I used to say definitely no lethal weapons. Then I stopped being so selfish and decided that if people want to use lethal weapons in the game (if, of course they were made available) then let people use them. It doesn't force me to use them if I do not wish to.
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
So literally every hostile creature in the game.
Absolutely not true. Bonesharks and Sandsharks attack with a "warning bite" and then give up pursuit if you leave their territorial patrol zone quickly. Crash usually only attack after you fail to heed a clear warning call and move closer to their nest. How is that so dissimilar to what one can find in the wilds of our own planet among the diversity of creatures? Their isn't some vast interdependent ecosystem set up (not sure how advanced that will end up being yet either) but currently you can sit back and watch stalkers chasing peepers to eat as an early food chain example. You can also temporarily tame a stalker by feeding it peepers and see it playfully deliver metals to you. The farming brainstorm includes ideas for collecting an egg, hatching and raising a normally aggressive creature type from pup to adult, then releasing it into the ocean tamed. Imo you are generalizing too much on the issue and are also not taking in to account the early access stages we are in, where lots of behavior and dispersion tweaks and balances have yet to be implemented. This has lead to false characterizations of dev intentions or supposed lack of attention. As I already noted in an earlier post, we have a very good and growing variety of tools to thwart these aggressive creatures. Your refusal to equip yourself ahead of time and get creative in using them, is not the fault of game designers.
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
So literally every hostile creature in the game.
Really? The manatee like creature is there to kill you? Same as crashers? Far as I can tell those two only attack if you go near them, much like any animal will that isn't tamed. Much like stalkers when you try to take metal or get to close, but then again they will also go after peepers so I don't think it's personal.
Leonhard you are trying to argue everything so much you are now kinda starting to sound like an idiot. Not everything is exclusively hostile to you, and considering that stalkers will attack other things for food or territory you might see even bonesharks and reapers do the same. Considering the reaper is now in an area densely populated by bonesharks, that might be what the reaper ends up eating besides trying to eat you.
Yes there is hostile life in the ocean, same as in our ocean. But that doesn't make them overly violent or exclusivly intent on killing you. The fact that bonesharks and stalkers give up rather easily trying to bite you is proof of that.
Does not say "non-violent creatures" or non-violent world. If you read the steam page, there is also no trace of "false advertising" whatsoever, @04leonhardt.
Nature is wild, and to that extent, it is also violent at times. However, how many shootings have been blamed on watching nature documentaries? Watching an impala being run down by a cheetah is not the same as watching a gang member commit a drive-by. One is an act of nature, the other is an act of violence. You can not continue to pretend that you dont understand the difference between these two forms of violence.
Does not say "non-violent creatures" or non-violent world. If you read the steam page, there is also no trace of "false advertising" whatsoever, @04leonhardt.
Nature is wild, and to that extent, it is also violent at times. However, how many shootings have been blamed on watching nature documentaries? Watching an impala being run down by a cheetah is not the same as watching a gang member commit a drive-by. One is an act of nature, the other is an act of violence. You can not continue to pretend that you dont understand the difference between these two forms of violence.
So let's stop pretending the game is non-violent, yeah?
I don't know if lethal weapons should or should not be added. I mean I want something that can defend myself from the bigger stuff (the reapers) but then again if you add lethal weapons it kinda takes away that whole ( I mean weapons like machine guns, torpedo's and stuff along those lines), OH CRAP IM GONNA GET EATEN!, feeling. But if they add lethal weapons that are simple (I could see a spear being added and a spear can also be used to catch food so it would be a very useful thing to have) I don't think that would change the game play. But so far playing the game I think the non lethal stuff is fine.
So let's stop pretending the game is non-violent, yeah?
I think you're the only one pretending that at this point..
2cough even pointed out your erroneous conflation again, repeated what I already pointed out in regards to there being no mistaking what SN is.. and yet you continue with asserting that there's this promise of it being a non-violent game entirely.
At this point, you're the only one stating this as applying to the whole game.
Not the steam store
Not the journalistic coverage
Not the youtube users
Not the forums
Not the developers
Just you.
At least you made more sense when you simply stated "Because I think it'd be fun" to have violent weapons..
So let's stop pretending the game is non-violent, yeah?
I think you're the only one pretending that at this point..
2cough even pointed out your erroneous conflation again, repeated what I already pointed out in regards to there being no mistaking what SN is.. and yet you continue with asserting that there's this promise of it being a non-violent game entirely.
At this point, you're the only one stating this as applying to the whole game.
Not the steam store
Not the journalistic coverage
Not the youtube users
Not the forums
Not the developers
Just you.
Well, other than Flayra saying it...oh and people in this thread...
Here is what I would personally like to see if they were to go the 'more weapons' route (Not saying they are or should, just saying if they do):
Weapons that are satisfying to use but aren't immensely deadly. At no point would I like to feel as if I have a godlike reign over the ocean and its alien inhabitants, this would remove a large amount of enjoyment for me. Instead I would prefer that every battle with a sea beastie be hard won, with me barely escaping with my butt and the attacking creature simply being repelled (and in extreme, very rare 'omg I somehow did it' cases, killed). To me a survival game means you should have places that are safer but never safe. I want to be worried. If I'm not even slightly worried that means I'm no longer surviving. I'm living. At this point my character might as well stop adventuring and become a couch potato. Without risks rewards don't feel like rewards. Similarly I don't want to feel completely defenseless. Some games are meant to be a constant 'Holy crap I'm gunna die!!' but that's not the sort I'd put Subnautica down as.
