Answer to "The08MetroidMan" Minimalist Art Edition
I'm avoiding quote because I expected this to digress into a quote hell.
Quote are a dangerous tools, if you can't recognize your own argumentation in someone's answer, or forget what have been said in other quotes, you are not making or getting any points, only bribes of a points.
Don't get it wrong, but clearly quote (here) only made us repeat the same things over and over.
I can only reword KEY points so many time and we're reaching a point where it look like you are accidentally agreeing with me despite not getting ...well the things I still think you don't get.
So this will be my last post about that.
And I stand my words,
You're last post is still defending what can only be called "absolute freedom" (as I said "in everything but name") and reject fundamental concept needed for any game, open or not as "railroading". You use the word "traditional" to present it as you only being against "old and outdated ways" opposite to "changed vision of it", but what you are actually arguing against are the very fundamentals.
You've been warring so much against "forced linear progression" that yes the core of your argument is the (idealized) understanding of what should be the "ultimate goal" for open-world game. Aka: a level of nonlinearity and "player-driven progression" that is not and have never been ""key requirement for an exploration-based open-world game"" and conflict all the way down with game-mechanics.
Whatever someone think is best for "subnautica" is only a question of personal tastes. (btw, "subjective/personal taste" have always included both of us. Please. get. it. and. stop. confusing. it. with. anything. against. your. open-world. points.)
The above is why, for simplicity I tried to make it clear there was two topic:
- "Oh nooo! keys and gates made by alien in subnautica, what will we become?"
- Me pointing out your issue with gating, is much more fundamental than you think.
It has never been intrinsically bad to have -ANY- forms of railroading in a game, no matter if it is open-world or exploration oriented, no matter if an Open-world do it just like old game, open-world actually have very low prerequisite and as I keep saying the greatest open-world profit directly from finally applying correctly.
It has always been a question of developers skill, not a matter of how "linear" a game is, or how "traditional" the method to impose it look. That's why you still have a progression in Subnautica and aren't playing Subnautica with "freecam=1" for maximize exploration.
No one here (by that I mean, not me) argued for a highly visible TRUMP WALL with rails all along it and mirador to shoot Mexican-looking diver and MAKE SUBNAUTICA LESS GREAT.
Frankly I think this topic wouldn't exist even if the Developers made those very same linearity change, but without telling the players and hiding it.
That would have been the idea form of gating : making you believe you explored without any limitation when you built your own train over the camouflaged rails made by the devs.
That, at least, I'm pretty sure you can agree with. Getting to explore things, getting to do in in the order that improve the game the most, but not having seen at all how it happened and believing it happened naturally.
There. Finally addressed everything you said - and again, I apologize if I came across as candid at any part, but a majority of what you talked about felt like it either completely missed or misinterpreted my points on top of focusing on topics that weren't even my key discussion element. Ergo, to avoid risk of further derailing this topic, I'll probably be bowing out of this particular thread - if you want to respond to... well, any of it, let's do it over PM's instead. Because we're not getting anywhere as is, and at this point we're probably just putting people off.
Nothing to apologize for, I honestly can't say you haven't tried a lot to try to close the misunderstanding between us.
Plus, the way I am trying to kill you with my mind I tend to argue with people can easily be maddening smug&condescending.
On this, myself I'm calling this discussion a dead end... not enough narrative, rails or gates to keep us from missing the key point. Things like that.
So let's just leave it at that. I'm almost considering deleting 99% of my post and calling it a day.
Also, just put your entire post in a spoiler. It's not like anybody interested would forget to unfold it.
I think the OP has a perfect idea (both of the OPs, and me for that matter - although I wanted tunnels that were narrow enough only a seamoth, or better yet a seaglide could make the trip!).
I think the OP has a perfect idea (both of the OPs, and me for that matter - although I wanted tunnels that were narrow enough only a seamoth, or better yet a seaglide could make the trip!).
A few hidden narrow tunnels down to the ILZ would be awesome. There's a tight volcanic cave system in the Koosh zone (or whatever they call it now) that would be perfect for something like that. Have a relatively hidden passage at the back that keeps heading down and down and down...
The only problem I see with this is that with the low player O2 capacity, a seaglide tunnel would need brain coral pockets at regular intervals (or a very impressive O2 pipe network), and the Seamoth doesn't have any upgrades that let it go that deep. Still, a hidden Seamoth tunnel into the LR from one of the shallower cave systems (Jellyshroom caves, Jellyfish caves, Tiger Plant caves, Mushroom Forest caves) would be awesome.
I'm avoiding quote because I expected this to digress into a quote hell.
Quote are a dangerous tools, if you can't recognize your own argumentation in someone's answer, or forget what have been said in other quotes, you are not making or getting any points, only bribes of a points.
Don't get it wrong, but clearly quote (here) only made us repeat the same things over and over.
