Subnautica: The Next No Man's Sky
ilGetUSomDay
asdf Join Date: 2016-02-27 Member: 213517Members
asdf Join Date: 2016-02-27 Member: 213517Members
With little end game, this game and its player base will dwindle quickly, just like the thrill of the game. I'll never forget my first time exploring however the game quickly dulls down as there becomes little to do.
Subnautica is going to a "Polished" state, however I do not think it is ready. Successful sand box / survival games include either multiplayer and or a way of "winning" (ARK, Minecraft, Rust, etc). I personally feel very disappointing that there will be no multiplayer and believe this will be a large part in the success or failure of Subnautica as a game.
Subnautica is going to a "Polished" state, however I do not think it is ready. Successful sand box / survival games include either multiplayer and or a way of "winning" (ARK, Minecraft, Rust, etc). I personally feel very disappointing that there will be no multiplayer and believe this will be a large part in the success or failure of Subnautica as a game.
Comments
Other than that, your post does not offer anything to discuss.
You want to know how you win Subnautica?
1) Cure yourself after you catch the disease (Carrar {sp?}) that's plaguing the planet, which was why the Precursors were there and why they had a quarantine imposed on the planet.
2) Disable the quarantine enforcing Precursor gun that blew Aurora out of the sky
3) Construct a rocket and launch it, escaping the planet
No I'm not kidding. That is the actual end game. I'm going out on a limb here and guessing haven't either cleared your cache or started a new game after they implemented a lot of the new features where all of this was hinted at (or just read in the forums, Discord, etc where it's mentioned).
...
I think there has been some vague talk of adding bases to NMS, which, as terrible as the game's release went, would probably draw a lot of people back to it.
Minecraft, 7 Days to Die, even Terraria, all share those common elements and are hugely successful-- especially Minecraft! If all Subnautica offered was swimming around scanning fish, yeah, it probably wouldn't see longevity with the fan base; but it offers more. The beauty of games that offer crafting and basebuilding, is that there doesn't have to be an end game. It's what you make it. NMS simply failed to offer enough (and actually, it does have its fans).
Hey, um, since the driver update, can you successfully play on XB1? My son is over here spamming every type of submarine possible in creative mode on my XB1 copy and it's still chugging. Like 8x everything (or more!)
I too, however, feel like I long ago experienced everything the game has to offer. With the latest updates I was hoping for a revitalised passion, but nah, it's just spinning the same wheels over and over again.
It just comes down to personal taste and preference though. You can't really criticise too harshly because these issues apply to nearly every game and are impossible to counter.
I just won't be playing again until 1.0 so as to not "burn out".
And multiplayer wouldn't solve anything, it would just spread the repetitive nature of the game around more players.
First, I completely understand why there is no multiplayer, and I'm perfectly fine with that, as well. There's even times I PREFER it. However, I wouldn't discount the fun multiplayer adds to ANY game. People play Roblox for goodness sake! Throwing four people into even the crappiest game can elevate the fun to be had. I will admit, though, with FRIENDS; randoms... not so much. Also, showing off gear and builds is always a big draw for folks. That's what keeps games like Minecraft and Diablo going.
For me, multiplayer is easy come, easy go. There's certainly no lack of multiplayer games out there, PC or otherwise.
It's like comparing apples and orangutans...
They both can be in a tree, but that's pretty much all they have in common.
>shrug<
When NMS launched, it was hyped as one of the most interesting and involved open-world games ever made. But as time went on, the devs fell behind on new content, there was no word on DLC or patches, or any kind of improvements/additions to the game. Even Sean Murray, creator of NMS has gone on record stating that the game was a mistake to make.
Meanwhile, Subnautica is being designed by a team of people who know what they're doing and care about their game, and have already released previous games that have been successful. They've been up front with us regarding game changes and updates, and while unplanned things happen and things get changed or delayed, they usually let us know the why and how.
So, if you're not happy with Subnautica or its development, that is your opinion and you have every right to it. But do not compare a $60 overhyped game that floundered at launch with minimal support, to a reasonably-costed game that stuns and amazes with its early-access gameplay and awesome developer communication.
Give credit where credit is due. Subnautica is brilliant.
Methinks that people who like multiplayer overestimate the popularity of multiplayer, if not as feature than for the current attitude surrounding it where publishers prioritize the existence of multiplayer over its quality, singleplayer existence, and singleplayer quality. Subnautica has a place to win from being something different.
