The only weapon that would deserve to be in this game is a harpoon gun.
Even the torpedoes feel like a bit too much.
As for people saying this game needs little or next to no weapons, we already have a knife and I have had no problem defending myself against stalkers and bone sharks with that...
But at the end of the day, all you people are doing is speculating and talking about what you want to happen, I would suggest leaving the developers to it and seeing what they come up with on their own.
As per usual forums in most places are pure anarchy and I think most of you have no idea how complex these games are and how much time/work goes into them.
Then people run in throwing their ideas around like they are really easy to implement and have no idea what they are talking about.
Thor11011
P.S. sit back, have fun, enjoy the game, play it as it is, do your best to report bugs and do your best to figure out how to recreate those bugs to help the developers find the issues.
That is the best way to help this game develop.
Not idle chit-chat Don't get me wrong, it can be fun to discuss ideas and such, but you all need to be open to heavy constructive criticism and down right trolling.
It's simply false advertising. It is literally NOT a "Non violent" game if almost everything can kill you.
I don't think a single soul that views the videos and reactions of Subnautica would presume that the environment was devoid of danger.
For anyone who has tracked the media coverage of SN, they would also never make that presumption, with descriptions like: "navigate hazards and enter the domains of creatures; the likes of which your imagination has never conceived of." .. even before a single screenshot was released. Then there's the actual journalist coverage which goes over this again and again..
If you only read a description that was not the Steam description* and decided to purchase... well then that may be something that needs adjusting. But did you do that? I somehow doubt it.
Personally, I think you are just trying to focus on one brief descriptor as being justification for your disdain for this design direction, despite knowing it's a "survival" game. (the first tag in Steam)
*Steam description:
"Descend into the depths of an alien underwater world filled with wonder and peril. Craft equipment, pilot submarines, terraform voxel terrain, and out-smart wildlife to explore lush coral reefs, volcanoes, cave systems, and more - All while trying to survive.
I quoted Arznix's comment and it put your name in. Weird.
In regards to your comment, sorry I must have missed it.
I dislike the design direction of Subnautica because it goes directly against everything they've been preaching to us about it being a "Peaceful, fun, non-violent exploration game!" with their adding of a million and one hostile monsters that can kill us. This is why I say that people need to stop pretending that 'Non-violence" some amazing and revolutionary thing for a game to do. Because they're simply NOT doing it.
They've dialed back the number of hostile creatures in each biome, but there are still no other peaceful creatures announced or even visibly planned.
When we get a vast majority of peaceful creatures to hostile creatures, my stance will change.
Leon, you need to go back and read the "about game" section of the store page. No where at all is it advertised as a "Peaceful, fun, non-violent exploration game!". Also, the Sea Treader, Emporer, Qute Fish, and *possibly* Warper are examples of either passive or defensive (ie peaceful) creatures yet to come. They are "visibly planned" counter to your claim. I have seen more creature concept art (on top of the modeled creatures I just described) that strongly indicates by their look that even more passive creatures have the possibility of being added. I do agree with you that some balancing where you have more generally tranquil biomes (or areas of biomes) is a thing the devs should keep in mind as a fan suggestion. -But- The game needs to challenge the player and creatures would logically be a major part of that mechanic.
I would also add that the current options to freeze creatures in stasis fields, launch single targets away with a repulsion cannon, trap them with a gravsphere, stun them with an electrical field, hold them with a propulsion cannon, or fling multiple targets with a vortex torpedo (*pauses to stretch fingers*) more than qualifies as multiple and creative ways to sufficiently deal with threats. On top of all that awesome sauce, with at least some of these tools that focus on non lethal interaction, the player can still use them in lethal ways if they so choose! -And- the game has a ways to go where more interesting options are yet to come (Serums?).
Certainly dispersion balancing, improvements or tweaks in creature behavior indicators, or aggression hints could continue to be added or enhanced as well. It's early access, refinements like that will come. I personally like the cautious, pre-plan rewarding, creative tool based, sometimes tranquil but often danger tilted, style of the game. You are free to disagree, but the above are (perhaps) some things to consider and take into account when continuing to push for blatantly lethal options.
Is a shark killing it's prey violent? That is purely opinion and speculation, it's down to survival.
Yes and it's a fact not an opinion. I find it odd that's folks are saying it's a nonviolent game, and then when people point out the violence inherent in the game already they then say no one is saying it's a nonviolent game? Which is it?
Yes and it's a fact not an opinion. I find it odd that's folks are saying it's a nonviolent game, and then when people point out the violence inherent in the game already they then say no one is saying it's a nonviolent game? Which is it?
