Should Survival And Story Be Separate?
ResolutionBlaze
The Dunes Join Date: 2016-04-06 Member: 215392Members
The Dunes Join Date: 2016-04-06 Member: 215392Members
I'm thinking that survival can take out the story elements, such as the pads and other pods and stuff, in favor for a diverse and randomized landscape. IF this were possible, could we separate story mode and survival mode? To me, the direction of Subnautica seems like it will have a story, and unless it ends with us being stranded forever, it needs a statisfying ending.
So could we separate the two modes?
So could we separate the two modes?
Comments
Something like Creative mode where the story is disabled, but still requiring you find food and resources and such could be neat.
Though you're never gonna get your "random generated infinite landscape like in Minecraft!"
They spend far too much time hand crafting the world from the ground up to just throw it away on a system that does a much poorer job at level design.
That said... randomly generated landscapes would remove the immense quality of handcrafting that makes subnautica so wonderful... so no on terrain... yes on randomising everything else...
Starting off, you're very vulnerable and every minute is a struggle - but once you get the Seamoth it's an exponential decline in difficulty, and once you've got the Cyclops and a Water Filteration machine... The survival aspect is pretty much done. You're immune to attack while in the cyclops, the sea dragon's easy to dodge even if you go out of your way to provoke it (I expect that to change soon enought hough), and with a few farming trays an aquarium and the Cyclops... Well I guess that the end game is the 'grind' is supposed to disappear so you can focus less on surviving and more on the story and appreciating the beauty of the world.
While a random gen world does hold appeal, unless it's done at the same quality level we've become accustomed to, it really would make for a diminished experience compared to the current world.
Wouldnt that be concerning?
Well, yeah, that's the logical progression of what would happen if you had access to the technology that scuba Steve has access to. It only makes sense that you would be able to establish a sustainable base.
I never understand these complaints. The game getting easier means you're WINNING.
On another note, I feel that an "Infinitely randomly generated Minecraftian" type world COULD be interesting and fun, as like DLC.
Like, it takes place 10-20 years after the Aurora Crash and the original Scuba Steve cured the Carar bacterium, allowing the Warpers time to dispense the anti-bacterium into the water and completely eradicate the disease.
So now Alterra comes back to study life on the planet, assigning you the task of constructing a base of operations wherever on the planet and studying the various lifeforms.
Erosion could have drastically changed the landscape around the Aurora, which would now be overgrown with vegetation, and possibly home to terrestrial creatures beyond skyrays and Cave Crawlers.
I dunno, could be cool. If the devs work from the ground up and re-use most of the assets they could save hella time and use the left over time to implement multiplayer.
This is just all nonsensical wish making, of course.
Think your on the wrong thread.
We know the Cyclops will stop being a safe space soon enough with the need for silent running, the sea dragon's set to become a problem too even if it doesn't target you, farming trays will likely need poop in the future (whether continuously or as construction material; that I'm not certain of) and I reckon the aquarium could get a similar update (if not poop-dependent, perhaps in need of crashpowder? Sulfur is a useful fertilizer component). Late game just hasn't gotten the tweaks yet that early game has (removal of MP room, removal of Aurora side entrance, move from early game to late-midgame of the modification station, etc.). I wouldn't be surprised if late game remains easier than early game, but as 04Leonhardt said, that's the logical result of getting access to better technology. There's only so many fragments and resources that can be LZ-exclusive.
a a ?
In what gaming world has "easier" been related to "winning"? What kind of excuse is that to not have a challenging or balanced game? When right after you get a cyclops it turns from "Subnautica" to "Submarine Simulator"?
Honestly? If the game doesn't balance that out, it would be boring as f**k. Why even bother playing the game? You wouldn't be able to replay it because it's predictable and you already beat the story... The Cyclops merely gets pushed around by the largest creatures in game.... Challenge is EVERYTHING for this game. THOSE first few hours of survival are the best... because you're (no pun intended) just getting your feet wet. But after that? Once there's no more challenge, there is no more fear.
Easier = Unbalanced game. Easier =/= Winning the game.
I play this game because it's pretty, challenging (or ought to be), and scary. I don't want a nature walk simulator.