I mean, if we look at Steam, while Subnautica doesn't nearly have as many reviews as Ark and Rust, it scores relatively much better. Ark is still burdened by the DLC matter, but many complaints are about the lack of multiplayer balance and fairness. Rust is doing okay, but still has 25% negative reviews while Subnautica only has 10%. And many of the negative reviews read something like "don't get me wrong, great game, but I can't rec it as of yet due to bad performance".
it IS a great game but for the sake of the longlivity of the game it needs like 10x the size of the world. the first hours i thought "wow, this world is huge". after some more hours i realised that this is not the case. id say its as huge as it needs to be for a seasoned gamer to stay entertained for around 10-20 hours.
pls don't see this post as a rant cause it is not, its just an observation. the story is one part, but i rly want to see this game succeeding as a huge sandbox sea-game, yes it is sandbox, but not as huge as it could be to succeed as a sandbox game (as for now).
"winning" by completing the story is not an option for longlivity imo, it never was.
i think thats the reason why ppl are crying for multiplayer and i can understand them. and yes i know, we won't see multiplayer in this game as stated by the devs already.
I don't think that statement about needing to be huge to stay entertained is entirely accurate. Everyone's going to be entertained by different things for different lengths of time. Personally? Most of my games tend to be 20 ~ 30 hours long before I restart and do it over, and the early game is (currently) my favorite part. ^^
As for 'tens times as large'.... Unknown Worlds probably doesn't have the resources for that. I don't think that they ever intended for it to be a 'huge sandbox game' anyway, but a reasonably sized survival game.
EDIT: Obviously I meant after v1.0, I keep forgetting EA games do DLC way before release nowadays.
But as for what you said about there being no end game, I've got two words for you: Base Building. Something No Man's Sky would have really benefited from. You can gather resources and improve on your base. Another thing is exploration. In No Man's Sky, if you've seen one planet you've seen them all, but in Subnautica there's a whole hand-crafted world to play through. I've played 245 hours of this game and I still know there are some places I haven't been to yet. So no, this isn't going to be the next No Man's Sky. Or, at least, I have faith and hope that its not.
Other than that I object to using "seasoned gamers" as the norm, 10-20 hours for an indie title with matching price tag seems entirely reasonable. When did that become unacceptable?
there is one major flaw in your post. legend of Zelda is in no way a sandbox game. Subnautica truly is, and thats why the world has to grow, by a lot.
and 10-20 hours are nothing. don't starve is just one example, u know that game? it becomes "unaceptable" the moment, at least from my viewpoint, when i see a huge potential in a game, which is the case with Subnautica in the very own interest of the creators of this game.
There are a couple of reasons I don't think it will be/is like NMS:
Firstly - it doesn't cost £46
Secondly - it has been very open about what is/isn't included, if people knew what they were getting in NMS, it would have been received a lot better.
Thirdly - Unknown Worlds has a record of a recent, well supported game, with a similar sized player base
All of this has been discussed before though http://forums.unknownworlds.com/discussion/144955/subnautica-vs-no-mans-sky/p1. I'd check it out if you're interested.
Your mileage may vary. Nice topic starter though. I stopped playing after I got hooked on FO4 again; I'll come back to it post 1.0. The story has a straightforward goal and motivation, nice small rich world. Of course I also liked games like Miasmata so hey everyone is different.
As for multiplayer? Yeah I picked it up hoping to play with my kid but the devs dropped it; bummer but hey my son and I still love it single player.
"in the very own interest of the creators" is a little, ah, patronizing, you know?
An offhand example (which I'd argue does have sandbox traits) cannot be a major flaw. But if you must, I can talk about how my encounters with Assassin's Creed have not exactly made me favorable towards the concept of size for the sake of size and while I hold deep respect for S.T.A.L.K.E.R. on many levels, would it not have its distinct flavor it would not have nearly as much appeal. I am a fan of Outcast, one of my rare encounters with a sandbox game worth its size and even then I do feel the game could've benefitted from not making getting from A to B such a chore (why do I get three mounts in the second region and none in any other?!).
(Are the Gothic games sandbox? It's been a long time since I played either 2 or 3 and from my question you may deduce it did not leave an impression. Too many places to go for too little offering.)
Maybe you're being sarcastic and then I apologize for not picking up, but I mentioned DS in my first post in this topic. What about DS? I don't have the means to say for certain, but I suspect I've already invested more hours in SN than DS. DS has a way of being too much about proving yourself and too little about just having a fulfilling experience. I love it, but a game like SN is more inviting.
I don't think they could ever get a world that big unless they used procedural generation, which they already said they didn't like.
Subnautica would be like NMS if after leaving the planet you crash on it again with one slot more in you invertory
Seriously. SN have MUCH more gameplay than NMS. I played NMS (not expecting anything, I discovered the game when it was released. For 10 hours you discover the first planet, then you leave and discover the same planet again. The gameplay is lame and frustrating (you play to improve your inventory). But you hope there is more later until you discover there's not and you drop the game after 20 hours of resistance. Even the story has no sens (discovering planets with inhabitant every km ?).
SN is a real game which gameplay is entertaining and not frustrating. There is a real story which is SF-logical. the ambiance is very immersive. You can feel the game is not randomly generated but very well thought.