Those folks you mention have been saying it again and again, but those advocating for lethal weapons are not listening or just conflating that phrase to mean it applies to the world and to yourself.
Here's a great way to sum it up : You do not play in a violent way - despite the world around you being very hazardous and dangerous.
And yes, I personally find this more interesting and engaging than simply just shooting things. (coming from an almost purely FPS background for ~30 years)
The reasoning that because you can be killed by something the game is violent is a little silly. Violence exists at some level in many games that aren't considered to be truly violent. What matters is an acceptable level of violence that works with the design direction the devs want to go with. The creatures being able to harm you is an acceptable level of violence, while being able to harm them back takes away from the idea of a non-violent game. Think of how the Portal games go. Yes there are enemies looking to kill you, but you have no violent means of dispatching them. Your only tool is the portal gun where you use it's utility to solve problems without shooting back. The ability to shoot back at the turrets takes away from the experience the devs wanted you to have. Having the lethal option helps to split the design direction in half. Why bother paralyzing a creature if the lethal weaponry permanently solves the problem? You can't partially add lethal weapons without drastically changing the games dynamic.
You can argue endlessly back and forth about how it suits the setting of the game, but what you're not understanding is the most important thing to the devs is to keep it AS non-violent as they can, and no matter how much you argue, comparatively this game is extremely peaceful relative to the other survival games on the market.
Sadly you're going to come back and poke holes about whatever you want, but the fact is violence is a factor in almost every game out there in some way shape or form, but the idea of a game that seeks to find a non-violent solution to a violent problem is something that can certainly be labeled as 'peaceful'. Look at Ghandi. UnknownWorlds is pretty much fucking Ghandi.
Leon, you need to go back and read the "about game" section of the store page. No where at all is it advertised as a "Peaceful, fun, non-violent exploration game!".
So anyone that says "The devs want a peaceful non-violent game so shut up!" is wrong?
Oh look it's this strawman again. Literally nobody is asking for "big guns".
You know this. Why do you insist on making a fool of yourself?
A simple harpoon gun would not "ruin the game's atmosphere".
Let's discuss this by breaking it down into a scenario of how acquiring and using the Harpoon gun would play out.
You find the Harpoon Gun blueprint in the Sparse Reef. Already you have to do some exploring and preparation to get there, and even more to find one of the fragments.
It has a simple recipe, 3 Titanium and 1 Silicone Rubber. Easy enough to get.
Then arming it with spears takes 2 Titanium for 1 Spear. So it's a little expensive to keep loaded, and the spears take up a 1x2 vertical space in the inventory, so you can't carry a ton of them.
So you make 3 spears, and a speargun, that's 9 Titanium and 2 Quartz for the silicone.
It's not cheap, but it's not game breakingly expensive.
So, because you're not a legit psychopath and don't want to go out and immediately murder the ocean, you keep it on you as you go exploring the Jelly Shroom Caves because there are Bone Sharks and Biterfish and Crabsnakes there.
You ride in your Seamoth through the entrance via the cave at the edge of the Kelp Forest and Red Plains. You head down deep into the darkness until your sub starts complaining about the pressure. So you embark into the creepy nightclub light of the Jelly Shroom Caves.
Immediately you hear the yelling of a Bone Shark as it spots the lights of your Seamoth. You ready your Speargun, but oh damn, you forgot to load it. You hit "R" to load the first spear, narrowly dodging the shark as it charges at you. You aim, and fire the spear at the shark, and it lodges in the bone shark's armored hide.
Congrats. Now it's pissed. The Bone Shark would then charge you relentlessly until it either killed you, or you hurt it enough to cause it to flee (Which would require your other two spears.)
So that was an intense 15 seconds. Time to look around the caves, finally.
How is it fact, when the shark is killing to survive, that's nature's way, also I never said this was a nonviolent game, it is however quite peaceful.
But big guns will ruin the game's atmosphere. End of discussion.
Nobody's asking for Mobile Infantry's Mini-Nukes, geez... And since you're talking about sharks and they natural way to be assh*les, then what is a man, DEFENDING his life by killing (and thus reducing by one its whole population) a dangerous predator, if not a natural occurrence? --- We don't have claws, we don't have teeth, but we have brains and guns. Don't "denaturalize" what's natural.