As an oldskool adventure game enthusiast, the idea that a game no longer is fun because it's predictable is utterly preposterous to me. And sounds rather like a thing a spoiled child would say, but maybe that's just the times changing on me.
If I understand 04Leonhardt correctly, they're talking about... like, have you ever played The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask? There's a long sidequest in that game that nets you a final mask that makes the final boss a walk in the park. You could say that spoils the fun of it, but it's simply the logical result of having already done stuff to get the perk. By all means, feel free not to use it if it spoils your sense of accomplishment, but don't act like a game is unbalanced for being designed like that.
Personally, I think that the devs have crafted an exceptionally beautiful world painstakingly and by hand, and since difficulty peters out towards the end it allows us time to shift focus from survival to exploration. This is where Subnautica shines for me, as it incorporates survival and exploration elements depending on where you are in the game. If you look at the end game not from a survival but from an atmospheric standpoint, the pieces fit more nicely together.
You're comparing an old school adventure game to a in-development "survival" game... I shouldn't have to go through the reasons why this is inaccurate but I'll do so anyway:
- They are two different concepts of game. Very different. One is a far more linear experience, this one is a semi-open game. To say that one thing works for one type of game is fine, but saying that it is a precedent for all games is absurd. What you say has a point; I've played Gauntlet: Dark Legacy, and one of the bosses, The Lich, is the first boss you encounter. You can fight him, or you can skip him and get the Holy Book several stages later and go back to give yourself an advantage. Key word advantage. It didn't make The Lich easier, it gave the player an advantage by taking down The Lich's health. Having an advantage and making the game easy are two different things. Cheats make a game easy. Advantages makes the game fair.
- This game is focused on survival... But later it isn't survival anymore it's a nature walk. There's a problem when a game is not consistent. It attracts a certain audience, thinking they'll get underwater survival... then they are basically invincible four hours in... that's not only a short lived survival experience, but also dishonest... If this game is focused on survival, the next challenge should give yourself a run for your money. Survival is about overcoming challenges... and tech should not be an excuse to make the entire game easier. Tech can make survival in a previous setting easier... Such as the Shallows, Creepvine Forest, or Grassy Plateau... but there should always be an obstacle you have to overcome... that's just the point of a survival game. It should always be a challenge until you reach the apex point... and simply having tech should not be the apex point, because that's simply silly and short lived as a survival experience; you get tech two hours in, full tech eight hours in. This thing called "balance" exists.
- No doubt nostalgia makes it seem like it was a good decision. I haven't played it, but I have played some older games similar. Gauntlet: Dark Legacy was fun because it unleashed my imagination as a kid, but compared to now, I wouldn't really call the game "good". It's just nostalgic, it unlocks a childhood part of me. I hate the nostalgic argument but has some grounds. Often we can think something better than it really is comparatively.
That's what creative mode is for.
Adventure games have long been besties with life simulation games, which itself is a genre close to survival games. The game Biosys is an adventure game within a survival game, and I've mentioned on these forums in the past that Subnautica is the only game I've ever come across that gives me the same feel as Sierra's Rama, also an adventure game. I'm not really sure how to put this into words properly, but it seems to me most people who argue for Subnautica to be more "survival-y" use the term in a way that it is only applied to "modern" survival games. But survival games go a pretty long way and it is right because Subnautica taps into that, taps into aspects of the genre unexplored or left to rot in a corner by every other "modern" survival game that it stands out. Other than Don't Starve and The Flame in the Flood (and maybe-possibly Sir, You Are Being Hunted), I have no interest in these games, but I've been eyeing the 90s Robinson's Requiem Collection on GoG for a while now.
I cannot feel sympathy for the line "thinking they'll get underwater survival". Its on a buyer's own head if they purchase something good but not what they wanted. I did my research before buying Subnautica and I am here specifically because of the no-weapons story-driven exploration experience within a survival setting. Something your poll suggests you "want" to take from me.