For me the weapons in Subnautica (should there be a wider variety implemented) should feel like they are meant to stave off deadly predators, not hunt them down. I would like to see more powerful ammunition treated like immensely precious resources, or that the firing of stronger weapons have consequences of varying severity (eg. Immense power drain, damaging recoil, overheating, etc and all such negatives based on strength). That means the better the damage output the greater the costs, be it to resources, hull integrity, weapon health, whatever seems reasonable.
You see, if I've just encountered an aggressive, very dangerous creature I want my mind to whir at a million miles a minute while I try to think of all the ways I can escape, evade, or deter the creature. Firing major weapons should be a near-to-last resort and a choice I can't and won't make lightly. As people have said before me, Subnautica does not appear to be a game about bending an alien wilderness to your whims. So far it is about exploring, struggling to survive, and trying to understand the world around you.
And on the note of understanding think about this, you play as a character suddenly dropped into an alien ocean they know nothing about. As you progress you learn some creatures are aggressive, some are defensive, and some are territorial. You slowly begin to understand which animals are predators and which animals are prey. Aha! That means there are ecosystems! So if you go around killing all the apex predators, what happens to these ecosystems? What if your wanton destruction leads to events that make the environments more dangerous and inhospitable? Suddenly the population growth of prey animals sky rockets and all vegetation is laid to waste, devoured by the hungry mouths of populations left unchecked. You try to cull them off but you are only one person and these prey species have evolved to produce many offspring and frequently. You have inadvertently doomed yourself and perhaps an entire planet with your actions...
With this in mind, at least from a plot standpoint, it wouldn't make sense for you as a survivor to make a choice with such unknowable consequences. Yes, killing all that would or has attacked you will make you safer in the short term-- but what if it completely cripples your chances of long-term survival?
But anyway, that's just my take on things. I'm delighted to play Subnautica and watch as it grows. I guess what I was trying to say-- in a long round about way--is that so far from what I've seen Subnautica has the potential to be peaceful or violent. I don't think the devs have decided to make it 100% one or the other, and I would personally like it stay a bit of both, but that's just me.
So let's stop pretending the game is non-violent, yeah?
I think you're the only one pretending that at this point..
2cough even pointed out your erroneous conflation again, repeated what I already pointed out in regards to there being no mistaking what SN is.. and yet you continue with asserting that there's this promise of it being a non-violent game entirely.
At this point, you're the only one stating this as applying to the whole game.
Not the steam store
Not the journalistic coverage
Not the youtube users
Not the forums
Not the developers
Just you.
At least you made more sense when you simply stated "Because I think it'd be fun" to have violent weapons..
Show me the comment where I "pretend" that the game is nonviolent.
Honestly it seems like you people are just so desperate to prove me wrong that you'll spew out words that make no sense in hopes that you'll "get" me this time.
You know I'm right. The game is nowhere near the "nonviolent, peaceful game" that people constantly claim that it is.
So let's stop pretending the game is non-violent, yeah?
At least you made more sense when you simply stated "Because I think it'd be fun" to have violent weapons..
Ehm... what is a VIOLENT weapon? A smart-rifle maybe? I don't know... And that thing with subnautica being non-violent... meh... LOL, literally EVERYONE here who's opposing the idea of 100-percently-lethal weapons has stated that bullsh*t at least once or twice -- so who's pretending here? Like really?
Like somebody here already said, for cry out loud, if you don't want to kill that damn stalker, OK, don't do it, but don't force others to make same choices YOU DO. If anyone else wants a gun, then let him/her have it, nobody's forcing you to have OR use it yourself.
BUT, if the devs are gonna say NO RIFLES, NO GUNS, then I'm gonna be like OK, it's not MY GAME, in the end, right? I can still play some random FPS sh*t out there. But then again, granted you're asking for my GENERAL OPINION:
In its current phase, the game is really beautiful, I mean the idea of non lethal weapons like the torpedoes and this electric selfdefense, yesterday I tested these two weapons on a reaper, I missed with the torpedoes but with my electric I just had the upperhand against the reaper, he had my seamoth in his mouth, I activated my self defense, the reaper let me go and he fled before me, I just followed him, he was just near me and I gave him another shock from far and he fled again. The only lethal weapon I know is the knife and I just need it to get resources and I cant kill any sharks like the stalker with it, I dunno why I cant kill stalker or sandsharks but It does not work for me except for all the little fishes in the game. I don't need to kill any of these little guys because I don't play survival or hardcore. I feel good only with Free- and Creative-mode.
BUT, if the devs are gonna say NO RIFLES, NO GUNS, then I'm gonna be like OK, it's not MY GAME, in the end, right? I can still play some random FPS sh*t out there. But then again, granted you're asking for my GENERAL OPINION:
SUBNAUTICA SHOULD HAVE LETHAL WEAPONS.
And here we have the issue in a nutshell folks.
If you want lethal weaponry, that's perfectly fine. If you don't, that's also fine. The fact is though, all evidence points to weapons as a low priority / low chance of actually being implemented, and I think EVERYONE needs to realize that. This argument has come to the point where I come onto this thread for a good laugh. I mean really.
As Agent says, "It's not his game" Therefore, enjoy it in what way you can, and let the devs do their work.
This argument (/brawl) has been going on for more than a half year I think, and it's honestly just amusing to me at this point.
It's simply false advertising. It is literally NOT a "Non violent" game if almost everything can kill you.
