They can continue to develop and release updates for this game, a la Minecraft.
I mean, story-wise, aren't we getting rescued? Short of having to come back to the same planet for some reason and getting shot down a second time, a sequel in this universe would have to be on another planet, and what's the likelihood you'd get shot down over another ocean planet?
And yes, port to a better engine. One that lets me drive the vehicles with a joystick.
Why would I want a sequel based on material the original game still needs to be a rounded experience?
You may have heard of the game No Man's Sky. It's a quantum leap forward in procedural generation which can produce an entire universe of fantastic looking environments.
Early on, Subnautica tried procedural generation but they couldn't achieve the quality of environments they wanted. Obviously they didn't have any Sean Murray level math savants on their team. So a lot of time and resources went into manually crafting them. But now No Man's Sky is out and other game developers will be wrapping their heads around its procedural generation technique. And looking to employ it themselves.
For less effort than might be involved in creating additional content for Subnautica, the UW devs might be able to make a Subnautica 2 which is monumentally bigger and more varied.
Why would I want a sequel based on material the original game still needs to be a rounded experience?
You may have heard of the game No Man's Sky. It's a quantum leap forward in procedural generation which can produce an entire universe of fantastic looking environments.
Early on, Subnautica tried procedural generation but they couldn't achieve the quality of environments they wanted. Obviously they didn't have any Sean Murray level math savants on their team.
It may just be late, but I legitimately cannot tell if you're joking.
Honestly, I'm open to buying DLC if it's done properly, like it was in Skyrim. Real DLC would include so much in this game, maybe a whole new way to play, a whole new story; I would be really disappointed if all the DLC we got was "Lily Pad DLC! Get your new biome here!". That's not a good way to do it; not if it doesn't bring anything new to the table. So maybe after a few DLCs I'd want a sequel, because this game deserves to be expanded on through DLC, and not replaced with a newer, more expansive game.
In my eyes, a god Subnautica DLC would include a vehicle each, a bioem or two, dozens of new creatures, large and small, new variations of already existing creatures, new blueprints, new upgrades for already existing vehicles, and so much more. That's what DLC should be, it should introduce a whole new mechanic. Whereas a sequel would not have me as invested.
Some people might hate me for saying this, but... I like the Civ V DLC? Especially Gods and Kings, since all I ever did after I bought that was get carried away in my religion, and actually plan out what it would be based on in my head. It let me do stuff out of the game, and it got me really invested, since unlike a lot of others, I liked Civ V (not as much as the others, but still). I still haven't got Civ VI yet, but I regularly play Civ V.
So in my opinion, good DLC comes before a sequel. But only if it's good DLC, if there's a "Laser Cutter Upgrade DLC" there's no point. But that's my opinion, so feel free to track me down and slaughter me if you want for being such a blasphemer.
Why would I want a sequel based on material the original game still needs to be a rounded experience?
You may have heard of the game No Man's Sky. It's a quantum leap forward in procedural generation which can produce an entire universe of fantastic looking environments.
Early on, Subnautica tried procedural generation but they couldn't achieve the quality of environments they wanted. Obviously they didn't have any Sean Murray level math savants on their team. So a lot of time and resources went into manually crafting them. But now No Man's Sky is out and other game developers will be wrapping their heads around its procedural generation technique. And looking to employ it themselves.
For less effort than might be involved in creating additional content for Subnautica, the UW devs might be able to make a Subnautica 2 which is monumentally bigger and more varied.
I despise procedural generation more than eating an orange after brushing my teeth. Because it is inherently not a rounded experience (not by current standards, anyway, and NMS hasn't changed that). And that's what I want from a game: a rounded experience. Size and variation mean little to me when it doesn't come together. Kinda like how I consider Ittle Dew and The Frog For Whom The Bell Tolls superior to The Legend of Zelda despite being smaller because the former two utilize their trinity principles to the fullest while the latter basically rushes from cool new item to cool new item with very little to tie them together or properly integrate them in the gameplay beyond their home dungeon.
Marrow was recently released. I fell in love with it the moment I saw the trailer, but the first listed feature also got me: "A subterranean world to explore and survive made up of many unique, handcrafted areas, Not random, Not procedural". Don't know if the devs mean it as a warning or an asset (or both), but I sure as cheese take it as an asset.
So, yeah, I'd have to say that you're not convincing me on this sequel idea.
