of the more hostile creatures if you had the means to dispatch them. I'd be really surprised if that was a mechanic they wanted to introduce.
you have given me an idea.
this should be interesting.
https://youtu.be/CdNp0SG1AbA?t=1m53s
but god forbid;
even this would be nice
@04Leonhardt
"Violence breeds violence, but in the end it has to be this way"
Also gimmick has a negative denotation/conotation, you meant it as a jab at the game, instead of saying aspect or something along those lines.
And tbh, a non-violent game IS a "revolutionary" idea, you don't get many games like this nowadays.
Except that no, it doesn't. You're just looking for a reason to be offended, as though that makes your argument more valid. I was stating that it was something they chose to make the game stand out from other games. The literal definition of a gimmick.
There are hundreds of them. Most of the "Survival Horror" genre is this, where you have to run away from monsters or die. It is absolutely NOT a revolutionary amazing progressive thing.
The sooner we get over this, the sooner I can start taking you people seriously.
To be honest, Leon, it seems like you just dislike the design direction of Subnautica.
Flayra has been quite vocal many many times internally and publicly how he is not interested in having weapons used in the way you wish to see.
So while I get your desire for such a game, (but not your dislike of games that do without it like Alien Isolation or Amnesia etc etc) why continuously rail against this design decision in these forums?
You consistently bring up fallacies that others make in discussion, but entirely ignore the futility of attempting to influence your own ideas that directly oppose the intended design of this product, as well as ignoring the non sequitur that reality has anything to do with a video game, or that reality should somehow guide the design of it.
Why? I mean I get it's not what you like, but why constantly go on about it if you know it's not going to change? Makes it seem like you are just arguing for the sake of it at this point.
Discussing as if reality impacts design : Just because you are in a hostile world does not mandate that you must be hostile as well, especially given the powerful technology and tools at your disposal.
Discussing as if reality has no impact on design : It's a lot more engaging and interesting to not just shoot your way out of every problem you encounter.
Also, merging your thread with another existing one of the same topic.
If everybody could please refrain from making new threads with a singular argument that already exists in multiple active threads that would be greeeeaaaatt. Thanks.
buddy, there is a difference between saying something in text and using pictures and trying to go for a specific effect, i also cannot see the responses of people to the nuance of my post once merged . thanks though. great moderation.
when someone says something.
and then someone else draws a picture saying a similar yet differently approached way to that thing, are they equal?
not really.
Feel free to continue this line of discussion with me in a personal message so as not to further derail this thread.
You're arguing with a mod. I'm not gonna comment on this particular discussion in an on topic way, but arguing with a mod on a forum is NEVER a good idea
First off just because something isn't 'revelutinary' does not make something less worthwhile. That same argument could be applied to any form of media, every trope and type of story that can be done has been done. Nothing in this game or any other is especially 'new' but the implementation itself is unique and interesting. Ergo, while subs, survival, critical thinking, base building, and ect. are all concepts that can be found in other games, the unique blend that you see in Subnautica is unique because no other game in recent memory has combined these particular elements into one game.
All games have a 'gimmik', and that isn't in itself a bad thing. The trouble starts when a 'gimmik' is all a game brings to the table and soely relies on it to make a game 'fun' or 'interesting' without any other substance to back it up. However this is largely subjective to the observer and their preferences, so in turn the point a gimmick falls flat is largely opinion orientated and not something that can really quantified. Example, SAW is gorn and that gorn is largely the draw of the movie franchise. The gorn being it's 'gimmick' and largely what props the movie up. However another movie such as maybe 'Hunt for Red October' is a thriller about a defection, but good acting, story, action, and other things help prop up the gimmick of it being a thriller about a russian sub defecting to the US. See the difference?
The fact that Subnautica is trying to distance itself from violent solutions is indeed a 'gimmick'. But the rest of the gameplay works and is working to prop it up with more substance. You can indeed load up a proximity defense module and claim this is 'violence'. But the key is it is meant more for defense then offense (though you can preemptively chase a reaper away with it). Therefore you never eliminate the threat entirely (which makes gameplay boring) but at the same time you have means to reduce or eliminate a threat temporarily.
You and people who are asking for lethal weapons are asking to outright eliminate threats. This would make the game in the long run boring, even for you; as the focus on AI and having to balance the game around such an approach would either leave the game unsatisfying by being able to just kill anything that comes your way. Or it would make the game so dangerous that the violent solution is the only real viable one. Not to mention that it would decrease the desire to find more unique solutions (do a series of complex tasks/strategies or just blow away to obstacle?).
If you can give some actual thought out reason as to why the game would be better for having a more aggressive stance...then please postulate one. So far I have yet to see any reason beyond 'it's cool' or 'it would make this easier'...which at this point maybe that is EXACTLY why they don't want to put in such weapons. That it would make the game easier. Case in point, how much easier would any slender man game be if you could just shoot slender?
The only people saying a gimmick is bad are the ones that pretend it's derogative just so they can feel offended.
The idea of eliminating threats making gameplay boring is your opinion. To me, it means making the game far less tedious when I want to go outside my SeaBase.
And in what way is driving a submarine into the center of a cluster of fish and releasing a damn Lightning Cannon considered not violence?
And here we have the "YOU JUST WANT TO MURDER EVERYTHING AND WILL NEVER PLAY THE WAY I THINK IS RIGHT" strawman. Quoted text discarded and ignored.