As the Aurora is the first vessel is the first human vessel on this world its job probably would be exploration (figure out how to best settle this world and what dangers to look out for) and building the first basic outpost for the first wave of settlers. So I would look to the equipment that modern divers use to protect themselves and extrapolate from there. Going from that, I don’t think a speargun would feel out of place (which could actually double as scientific equipment) neither would a deployable shark cage. I also found this List of interesting devices and yes those based on electromagnetic fields actually work though they don’t offer 100% protection at least not with the portable power levels. On larger scale (to protect whole beaches) the system is currently being tested. These depend on a special organ the sharks have to detect electromagnetic impulses (nerve impulses of the prey) so they would not work on all predators. This article summarizes several ideas among them the use of sound, bubble curtains and camouflage. Of course since you are trying to use those techniques on alien creatures you would need to do research to figure out what is actually effective against which creature and how to configure those devices (frequency, voltage, what kind of camouflage pattern etc.). You could also allow improving the effectiveness as you do more research on the various creatures and increasingly fine tune the devices.
The reasoning that because you can be killed by something the game is violent is a little silly. Violence exists at some level in many games that aren't considered to be truly violent. What matters is an acceptable level of violence that works with the design direction the devs want to go with. The creatures being able to harm you is an acceptable level of violence, while being able to harm them back takes away from the idea of a non-violent game. Think of how the Portal games go. Yes there are enemies looking to kill you, but you have no violent means of dispatching them. You're only tool is the portal gun where you use it's utility to solve problems without shooting back. The ability to shoot back at the turrets takes away from the experience the devs wanted you to have. Having the lethal option helps to split the design direction in half. Why bother paralyzing a creature if the lethal weaponry permanently solves the problem? You can't partially add lethal weapons without drastically changing the games dynamic.
You can argue endlessly back and forth about how it suits the setting of the game, but what you're not understanding is the most important thing to the devs is to keep it AS non-violent as they can, and no matter how much you argue, comparatively this game is extremely peaceful relative to the other survival games on the market.
Sadly you're going to come back and poke holes about whatever you want, but the fact is violence is a factor in almost every game out there in some way shape or form, but the idea of a game that seeks to find a non-violent solution to a violent problem is something that can certainly be labeled as 'peaceful'. Look at Ghandi. UnknownWorlds is pretty much **** Ghandi.
The reasoning that because you can be killed by something the game is violent is a little silly.
No it isn't. If there is violence in a game, then the game is violent. That's not an opinion it's a fact.
With you ghandi example, you're argument would flow as "ghandi did peaceful protest ergo the world in which he lived wasn't violent". Demonstrably wrong.
It's a good job this game hasn't got Yellow Jacket wasps. You know what they're like for attacking for the hell of it >.<
Yeah we just got biterfish and bone sharks and stalkers and sand sharks and shockers and bleeders and reaper leviathans and cave crawlers and spike plants and FUCKING CRASHES
You keep bringing up reality as if that is playing a large role in the design of this game, despite heat knives instantly cooking a fish, depth pressure not affecting your lungs outside of a ship, being able to surface without getting "the bends", not being able to communicate with your people for an extraction despite all this hardware you can construct, and a plethora of other unrealistic examples .... because it's a video game.
Reality does not fully dictate the design - so if you can accept that, why can't you accept that the intended design of non violent solutions to a hazardous environment is done not for the sake of realism, but rather for an intended type of gameplay, one in which the developers and others feel are much more engaging and interesting than "There's an obstacle / point & click to remove"?
I am excited about advanced creature behavior and AI that has been promised. I want to evade, trick, and work around my environment using tools. This sounds much more engaging than your typical FPS mechanics that have been done to death. It adds an element of stress to the game that would not otherwise be there, by constantly making you feel like the small fish.
Do you sincerely have an issue surviving in this world as is? If not, why would you advocate for something that clearly is not needed? (especially considering the changes that are intended on coming with improved behavior and interactions?)
Do you sincerely have an issue surviving in this world as is? If not, why would you advocate for something that clearly is not needed?
Same reason anyone else makes suggestions for in-development games. Because I think it'd be fun to play with.
Should you choose to use the harpoon, you'd have to manage your ammo count vs storage space, when to reload a spear when fighting a shark, when it would be best to fight a shark vs when it'd be better to just avoid it.
Both sides have valid points in here, just not alot. Of course the ship for a terraforming mission would have weapons on them. Of course as a hight tech scientist we would have the knowledge to contruct weapons. But of course as a scientist that we definetly are we would seek to mess as less with the vulnerable balance of nature as possible. Also the part where somebody said UWE only puts stuff in the game that they want in the game makes sense aswell. Of course you could put a hunger and thirst meter into call of duty, just wouldnt make alot of sense, just as weapons wouldnt make sense in the kind of game subnautica is going to be.
