tyler111762Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada Join Date: 2015-05-17Member: 204558Members
sorry fellas. not trying to be political. my point was that the style of argument and the entire conversation is so ungodly similar, i thought i would point it out.
Soul_RiderMod BeanJoin Date: 2004-06-19Member: 29388Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
Knowing that the developers decided before starting subnautica that the game would be non-violent, I am painfully aware how much a waste of time this whole topic is.
I see arguments being put forwards by both sides which entirely miss the point. You can argue the toss over whether everyone becomes a homicidal maniac when you give them a gun or not, but you are missing the point.
You can argue all you want about guns being effective tools that can add depth to the gameplay, but again, you are missing the point.
One of the core design pillars of Subnautica is non-violence. Non-Violence is the difference between an 18 and a 5 rating on player age. Non-Violence is a unique selling point in the armoury of this game.
Tell me again how many large scale first person survival games like Subnautica currently have you experiencing a non-violent interaction with the world around you?
Knowing that the developers decided before starting subnautica that the game would be non-violent, I am painfully aware how much a waste of time this whole topic is.
I see arguments being put forwards by both sides which entirely miss the point. You can argue the toss over whether everyone becomes a homicidal maniac when you give them a gun or not, but you are missing the point.
You can argue all you want about guns being effective tools that can add depth to the gameplay, but again, you are missing the point.
One of the core design pillars of Subnautica is non-violence. Non-Violence is the difference between an 18 and a 5 rating on player age. Non-Violence is a unique selling point in the armoury of this game.
Tell me again how many large scale first person survival games like Subnautica currently have you experiencing a non-violent interaction with the world around you?
Ummmm..... did you even read how this topic started?
Soul_RiderMod BeanJoin Date: 2004-06-19Member: 29388Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
Of course I read how it started, but like most forum threads, the topic had derailed itself slightly, and it was this I was responding to.
I was also responding to your sly dig at the tools in the game:
Ironically, many weapon sugestion threads add far weaker things than these. They really need to be nerfed
I could go on about of course they need to be balanced, but that would be missing the point.
Example:
Someone attacks you in the street, you get in a fight with them and punch them and they go down. What do you do next?
1 - turn and walk away (non-violence)
2 - start punching and kicking them while they are on the floor (violence)
Killing animals for food or self-defense is not violence, it is survival.
The aim of the gameplay is to avoid the potential for violence, so whatever is added will always be designed around avoiding the potential for violence.
As an example, propel something away from you with the propulsion cannon, and very soon it will be swimming back to attack you.
That kind of environmental training to not mess with the fauna you just can't give a player with a gun.
Knowing that the developers decided before starting subnautica that the game would be non-violent, I am painfully aware how much a waste of time this whole topic is.
Only a fool thinks anything is set in stone when this game is currently still in this much of an alpha.
Hell in the latest update several files hinting towards the addition of torpedoes for the Seamoth were added.
Non-Violence is a gimmick, and a silly one at that for a survival adventure game. I can guarantee that they will get more players (And more buyers, and more money) if they allow us to actively defend ourselves.
Soul_RiderMod BeanJoin Date: 2004-06-19Member: 29388Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
@04Leonhardt - A gimmick? Really? I suggest you learn some history, read some of the many interviews with the lead designer and developer of the game, who also happens to be a founder of UWE. You will learn some very important information which would make any decent human being regret calling it a gimmick.
Have you ever heard of the Columbine school shooting?
It occurred around when Charlie was prototyping Subnautica, and he vowed Subnautica would be a non-violent game. If you are shallow enough to think some pathetic arguments in favour of violence on a forum, outweigh the emotional impact that the Columbine shooting had on Charlie, you have a lot to learn about life.
Yes I am very confident non-violence is a central pillar that will never change, despite your arguments (which only equate to picking faults with non-violent arguments). I have not seen a single valid reason why violence should be added.
Also, the main problem, as proven by your lack of understanding of my post above, is that most of people asking for violence in the game don't even understand what violence is. You want violence, go and rip demon hearts out in the new Doom when it comes out next year.