You, and others like @Zundy Keep conflating Flayra's comment about it being a nonviolent game as to mean the entire game, environment, and creatures in it are nonviolent as well.
That's clearly not what he was attempting to convey in a tweet, as its present literally everywhere else that you find information about SN.
Yet you and others use this as a strawman to prop up and attack to advocate for a design decision that the developers clearly aren't interested in.
This has been pointed out to you by myself and others multiple times now, yet you and others just keep using it as justification for violent solutions.
So yes, please, let's move on from that confusion so many seem to have fallen into, and instead provide an argument that makes more sense : like how you simply enjoy violent solutions to problems more, and therefore are not satisfied with the design direction.
@Agent-48 A violent weapon or solution is one which you harm or kill a creature effectively in order to resolve the conflict, instead of utilizing other tools or strategies at your disposal.
I doubt UWE is interested in changing this approach as it has been a large pillar of design from the beginning, and they still are following it today. (vortex torpedos and electric defense)
But by all means, express your discontent with it by providing an argument that makes sense, like how it is easier for those who find the game difficult to play as is etc.
Really? The manatee like creature is there to kill you? Same as crashers?
The Gasopod and the Crash are defensive creatures.
Not openly hostile.
I want to stop arguing but you people keep saying the stupidest things.
Considering that you equate 'survival horror' as a brand of non-violent game....I don't think you know what hostile means or even how to construct a logical place to spring your arguments from. Yes the crashers are openly hostile, they purposefully attack if you provoke or go near them. The gasopod maybe could be argued as non-hostile as it just spews gas but isn't chasing you down to gas you to death, but will still kill you if you stay near it (this is considered a HOSTILE response). Peepers would be non-hostile since they openly run away from you. Do you see how hostile works in context now?
That said there is no need for weapons since the game pretty much has it covered. Harpoon gun? What function would it add, not that it would be cool or 'interesting' but what function? You shoot something to remove the threat with a harpoon gun right? Well that is what the stasis rifle does, literally removing a threat...just without killing it. Then there is the hunting aspect, you shoot something with a harpoon gun and kill it before swimming over to collect it right? You do the same thing with the stasis rifle, only now you can kill it, cook it (with the appropriate knife), or keep it alive to eat later in an aquarium. So if anything a harpoon gun would give you LESS options in playing the game, not to mention that the rifle can be used with infinite charges...where you probably would have to use resources and take up precious inventory space to make the spears.
In short the 'we just want a simple harpoon gun' argument is silly because we already HAVE a harpoon gun, it's just a high tech and non-violent version. One that would (hopefully) let us swim up and pluck a tooth from a stalker, take it's DNA, slap a 'protect my base' module on it's back (future option maybe), and send it on it's merry way. In short, it's a harpoon gun that gives you THREE TIMES the options of a regular harpoon gun...so putting in a harpoon gun would not only be redundant but against the design philosophy, be less useful, and completely unnecessary. Did I also mention that the stasis rifle would shoot faster then the harpoon gun if it were to have any sort of authenticity as a 'simple harpoon gun'?
So that is the harpoon gun covered, what other weapon does the game need? Torpedoes? Covered (and you yourself pointed out they work on reapers). Active defense for subs? It's in. A way to kill a threat? I believe the stasis + knife combo has been pointed out a few times. So...what does that leave? If you want weapons, it would have to cover something that isn't handled already. So what would that be?
if you add lethal weapons it kinda takes away that whole ( I mean weapons like machine guns, torpedo's and stuff along those lines)
Literally nobody is asking for machine guns. You guys embarrass yourselves every time you use this strawman.
How am I embarrassing myself? I've seen people put up suggestions for sniper rifles, SMGs etc... But you missed my point, do we want Subnautica to become a game where you can go around and kill every little thing or do we want it to a game where we are always struggling to survive?
Clearly you have 0 reading comprehension and critical thinking skills, so at this point you've got to be trolling. Know when to hold 'em, know when to fold em.
In short the 'we just want a simple harpoon gun' argument is silly because we already HAVE a harpoon gun, it's just a high tech and non-violent version. One that would (hopefully) let us swim up and pluck a tooth from a stalker, take it's DNA, slap a 'protect my base' module on it's back (future option maybe), and send it on it's merry way. In short, it's a harpoon gun that gives you THREE TIMES the options of a regular harpoon gun...so putting in a harpoon gun would not only be redundant but against the design philosophy, be less useful, and completely unnecessary. Did I also mention that the stasis rifle would shoot faster then the harpoon gun if it were to have any sort of authenticity as a 'simple harpoon gun'?
You've made your point and I take it, I agree. Finally something COHERENT from the "no-lethal-weapons" side of the barricade. #ThumbUp
Let's live a sad future, where you have to stun your threat before you can stab it multiple times like a psychopath hahahaha... geez maybe I'm just to much of an Aliens's fan... maybe writing military SF changed me, maybe not every game has to have pulse rifles in it...
AND, in case DEVS ARE READING THIS. KUTGW, guys, even though I'm kind of an a$$h*le, I like and very much appreciate your work on SN. It put's you "out there", you know, and it's awesome in that aspect, even though I can blast sh*t out of the damn fish... haha...
how about just add protective suits, stealth suits, and why not...my idea of a belt capable of projecting a stasis field around you?...
Anyway to all the people saying that as soon as lethal weapons are added to the game we would go around killing and destroying everything...it's getting old, and the more you say it won't make it less absurd.
By the way the main character isn't a scientist...it's a survivor from a crash landing...a survivor...