That all said, I would like to refer to my first post on this topic at the time of writing seven posts up. It makes mention of the fact that late game at this time is incomplete and that there are several things planned, some of which mentioned on Trello, to make the game more difficult in the final stages, and that early game only gradually has become as tough as it nowadays is. There'll be more to satisfy survival game diehards further into the game. And while we disagree about what Subnautica should be, I do look forward to that.
I see your point, that the game modes should be kept separate lest people feel cheated out of an experience. However, in my opinion, that's not really the style that Subnautica's made in. It's made by Unknown Worlds, and if you look at some of their other games you can see a pattern- the games are often a mix between many genres. Natural Selection 2 is a mix between a top-down strategy game and a first person shooter- I think this mix is a good innovation. Would a Dota 2 player feel cheated by playing NS2 because it incorporates elements from the FPS genre? Visa Versa, would a CSGO player feel cheated, seeing the top-down strategy elements? To me, this is the beauty of Unknown Worlds: They mix game elements into a beautiful collage of an experience. I mean, just looking on steam and looking at the tags that this game is described with- you'll see many diverse elements.
There's the feeling of fear of the deep- rightly so, given the reapers
There's the power of terraforming and fast base-building of creative- lending the tag of sandbox to the game
There's the beauty and tranquility of places like the grand reef, which seem to shift this game more atmospheric.
I guess I'm just saying, in so many words, that I think Subnautica shouldn't be defined by just one type of game genre, and that it can flourish as a blend of a few of them.
Also I just want to call attention to the fact that multiplayer is listed as one of the tags on steam
I don't know what compels you to accuse me of such a thing as wanting to take it away from you... where are you even getting that? Or are you making baseless accusations to find someone to throw frustration at? Because I said nothing of taking survival aspects out of story mode. I said I would want survival and story separate with different features in both.
But I'm not arguing opinion. I'm arguing fact; this game is a survival game. The foundation is survival. Just because it has a story doesn't make it story driven so I'm curious where you're getting the idea that this game is somehow story driven... if you want a story driven game go play a Telltale game. If you want a survival game with a story; congrats you have Subnautica.
This game cannot be too many things at once. Games that do that always tend to go bad. IT cannot be both story focused and survival driven... Gameplay comes first... without good gameplay you don't have a good game unless the game is pure story driven (which Subnautica isn't). And right now this game doesn't have balanced gameplay and trying to excuse it as a story driven game despite survival being a big aspect of it is an idea that will not help the game, which will in fact ruin it in the long run.
This game is not story driven. It has a story but it is not story driven.
Just a mode with low settings for O2, food, water, creature aggression, etc. would do. Or the devs allow to change settings which defaults to standart survival settings.
It's story-driven. From finding the signal to the gun in the Aurora to finding the Degasi bases with instructions as to where the others are and explanations why the trio did not stay on the FI. The reason we don't have a procedurally generated world is because of the story and the story is half the reason the terraformer was removed. Something like Don't Starve is a game that has a story - bigger than Subnautica's even, but is not story-driven. Subnautica is much stronger about tying gameplay and story together. Freedom of order and freedom of ending does not make a game not story-driven.
"IT cannot be both story focused and survival driven" - I beg to differ considering that's the game I'm already playing and having a great time with. And yeah, of course Subnautica isn't balanced. It's in Early Access. You are talking about a game that isn't done as if it is done. As if the sea dragon isn't going to be a more terrible encounter. As if the cyclops will not lose its immunity. That has zero to do with it being story-driven.
As for my "accusation", which I'll point out had the word "want" between quotation marks too, the title of this topic is if story and survival should be split up. In all honesty, I have no clue what exactly you envision with that suggestion/question and how you use the terms "story" and "survival" here, but the option "No, let Subnautica be what it will be" suggests a separation that takes away just what makes Subnautica unique and charming.
You need to learn the term story driven.... Basically you're saying that because Subnautica has a story it's story driven.... no its not. Story driven means it is the story that drives the game itself... which is clearly not true as I am evidence of that. If it were story driven I wouldn't be complaining about the suggestion of survival aspects taking a back seat. But it's not story driven so those statements piss me off.
I also wasn't referring to you originally. A person told me that an easier game means you're winning, which is faulty logic at best. We got derailed to different discussion.