Let me use your example above, that was supposed to prove violence is coming. to try and show you why adding torpedoes, harpoons or guns does NOT EQUATE TO VIOLENCE.
How can I say that, well first off we already have a rifle. Yes, the stasis rifle. It is therefore a gun. However, it is a gun built with non-violence in mind.
Now, you know them torpedoes you are talking about. Do I need to explain to you, they will be designed with non-violence in mind?
I suggest you also go back and read my post explaining what violence is. A lot of people seem to be getting non-violence and pacifism confused. Pacifism is against any form of conflict, non-violence is only against indiscriminate acts of aggression, killing for your survival is absolutely permitted.
You know, the definition of violence is not restricted to killing things without reason. I also certainly hope that did not see indications that you buy into the idea that violent video games make people do violent things in reality...
Let's chill on the personal attacks please
That being said I'm sure no one here thinks that games make you violent. A gamer playing games thinking that would be rather strange indeed lol
This being said I think non violence is already out the window since there is blood and aliens who happily eat and or attack you
I also certainly hope that did not see indications that you buy into the idea that violent video games make people do violent things in reality...
Your comment above is just an attempt to gain traction on something so you can try and ridicule me and invalidate my point that way. It is a shame you have to try and do that, normally, people who get to that stage are one step away from name-calling.
It also shows that your point in the debate has absolutely no substance. I would be interested in this debate if the pro-violence side actually came up with an interesting and realistic argument for pro-violence, instead of just trying to insult people who don't agree with them.
No I don't buy into the idea you posted, but I buy into the idea that when you have a clear vision about something you should see it through to the end and never compromise.
I also certainly hope that did not see indications that you buy into the idea that violent video games make people do violent things in reality...
Your comment above is just an attempt to gain traction on something so you can try and ridicule me and invalidate my point that way. It is a shame you have to try and do that, normally, people who get to that stage are one step away from name-calling.
It also shows that your point in the debate has absolutely no substance. I would be interested in this debate if the pro-violence side actually came up with an interesting and realistic argument for pro-violence, instead of just trying to insult people who don't agree with them.
No I don't buy into the idea you posted, but I buy into the idea that when you have a clear vision about something you should see it through to the end and never compromise.
I'm sorry I came off that way, but I think there have been many interesting and realistic arguments of arming the player with some form of weapons. But they don't really matter, as the devs have the final say and they have so far decided against them. However, it will be difficult for them to put in all of the huge murderous fish they plan without arming the players. It will require advanced AI, and they will have a lot of problems, I imagine, with not making them a huge frustration for players, causing them to more and more wish that they could kill them. Ultimately, they will, I think, HAVE to give players some means to drive off things like the reaper. That means will likely take the a form that resembles a weapon. It may not be lethal, it may be a tool that doubles as a weapon, but it will still be a means to harm other living things.
04LeonhardtI came here to laugh at youJoin Date: 2015-08-01Member: 206618Members
edited August 2015
I like how everyone keeps parroting "The devs have said they're never adding weapons!"
Yet we're getting Vortex Torpedoes and lightning nets for the Seamoth soon.
Nothing is set in stone.
Just look at Space Engineers.
Keen Software House started out saying that they'd never add Planets.
Later, they made an entire freaking second game just to test their technology for adding planets, and AI, and physics based construction.
Subnautica isn't even technically in alpha, yet.
There's a lot to change. A lot to grow.
Keep an open mind, lads.
I read that the Vortex Torpedos will create a grav field on impact to pull and push enemies away from you and the Lighting Net will be capable of paralysing larger creatures and even kill smaller ones ... like the seamoth does already when you ram em hard enough.
I consider these two things as non-violent in nature even if they may prove deadly for one fish or another in one situation or another. Bricks weren't inventend to harm or to kill, yet you can easily harm or kill someone with a brick and enough of this so-called violence.
I think the intentions of the devs are still pure.
And now to actually write something in-topic:
I was nearly killed today by a sandshark (yes a friggin sandshark).