The reasoning that because you can be killed by something the game is violent is a little silly.
No it isn't. If there is violence in a game, then the game is violent. That's not an opinion it's a fact.
With you ghandi example, you're argument would flow as "ghandi did peaceful protest ergo the world in which he lived wasn't violent". Demonstrably wrong.
Except I'm relating UnknownWorld's to Ghandi. Not your character in game. They are designing a game that uses non-violence as an answer to violence. That is the end of the comparison, and frankly it was more added as a joke. (While still applicable). Don't try to use logic to draw conclusions out of thin air. If you read the post you'd understand more clearly. Because I know you won't, the idea isn't that violence is non-existent.
It is to keep it as non-violent as possible as to not clash with the developers vision of what their game should be. While yes violence at it's truest definition exists in games like Mario or the like, no one in their right mind looks at these games and thinks 'Wow what a violent game" Once again.
1. Level of acceptable violence doesn't equate to no violence. Mario had an acceptable level of violence without becoming a game someone would consider overtly violent.
As usual you skip over the entire post (which was relevant to what you are disputing) to pick out the small parts you feel you can poke holes in. Like, you literally skipped a paragraph of very relevant information expanding on the thoughts I posted. This is why the argument goes nowhere.
If you can actually address all the points I made we can start having a real discussion.
I think overall I've done a fairly good job of making a neutral post about the opposing views towards having lethal weaponry in the game. I think it's also hilarious that Leon (Who seems to be adamant about his position) has glossed over or ignored both times I posted. I'de love to have a conversation with you about this topic. Maybe you can sway me, who knows? Ignoring perfectly decent reasoning gets you nowhere though.
That's why I'm more or less done with this type of discussion Both sides have people who tend to ignore the other side and it really doesn't go anywhere. :P
I would just suggest not going blue in the face trying to advocate for something that the developers are pretty set on from what I can tell, as it may end up just being frustrating for you.
Thanks for discussing it
Agent-48Ostrava City, Czech Republic, EUJoin Date: 2015-09-03Member: 207681Members
edited September 2015
SUGGESTION FOR THE DEVS: Let's give us yet another game mode. Let's call it REDNECK MODE. It would feature harpoons, rifles, phased plasma pulse rifles, tactical nukes, sharp sticks... and it would be awesome
What if by choosing a GAME MODE, we'd actually be choosing our career onboard the ship? You choose the survival -- you're a scientist. REDNECK -- you're a marine, security contingent. If there ARE guns, you don't have to use it, if it suits you better to play hide and seek with the fauna. If you want to be a top notch predator in all situations, well, be it...
I can't believe people get so heated up into arguments about a game
Well you can make a pretty good argument that as a species we are pretty much insane. A human can get emotionally invested I just about anything and once we are invested strongly enough into something we can be pretty darn vicious if anyone dares to “attack” what we believe in. England’s Hooligans are especially well known but you can find this in pretty much every country that has large sports events.
SUGGESTION FOR THE DEVS: Let's give us yet another game mode. Let's call it REDNECK MODE. It would feature harpoons, rifles, phased plasma pulse rifles, tactical nukes, sharp sticks... and it would be awesome
The Devs don’t even need to create it, they just need to give people a modding framework and it will be done for them.
As for the core game as the Auroras job was probably mostly scientific exploration, so it makes sense to have mainly non-lethal deterrents as it is rather hard to figure out how something works after you made it stop working. Though to be fair it also makes sense to carry a lethal backup weapon as a last resort and the predators in subnautica are far more aggressive than almost all real life predators. In general animals try to avoid fights as much as possible because every fight carries the risk of injuries and for animals most injuries are lethal. As for humans, the theory goes that we are so ridiculously aggressive by animal standards because we care for one another and even with primitive medicine can drastically increase our survival rate after injuries.
So I would suggest to lower the aggressiveness of the predators in general and implement a few more nonlethal deterrents (for inspiration see my post above). Oh and becoming more aggressive after being hit by the propulsion cannon does not make all that much sense, real life animals would run like hell if they had contact with something that can casually hurl them around. The only exceptions would be the reaper leviathans and the sea emperor who are so massive that they likely never had to fear anything but each other.
As for lethal weapons as I wrote a speargun would make sense and is even used as to biopsy animals with special spears (without killing them) but I don’t think it’s strictly necessary for the game. On the other hand it feels a bit inconsistent to not have a simple speargun but to have the Perimeter Defense System which is pretty darn effective at killing the sh*t out of things if a bit costly in energy.