You may have heard of the game No Man's Sky. It's a quantum leap forward in procedural generation which can produce an entire universe of fantastic looking environments.
Have you actually played the game? There's 4 planets that all have the same drastic lack of any outstanding features
Huh?
Unreal renderer is lightyears ahead of unity.
As for gameplay logic and other stuff, it should be written in C++: even on unity website advertised performance is 2 times lower than native C++ code.
Oh yes, and speaking of the Rock Puncher, modifiable terrain can be implemented as well.
Rock Puncher was removed together with terraformer tool because of engine limitations. I'm not sure that you would be able to implement this feature effectively in Unreal as well, but you definitely can with custom engine and as far as I know a lot of devs modify the Unreal to fit their needs better.
I would suggest looking at how geometry is modeled in CAD programs, and that is with NURBS surfaces. Of course such approach is order of magnitude more performance demanding.
Sure full b-rep geometry is out of question, but some pieces of terrain can be modelled like that, don't you think?
The more I read it, the more I think he's actually serious, Dog.
Neuralyze me please.
On it. @Kouji_San, don't forget your glasses this time.
I think we can all agree that @dealwithitdog is now the official keeper of the neuralyser. The SAHP can, at this time, neither confirm nor deny the existence of the MIB (Mesmers in Black)
The more I read it, the more I think he's actually serious, Dog.
Neuralyze me please.
On it. @Kouji_San, don't forget your glasses this time.
I think we can all agree that @dealwithitdog is now the official keeper of the neuralyser. The SAHP can, at this time, neither confirm nor deny the existence of the MIB (Mesmers in Black)
Oh, I've been the keeper of the neuralyzer for much longer than that
I despise procedural generation more than eating an orange after brushing my teeth. Because it is inherently not a rounded experience (not by current standards, anyway, and NMS hasn't changed that).
You're confusing a method for content generation (procedural generation) with a style of gameplay (sandbox) which often, but not necessarily, accompanies it.
Eg. the Diablo games were some of the earliest to employ procedural generation to good effect and were stuffed with story, pretty well rounded and more than a little bit popular.
If I recall correctly wasn't one option that was discussed was a sequel/version in the same vein as Don't Starve Together?
Back when there was still the possibility of adding it to the existing game, i.e. that they'd finish and release Subnautica then maybe add in multiplayer and rerelease it. That's not going to happen though.
Remember that this is a technical problem. Games purposely made for single player generally can't easily be converted to multi-player, eg. Skyrim and other Elder Scrolls games which many desperately wanted multi player in. Multi-player games need to be designed from the ground up with multi-player in mind accounting for efficiently communicating all the information necessary to play the game to all players without compromising gameplay.
Have you actually played the game? There's 4 planets that all have the same drastic lack of any outstanding features
Yes. Outstanding features? Planets generally don't have a lot of those. They're lumps of rock hurtling through space which occasionally pick up an outstanding feature or two courtesy of stellar or geographical shenanigans.
But if for some bizarre reason HG wanted planets to have outstanding features, they could easily tweak their algorithms to produce them. They're not not there because they can't. They're not there because it would be silly.
NMS's procedural generation technique could be used to populate a huge single planet environment with diverse flora and fauna. They just haven't done that because of single biome sci-fi tropes like Tatooine.
But if for some bizarre reason HG wanted planets to have outstanding features, they could easily tweak their algorithms to produce them. They're not not there because they can't. They're not there because it would be silly.
Are you trolling?
Of course they can't tweak to make "outstanding features"... all they could do is make varying levels of weirder shaped emptiness.
Of course they wanted to have outstanding features, that's what they actually claimed they gave us. But they didn't. They gave us bland, bland and more bland, repeated indefinitely.
Saying they're not there because "it would be silly" is silly. We're talking about games, and in that game in particular, a bit more silly could only have helped the absolute disgrace of an experience.
You're a NMS apologist, I get it, and that's fine, but you're making pretty ridiculous claims from either naivety or fanboyism.
The only surprise, THE ONLY SURPRISE, about No Man's Sky, is that people actually thought it would deliver more than it did. I was shocked when so much backlash took place after release. I found it to be as shallow and uninteresting as it seemed obvious it would be.
Didn't people see exactly how the game would be a million miles away? Had nobody previously heard the phrase "A mile wide, but an inch deep"? Bone heads.