I can only reword KEY points so many time and we're reaching a point where it look like you are accidentally agreeing with me despite not getting ...well the things I still think you don't get.
So this will be my last post about that.
But that's exactly why I asked that this be taken to PM, and why I'd said I would bow out... now I feel obligated to give another response here (and no, thats not a dig at you; I'm OCD - responding when posted to is automatic for me ). And it's less for my benefit and more for the benefit of others, so that anyone reading all this can just pick and choose the relevant parts they want to read rather than trying to puzzle out what's in response to what for a textblock. It's something I do since I know I can go on tangents and figure anyone reading can just see what's against what quicker.
But again, it feels like this is still a matter of fundamentally misunderstanding my point.
And I stand my words,
You're last post is still defending what can only be called "absolute freedom" (as I said "in everything but name") and reject fundamental concept needed for any game, open or not as "railroading". You use the word "traditional" to present it as you only being against "old and outdated ways" opposite to "changed vision of it", but what you are actually arguing against are the very fundamentals.
You've been warring so much against "forced linear progression" that yes the core of your argument is the (idealized) understanding of what should be the "ultimate goal" for open-world game. Aka: a level of nonlinearity and "player-driven progression" that is not and have never been ""key requirement for an exploration-based open-world game"" and conflict all the way down with game-mechanics.
But that's the big misunderstanding, here. When I say "absolute freedom", I mean it in context of there being a free, open-world map - whereas you are misinterpreting it as saying there should be no boundaries of any kind. Again, I don't know if it's how you're reading it or how I'm writing it, but that is not at all what I said - I said that in terms of an open-world exploration game, you don't want anything to feel like the map/area design is trying to railroad you. Instead, what you want is to have it that the gameplay is the gate instead of the map's layout - that it's the gear and info you need to progress rather than being constricted down a single way.
Those are fundamental aspects of an open-world exploration game - ones like Breath of the Wild disprove the notion that there "is not and have never been" games that ran on player-driven progression and nonlinearity, and your argument feels like it hits a snag because it takes my own almost entirely out of context. How much the map does or does not restrict you is also dependent on the genre and gameplay you want to instill. In a story-driven open-world, you can limit the map more to focus on developing that story, with gating being a matter of intuitiveness and choice - in a combat-driven open-world, you focus more on how the many fights play out and gating is a matter of hard walls that may or may not be destroyed - in an exploration game, you focus on making the lore and the world feel as alive as possible, thereby gating is a matter of what kind of tools you've gathered by that point and where you're exploring.
To make a long story short, I feel that you've taken my saying "an open-world game should be developed like an open-world" and somehow came out as thinking I said that there shouldn't be any kind of restrictions anywhere at all, gameplay or otherwise. If it was something to do with how I worded it, than I'm sorry in advance, but that's not and never was what I was saying; I was saying that you don't want any area of the map to feel restricted outside of places like the endgame - you want to feel like it's a matter of what gear you have, not that you only ever have one single static pathway to travel down on the map.
Whatever someone think is best for "subnautica" is only a question of personal tastes. (btw, "subjective/personal taste" have always included both of us. Please. get. it. and. stop. confusing. it. with. anything. against. your. open-world. points.)
The above is why, for simplicity I tried to make it clear there was two topic:
- "Oh nooo! keys and gates made by alien in subnautica, what will we become?"
- Me pointing out your issue with gating, is much more fundamental than you think.
But again, it feels like you're not holding yourself to that standard - because when you looked at people who complained about or expressed skepticism about the game matching it's promises, you dismissed it all as though they were factually misattributing it. It felt like you were claiming it in theory but not accomplishing such in practice, or at the very least how it comes across.
My own points were that:
- The keys and gating of the world was not lining up with what the devs themselves said they wanted; insurance that players visit the LR and DRF. Their attempt to fix that was to make the open-world less of an open-world, making it seem they were trying to create a story-focused adventure game rather than an open-world exploration one.
- Your issue with my arguments feel like they're based on fundamentally misunderstanding the points; I'd argued that the devs' current issue (getting players to visit the LR) was an entirely separate issue from the lava corridor debate and that they'd need to alter how they gated things to change that.
It has never been intrinsically bad to have -ANY- forms of railroading in a game, no matter if it is open-world or exploration oriented, no matter if an Open-world do it just like old game, open-world actually have very low prerequisite and as I keep saying the greatest open-world profit directly from finally applying correctly.
It has always been a question of developers skill, not a matter of how "linear" a game is, or how "traditional" the method to impose it look. That's why you still have a progression in Subnautica and aren't playing Subnautica with "freecam=1" for maximize exploration.