It's simply false advertising. It is literally NOT a "Non violent" game if almost everything can kill you.
'violent games' tend to be when things are there for no reason but to kill you, you know zombie army or space marines. Considering that you are in an alien eco-system where you only generally get attacked if you intrude on a predator's territory...yeah there is a bit of a difference. Unless you are going to say there is a conspiracy about sharks going after people intelligently, there is a difference between putting in an animal that acts like an animal and putting in an animal that has no purpose but to kill you. Considering I've seen stalkers go after things that are not me or metal to munch on, I think the end goal is the former not latter.
Also, news flash, pretty much all animals can kill you in RL too. Even your dog can probably kill you. Most animals are very violent under the right conditions and will attack you brutally if you don't respect the fact that they are not only probably stronger but better equipped to rip you apart. Humans are ONLY where we are because of our brains, nothing physically puts us above the rest of the animal kingdom. Even the strongest and most capable fighters would have very little chance of winning against most predators bare handed. So the long and short of it is, anything CAN kill you under the right circumstances.
So no it isn't false advertising. You can navigate any of the biomes with relative safety if you use your smarts and tools. Don't try to go swimming with reapers until you A) know where it is, B ) have a way to NOT be eaten (i.e. a sub nearby), and C) preferably have a way to drive it off. All of which you can do now in the new Seamoth update or could have done with the cyclops. But the number one rule of diving is....pay attention to your gear and your surroundings, otherwise you are a very dead corpse.
Both sides have valid points in here, just not alot. Of course the ship for a terraforming mission would have weapons on them. Of course as a hight tech scientist we would have the knowledge to contruct weapons. But of course as a scientist that we definetly are we would seek to mess as less with the vulnerable balance of nature as possible. Also the part where somebody said UWE only puts stuff in the game that they want in the game makes sense aswell. Of course you could put a hunger and thirst meter into call of duty, just wouldnt make alot of sense, just as weapons wouldnt make sense in the kind of game subnautica is going to be.
Actually no, it wouldn't make sense to bring weapons that might outright kill a predator even if you weren't a scientist (as you point out and I assume you aren't a scientist either ). We are still learning the intricacies of our own eco-systems on this planet and have been observing things about it for....a couple thousand years at least? Even modern day scientists are making discoveries about animals that are very non-exotic such as deer. Such as that said deer will eat hatchlings and small animals to supplement their protein intake (at least that is the theory, and apparently cows do this too).
So loading up on offensive equipment might not be a good idea, as any terraforming process would work better to adapt our resources to the new environment rather then the reverse. Killing anything seen as threatening could be as disastrous as on our planet wiping out the bees. Bonesharks could have colonies of oxygen producing bacteria that feed off the remains of prey the boneshark swims through after attacking for all we know (or not, it's a game after all). But the assumption that lethal weapons would be taken into a new environment when you already have the ability to put something into stasis through a hand held device might be flawed.
Considering that humans will be humans, the best way to prevent anyone breaking the rules and doing something stupid with weapons (or even blueprints) would be not to bring them or any blueprints on them. Ideally the ship would have been intact enough that if lethal weapons were truly needed for the safety of the ship or the following colony ship, the blueprints could have been transmitted.
Comments
Even the torpedoes feel like a bit too much.
As for people saying this game needs little or next to no weapons, we already have a knife and I have had no problem defending myself against stalkers and bone sharks with that...
But at the end of the day, all you people are doing is speculating and talking about what you want to happen, I would suggest leaving the developers to it and seeing what they come up with on their own.
As per usual forums in most places are pure anarchy and I think most of you have no idea how complex these games are and how much time/work goes into them.
Then people run in throwing their ideas around like they are really easy to implement and have no idea what they are talking about.
Thor11011
P.S. sit back, have fun, enjoy the game, play it as it is, do your best to report bugs and do your best to figure out how to recreate those bugs to help the developers find the issues.
That is the best way to help this game develop.
Not idle chit-chat
This is the internet after all.
Is a shark killing it's prey violent? That is purely opinion and speculation, it's down to survival.
I don't think a single soul that views the videos and reactions of Subnautica would presume that the environment was devoid of danger.
For anyone who has tracked the media coverage of SN, they would also never make that presumption, with descriptions like:
"navigate hazards and enter the domains of creatures; the likes of which your imagination has never conceived of." .. even before a single screenshot was released. Then there's the actual journalist coverage which goes over this again and again..