I blame the video game media, really. A bunch of hipster morons spouting nonsense at the void. And the kids only go and bloody well listen to their drivel, knees jerking like a man who's had his face blown off with a shotgun. I'd love to drown the collective lot of them in cold Starbucks coffee, burn the bodies and blow the ashes up Sean Murray's arse with a trumpet.
I despise procedural generation more than eating an orange after brushing my teeth. Because it is inherently not a rounded experience (not by current standards, anyway, and NMS hasn't changed that).
You're confusing a method for content generation (procedural generation) with a style of gameplay (sandbox) which often, but not necessarily, accompanies it.
Eg. the Diablo games were some of the earliest to employ procedural generation to good effect and were stuffed with story, pretty well rounded and more than a little bit popular.
of course, but I had thought that the idea of having a sequel that was really just a multiplayer version was something being considered. Then again the space where my memory is supposed to be is a block of swiss cheese instead so maybe im thinking of something else. Meh.
Maybe I'm wrong to assume, but 3D environment multiplayer would probably be a much bigger engine rewrite compared to 2D plane and sprite based rewrite
No difference.
But it is indeed big re-write
I figured as much. Just thought that, because of the various 3D angles and syncing them up between client side and server side, but it's probably all the same in terms of datastreams, just angles and coordinates that need to be synced ey
Multiplayer will never happen and the majority of people don't want it to happen
Multiplayer could happen, but I would expect it to be similar to Don't Starve Together where it is a Multiplayer version of Subnautica or limited to 5 people or less.
Comments
I mean, story-wise, aren't we getting rescued? Short of having to come back to the same planet for some reason and getting shot down a second time, a sequel in this universe would have to be on another planet, and what's the likelihood you'd get shot down over another ocean planet?
And yes, port to a better engine. One that lets me drive the vehicles with a joystick.
Take Terraria for example. That game's 1.0 compared to the current 1.3.4 is completely different. It can't even be called the same game anymore.
You may have heard of the game No Man's Sky. It's a quantum leap forward in procedural generation which can produce an entire universe of fantastic looking environments.
Early on, Subnautica tried procedural generation but they couldn't achieve the quality of environments they wanted. Obviously they didn't have any Sean Murray level math savants on their team. So a lot of time and resources went into manually crafting them. But now No Man's Sky is out and other game developers will be wrapping their heads around its procedural generation technique. And looking to employ it themselves.
For less effort than might be involved in creating additional content for Subnautica, the UW devs might be able to make a Subnautica 2 which is monumentally bigger and more varied.
Based on their official statement, we'll never see co-op in Subnautica, but might in a sequel.
It may just be late, but I legitimately cannot tell if you're joking.
Neuralyze me please.
In my eyes, a god Subnautica DLC would include a vehicle each, a bioem or two, dozens of new creatures, large and small, new variations of already existing creatures, new blueprints, new upgrades for already existing vehicles, and so much more. That's what DLC should be, it should introduce a whole new mechanic. Whereas a sequel would not have me as invested.
Some people might hate me for saying this, but... I like the Civ V DLC? Especially Gods and Kings, since all I ever did after I bought that was get carried away in my religion, and actually plan out what it would be based on in my head. It let me do stuff out of the game, and it got me really invested, since unlike a lot of others, I liked Civ V (not as much as the others, but still). I still haven't got Civ VI yet, but I regularly play Civ V.
So in my opinion, good DLC comes before a sequel. But only if it's good DLC, if there's a "Laser Cutter Upgrade DLC" there's no point. But that's my opinion, so feel free to track me down and slaughter me if you want for being such a blasphemer.
On it. @Kouji_San, don't forget your glasses this time.
I despise procedural generation more than eating an orange after brushing my teeth. Because it is inherently not a rounded experience (not by current standards, anyway, and NMS hasn't changed that). And that's what I want from a game: a rounded experience. Size and variation mean little to me when it doesn't come together. Kinda like how I consider Ittle Dew and The Frog For Whom The Bell Tolls superior to The Legend of Zelda despite being smaller because the former two utilize their trinity principles to the fullest while the latter basically rushes from cool new item to cool new item with very little to tie them together or properly integrate them in the gameplay beyond their home dungeon.
Marrow was recently released. I fell in love with it the moment I saw the trailer, but the first listed feature also got me: "A subterranean world to explore and survive made up of many unique, handcrafted areas, Not random, Not procedural". Don't know if the devs mean it as a warning or an asset (or both), but I sure as cheese take it as an asset.