But here is the biggest issue in your arguments thus far; I never once said anything like that in the first place.. I said that it's bad for there to be physical gating in an open-world exploration game - or in other words, you don't want to feel like you're being railroaded by the map and by the world's layout. Instead, you want the gating to be a matter of "do I have the means to go there", rather than "I cannot go there without first clearing this level". Saying there shouldn't be railroading in an open-world game is not the same as saying there should be no boundaries - that's taking my argument entirely out of context. Boundaries are not the same as railroading - one can cause the other, certainly, but they are not mutually exclusive; boundaries only become railroading when they encroach upon what the game's marketed genre was and the player's ability to experience it.
In this, the issue is that you're mistaking the base pre-requisite for an open-world as being instantly applicable to any and every genre without considerations for story focus, gameplay focus or exploration focus. You're not considering that depending on what kind of game you're trying to make, the prerequisite of what your open-world has to do for the player changes on context - if you're focused on combat, it's got to focus on enemy AI; if it's focused puzzles, it's got to focus on platforming; if it's focused on exploration, it's got to focus on the map itself. And depending on if it's open-world or not, the requirements of restrictions and alternate paths change as well. In this, developer skill is only a single factor and not necessarily the key one.
No one here (by that I mean, not me) argued for a highly visible TRUMP WALL with rails all along it and mirador to shoot Mexican-looking diver and MAKE SUBNAUTICA LESS GREAT.
Frankly I think this topic wouldn't exist even if the Developers made those very same linearity change, but without telling the players and hiding it.
That would have been the idea form of gating : making you believe you explored without any limitation when you built your own train over the camouflaged rails made by the devs.
But the crux of my argument is how you're mistaken about what I've said; when I said "progression through the game's world should be player-driven", it feels like you mistook it as saying "no boundaries or gating it all." You're also mistaking the presence of any boundary at all as meaning the same as linearity - it's not. Saying "you have to do this" is a boundary, but it's not at all linear in that there's no innate limit on what your actions are in regards to how, when or why you do it. In more traditional games, the method of choice is more hard-line - do this to do that, go here to pick this up, etc - in exploration games though, you're supposed to look around and find that for yourself, and in open-world games there isn't meant to be a restriction on where in the map you can go outside of what tools you have.
That, at least, I'm pretty sure you can agree with. Getting to explore things, getting to do in in the order that improve the game the most, but not having seen at all how it happened and believing it happened naturally.
Nothing to apologize for, I honestly can't say you haven't tried a lot to try to close the misunderstanding between us.
Plus, the way I am trying to kill you with my mind I tend to argue with people can easily be maddening smug&condescending.
On this, myself I'm calling this discussion a dead end... not enough narrative, rails or gates to keep us from missing the key point. Things like that.
So let's just leave it at that. I'm almost considering deleting 99% of my post and calling it a day.
Also, just put your entire post in a spoiler. It's not like anybody interested would forget to unfold it.
Again, I don't know if it's from how you read it or how I wrote it, and I'm sorry in advance if it's the latter... but I never said there shouldn't be any boundaries or gating at all; I said that how the game is gated depends on what it's world-type and genre is - and that for an open-world game like this, you never want the gating to feel like it's because the map or world has only one path to force you down. That it dovetailed like this is bad enough, but the idea it's happened because how I argued it made it sound like I wanted something unrealistic is even worse.
I'd only ever brought it up because I feel like the parts the devs want us to see (the LR and DRF) are not gated in such a way as for players to do that; they can skip it without consequence as it stands, and they can do so regardless of what restrictions are or aren't on the map. I love that they're making it closer to the open-world it was marketed as... but I also wanted them to know it's not going to fix the problem they were focused on.
To put it simply, yes - there isn't any narrative gate to make the LR and DRF unskippable, and the devs would need to change that if they place such a high priority on players visiting those areas. And again, I am truly sorry that took this long and this much arguing for the both of us to come to that agreement.
Actually, not so; Starfall suggested I put it in a spoiler section to avoid drowning the page out. They did the same. So hopefully, there should be no more of that in this particular thread, thank you very much.
Maybe now people can get back to the actual topic, no?
I think I understand both. Rather than say that all again, perhaps something a bit more focused.
What do you feel about what Subnautica currently has, especially in the LR/ILZ/ALZ? How would you change it?
I'm not sure as I've not progressed any game that far down (and unfortunately won't likely have the time to do so for quite a while). I do feel that some of the changes in the recent past to close off ILZ entrances weren't the best choice for changes. They felt wrong.
I think I understand both. Rather than say that all again, perhaps something a bit more focused.
What do you feel about what Subnautica currently has, especially in the LR/ILZ/ALZ? How would you change it?
I'm not sure as I've not progressed any game that far down (and unfortunately won't likely have the time to do so for quite a while). I do feel that some of the changes in the recent past to close off ILZ entrances weren't the best choice for changes. They felt wrong.
I'm not sure if this question was specifically directed at the two users you mentioned or not, but I'll bite.
I feel that the devs are currently giving the player mixed messages with regards of how to approach the endgame. All the other cave systems in the game have multiple entrances, some with neat unexpected things like the mountain island cave connecting to relatively large underwater cave system. Likewise the Jellyshroom cave has multiple widely spaced entrances. This creates the expectation that all cave systems have multiple ways in and out.