With the stasis rifle i was to slow to swim away which lead to him biting me over and over. Because there was nothing to aim at but the shark i missed four shots until one finally stunned it and i escaped. Aside from what i said about it in earlier discussions and it being OP, i find the stasis rifle to be of very tiny help in close range situations.
It is kinda overpowered if you have the distance and the time to aim or to get a drop on something, but when shit hits the fan you better run instead of trying to stun something with it.
Now i have doubts if it's all that OP.
Knowing that the developers decided before starting subnautica that the game would be non-violent, I am painfully aware how much a waste of time this whole topic is.
Maybe someone needs to tell the Stalkers and those little bloodsucking fish that this is supposed to be a "non-violent" game. Because they seem to be pretty hell-bent on violence towards me. And I've yet to find a "non-violent" solution to getting a bloodsucker off my arm.
If you're going to have aggressive wildlife that tries to kill you, there's no reason not to have a bang-stick or a speargun. You know, the sort of tools that "non-violent" ocean explorers use to fend off sharks that didn't get the memo...
Maybe someone needs to tell the Stalkers and those little bloodsucking fish that this is supposed to be a "non-violent" game. Because they seem to be pretty hell-bent on violence towards me. If you're going to have aggressive wildlife that tries to kill you, there's no reason not to have a bang-stick or a speargun.
What I'd love to see, is that each time you kill a shark, the blood attract (spawns) two or three more sharks. It would become very evident real quick that violence is NOT the #1 solution.
If that's the case, I'd like to see the shark just leave me the hell alone. But I'm not keen on a situation where the wildlife is free to commit violence on the player, but the player is expected to turn the other cheek.
Soul_RiderMod BeanJoin Date: 2004-06-19Member: 29388Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
This has been explained time and time again.
Killing animals for food is not violence.
Killing animals to defend yourself is not violence.
So the animals are not being violent.
Violence comes from the usage of an object, you can be violent currently in game, if you took the knife and decided to go and kill every creature in the gameworld. However, doing that wouldn't be easy and would take a lot of time, so while the knife can kill, it does not enable violence.
Non-violence will mean that the developers will give you weapons to defend your self, but limit their abilities so they can't be used in a murderous rampage, as that would be violent.
The weapons we already know about (italics for emphasis on the weapons): Knife
Stasis Rifle
Vortex Torpedo
Lightning Net Torpedo
As you can see, these are very much real world weapons, but they have been tuned to be non-violent, ie, they don't make rampages easy.
People confuse pacifism and non-violence, it's the root of this whole issue. There will be more weapons added, and they will allow you to defend yourself, but they will not enable violence.
Killing animals for food is not violence.
Killing animals to defend yourself is not violence.
So the animals are not being violent.
So then why can't WE kill animals to defend ourselves?
It's not violent, by your standards.
And for the love of god can we please, please, PLEASE, stop going back to the "IF YOU GIVE A PLAYER A WEAPON THEY'LL GO ON A RAMPAGE AND MURDER EVERYTHING IN THE ENTIRE OCEAN!!!!!!!" argument? It's a completely ridiculous nightmare scenario that will never, in any way, come to be a reality in the game.
If that's the case, I'd like to see the shark just leave me the hell alone. But I'm not keen on a situation where the wildlife is free to commit violence on the player, but the player is expected to turn the other cheek.
That is a very interesting thing that hasn't been mentioned to the whole violence discusion yet. It sometiimes really testing my limits with those bonesharks.
"IF YOU GIVE A PLAYER A WEAPON THEY'LL GO ON A RAMPAGE AND MURDER EVERYTHING IN THE ENTIRE OCEAN!!!!!!!" argument? It's a completely ridiculous nightmare scenario that will never, in any way, come to be a reality in the game.
I have to say i haven't read that argument that often really. Most of the time as a presumption of what all people opposed to violence supposedly say.