So, yeah, I'd have to say that you're not convincing me on this sequel idea.
Unity is a lot more optimized than Unreal.
Have you actually played the game? There's 4 planets that all have the same drastic lack of any outstanding features
Unreal renderer is lightyears ahead of unity.
As for gameplay logic and other stuff, it should be written in C++: even on unity website advertised performance is 2 times lower than native C++ code.
Rock Puncher was removed together with terraformer tool because of engine limitations. I'm not sure that you would be able to implement this feature effectively in Unreal as well, but you definitely can with custom engine and as far as I know a lot of devs modify the Unreal to fit their needs better.
I would suggest looking at how geometry is modeled in CAD programs, and that is with NURBS surfaces. Of course such approach is order of magnitude more performance demanding.
Sure full b-rep geometry is out of question, but some pieces of terrain can be modelled like that, don't you think?
I think we can all agree that @dealwithitdog is now the official keeper of the neuralyser. The SAHP can, at this time, neither confirm nor deny the existence of the MIB (Mesmers in Black)
Oh, I've been the keeper of the neuralyzer for much longer than that
Don't worry, I've got this!
If I recall correctly wasn't one option that was discussed was a sequel/version in the same vein as Don't Starve Together?
Maybe I'm wrong to assume, but 3D environment multiplayer would probably be a much bigger engine rewrite compared to 2D plane and sprite based rewrite
I would think you are correct, but for the record, this is the post recalled correctly.
No difference.
But it is indeed big re-write
You're confusing a method for content generation (procedural generation) with a style of gameplay (sandbox) which often, but not necessarily, accompanies it.
Eg. the Diablo games were some of the earliest to employ procedural generation to good effect and were stuffed with story, pretty well rounded and more than a little bit popular.
Back when there was still the possibility of adding it to the existing game, i.e. that they'd finish and release Subnautica then maybe add in multiplayer and rerelease it. That's not going to happen though.
Remember that this is a technical problem. Games purposely made for single player generally can't easily be converted to multi-player, eg. Skyrim and other Elder Scrolls games which many desperately wanted multi player in. Multi-player games need to be designed from the ground up with multi-player in mind accounting for efficiently communicating all the information necessary to play the game to all players without compromising gameplay.
Yes. Outstanding features? Planets generally don't have a lot of those. They're lumps of rock hurtling through space which occasionally pick up an outstanding feature or two courtesy of stellar or geographical shenanigans.
But if for some bizarre reason HG wanted planets to have outstanding features, they could easily tweak their algorithms to produce them. They're not not there because they can't. They're not there because it would be silly.
NMS's procedural generation technique could be used to populate a huge single planet environment with diverse flora and fauna. They just haven't done that because of single biome sci-fi tropes like Tatooine.
Are you trolling?
Of course they can't tweak to make "outstanding features"... all they could do is make varying levels of weirder shaped emptiness.
Of course they wanted to have outstanding features, that's what they actually claimed they gave us. But they didn't. They gave us bland, bland and more bland, repeated indefinitely.
Saying they're not there because "it would be silly" is silly. We're talking about games, and in that game in particular, a bit more silly could only have helped the absolute disgrace of an experience.
You're a NMS apologist, I get it, and that's fine, but you're making pretty ridiculous claims from either naivety or fanboyism.
The only surprise, THE ONLY SURPRISE, about No Man's Sky, is that people actually thought it would deliver more than it did. I was shocked when so much backlash took place after release. I found it to be as shallow and uninteresting as it seemed obvious it would be.
Didn't people see exactly how the game would be a million miles away? Had nobody previously heard the phrase "A mile wide, but an inch deep"? Bone heads.
I blame the video game media, really. A bunch of hipster morons spouting nonsense at the void. And the kids only go and bloody well listen to their drivel, knees jerking like a man who's had his face blown off with a shotgun. I'd love to drown the collective lot of them in cold Starbucks coffee, burn the bodies and blow the ashes up Sean Murray's arse with a trumpet.
I don't like the Diablo games either, so....
I figured as much. Just thought that, because of the various 3D angles and syncing them up between client side and server side, but it's probably all the same in terms of datastreams, just angles and coordinates that need to be synced ey
Multiplayer will never happen and the majority of people don't want it to happen
Multiplayer could happen, but I would expect it to be similar to Don't Starve Together where it is a Multiplayer version of Subnautica or limited to 5 people or less.