The original version of the ILZ had this interconnectivity with paths leading in from the dunes and the DGR, but somewhere along the way the LR was deemed to be too important to allow the players to enter the ILZ without visiting the LR first. At the same time, the devs seem to be pushing the Cyclops as the vehicle of choice for the endgame. Anyone who has driven a Cyclops through the LR knows how horribly unsuited the Cyclops is for that cave system with its poor visibility, lack of maneuverability, and the size of the vehicle relative to the caves.
These mixed messages make the endgame progression feel out of place and poorly designed with respect to the rest of the game world. The open-ended caves systems with multiple entrances seen earlier in the game are replaced with a highly linear path to the endgame, and to add insult to injury, this path is one of the worst places in the game to take a Cyclops despite the dev's intentions to have the players use it as an endgame vehicle with multiple upgrades being expressly designed to aid in navigating the ILZ/ALZ.
What I would like to see is the original ILZ entrance in the Dunes restored, and the Aurora tunnel saved, and have these areas detailed and properly finished. Additionally, instead of restoring the ILZ entrance in the DGR, I would like to see the DGR entrance moved, possibly to the Mountains as suggested by this thread or to another biome not particularly near an existing entrance (it was a little too close to the LR entrance before). If the LR is critical to the story and unskippable, then put an artifact key there and maybe even a signal so the player knows they need to go there to finish the game instead of railroading the player through the LR to get to the ILZ.
The way you bit it make you look like a bait on a fish-line to me.
I the hope of avoiding a repeat of the last QUOTE HELL : I'm not defending nor attacking the linear many keys suggestions, myself I would prefer (personal preference, not a fact) a gating based on what technology you find and how far they let you go.
I just presenting the point that a more linear progression can be a clear improvement over no rail. HOW is a question that devs work on harder than us, but what matter is it can work.
We all expect anyone to defend his beliefs saying "my way is more likely to work". I've done that already so now I only dig into the concept.
Rethinking about it, talking so much in term of either "Linear" or "nonlinear" kept us (two of us at least) from talking about doing both in more complex ways.
We take a linear game to be a corridor game
We take nonlinear game to be typically open-world
We take a mix to be just alternating between the two between plot trigger.
But the two can be multilayered a lot more provided the game follow with more complex game-mechanics. Subnautica reliance on technology made it easy for the devs to dive into that.
Progression can be divided in at least 3 parameters (more is out of this discussion)
WHERE you can go, is (simply reading people here) better addressed by making it invisible, it exist, but shouldn't be obvious.
WHAT you can do, is used a lot (but not enough to me) without a pressure-upgrade you can't reach 50% of the biomes, without a hull-cutter you have to come back.
WHEN you can, is rarely used for long but the Aurora timer is an example.
Back to the fake "linear vs nonlinear" conundrum.
As I personally wish to share, there's no problem only being able to reach an area before another.
The best in game design isn't to let-you or make-you go anywhere once, it's to make you WISH to go back several times (for more than resources).
When they do, allowing alternate-route isn't a question of progression. It's either:
- anti-frustration features
- or whole new features ideally
I'm sure you remember how obvious what I'm saying is.
You first discover a place the HARD WAY, then you discovers/get ability that open an Alternate way that give you better access later without cheapening the first experience you got in. (So typical that so called "AAA" open-world like Skyrim can't do it)
Do this knowledge let us now what's best for Subnautica?
Personally I think NOT at the current time, because drastic rebalance or the apparition of game-changing mechanics is still likely to make keys (plural) a minor worry.
I don't fear needing 1,2,4,8,16,32 keys to progress. I only fear them having one forms, one mechanics.
That's all rambling from me. I tried my best but I still feel like I only repeated myself.
Hopefully it offer more insight to the conundrum in the Original Post. If people aren't dead-bored of the topic being bumped.
The way you bit it make you look like a bait on a fish-line to me.
Says the guy who repeatedly ignores my requests to take this to PM, if he himself can't keep from repeatedly responding? Plus, like I said, I have OCD - responding when spoken to is hardwired for me. Your excuse is...?
(note: The above is meant to be a joke. Please don't take offense to it)
All (tasteless) joking aside though, my point was that whether or not linear progression is better or worse depends on what kind of experience it is you want/what kind of game you're making. It's not a question of if more or less linearity can or can't work - it's a matter of what's most appropriate for what you're making... although I should point out I never said there shouldn't be rails of any kind to begin with; just that you shouldn't feel like the map itself is railroading you for an open-world exploration. The biggest point of confusion, I think, is that I was only ever talking about linearity and non-linearity in regards to map design, not whole games in general.
Progression can be divided in at least 3 parameters (more is out of this discussion)
WHERE you can go, is (simply reading people here) better addressed by making it invisible, it exist, but shouldn't be obvious.