You, and others like @Zundy Keep conflating Flayra's comment about it being a nonviolent game as to mean the entire game, environment, and creatures in it are nonviolent as well.
Factually incorrect. I keep "conflating" the arguments of everyone in this thread that keeps pretending the game is nonviolent as an argument against the inclusion of something like a speargun.
If you agree that the game is nonviolent, then why are you arguing with me?
Clearly you have 0 reading comprehension and critical thinking skills, so at this point you've got to be trolling. Know when to hold 'em, know when to fold em.
"OMG u disagree with me still u must be trolling!"
Was wondering when this would show up. Nope, sorry, just because I keep destroying your hilariously stupid arguments doesn't mean I'm trolling. But nice try.
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.
Instead of trying to maintain an unproductive defensive posture by consistently "destroying stupid arguments" why don't you actually make a decent one yourself? One that's based on gameplay and design instead of an appeal to real life.
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.
Instead of trying to maintain an unproductive defensive posture by consistently "destroying stupid arguments" why don't you actually make a decent one yourself? One that's based on gameplay and design instead of an appeal to real life.
We have to get past, and agree to ignore the stupid arguments before we can actually discuss things seriously.
If I make an argument for a speargun, or a base mounted harpoon, all I'll get is "OMG THE GAME IS NONVIOLENT U JUST WANT TO GO OUT AND MURDER EVERYTHING JUST GO PLAY CALL OF DUTY" by the same people you keep pretending don't exist.
A discussion where this flagrant idiocy is not immediately condemned by all parties is not one I want to take part in.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
edited September 2015
Yes I get it, but responding in an equally aggressive or upset manner is not conducive to a discussion.
And doing that exclusively is just derailing what could have been a good (albeit biased) discussion otherwise.
So state your argument.
I'm sincerely curious what it brings to the table, and whether it's something that's actually needed to achieve fun gameplay.
I've been playing Alien Isolation these past few weeks off and on, and have been thoroughly enjoying the immersion and the anxiety - until last night when I acquired the flamethrower.. now half of the tension has been removed and it's really bumming me out how easy it is and how different the game is because of it.
04LeonhardtI came here to laugh at youJoin Date: 2015-08-01Member: 206618Members
edited September 2015
I'll break it down into a hypothetical scenario, like I did before.
1. Finding the Fragments
The Speargun fragment would be found aboard the Aurora. Originally I thought the Sparse Reef, but decided the Aurora would make for better narrative potential. Make it look as though other survivors tried to fight but were overrun by cave crawlers. Broken spears could be seen next to dead Cave Crawlers, or sticking out of Reaper Leviathans near the Aurora.
2. Crafting Cost
Provided you survive the trials of the Aurora wreckage and don't get eaten on your way out, you take the fragment back to your base and analyze it. Once you unlock the blueprint, you can craft spearguns and spears at the Fabricator. The Speargun would take 3x Titanium, and 2x Silicone Rubber. Not too expensive. What becomes pricey about it would be the Spears, each spear costing 2 Titanium, since the Spear would take up 2 slots in the inventory (Arranged vertically). So, say you make a Speargun, and 3 Spears. That's 9x Titanium spent already, plus the 4 quartz for the Silicone. A bit hefty, but hey, you pay for quality.
3. Potential Usage
Now you might be thinking "Yeah, I'm a big man now, got me a pointy stick, time to get me some dinner!" and then the ocean would be all like "You wanna go, chump?" so you gear up for an expedition down to the Jelly Shroom Caves. Hop in your Seamoth and cruise on out to the big cave entrance between the Kelp Forest and the Red Plains.
You dive down till your 'Moth complains about the pressure, and hop out into that surreal 80's strip club lighting. You swim down for a bit, whacking away at biterfish with your knife because there's so damn many of them, and eventually make it down next to the Jelly Shrooms for cover, and so you can start gathering Lithium to reinforce your new base expansion.
Then you hear a Bone Shark yelling, turning around just in time to narrowly avoid it. Bone sharks won't go down from a few knife swings, especially when they're already trying to eat your face. So you whip out your spear gun, and load a spear, narrowly avoiding another bite while doing so because you're a badass. You whip around, and shoot the spear into the armored hide of the Bone Shark.
Ok now it's pissed. It'll start swimming faster and turning tighter in its attempts to devour your head. So you get chomped on a bit, but manage to hide inside one of the Jelly Shrooms, allowing you to reload a spear. You swim up a bit, once again avoiding the Bone Shark's jaw as you peek your head out. It swims a distance away, and turns around to charge you again, allowing you to sink another spear into its leathery body. It roars once again, and turns to flee, swimming off into the purple dark.
Then you hear another bone shark.
4. Objective Breakdown
The point of the Speargun is to give the player a ranged method of defending themselves and scaring off or eliminating troublesome creatures, fulfilling the same role as the Seamoth's electrical defense.
In the Scenario described above, the Bone Shark took two tags with the speargun before it ran away, taking two of the 3 spears the player had crafted. So resource management plays a heavy part in speargun use. Do you unload your spears into that Bone Shark, or do you save them for when you face off against a Crabsnake, or a Reaper?
This also opens up additional tool opportunities in the form of Upgrades for the Speargun, as well as individual spears.
For Example, combining a Wiring Kit with two Spears at the Workstation makes two "Tracking Spears" which emit a signal similar to a beacon, that does no damage, but can be attached to creatures to keep track of them. Never let that Reaper surprise you again.
Combining the Speargun with a Dive Reel makes a "Grappling Hook", which can be used to move around quickly by anchoring to nearby terrain, attach to large creatures to pull the player along, or capture smaller fish from a distance.