If you want people to take you seriously, never tell them that you know what they're going to do before they're even able to do it.
inb4 more pseudo intellectual yet hilariously closed minded walls of text about how I'm an evil heartless monster that just wants to murder the entire ocean for fun
No what I said was that wanting lethal weapons was wanting to outright remove a threat whereas the current equipment only reduces the threat's influence. Being able to outright remove the threat reduces tension and thus most of the engaging aspects of the game. I never said that you just want to murder everything. But even giving the option would still mean that the game would have to be balanced around the option, which would lead to the two possible outcomes I stated. Again, the option to outright remove the threat would make the game easier, which in turn would need to be balanced somehow, most likely by bigger threats not so easily eliminated and therefore reducing the effectiveness/viability of any approach that isn't outright aggressive. Or it would make the game so easy that it would just quickly become boring since to make the non-aggressive options easier the AI doesn't put up as much of a fight.
At this point you are just looking to pick a fight on this topic, and took the flimsiest excuse to play victim. I never said I know you would do anything, that you would murder everything, or that you are a heartless monster. That is on you, and if you are that eager to pick a fight no wonder you haven't gained much ground on this topic.
Suggest that any of these items are over-powered, and I will vehemently suggest that you get an immediate CAT scan, Baby.
I still want to punt Bleeders into a low orbit and cackle gleefully as they burn up during re-entry.
Not aiming to x-out the Stalkers, Bone Sharks and Sand Sharks, because they are there for a reason. Need to have those apex predators, folks.
As for Mister Reaper? Avoid. Pretty much 100 per cent achievable, actually. That boy sure loves to yodel.
My evil alternate-Universe twin might suggest rigging a rostrum (bow-mounted hypodermic) on the Cyclops, hook it up to a bank of HP oxygen cylinders and shank that SOB right in the face. Just for being a totally disagreeable marine creature. A diving equipment company called Farallon made (or still make) a similar device called a 'Shark Dart'. It's basically a compressed CO2 cartridge warhead fitted to a speargun projectile (btw: not a 'harpoon gun'. Whaling vessels carry those). It's supposed to be more 'humane' than shooting sharks with conventional .303, .44/40 or 12 gauge powerheads or 'bang-sticks', but I think that argument is a pile of steaming blimp guano.
There's nothing humane about turning sharks into writhing balloon-animals with a spritz of high-pressure CO2. At least a powerhead strike delivers a relatively quick, clean kill... If you absolutely must kill them at all.
I used to carry a short sling-spear ('shark billy') equipped with a .303 powerhead while diving. Roughly about the same time that 'Jaws' was released, actually.
Never saw a single bloody shark that had half a mind to chew on me. In Australia. In known feeding grounds. Nada. Zip. Bupkiss.
In the end, I handed the powerhead in at the nearest cop-shop.
My reasoning was this: It was just another piece of diving kit to lug around. Needed a pistol permit to legally use it, too. The real decider was that *IF* I ever got within knife-fighting range of a predatory species, I'd probably lose that bout in fairly short order. Wouldn't even see it coming, anyway.
So, in a roundabout sort of way... The moral of my rambling yarn is: "You Never See The One That Gets You."
We can assume the aurora wasn't headed to the ocean planet. The other planetoid in the background already has land, why would they waste resources terraforming a water world when there is a planet with land masses pre-existing?
It's fairly safe to assume that the water-planet was its original destination, as there would be far less work involved in raising a bit of habitable terrain on a world that already has two out of the three basic prerequisites for human habitation to commence: A breathable atmosphere and liquid water? Check!
Raising terrain would pose absolutely no problems. The Survivor has access to a handy-dandy portable Terraformer sometime around mid-game.
Okay... Maybe a slight problem exists with those Reaper Leviathan critters. Could even be far worse things lurking below the H.P Lovecraft layer.
Simplest solution: Don't poke around down there unless you're willing to dance with the devil.
What? Where are you getting this information?
It was already descending towards the planet when it was hit with the pulse.
What, were they gonna stop there for a swim?
And just because a planet has land doesn't mean it's habitable.
The air could be made entirely of fart gas and it'd rain lava.
I never said that?
I don't know why you are quoting something I never said?
I would however appreciate a response to my post that was directed at you.
In regards to your comment, sorry I must have missed it.
I dislike the design direction of Subnautica because it goes directly against everything they've been preaching to us about it being a "Peaceful, fun, non-violent exploration game!" with their adding of a million and one hostile monsters that can kill us. This is why I say that people need to stop pretending that 'Non-violence" some amazing and revolutionary thing for a game to do. Because they're simply NOT doing it.
They've dialed back the number of hostile creatures in each biome, but there are still no other peaceful creatures announced or even visibly planned.
When we get a vast majority of peaceful creatures to hostile creatures, my stance will change.
Well, I'm a huge gun nerd and I WANT WEAPONS IN SUBNAUTICA... but man... WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU KILL ALL OF THE PREDATORS? Where would be all the fun then, huh?
I have sometimes this feeling, that it's not US, gun nerds, who is dangerous here, but those who say things like you've just said. Because only a maniac could come up with something so stupid (even for videogame standards) like killing all the dangerous fauna the very fist moment you get a gun.
People have rifles and other various firearms for centuries now, and don't know how you, but last time I checked, there were still predators out there in the wild...
I think you've misunderstood the "peaceful, fun, non violent exploration game" to somehow mean that the world itself would not be dangerous or without challenge.
That's never been the case, I assure you.
I've played the very first prototype ever when they used NS2 models as placeholders and there was only white sand and water and nothing else. I've ran the PAX booth for Subnautica in Boston, many many months prior to Early Access - where we demo'd to 90k attendees and spoke of dangerous environments without weapons and talked about the importance of ecosystems.
The design direction of Subnautica has never wavered, not from the original pitch, prototype, demonstrations, to now.
But I see that your confusion of a description may be an indication that it needs to be adjusted.