WHAT you can do, is used a lot (but not enough to me) without a pressure-upgrade you can't reach 50% of the biomes, without a hull-cutter you have to come back.
WHEN you can, is rarely used for long but the Aurora timer is an example.
That's more or less exactly what I was advocating (or trying to, at least) be continued for the design of Subnautica's world-map
Back to the fake "linear vs nonlinear" conundrum.
As I personally wish to share, there's no problem only being able to reach an area before another.
The best in game design isn't to let-you or make-you go anywhere once, it's to make you WISH to go back several times (for more than resources).
When they do, allowing alternate-route isn't a question of progression. It's either:
- anti-frustration features
- or whole new features ideally
I'm sure you remember how obvious what I'm saying is.
You first discover a place the HARD WAY, then you discovers/get ability that open an Alternate way that give you better access later without cheapening the first experience you got in. (So typical that so called "AAA" open-world like Skyrim can't do it)
My argument was more that the above is more key if your game is open-world exploration, but likewise easier to forgo if you have a more straightforward objective like in a standard FPS. Furthermore, I myself had never said there was an issue with traveling through one area to reach another on the map - my issue was with the idea of the order not being optional/that there was only ever one "right" path to take. Like what @gamer1000k said above, the LR feels like it's been forced to become the "right" path to take to get to the ILZ, to the point that any others were forcibly axed out. As well as the issue of mixed messages - even if the devs restore that accessibility, they still want to guarantee players visit the LR. To do that, they need to leave something there that has to be picked up at some point - doesn't matter when; just that they get it eventually.
Do this knowledge let us now what's best for Subnautica?
Personally I think NOT at the current time, because drastic rebalance or the apparition of game-changing mechanics is still likely to make keys (plural) a minor worry.
I don't fear needing 1,2,4,8,16,32 keys to progress. I only fear them having one forms, one mechanics.
The reason I disagreed is because... well, as it is, the LR seems to be unnecessary to visit no matter what. Last I knew, you don't need to get the final infection trigger to progress to the endgame - you can treat the LR purely as a throughway with no consequences. But by the devs' own words, they don't want that - they want the DRF and LR to be a place the player definitely visits at some point. And if they wanted to fix that - preferably without cutting out sections of the ILZ to railroad people into it... than it feels like all they would need is literally one key inside the DRF.
Also, which mechanic it took the shape of hadn't even been decided by everyone here - just that if the devs wanted to guarantee the players had a reason to visit the LR, placing a key (either to the Thermal Plant or the Prison - doesn't matter which) in the DRF would be the easiest, least obtrusive way to do it, without having to do any drastic rebalances or adding in new mechanics or anything else that would distract from their current efforts to polis the game.
Anyway, same here on being done - though hopefully this time it'll stick. If we want to discuss this further without continually antagonizing people, we really should go to PM.
They already decided what they were going to do. They added a new ILZ entrance in the corridor between the Mountains and Lost River. The red key still isn't getting added to the game.
Comments
I really hope with all the player backing for this idea the devs put it in.
Quote are a dangerous tools, if you can't recognize your own argumentation in someone's answer, or forget what have been said in other quotes, you are not making or getting any points, only bribes of a points.
Don't get it wrong, but clearly quote (here) only made us repeat the same things over and over.
I can only reword KEY points so many time and we're reaching a point where it look like you are accidentally agreeing with me despite not getting ...well the things I still think you don't get.
So this will be my last post about that.
And I stand my words,
You're last post is still defending what can only be called "absolute freedom" (as I said "in everything but name") and reject fundamental concept needed for any game, open or not as "railroading". You use the word "traditional" to present it as you only being against "old and outdated ways" opposite to "changed vision of it", but what you are actually arguing against are the very fundamentals.
You've been warring so much against "forced linear progression" that yes the core of your argument is the (idealized) understanding of what should be the "ultimate goal" for open-world game. Aka: a level of nonlinearity and "player-driven progression" that is not and have never been ""key requirement for an exploration-based open-world game"" and conflict all the way down with game-mechanics.
Whatever someone think is best for "subnautica" is only a question of personal tastes.
(btw, "subjective/personal taste" have always included both of us. Please. get. it. and. stop. confusing. it. with. anything. against. your. open-world. points.)
The above is why, for simplicity I tried to make it clear there was two topic:
- "Oh nooo! keys and gates made by alien in subnautica, what will we become?"
- Me pointing out your issue with gating, is much more fundamental than you think.
It has never been intrinsically bad to have -ANY- forms of railroading in a game, no matter if it is open-world or exploration oriented, no matter if an Open-world do it just like old game, open-world actually have very low prerequisite and as I keep saying the greatest open-world profit directly from finally applying correctly.
It has always been a question of developers skill, not a matter of how "linear" a game is, or how "traditional" the method to impose it look. That's why you still have a progression in Subnautica and aren't playing Subnautica with "freecam=1" for maximize exploration.