Combine a spear with 3x Creepvine pieces to make a "Net Bolt", which ensnares Rabbitray to Gasopod-sized creatures for capture and study.
Combine a Spear with a Flare to make a Flare Spear. You get the idea.
These are just a few applications I came up with on the spot.
I'm not asking for something that I can "Go out and murder the whole ocean with!"
I don't believe anyone with a serious suggestion is.
I have loved subnautica since it first came out and have enjoyed playing ever since I bought it. The games take on scientific survival is absolutely amazing, and I think that this is what the community is largely forgetting...you are a scientist. Your job is to coexist with the environment, not to destroy every living thing that looks like it could devour you. All of the people asking for combat ships and torpedoes that explode, obliterating reapers, I feel as if you don't understand what exactly the point of this game is. Yes, it is in its early stages but the idea is to grow to live with the creatures not without them. You should always have the fear that something is going to eat you in the back of your mind because that's how nature works. To coin a phrase "there's always a bigger fish" and in this game you are not that bigger fish. So think about what this game truly is and think about how to avoid/out-smart the big creatures. Not destroy them.
Tl;Dr : This is a scientific survival game, NOT a under the sea shooting gallery.
You are largely Forgetting that the most of these people who are asking for Combat ships and Torpedoes want it to go with Multiplayer once its made. So they can have warfare Underwater with Friends. I get the point of wanting to kill a Reaper for the point of it killing you and making you going back to the spawn but they also want it for Multiplayer.
Just a thought.
Edit: Also keep in mind that you crash landed on the Planet. You were sent out to colonize other worlds not to study the Creatures.
Leon, why not JUST have the creepvine net ? That is a fantastic idea and honestly sums up the non lethal people's argument quite nicely barring biased trolls xP
Hello everyone!
This is just my opinion, you are welcome to agree/disagree with it, its up to you.
I think that in Subnautica we should have lethal weapons but to a certain degree. I think we should get a Spear/Spear gun maybe a bow but nothing like torpedoes with actual war heads. I could see simple weapons being implemented and being very useful but weapons like rifles or torpedoes I think are not as useful as what we have or are just not needed. I mean think about it, under water rifles exist but are limited severely by stopping power and range so if they were added they wouldn't be as useful as the stasis rifle which would have a longer range and stops whatever you shot in 1 hit. Torpedoes used on modern day subs and ships are bigger than what we have in game and they are limited to the size of a target ( it has to be able to be spotted by sonar ) and with the games small render distance you would damage your own ship if you had straight firing torpedoes and they detonated on impact with the seabed, or whatever you hit. I think we should get a electronic defense grid for the Cyclops that would have a bigger range and make the critters run for longer. Harpoons are hard for me to decide on, to me harpoons are meant to attach to whatever you shot and drag it back to you, so I don't know if they should or shouldn't be added. Right now we don't need more weapons because the only real danger is the Reapers. Bone Sharks, Biter Fish, Sand Sharks, Stalkers can all be stopped by the Stasis rifle really easy while the Reapers hard very hard to stop, they are rare and as long as you have the Electronic Defense System on your Seamoth you will be fine.
So ya lethal weapons should be added but nothing to overkill, the devs should add more lethal and non-lethal weapons, but they need to think about what is really needed in the game and what will stray from the game play.
I have merged your thread with this one which is already discussing the same topic -Ironhorse
Comments
Absolutely not true. Bonesharks and Sandsharks attack with a "warning bite" and then give up pursuit if you leave their territorial patrol zone quickly. Crash usually only attack after you fail to heed a clear warning call and move closer to their nest. How is that so dissimilar to what one can find in the wilds of our own planet among the diversity of creatures? Their isn't some vast interdependent ecosystem set up (not sure how advanced that will end up being yet either) but currently you can sit back and watch stalkers chasing peepers to eat as an early food chain example. You can also temporarily tame a stalker by feeding it peepers and see it playfully deliver metals to you. The farming brainstorm includes ideas for collecting an egg, hatching and raising a normally aggressive creature type from pup to adult, then releasing it into the ocean tamed. Imo you are generalizing too much on the issue and are also not taking in to account the early access stages we are in, where lots of behavior and dispersion tweaks and balances have yet to be implemented. This has lead to false characterizations of dev intentions or supposed lack of attention. As I already noted in an earlier post, we have a very good and growing variety of tools to thwart these aggressive creatures. Your refusal to equip yourself ahead of time and get creative in using them, is not the fault of game designers.
Really? The manatee like creature is there to kill you? Same as crashers? Far as I can tell those two only attack if you go near them, much like any animal will that isn't tamed. Much like stalkers when you try to take metal or get to close, but then again they will also go after peepers so I don't think it's personal.
Leonhard you are trying to argue everything so much you are now kinda starting to sound like an idiot. Not everything is exclusively hostile to you, and considering that stalkers will attack other things for food or territory you might see even bonesharks and reapers do the same. Considering the reaper is now in an area densely populated by bonesharks, that might be what the reaper ends up eating besides trying to eat you.
Yes there is hostile life in the ocean, same as in our ocean. But that doesn't make them overly violent or exclusivly intent on killing you. The fact that bonesharks and stalkers give up rather easily trying to bite you is proof of that.
"Non-violent creature interactions"
Does not say "non-violent creatures" or non-violent world. If you read the steam page, there is also no trace of "false advertising" whatsoever, @04leonhardt.