If you only read a description that was not the Steam description* and decided to purchase... well then that may be something that needs adjusting. But did you do that? I somehow doubt it.
Personally, I think you are just trying to focus on one brief descriptor as being justification for your disdain for this design direction, despite knowing it's a "survival" game. (the first tag in Steam)
*Steam description:
"Descend into the depths of an alien underwater world filled with wonder and peril. Craft equipment, pilot submarines, terraform voxel terrain, and out-smart wildlife to explore lush coral reefs, volcanoes, cave systems, and more - All while trying to survive.
Leon, you need to go back and read the "about game" section of the store page. No where at all is it advertised as a "Peaceful, fun, non-violent exploration game!". Also, the Sea Treader, Emporer, Qute Fish, and *possibly* Warper are examples of either passive or defensive (ie peaceful) creatures yet to come. They are "visibly planned" counter to your claim. I have seen more creature concept art (on top of the modeled creatures I just described) that strongly indicates by their look that even more passive creatures have the possibility of being added. I do agree with you that some balancing where you have more generally tranquil biomes (or areas of biomes) is a thing the devs should keep in mind as a fan suggestion. -But- The game needs to challenge the player and creatures would logically be a major part of that mechanic.
I would also add that the current options to freeze creatures in stasis fields, launch single targets away with a repulsion cannon, trap them with a gravsphere, stun them with an electrical field, hold them with a propulsion cannon, or fling multiple targets with a vortex torpedo (*pauses to stretch fingers*) more than qualifies as multiple and creative ways to sufficiently deal with threats. On top of all that awesome sauce, with at least some of these tools that focus on non lethal interaction, the player can still use them in lethal ways if they so choose! -And- the game has a ways to go where more interesting options are yet to come (Serums?).
Certainly dispersion balancing, improvements or tweaks in creature behavior indicators, or aggression hints could continue to be added or enhanced as well. It's early access, refinements like that will come. I personally like the cautious, pre-plan rewarding, creative tool based, sometimes tranquil but often danger tilted, style of the game. You are free to disagree, but the above are (perhaps) some things to consider and take into account when continuing to push for blatantly lethal options.
Yes and it's a fact not an opinion. I find it odd that's folks are saying it's a nonviolent game, and then when people point out the violence inherent in the game already they then say no one is saying it's a nonviolent game? Which is it?
But big guns will ruin the game's atmosphere. End of discussion.
Those folks you mention have been saying it again and again, but those advocating for lethal weapons are not listening or just conflating that phrase to mean it applies to the world and to yourself.
Here's a great way to sum it up : You do not play in a violent way - despite the world around you being very hazardous and dangerous.
And yes, I personally find this more interesting and engaging than simply just shooting things. (coming from an almost purely FPS background for ~30 years)
You can argue endlessly back and forth about how it suits the setting of the game, but what you're not understanding is the most important thing to the devs is to keep it AS non-violent as they can, and no matter how much you argue, comparatively this game is extremely peaceful relative to the other survival games on the market.
Sadly you're going to come back and poke holes about whatever you want, but the fact is violence is a factor in almost every game out there in some way shape or form, but the idea of a game that seeks to find a non-violent solution to a violent problem is something that can certainly be labeled as 'peaceful'. Look at Ghandi. UnknownWorlds is pretty much fucking Ghandi.
So anyone that says "The devs want a peaceful non-violent game so shut up!" is wrong?
So we're not allowed to kill to survive because it's "wrong" for some reason when humans do it?
Oh look it's this strawman again. Literally nobody is asking for "big guns".
You know this. Why do you insist on making a fool of yourself?
A simple harpoon gun would not "ruin the game's atmosphere".
Let's discuss this by breaking it down into a scenario of how acquiring and using the Harpoon gun would play out.
You find the Harpoon Gun blueprint in the Sparse Reef. Already you have to do some exploring and preparation to get there, and even more to find one of the fragments.
It has a simple recipe, 3 Titanium and 1 Silicone Rubber. Easy enough to get.
Then arming it with spears takes 2 Titanium for 1 Spear. So it's a little expensive to keep loaded, and the spears take up a 1x2 vertical space in the inventory, so you can't carry a ton of them.
So you make 3 spears, and a speargun, that's 9 Titanium and 2 Quartz for the silicone.
It's not cheap, but it's not game breakingly expensive.
So, because you're not a legit psychopath and don't want to go out and immediately murder the ocean, you keep it on you as you go exploring the Jelly Shroom Caves because there are Bone Sharks and Biterfish and Crabsnakes there.