Now, the issue with SN is replayability. I already played twice for 75 hours. I'm pausing the game now, but I'll redo it again. Even though, it's not Mincraft or Kerbal space program which are nearly limitless.
In the end, SN was 75 hours of entertainment. NMS was 20h of boredom.
I see some mixed feelings about it which is normal but I bid you all to look at a wider picture farther out. Subnautica is immersive and creative. It has authenticity from the continuous updates and trailers. Coming to full release trailers will draw in players who will get what they see. This is great and all, but the game fills such a niche only a moderate amount of success can be achieved.
I compare this game to No Man's Sky because after watching a few interviews and gameplay I thought it was obvious what kind of game it was going to be. There are differences to be sure, Base building for one, but the beauty and survival will only last for a small time frame for newer players not totally latched on to what kind of game Subnautica is.
Basically, you dont really survive as of now (because survival kind of implies a closure of some sort) and base building while fun serves little purpose but to get you tools to explore more. Bases dont really serve much of a direct purpose, and for those of us wanting to build cool stuff you really are limited because the current blocks are tubes and circular all purpose rooms. In terms of architecture there is not a lot of variety. While I liked that they brought the inside of our bases to life with recent updates, its just surface stuff with no depth to it that say Mindcraft has to offer. If for some of that time they focused on modular base blocks of different shapes and flooring and what not at least the base building aspect would really last a long time. Plus lets be honest, the current structures really dont look all that structural and when you try to get creative there are no structural items to reinforce and make the base look real. You can build strong looking bases, That is all mine have been because I think it looks pretty goofy to not be structural.
All this ties into the shame of multiplayer being dropped because there is no one to cooperate with the survival. No meaning behind bases or people to share the adventure with. By completely cutting multiplayer out you are severely limiting the longevity of the game as well as to how many people the game will appeal to. For everyone of us there are several who would play if the game supported multiple people. Lets face it, Games are easier to get into with someone else to play with, and the synergy of multiple people has a far bigger draw to want to play it than that of just single players.
Sand box games are at a state in todays gaming community where they really need to have multiplayer support to have a continuous draw for new players as well as increase the longevity of the game.
That's your opinion, and a very subjective one. They also are games I have no interest in playing, because their metrics are all wrong.
A game should not be designed around being a continuous draw, or being a game that hangs around forever.
To me, and my opinion, the most important metric is the experience had while having the game, and how close it is to the developers ultimate vision. If the developer created the game they wanted, and I got to experience it, that is the most important factor.
I want to play the game the developer wanted to make, not the one that was modified by EA's corporate accountants to have the highest potential of offering a continuous draw and provide an eternal income.
I am really saddened that gamers these days demand corporate crap rather than heartfelt creativity and then try to proclaim it as the way of the world.
I don't necessarily share your opinions, but I do understand where you are coming from. I think that at this point it mainly comes down to personal opinion, SN would definitely appeal to more people if it were multiplayer or had some of the other legitimate ideas you suggest, but I think (and presumably the devs agree since they're sinking money into it) that there are a sufficient number of people who want this sort of game. We'll have to wait till release to see if we're right though.
More (quality) content is nearly always better, but the devs have to decide when the amount of content justifies the pricetag, I think they have already gone beyond that.
Everything else aside, it makes me happy that somebody took the time to politely give an unpopular opinion in a coherent manner, so for that thank you.
Concerning FO4, me too! Skyrim just released on XB1 with mods available, which are great! Same for FO4. Having been at It again in Skyrim, it compelled me to jump back into FO4... and to do what? BASE BUILDING!
Wow, nice point to bring up. You just alluded to a major problem with the game industry; game sales versus gamer experience. Micro transactions are a fine example of games CONCEIVED and BUILT on the premise of never ending sales, and the games tend to suffer for it (Neverwinter is a fine example).
There's no denying that some folks use a time to $$ method, like a movie; value per minute. I'll admit, I have a hard time spending $60 on a one-and-done 12 hour game. However, a game like "Inside" (also a bit cheaper), provided an excellent experience on several levels. There's something to be said for a game that leaves you thinking about it long after playing, and knowing a lot of care and passion went into it FOR THE PLAYER.
I also think it's easy to want to believe that developers are making games for the passion of it, and for the gamer, but sadly, more often than not, it's simply not true. It becomes about sales and fiscal years and shares.
To wrap up my... ramblings, there's lots of different gamer types out there, and tons of games. If someone could find the formula to create a never-ending game that would appeal to everyone, well, there would be no need for future games, and a worse scenario would be infinite clones of that game type. From a money standpoint, how much is enough? Perhaps a game that sells well, would earn enough to be happy with and not the next Minecraft.
P.s. This response was aimed at anyone, but what I quoted up top really sparks a good conversation!