Not the tool is what makes the violence, but what what the player does with it, or rather is enabled to do with it. It doesn't mean that every player inevitably will go on an oceanwide murder spree, but every player could and therefore the game holds the potential for violence, what seems to be not acceptable for the devs. At least that's how i understand it.
And never say it wouldn't happen in the game just because it might not happen in yours.
Comments
good retort sir...good retort indeed.
I see arguments being put forwards by both sides which entirely miss the point. You can argue the toss over whether everyone becomes a homicidal maniac when you give them a gun or not, but you are missing the point.
You can argue all you want about guns being effective tools that can add depth to the gameplay, but again, you are missing the point.
One of the core design pillars of Subnautica is non-violence. Non-Violence is the difference between an 18 and a 5 rating on player age. Non-Violence is a unique selling point in the armoury of this game.
Tell me again how many large scale first person survival games like Subnautica currently have you experiencing a non-violent interaction with the world around you?
Ummmm..... did you even read how this topic started?
I was also responding to your sly dig at the tools in the game:
I could go on about of course they need to be balanced, but that would be missing the point.
Example:
Someone attacks you in the street, you get in a fight with them and punch them and they go down. What do you do next?
1 - turn and walk away (non-violence)
2 - start punching and kicking them while they are on the floor (violence)
Killing animals for food or self-defense is not violence, it is survival.
The aim of the gameplay is to avoid the potential for violence, so whatever is added will always be designed around avoiding the potential for violence.
As an example, propel something away from you with the propulsion cannon, and very soon it will be swimming back to attack you.
That kind of environmental training to not mess with the fauna you just can't give a player with a gun.
Only a fool thinks anything is set in stone when this game is currently still in this much of an alpha.
Hell in the latest update several files hinting towards the addition of torpedoes for the Seamoth were added.
Non-Violence is a gimmick, and a silly one at that for a survival adventure game. I can guarantee that they will get more players (And more buyers, and more money) if they allow us to actively defend ourselves.
Have you ever heard of the Columbine school shooting?
It occurred around when Charlie was prototyping Subnautica, and he vowed Subnautica would be a non-violent game. If you are shallow enough to think some pathetic arguments in favour of violence on a forum, outweigh the emotional impact that the Columbine shooting had on Charlie, you have a lot to learn about life.
Yes I am very confident non-violence is a central pillar that will never change, despite your arguments (which only equate to picking faults with non-violent arguments). I have not seen a single valid reason why violence should be added.
Also, the main problem, as proven by your lack of understanding of my post above, is that most of people asking for violence in the game don't even understand what violence is. You want violence, go and rip demon hearts out in the new Doom when it comes out next year.
Let me use your example above, that was supposed to prove violence is coming. to try and show you why adding torpedoes, harpoons or guns does NOT EQUATE TO VIOLENCE.
How can I say that, well first off we already have a rifle. Yes, the stasis rifle. It is therefore a gun. However, it is a gun built with non-violence in mind.
Now, you know them torpedoes you are talking about. Do I need to explain to you, they will be designed with non-violence in mind?
I suggest you also go back and read my post explaining what violence is. A lot of people seem to be getting non-violence and pacifism confused. Pacifism is against any form of conflict, non-violence is only against indiscriminate acts of aggression, killing for your survival is absolutely permitted.
That being said I'm sure no one here thinks that games make you violent. A gamer playing games thinking that would be rather strange indeed lol
This being said I think non violence is already out the window since there is blood and aliens who happily eat and or attack you
Your comment above is just an attempt to gain traction on something so you can try and ridicule me and invalidate my point that way. It is a shame you have to try and do that, normally, people who get to that stage are one step away from name-calling.
It also shows that your point in the debate has absolutely no substance. I would be interested in this debate if the pro-violence side actually came up with an interesting and realistic argument for pro-violence, instead of just trying to insult people who don't agree with them.
No I don't buy into the idea you posted, but I buy into the idea that when you have a clear vision about something you should see it through to the end and never compromise.