No one here (by that I mean, not me) argued for a highly visible TRUMP WALL with rails all along it and mirador to shoot Mexican-looking diver and MAKE SUBNAUTICA LESS GREAT.
Frankly I think this topic wouldn't exist even if the Developers made those very same linearity change, but without telling the players and hiding it.
That would have been the idea form of gating : making you believe you explored without any limitation when you built your own train over the camouflaged rails made by the devs.
That, at least, I'm pretty sure you can agree with. Getting to explore things, getting to do in in the order that improve the game the most, but not having seen at all how it happened and believing it happened naturally.
Nothing to apologize for, I honestly can't say you haven't tried a lot to try to close the misunderstanding between us.
Plus, the way I am trying to kill you with my mind I tend to argue with people can easily be maddening smug&condescending.
On this, myself I'm calling this discussion a dead end... not enough narrative, rails or gates to keep us from missing the key point. Things like that.
So let's just leave it at that. I'm almost considering deleting 99% of my post and calling it a day.
Also, just put your entire post in a spoiler. It's not like anybody interested would forget to unfold it.
A few hidden narrow tunnels down to the ILZ would be awesome. There's a tight volcanic cave system in the Koosh zone (or whatever they call it now) that would be perfect for something like that. Have a relatively hidden passage at the back that keeps heading down and down and down...
The only problem I see with this is that with the low player O2 capacity, a seaglide tunnel would need brain coral pockets at regular intervals (or a very impressive O2 pipe network), and the Seamoth doesn't have any upgrades that let it go that deep. Still, a hidden Seamoth tunnel into the LR from one of the shallower cave systems (Jellyshroom caves, Jellyfish caves, Tiger Plant caves, Mushroom Forest caves) would be awesome.
But that's exactly why I asked that this be taken to PM, and why I'd said I would bow out... now I feel obligated to give another response here (and no, thats not a dig at you; I'm OCD - responding when posted to is automatic for me
But again, it feels like this is still a matter of fundamentally misunderstanding my point.
But that's the big misunderstanding, here. When I say "absolute freedom", I mean it in context of there being a free, open-world map - whereas you are misinterpreting it as saying there should be no boundaries of any kind. Again, I don't know if it's how you're reading it or how I'm writing it, but that is not at all what I said - I said that in terms of an open-world exploration game, you don't want anything to feel like the map/area design is trying to railroad you. Instead, what you want is to have it that the gameplay is the gate instead of the map's layout - that it's the gear and info you need to progress rather than being constricted down a single way.
Those are fundamental aspects of an open-world exploration game - ones like Breath of the Wild disprove the notion that there "is not and have never been" games that ran on player-driven progression and nonlinearity, and your argument feels like it hits a snag because it takes my own almost entirely out of context. How much the map does or does not restrict you is also dependent on the genre and gameplay you want to instill. In a story-driven open-world, you can limit the map more to focus on developing that story, with gating being a matter of intuitiveness and choice - in a combat-driven open-world, you focus more on how the many fights play out and gating is a matter of hard walls that may or may not be destroyed - in an exploration game, you focus on making the lore and the world feel as alive as possible, thereby gating is a matter of what kind of tools you've gathered by that point and where you're exploring.
To make a long story short, I feel that you've taken my saying "an open-world game should be developed like an open-world" and somehow came out as thinking I said that there shouldn't be any kind of restrictions anywhere at all, gameplay or otherwise. If it was something to do with how I worded it, than I'm sorry in advance, but that's not and never was what I was saying; I was saying that you don't want any area of the map to feel restricted outside of places like the endgame - you want to feel like it's a matter of what gear you have, not that you only ever have one single static pathway to travel down on the map.
But again, it feels like you're not holding yourself to that standard - because when you looked at people who complained about or expressed skepticism about the game matching it's promises, you dismissed it all as though they were factually misattributing it. It felt like you were claiming it in theory but not accomplishing such in practice, or at the very least how it comes across.
My own points were that:
- The keys and gating of the world was not lining up with what the devs themselves said they wanted; insurance that players visit the LR and DRF. Their attempt to fix that was to make the open-world less of an open-world, making it seem they were trying to create a story-focused adventure game rather than an open-world exploration one.
- Your issue with my arguments feel like they're based on fundamentally misunderstanding the points; I'd argued that the devs' current issue (getting players to visit the LR) was an entirely separate issue from the lava corridor debate and that they'd need to alter how they gated things to change that.
But here is the biggest issue in your arguments thus far; I never once said anything like that in the first place.. I said that it's bad for there to be physical gating in an open-world exploration game - or in other words, you don't want to feel like you're being railroaded by the map and by the world's layout. Instead, you want the gating to be a matter of "do I have the means to go there", rather than "I cannot go there without first clearing this level". Saying there shouldn't be railroading in an open-world game is not the same as saying there should be no boundaries - that's taking my argument entirely out of context. Boundaries are not the same as railroading - one can cause the other, certainly, but they are not mutually exclusive; boundaries only become railroading when they encroach upon what the game's marketed genre was and the player's ability to experience it.