Nature is wild, and to that extent, it is also violent at times. However, how many shootings have been blamed on watching nature documentaries? Watching an impala being run down by a cheetah is not the same as watching a gang member commit a drive-by. One is an act of nature, the other is an act of violence. You can not continue to pretend that you dont understand the difference between these two forms of violence.
So let's stop pretending the game is non-violent, yeah?
The Gasopod and the Crash are defensive creatures.
Not openly hostile.
I want to stop arguing but you people keep saying the stupidest things.
2cough even pointed out your erroneous conflation again, repeated what I already pointed out in regards to there being no mistaking what SN is.. and yet you continue with asserting that there's this promise of it being a non-violent game entirely.
At this point, you're the only one stating this as applying to the whole game.
Not the steam store
Not the journalistic coverage
Not the youtube users
Not the forums
Not the developers
Just you.
At least you made more sense when you simply stated "Because I think it'd be fun" to have violent weapons..
Well, other than Flayra saying it...oh and people in this thread...
Weapons that are satisfying to use but aren't immensely deadly. At no point would I like to feel as if I have a godlike reign over the ocean and its alien inhabitants, this would remove a large amount of enjoyment for me. Instead I would prefer that every battle with a sea beastie be hard won, with me barely escaping with my butt and the attacking creature simply being repelled (and in extreme, very rare 'omg I somehow did it' cases, killed). To me a survival game means you should have places that are safer but never safe. I want to be worried. If I'm not even slightly worried that means I'm no longer surviving. I'm living. At this point my character might as well stop adventuring and become a couch potato. Without risks rewards don't feel like rewards. Similarly I don't want to feel completely defenseless. Some games are meant to be a constant 'Holy crap I'm gunna die!!' but that's not the sort I'd put Subnautica down as.
For me the weapons in Subnautica (should there be a wider variety implemented) should feel like they are meant to stave off deadly predators, not hunt them down. I would like to see more powerful ammunition treated like immensely precious resources, or that the firing of stronger weapons have consequences of varying severity (eg. Immense power drain, damaging recoil, overheating, etc and all such negatives based on strength). That means the better the damage output the greater the costs, be it to resources, hull integrity, weapon health, whatever seems reasonable.
You see, if I've just encountered an aggressive, very dangerous creature I want my mind to whir at a million miles a minute while I try to think of all the ways I can escape, evade, or deter the creature. Firing major weapons should be a near-to-last resort and a choice I can't and won't make lightly. As people have said before me, Subnautica does not appear to be a game about bending an alien wilderness to your whims. So far it is about exploring, struggling to survive, and trying to understand the world around you.
And on the note of understanding think about this, you play as a character suddenly dropped into an alien ocean they know nothing about. As you progress you learn some creatures are aggressive, some are defensive, and some are territorial. You slowly begin to understand which animals are predators and which animals are prey. Aha! That means there are ecosystems! So if you go around killing all the apex predators, what happens to these ecosystems? What if your wanton destruction leads to events that make the environments more dangerous and inhospitable? Suddenly the population growth of prey animals sky rockets and all vegetation is laid to waste, devoured by the hungry mouths of populations left unchecked. You try to cull them off but you are only one person and these prey species have evolved to produce many offspring and frequently. You have inadvertently doomed yourself and perhaps an entire planet with your actions...
With this in mind, at least from a plot standpoint, it wouldn't make sense for you as a survivor to make a choice with such unknowable consequences. Yes, killing all that would or has attacked you will make you safer in the short term-- but what if it completely cripples your chances of long-term survival?
But anyway, that's just my take on things.
Show me the comment where I "pretend" that the game is nonviolent.
Honestly it seems like you people are just so desperate to prove me wrong that you'll spew out words that make no sense in hopes that you'll "get" me this time.
You know I'm right. The game is nowhere near the "nonviolent, peaceful game" that people constantly claim that it is.
Can we stop pretending now?
Ehm... what is a VIOLENT weapon?
Like somebody here already said, for cry out loud, if you don't want to kill that damn stalker, OK, don't do it, but don't force others to make same choices YOU DO. If anyone else wants a gun, then let him/her have it, nobody's forcing you to have OR use it yourself.
BUT, if the devs are gonna say NO RIFLES, NO GUNS, then I'm gonna be like OK, it's not MY GAME, in the end, right? I can still play some random FPS sh*t out there. But then again, granted you're asking for my GENERAL OPINION:
SUBNAUTICA SHOULD HAVE LETHAL WEAPONS.
And here we have the issue in a nutshell folks.
If you want lethal weaponry, that's perfectly fine. If you don't, that's also fine. The fact is though, all evidence points to weapons as a low priority / low chance of actually being implemented, and I think EVERYONE needs to realize that. This argument has come to the point where I come onto this thread for a good laugh. I mean really.
As Agent says, "It's not his game" Therefore, enjoy it in what way you can, and let the devs do their work.
This argument (/brawl) has been going on for more than a half year I think, and it's honestly just amusing to me at this point.
That's clearly not what he was attempting to convey in a tweet, as its present literally everywhere else that you find information about SN.
Yet you and others use this as a strawman to prop up and attack to advocate for a design decision that the developers clearly aren't interested in.
This has been pointed out to you by myself and others multiple times now, yet you and others just keep using it as justification for violent solutions.
So yes, please, let's move on from that confusion so many seem to have fallen into, and instead provide an argument that makes more sense : like how you simply enjoy violent solutions to problems more, and therefore are not satisfied with the design direction.