You ride in your Seamoth through the entrance via the cave at the edge of the Kelp Forest and Red Plains. You head down deep into the darkness until your sub starts complaining about the pressure. So you embark into the creepy nightclub light of the Jelly Shroom Caves.
Immediately you hear the yelling of a Bone Shark as it spots the lights of your Seamoth. You ready your Speargun, but oh damn, you forgot to load it. You hit "R" to load the first spear, narrowly dodging the shark as it charges at you. You aim, and fire the spear at the shark, and it lodges in the bone shark's armored hide.
Congrats. Now it's pissed. The Bone Shark would then charge you relentlessly until it either killed you, or you hurt it enough to cause it to flee (Which would require your other two spears.)
So that was an intense 15 seconds. Time to look around the caves, finally.
And then you hear another bone shark.
Nobody's asking for Mobile Infantry's Mini-Nukes, geez... And since you're talking about sharks and they natural way to be assh*les, then what is a man, DEFENDING his life by killing (and thus reducing by one its whole population) a dangerous predator, if not a natural occurrence? --- We don't have claws, we don't have teeth, but we have brains and guns. Don't "denaturalize" what's natural.
You can argue endlessly back and forth about how it suits the setting of the game, but what you're not understanding is the most important thing to the devs is to keep it AS non-violent as they can, and no matter how much you argue, comparatively this game is extremely peaceful relative to the other survival games on the market.
Sadly you're going to come back and poke holes about whatever you want, but the fact is violence is a factor in almost every game out there in some way shape or form, but the idea of a game that seeks to find a non-violent solution to a violent problem is something that can certainly be labeled as 'peaceful'. Look at Ghandi. UnknownWorlds is pretty much **** Ghandi.
No it isn't. If there is violence in a game, then the game is violent. That's not an opinion it's a fact.
With you ghandi example, you're argument would flow as "ghandi did peaceful protest ergo the world in which he lived wasn't violent". Demonstrably wrong.
Yeah we just got biterfish and bone sharks and stalkers and sand sharks and shockers and bleeders and reaper leviathans and cave crawlers and spike plants and FUCKING CRASHES
You keep bringing up reality as if that is playing a large role in the design of this game, despite heat knives instantly cooking a fish, depth pressure not affecting your lungs outside of a ship, being able to surface without getting "the bends", not being able to communicate with your people for an extraction despite all this hardware you can construct, and a plethora of other unrealistic examples .... because it's a video game.
Reality does not fully dictate the design - so if you can accept that, why can't you accept that the intended design of non violent solutions to a hazardous environment is done not for the sake of realism, but rather for an intended type of gameplay, one in which the developers and others feel are much more engaging and interesting than "There's an obstacle / point & click to remove"?
I am excited about advanced creature behavior and AI that has been promised. I want to evade, trick, and work around my environment using tools. This sounds much more engaging than your typical FPS mechanics that have been done to death. It adds an element of stress to the game that would not otherwise be there, by constantly making you feel like the small fish.
Do you sincerely have an issue surviving in this world as is? If not, why would you advocate for something that clearly is not needed? (especially considering the changes that are intended on coming with improved behavior and interactions?)
Same reason anyone else makes suggestions for in-development games.
Because I think it'd be fun to play with.
Should you choose to use the harpoon, you'd have to manage your ammo count vs storage space, when to reload a spear when fighting a shark, when it would be best to fight a shark vs when it'd be better to just avoid it.
That'd be a fun and interesting mechanic.
Except I'm relating UnknownWorld's to Ghandi. Not your character in game. They are designing a game that uses non-violence as an answer to violence. That is the end of the comparison, and frankly it was more added as a joke. (While still applicable). Don't try to use logic to draw conclusions out of thin air. If you read the post you'd understand more clearly. Because I know you won't, the idea isn't that violence is non-existent.
It is to keep it as non-violent as possible as to not clash with the developers vision of what their game should be. While yes violence at it's truest definition exists in games like Mario or the like, no one in their right mind looks at these games and thinks 'Wow what a violent game" Once again.
1. Level of acceptable violence doesn't equate to no violence. Mario had an acceptable level of violence without becoming a game someone would consider overtly violent.
As usual you skip over the entire post (which was relevant to what you are disputing) to pick out the small parts you feel you can poke holes in. Like, you literally skipped a paragraph of very relevant information expanding on the thoughts I posted. This is why the argument goes nowhere.
If you can actually address all the points I made we can start having a real discussion.