In this, the issue is that you're mistaking the base pre-requisite for an open-world as being instantly applicable to any and every genre without considerations for story focus, gameplay focus or exploration focus. You're not considering that depending on what kind of game you're trying to make, the prerequisite of what your open-world has to do for the player changes on context - if you're focused on combat, it's got to focus on enemy AI; if it's focused puzzles, it's got to focus on platforming; if it's focused on exploration, it's got to focus on the map itself. And depending on if it's open-world or not, the requirements of restrictions and alternate paths change as well. In this, developer skill is only a single factor and not necessarily the key one.
But the crux of my argument is how you're mistaken about what I've said; when I said "progression through the game's world should be player-driven", it feels like you mistook it as saying "no boundaries or gating it all." You're also mistaking the presence of any boundary at all as meaning the same as linearity - it's not. Saying "you have to do this" is a boundary, but it's not at all linear in that there's no innate limit on what your actions are in regards to how, when or why you do it. In more traditional games, the method of choice is more hard-line - do this to do that, go here to pick this up, etc - in exploration games though, you're supposed to look around and find that for yourself, and in open-world games there isn't meant to be a restriction on where in the map you can go outside of what tools you have.
Again, I don't know if it's from how you read it or how I wrote it, and I'm sorry in advance if it's the latter... but I never said there shouldn't be any boundaries or gating at all; I said that how the game is gated depends on what it's world-type and genre is - and that for an open-world game like this, you never want the gating to feel like it's because the map or world has only one path to force you down. That it dovetailed like this is bad enough, but the idea it's happened because how I argued it made it sound like I wanted something unrealistic is even worse.
I'd only ever brought it up because I feel like the parts the devs want us to see (the LR and DRF) are not gated in such a way as for players to do that; they can skip it without consequence as it stands, and they can do so regardless of what restrictions are or aren't on the map. I love that they're making it closer to the open-world it was marketed as... but I also wanted them to know it's not going to fix the problem they were focused on.
To put it simply, yes - there isn't any narrative gate to make the LR and DRF unskippable, and the devs would need to change that if they place such a high priority on players visiting those areas. And again, I am truly sorry that took this long and this much arguing for the both of us to come to that agreement.
Actually, not so; Starfall suggested I put it in a spoiler section to avoid drowning the page out. They did the same. So hopefully, there should be no more of that in this particular thread, thank you very much.
Maybe now people can get back to the actual topic, no?
I think I understand both. Rather than say that all again, perhaps something a bit more focused.
What do you feel about what Subnautica currently has, especially in the LR/ILZ/ALZ? How would you change it?
I'm not sure as I've not progressed any game that far down (and unfortunately won't likely have the time to do so for quite a while). I do feel that some of the changes in the recent past to close off ILZ entrances weren't the best choice for changes. They felt wrong.
I'm not sure if this question was specifically directed at the two users you mentioned or not, but I'll bite.
I feel that the devs are currently giving the player mixed messages with regards of how to approach the endgame. All the other cave systems in the game have multiple entrances, some with neat unexpected things like the mountain island cave connecting to relatively large underwater cave system. Likewise the Jellyshroom cave has multiple widely spaced entrances. This creates the expectation that all cave systems have multiple ways in and out.
The original version of the ILZ had this interconnectivity with paths leading in from the dunes and the DGR, but somewhere along the way the LR was deemed to be too important to allow the players to enter the ILZ without visiting the LR first. At the same time, the devs seem to be pushing the Cyclops as the vehicle of choice for the endgame. Anyone who has driven a Cyclops through the LR knows how horribly unsuited the Cyclops is for that cave system with its poor visibility, lack of maneuverability, and the size of the vehicle relative to the caves.
These mixed messages make the endgame progression feel out of place and poorly designed with respect to the rest of the game world. The open-ended caves systems with multiple entrances seen earlier in the game are replaced with a highly linear path to the endgame, and to add insult to injury, this path is one of the worst places in the game to take a Cyclops despite the dev's intentions to have the players use it as an endgame vehicle with multiple upgrades being expressly designed to aid in navigating the ILZ/ALZ.
What I would like to see is the original ILZ entrance in the Dunes restored, and the Aurora tunnel saved, and have these areas detailed and properly finished. Additionally, instead of restoring the ILZ entrance in the DGR, I would like to see the DGR entrance moved, possibly to the Mountains as suggested by this thread or to another biome not particularly near an existing entrance (it was a little too close to the LR entrance before). If the LR is critical to the story and unskippable, then put an artifact key there and maybe even a signal so the player knows they need to go there to finish the game instead of railroading the player through the LR to get to the ILZ.