@Agent-48 A violent weapon or solution is one which you harm or kill a creature effectively in order to resolve the conflict, instead of utilizing other tools or strategies at your disposal.
I doubt UWE is interested in changing this approach as it has been a large pillar of design from the beginning, and they still are following it today. (vortex torpedos and electric defense)
But by all means, express your discontent with it by providing an argument that makes sense, like how it is easier for those who find the game difficult to play as is etc.
Considering that you equate 'survival horror' as a brand of non-violent game....I don't think you know what hostile means or even how to construct a logical place to spring your arguments from. Yes the crashers are openly hostile, they purposefully attack if you provoke or go near them. The gasopod maybe could be argued as non-hostile as it just spews gas but isn't chasing you down to gas you to death, but will still kill you if you stay near it (this is considered a HOSTILE response). Peepers would be non-hostile since they openly run away from you. Do you see how hostile works in context now?
That said there is no need for weapons since the game pretty much has it covered. Harpoon gun? What function would it add, not that it would be cool or 'interesting' but what function? You shoot something to remove the threat with a harpoon gun right? Well that is what the stasis rifle does, literally removing a threat...just without killing it. Then there is the hunting aspect, you shoot something with a harpoon gun and kill it before swimming over to collect it right? You do the same thing with the stasis rifle, only now you can kill it, cook it (with the appropriate knife), or keep it alive to eat later in an aquarium. So if anything a harpoon gun would give you LESS options in playing the game, not to mention that the rifle can be used with infinite charges...where you probably would have to use resources and take up precious inventory space to make the spears.
In short the 'we just want a simple harpoon gun' argument is silly because we already HAVE a harpoon gun, it's just a high tech and non-violent version. One that would (hopefully) let us swim up and pluck a tooth from a stalker, take it's DNA, slap a 'protect my base' module on it's back (future option maybe), and send it on it's merry way. In short, it's a harpoon gun that gives you THREE TIMES the options of a regular harpoon gun...so putting in a harpoon gun would not only be redundant but against the design philosophy, be less useful, and completely unnecessary. Did I also mention that the stasis rifle would shoot faster then the harpoon gun if it were to have any sort of authenticity as a 'simple harpoon gun'?
So that is the harpoon gun covered, what other weapon does the game need? Torpedoes? Covered (and you yourself pointed out they work on reapers). Active defense for subs? It's in. A way to kill a threat? I believe the stasis + knife combo has been pointed out a few times. So...what does that leave? If you want weapons, it would have to cover something that isn't handled already. So what would that be?
How am I embarrassing myself? I've seen people put up suggestions for sniper rifles, SMGs etc... But you missed my point, do we want Subnautica to become a game where you can go around and kill every little thing or do we want it to a game where we are always struggling to survive?
There you go, fixed that for you.
Clearly you have 0 reading comprehension and critical thinking skills, so at this point you've got to be trolling. Know when to hold 'em, know when to fold em.
Fold em.
You've made your point and I take it, I agree. Finally something COHERENT from the "no-lethal-weapons" side of the barricade. #ThumbUp
Let's live a sad future, where you have to stun your threat before you can stab it multiple times like a psychopath hahahaha... geez maybe I'm just to much of an Aliens's fan... maybe writing military SF changed me, maybe not every game has to have pulse rifles in it...
AND, in case DEVS ARE READING THIS. KUTGW, guys, even though I'm kind of an a$$h*le, I like and very much appreciate your work on SN. It put's you "out there", you know, and it's awesome in that aspect, even though I can blast sh*t out of the damn fish... haha...
Anyway to all the people saying that as soon as lethal weapons are added to the game we would go around killing and destroying everything...it's getting old, and the more you say it won't make it less absurd.
By the way the main character isn't a scientist...it's a survivor from a crash landing...a survivor...
Factually incorrect. I keep "conflating" the arguments of everyone in this thread that keeps pretending the game is nonviolent as an argument against the inclusion of something like a speargun.
If you agree that the game is nonviolent, then why are you arguing with me?
Answered your own question.
"OMG u disagree with me still u must be trolling!"
Was wondering when this would show up. Nope, sorry, just because I keep destroying your hilariously stupid arguments doesn't mean I'm trolling. But nice try.
Instead of trying to maintain an unproductive defensive posture by consistently "destroying stupid arguments" why don't you actually make a decent one yourself? One that's based on gameplay and design instead of an appeal to real life.
We have to get past, and agree to ignore the stupid arguments before we can actually discuss things seriously.
If I make an argument for a speargun, or a base mounted harpoon, all I'll get is "OMG THE GAME IS NONVIOLENT U JUST WANT TO GO OUT AND MURDER EVERYTHING JUST GO PLAY CALL OF DUTY" by the same people you keep pretending don't exist.
A discussion where this flagrant idiocy is not immediately condemned by all parties is not one I want to take part in.
And doing that exclusively is just derailing what could have been a good (albeit biased) discussion otherwise.
So state your argument.
I'm sincerely curious what it brings to the table, and whether it's something that's actually needed to achieve fun gameplay.
I've been playing Alien Isolation these past few weeks off and on, and have been thoroughly enjoying the immersion and the anxiety - until last night when I acquired the flamethrower.. now half of the tension has been removed and it's really bumming me out how easy it is and how different the game is because of it.
1. Finding the Fragments
The Speargun fragment would be found aboard the Aurora. Originally I thought the Sparse Reef, but decided the Aurora would make for better narrative potential. Make it look as though other survivors tried to fight but were overrun by cave crawlers. Broken spears could be seen next to dead Cave Crawlers, or sticking out of Reaper Leviathans near the Aurora.
