Is it worth a positive early access review?
En9a9e
USA Join Date: 2015-02-17 Member: 201408Members, Subnautica Playtester
USA Join Date: 2015-02-17 Member: 201408Members, Subnautica Playtester
A fellow Subnautican here with a community challenge. Steam ratings have recently gone down from "Overwhelmingly Positive" to "Very Positive". A lot of the fewer negative reviews are rating the game down because of bugs and crashes. Noting bugs and crashes is completely valid, but when you understand you are buying an early access title that is very much in early development and a major work in progress then rating a game down based on those things, even while you praise and commend the game elements and gameplay in general, is quite misleading (imo). Going from "overwhelmingly positive" to "very positive" might not seem like that big of a deal but ratings do matter and undeserved steps down are never a good thing. I just wrote an honest and positive review of my overall take on the game in current form. I am not asking or expecting everyone to agree with me, but if you do agree with me that this game, these devs, and this early access process is deserving of an overwhelmingly positive rating...I am passing along the challenge of taking the time to add a steam review.
Comments
I got into subnautica now because I like the gane how it is now, if it evolves great, if it doesnt well I had a lot of fun.
The problem is that this early access thing brought so many people in that want this, and this and this, instead of enjoying the game as it is because that is what you are payinf for. I payed for SN because I wanted to play it now, otherwise I would have waited for its release.
Yes people should not lower the game's score because of bugs since is early access, but devs are charging money so they shouldn't get a free pass just because is early access
I think this game has made exceptional progress and is improving regularly. I've said as much on the Steam Forums and recently purchased it because of this and some awesome Dev responses to people still demanding Harpoon Guns. That said, it also has very serious crash issues, even for an EA game. I know how bad the issues are because I was able to read negative reviews and watch videos made by guys who do heavily edited footage, who felt it was important to leave in framerate issues and crashes.
but it will take time and I'm willing to wait, frankly I already got the 20 bucks worth of fun .. this game is so beautiful
I've spent so much time building my base, designing it for possible things in the future, building landing pads for my seamoths and cyclops.
It's a brilliant game, it is Very positive as there are trolls on steam who will say it bad if they spend 5 minutes on it and die from a stalker or something.
Glitches and bugs are to be expected during the development phase. To quote Super Chicken: "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred."
The only unforgivable sins (in my opinion, at least) are failing to eradicate documented and repeatable bugs, and not providing patch support for a reasonable period once the game has reached its Final Release build stage. That sort of thing was all too common way back in the pioneering days of the late 80's, but there's absolutely no excuse for it now.
That dog won't hunt any more, Monseigneur.
Software development tools have come a long way since then, although the actual hardware and operating systems don't appear to have changed all that much in the past couple of years. Sure, there may be a Frankenstein box somewhere out there that contains all of the very latest Bleeding Edge tech that money can buy.
Bet you five bucks it won't have the same operating specs as the average home PC. Pro Tip: This should be the REAL market segment for future game developers: 'Joe User'.
I have bookshelves full of PC games that are simply too 'old' to run on anything that came after Windows 95. Titles such as Fallout 1, 2 & 3, System Shock 1 & 2, Morrowind, UFO: Enemy Unknown, Most of the Might & Magic Series... But they're not really that old. I've tried all sorts of patches and arcane work-arounds, all to no avail.
I enjoyed playing those games back in the day, and figured I might like to take them for another spin at some later stage. No can do.
And you know what? It annoys the hell out of me. ~X(
There has to be a point where a game design is just too damn close to the highest performance envelope of a 'typical' home PC. I'm seeing more and more games crossing that line every day, and I'm none too happy about it. Guess there's other folks that feel the same way, too. There should be absolutely no pressure to upgrade an otherwise fine PC with a stable operating system, just because the latest batch of third-party software has been designed specifically to run on absurdly cranked high-end PCs. If the PC and its OS are relatively current and working reliably, there should be no need to perform radical surgery in order to get a particular piece of software running properly.
That's a definite case of 'the tail wagging the dog'.
Simply stated, all software should be written to suit the capabilities of current low-end machines. Not everyone can afford to buy PCs that need cooling with liquid helium. Maybe even make it backward-compatible with older operating systems, if you're feeling particularly charitable.
For the record, my PC is a two year-old Intel Core i5 running Windows 7. Subnautica runs tolerably well. A little bit 'laggy' now and then, but it's still quite playable.
I knew the risks involved, but still took the plunge for Subnautica. No regrets.
Peace out.
*Drops mike*