I the hope of avoiding a repeat of the last QUOTE HELL : I'm not defending nor attacking the linear many keys suggestions, myself I would prefer (personal preference, not a fact) a gating based on what technology you find and how far they let you go.
I just presenting the point that a more linear progression can be a clear improvement over no rail. HOW is a question that devs work on harder than us, but what matter is it can work.
We all expect anyone to defend his beliefs saying "my way is more likely to work". I've done that already so now I only dig into the concept.
Rethinking about it, talking so much in term of either "Linear" or "nonlinear" kept us (two of us at least) from talking about doing both in more complex ways.
We take a linear game to be a corridor game
We take nonlinear game to be typically open-world
We take a mix to be just alternating between the two between plot trigger.
But the two can be multilayered a lot more provided the game follow with more complex game-mechanics. Subnautica reliance on technology made it easy for the devs to dive into that.
Progression can be divided in at least 3 parameters (more is out of this discussion)
WHERE you can go, is (simply reading people here) better addressed by making it invisible, it exist, but shouldn't be obvious.
WHAT you can do, is used a lot (but not enough to me) without a pressure-upgrade you can't reach 50% of the biomes, without a hull-cutter you have to come back.
WHEN you can, is rarely used for long but the Aurora timer is an example.
Back to the fake "linear vs nonlinear" conundrum.
As I personally wish to share, there's no problem only being able to reach an area before another.
The best in game design isn't to let-you or make-you go anywhere once, it's to make you WISH to go back several times (for more than resources).
When they do, allowing alternate-route isn't a question of progression. It's either:
- anti-frustration features
- or whole new features ideally
I'm sure you remember how obvious what I'm saying is.
You first discover a place the HARD WAY, then you discovers/get ability that open an Alternate way that give you better access later without cheapening the first experience you got in. (So typical that so called "AAA" open-world like Skyrim can't do it)
Do this knowledge let us now what's best for Subnautica?
Personally I think NOT at the current time, because drastic rebalance or the apparition of game-changing mechanics is still likely to make keys (plural) a minor worry.
I don't fear needing 1,2,4,8,16,32 keys to progress. I only fear them having one forms, one mechanics.
That's all rambling from me. I tried my best but I still feel like I only repeated myself.
Hopefully it offer more insight to the conundrum in the Original Post. If people aren't dead-bored of the topic being bumped.
Says the guy who repeatedly ignores my requests to take this to PM, if he himself can't keep from repeatedly responding?
(note: The above is meant to be a joke. Please don't take offense to it)
All (tasteless) joking aside though, my point was that whether or not linear progression is better or worse depends on what kind of experience it is you want/what kind of game you're making. It's not a question of if more or less linearity can or can't work - it's a matter of what's most appropriate for what you're making... although I should point out I never said there shouldn't be rails of any kind to begin with; just that you shouldn't feel like the map itself is railroading you for an open-world exploration. The biggest point of confusion, I think, is that I was only ever talking about linearity and non-linearity in regards to map design, not whole games in general.
That's more or less exactly what I was advocating (or trying to, at least) be continued for the design of Subnautica's world-map
My argument was more that the above is more key if your game is open-world exploration, but likewise easier to forgo if you have a more straightforward objective like in a standard FPS. Furthermore, I myself had never said there was an issue with traveling through one area to reach another on the map - my issue was with the idea of the order not being optional/that there was only ever one "right" path to take. Like what @gamer1000k said above, the LR feels like it's been forced to become the "right" path to take to get to the ILZ, to the point that any others were forcibly axed out. As well as the issue of mixed messages - even if the devs restore that accessibility, they still want to guarantee players visit the LR. To do that, they need to leave something there that has to be picked up at some point - doesn't matter when; just that they get it eventually.
The reason I disagreed is because... well, as it is, the LR seems to be unnecessary to visit no matter what. Last I knew, you don't need to get the final infection trigger to progress to the endgame - you can treat the LR purely as a throughway with no consequences. But by the devs' own words, they don't want that - they want the DRF and LR to be a place the player definitely visits at some point. And if they wanted to fix that - preferably without cutting out sections of the ILZ to railroad people into it... than it feels like all they would need is literally one key inside the DRF.
Also, which mechanic it took the shape of hadn't even been decided by everyone here - just that if the devs wanted to guarantee the players had a reason to visit the LR, placing a key (either to the Thermal Plant or the Prison - doesn't matter which) in the DRF would be the easiest, least obtrusive way to do it, without having to do any drastic rebalances or adding in new mechanics or anything else that would distract from their current efforts to polis the game.
\(^v^)/ \(^v^)/ \(^v^)/ \(^v^)/ \(^v^)/ \(^v^)/ \(^v^)/ \(^v^)/ \(^v^)/ \(^v^)/ \(^v^)/ \(^v^)/ \(^v^)/ \(^v^)/ \(^v^)/