I think overall I've done a fairly good job of making a neutral post about the opposing views towards having lethal weaponry in the game. I think it's also hilarious that Leon (Who seems to be adamant about his position) has glossed over or ignored both times I posted. I'de love to have a conversation with you about this topic. Maybe you can sway me, who knows? Ignoring perfectly decent reasoning gets you nowhere though.
That's why I'm more or less done with this type of discussion
I would just suggest not going blue in the face trying to advocate for something that the developers are pretty set on from what I can tell, as it may end up just being frustrating for you.
Thanks for discussing it
What if by choosing a GAME MODE, we'd actually be choosing our career onboard the ship? You choose the survival -- you're a scientist. REDNECK -- you're a marine, security contingent. If there ARE guns, you don't have to use it, if it suits you better to play hide and seek with the fauna. If you want to be a top notch predator in all situations, well, be it...
Well you can make a pretty good argument that as a species we are pretty much insane.
The Devs don’t even need to create it, they just need to give people a modding framework and it will be done for them.
As for the core game as the Auroras job was probably mostly scientific exploration, so it makes sense to have mainly non-lethal deterrents as it is rather hard to figure out how something works after you made it stop working. Though to be fair it also makes sense to carry a lethal backup weapon as a last resort and the predators in subnautica are far more aggressive than almost all real life predators. In general animals try to avoid fights as much as possible because every fight carries the risk of injuries and for animals most injuries are lethal. As for humans, the theory goes that we are so ridiculously aggressive by animal standards because we care for one another and even with primitive medicine can drastically increase our survival rate after injuries.
So I would suggest to lower the aggressiveness of the predators in general and implement a few more nonlethal deterrents (for inspiration see my post above). Oh and becoming more aggressive after being hit by the propulsion cannon does not make all that much sense, real life animals would run like hell if they had contact with something that can casually hurl them around. The only exceptions would be the reaper leviathans and the sea emperor who are so massive that they likely never had to fear anything but each other.
As for lethal weapons as I wrote a speargun would make sense and is even used as to biopsy animals with special spears (without killing them) but I don’t think it’s strictly necessary for the game. On the other hand it feels a bit inconsistent to not have a simple speargun but to have the Perimeter Defense System which is pretty darn effective at killing the sh*t out of things if a bit costly in energy.
'violent games' tend to be when things are there for no reason but to kill you, you know zombie army or space marines. Considering that you are in an alien eco-system where you only generally get attacked if you intrude on a predator's territory...yeah there is a bit of a difference. Unless you are going to say there is a conspiracy about sharks going after people intelligently, there is a difference between putting in an animal that acts like an animal and putting in an animal that has no purpose but to kill you. Considering I've seen stalkers go after things that are not me or metal to munch on, I think the end goal is the former not latter.
Also, news flash, pretty much all animals can kill you in RL too. Even your dog can probably kill you. Most animals are very violent under the right conditions and will attack you brutally if you don't respect the fact that they are not only probably stronger but better equipped to rip you apart. Humans are ONLY where we are because of our brains, nothing physically puts us above the rest of the animal kingdom. Even the strongest and most capable fighters would have very little chance of winning against most predators bare handed. So the long and short of it is, anything CAN kill you under the right circumstances.
So no it isn't false advertising. You can navigate any of the biomes with relative safety if you use your smarts and tools. Don't try to go swimming with reapers until you A) know where it is, B ) have a way to NOT be eaten (i.e. a sub nearby), and C) preferably have a way to drive it off. All of which you can do now in the new Seamoth update or could have done with the cyclops. But the number one rule of diving is....pay attention to your gear and your surroundings, otherwise you are a very dead corpse.
Actually no, it wouldn't make sense to bring weapons that might outright kill a predator even if you weren't a scientist (as you point out and I assume you aren't a scientist either
So loading up on offensive equipment might not be a good idea, as any terraforming process would work better to adapt our resources to the new environment rather then the reverse. Killing anything seen as threatening could be as disastrous as on our planet wiping out the bees. Bonesharks could have colonies of oxygen producing bacteria that feed off the remains of prey the boneshark swims through after attacking for all we know (or not, it's a game after all). But the assumption that lethal weapons would be taken into a new environment when you already have the ability to put something into stasis through a hand held device might be flawed.
Considering that humans will be humans, the best way to prevent anyone breaking the rules and doing something stupid with weapons (or even blueprints) would be not to bring them or any blueprints on them. Ideally the ship would have been intact enough that if lethal weapons were truly needed for the safety of the ship or the following colony ship, the blueprints could have been transmitted.
So literally every hostile creature in the game.