2. Crafting Cost
Provided you survive the trials of the Aurora wreckage and don't get eaten on your way out, you take the fragment back to your base and analyze it. Once you unlock the blueprint, you can craft spearguns and spears at the Fabricator. The Speargun would take 3x Titanium, and 2x Silicone Rubber. Not too expensive. What becomes pricey about it would be the Spears, each spear costing 2 Titanium, since the Spear would take up 2 slots in the inventory (Arranged vertically). So, say you make a Speargun, and 3 Spears. That's 9x Titanium spent already, plus the 4 quartz for the Silicone. A bit hefty, but hey, you pay for quality.
3. Potential Usage
Now you might be thinking "Yeah, I'm a big man now, got me a pointy stick, time to get me some dinner!" and then the ocean would be all like "You wanna go, chump?" so you gear up for an expedition down to the Jelly Shroom Caves. Hop in your Seamoth and cruise on out to the big cave entrance between the Kelp Forest and the Red Plains.
You dive down till your 'Moth complains about the pressure, and hop out into that surreal 80's strip club lighting. You swim down for a bit, whacking away at biterfish with your knife because there's so damn many of them, and eventually make it down next to the Jelly Shrooms for cover, and so you can start gathering Lithium to reinforce your new base expansion.
Then you hear a Bone Shark yelling, turning around just in time to narrowly avoid it. Bone sharks won't go down from a few knife swings, especially when they're already trying to eat your face. So you whip out your spear gun, and load a spear, narrowly avoiding another bite while doing so because you're a badass. You whip around, and shoot the spear into the armored hide of the Bone Shark.
Ok now it's pissed. It'll start swimming faster and turning tighter in its attempts to devour your head. So you get chomped on a bit, but manage to hide inside one of the Jelly Shrooms, allowing you to reload a spear. You swim up a bit, once again avoiding the Bone Shark's jaw as you peek your head out. It swims a distance away, and turns around to charge you again, allowing you to sink another spear into its leathery body. It roars once again, and turns to flee, swimming off into the purple dark.
Then you hear another bone shark.
4. Objective Breakdown
The point of the Speargun is to give the player a ranged method of defending themselves and scaring off or eliminating troublesome creatures, fulfilling the same role as the Seamoth's electrical defense.
In the Scenario described above, the Bone Shark took two tags with the speargun before it ran away, taking two of the 3 spears the player had crafted. So resource management plays a heavy part in speargun use. Do you unload your spears into that Bone Shark, or do you save them for when you face off against a Crabsnake, or a Reaper?
This also opens up additional tool opportunities in the form of Upgrades for the Speargun, as well as individual spears.
For Example, combining a Wiring Kit with two Spears at the Workstation makes two "Tracking Spears" which emit a signal similar to a beacon, that does no damage, but can be attached to creatures to keep track of them. Never let that Reaper surprise you again.
Combining the Speargun with a Dive Reel makes a "Grappling Hook", which can be used to move around quickly by anchoring to nearby terrain, attach to large creatures to pull the player along, or capture smaller fish from a distance.
Combine a spear with 3x Creepvine pieces to make a "Net Bolt", which ensnares Rabbitray to Gasopod-sized creatures for capture and study.
Combine a Spear with a Flare to make a Flare Spear. You get the idea.
These are just a few applications I came up with on the spot.
I'm not asking for something that I can "Go out and murder the whole ocean with!"
I don't believe anyone with a serious suggestion is.
You are largely Forgetting that the most of these people who are asking for Combat ships and Torpedoes want it to go with Multiplayer once its made. So they can have warfare Underwater with Friends. I get the point of wanting to kill a Reaper for the point of it killing you and making you going back to the spawn but they also want it for Multiplayer.
Just a thought.
Edit: Also keep in mind that you crash landed on the Planet. You were sent out to colonize other worlds not to study the Creatures.
This is just my opinion, you are welcome to agree/disagree with it, its up to you.
I think that in Subnautica we should have lethal weapons but to a certain degree. I think we should get a Spear/Spear gun maybe a bow but nothing like torpedoes with actual war heads. I could see simple weapons being implemented and being very useful but weapons like rifles or torpedoes I think are not as useful as what we have or are just not needed. I mean think about it, under water rifles exist but are limited severely by stopping power and range so if they were added they wouldn't be as useful as the stasis rifle which would have a longer range and stops whatever you shot in 1 hit. Torpedoes used on modern day subs and ships are bigger than what we have in game and they are limited to the size of a target ( it has to be able to be spotted by sonar ) and with the games small render distance you would damage your own ship if you had straight firing torpedoes and they detonated on impact with the seabed, or whatever you hit. I think we should get a electronic defense grid for the Cyclops that would have a bigger range and make the critters run for longer. Harpoons are hard for me to decide on, to me harpoons are meant to attach to whatever you shot and drag it back to you, so I don't know if they should or shouldn't be added. Right now we don't need more weapons because the only real danger is the Reapers. Bone Sharks, Biter Fish, Sand Sharks, Stalkers can all be stopped by the Stasis rifle really easy while the Reapers hard very hard to stop, they are rare and as long as you have the Electronic Defense System on your Seamoth you will be fine.
So ya lethal weapons should be added but nothing to overkill, the devs should add more lethal and non-lethal weapons, but they need to think about what is really needed in the game and what will stray from the game play.
I have merged your thread with this one which is already discussing the same topic -Ironhorse