I'm sorry I came off that way, but I think there have been many interesting and realistic arguments of arming the player with some form of weapons. But they don't really matter, as the devs have the final say and they have so far decided against them. However, it will be difficult for them to put in all of the huge murderous fish they plan without arming the players. It will require advanced AI, and they will have a lot of problems, I imagine, with not making them a huge frustration for players, causing them to more and more wish that they could kill them. Ultimately, they will, I think, HAVE to give players some means to drive off things like the reaper. That means will likely take the a form that resembles a weapon. It may not be lethal, it may be a tool that doubles as a weapon, but it will still be a means to harm other living things.
But this is going way off topic.
Yet we're getting Vortex Torpedoes and lightning nets for the Seamoth soon.
Nothing is set in stone.
Just look at Space Engineers.
Keen Software House started out saying that they'd never add Planets.
Later, they made an entire freaking second game just to test their technology for adding planets, and AI, and physics based construction.
Subnautica isn't even technically in alpha, yet.
There's a lot to change. A lot to grow.
Keep an open mind, lads.
I consider these two things as non-violent in nature even if they may prove deadly for one fish or another in one situation or another. Bricks weren't inventend to harm or to kill, yet you can easily harm or kill someone with a brick and enough of this so-called violence.
I think the intentions of the devs are still pure.
And now to actually write something in-topic:
I was nearly killed today by a sandshark (yes a friggin sandshark).
With the stasis rifle i was to slow to swim away which lead to him biting me over and over. Because there was nothing to aim at but the shark i missed four shots until one finally stunned it and i escaped. Aside from what i said about it in earlier discussions and it being OP, i find the stasis rifle to be of very tiny help in close range situations.
It is kinda overpowered if you have the distance and the time to aim or to get a drop on something, but when shit hits the fan you better run instead of trying to stun something with it.
Now i have doubts if it's all that OP.
If you're going to have aggressive wildlife that tries to kill you, there's no reason not to have a bang-stick or a speargun. You know, the sort of tools that "non-violent" ocean explorers use to fend off sharks that didn't get the memo...
Stasis rifle freezes things.. working as intended.
Propulsion cannon propulsing things.. working as intended
Complaining for complaining's sake? Broken.
What I'd love to see, is that each time you kill a shark, the blood attract (spawns) two or three more sharks. It would become very evident real quick that violence is NOT the #1 solution.
Killing animals for food is not violence.
Killing animals to defend yourself is not violence.
So the animals are not being violent.
Violence comes from the usage of an object, you can be violent currently in game, if you took the knife and decided to go and kill every creature in the gameworld. However, doing that wouldn't be easy and would take a lot of time, so while the knife can kill, it does not enable violence.
Non-violence will mean that the developers will give you weapons to defend your self, but limit their abilities so they can't be used in a murderous rampage, as that would be violent.
The weapons we already know about (italics for emphasis on the weapons):
Knife
Stasis Rifle
Vortex Torpedo
Lightning Net Torpedo
As you can see, these are very much real world weapons, but they have been tuned to be non-violent, ie, they don't make rampages easy.
People confuse pacifism and non-violence, it's the root of this whole issue. There will be more weapons added, and they will allow you to defend yourself, but they will not enable violence.
Can you understand this yet?
So then why can't WE kill animals to defend ourselves?
It's not violent, by your standards.
And for the love of god can we please, please, PLEASE, stop going back to the "IF YOU GIVE A PLAYER A WEAPON THEY'LL GO ON A RAMPAGE AND MURDER EVERYTHING IN THE ENTIRE OCEAN!!!!!!!" argument? It's a completely ridiculous nightmare scenario that will never, in any way, come to be a reality in the game.
I have to say i haven't read that argument that often really. Most of the time as a presumption of what all people opposed to violence supposedly say.
Not the tool is what makes the violence, but what what the player does with it, or rather is enabled to do with it. It doesn't mean that every player inevitably will go on an oceanwide murder spree, but every player could and therefore the game holds the potential for violence, what seems to be not acceptable for the devs. At least that's how i understand it.
And never say it wouldn't happen in the game just because it might not happen in yours.