Basically, you dont really survive as of now (because survival kind of implies a closure of some sort)
I disagree, why would "survival" mean a closure or end-game? I can't think of many games labelled as "survival" which have a defined end. There are many survival games where the only goal is to survive for as long as possible, with no story or end-game criteria what-so-ever. A little google search shows that pretty clearly.
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
I agree. I have no real desire to build any base beyond one, in the safe-shallows, just so I can access everything. The bases absolutely serve no real purpose beyond progressing mechanically and this feels empty.
I think at this point we're all sick of hearing the multiplayer discussion, and the devs certainly are. It's not happening and so be it.
I don't even agree that it would solve anything in the long term.
The game is great, but of course it has faults. I say again; it all depends on the player and their own patience, desires and expectations.
I still hope we can mod a real hardcore realism mode eventually, that would be something I'd find adds hours of genuine, realistic "survival" gameplay.
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.
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.
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!
I just reinstalled FO4 myself, weirdly enough. I just have to find a spare 6 or 7 hours to get it modded properly (I often find I actually enjoy modding games more than I enjoy playing them) and I'll be away to the wasteland. Hopefully I can find some decent mods to make guns and loot rare, give me a need to eat, drink and sleep, realistic damage, etc. so I can enjoy a challenge this time instead of the boring FPS it was on release.
It's a real shame though, when a game has to be modded so heavily just to make it an actual RPG.
The best path for Subnautica is the following - do exactly what they're doing, but plan an expansion area and second story as DLC or full price expansion later on. Subnautica deserves to evolve (we won't ever want to let it go!) and the developers deserve lots of money.
I'v goto agree with him once you have played the game for longer than a day it all becomes quiet tedious, specially if you like a base with windows.
I think the game will boil down to speed runs, see how fast you can leave the planet or ignore the ending and just build a big cool looking but all to pointless base.
Don't get me wrong I actually like the game but it's lacking any kinda replay value at the moment, since some one mentioned No Man's Sky, I think what would be amazing for this game would be if the first planet was just that, the FIRST, and leaving it only saw you having to land on another procedural planet where the word Exploration could actually mean something.
Lets face it our game world is tiny no matter how much they ad depth wise once you have seen it once, you have seen it a million times because its all static, once you dump more than a day into the game you'v pretty much seen it all and I think that's a shame.
As some one who's been actively mapping the world I think I might be more aware of its size than most players just floating around looking for resources.
I like to see Subnautica as a narrative. It's a story told through the eyes of the Survivor (which is our player character). So it's going to have an end. I really can't see it as a sandbox when the end of the game takes you away from the world (and the goal is to escape). No Man's Sky is pretty much a sandbox once you're done with its "story". You just restart and explore the universe again.
There are a few sci fi sandboxes out there like Starmade (which I've been playing) and Empyrion if those are what you're looking for.
I like to see Subnautica as a narrative. It's a story told through the eyes of the Survivor (which is our player character). So it's going to have an end. I really can't see it as a sandbox when the end of the game takes you away from the world (and the goal is to escape). No Man's Sky is pretty much a sandbox once you're done with its "story". You just restart and explore the universe again.
There are a few sci fi sandboxes out there like Starmade (which I've been playing) and Empyrion if those are what you're looking for.
I see the word 'sandbox' thrown around left and right with games when at times it really doesn't seem to "fit". At times I feel like the word's beginning to lose its meaning and just gets slapped onto games that have a large or relatively large world that you explore at will and can build a base in. I wouldn't really call Subnautica a sandbox game to be honest; if we could go around planting our own kelp forests or turning the Dunes into a Mushroom Forest - Koosh hybrid area, and so on... I'd be a little more willing to think of it as such. The freedom of what you can do to the world is fairly limited, so to me it's an open world survival game but not a sandbox one.
I like to see Subnautica as a narrative. It's a story told through the eyes of the Survivor (which is our player character). So it's going to have an end. I really can't see it as a sandbox when the end of the game takes you away from the world (and the goal is to escape). No Man's Sky is pretty much a sandbox once you're done with its "story". You just restart and explore the universe again.
There are a few sci fi sandboxes out there like Starmade (which I've been playing) and Empyrion if those are what you're looking for.
I see the word 'sandbox' thrown around left and right with games when at times it really doesn't seem to "fit". At times I feel like the word's beginning to lose its meaning and just gets slapped onto games that have a large or relatively large world that you explore at will and can build a base in. I wouldn't really call Subnautica a sandbox game to be honest; if we could go around planting our own kelp forests or turning the Dunes into a Mushroom Forest - Koosh hybrid area, and so on... I'd be a little more willing to think of it as such. The freedom of what you can do to the world is fairly limited, so to me it's an open world survival game but not a sandbox one.
This has happened to the term MMO or MMORPG as well, games coming out these days can barely field 30 players in a single instance/server and they are calling themselves mmo's because they have some globally accessible chat system, its a total joke, Some times I wish the gaming industry had some sort of standards agency on overwatch making sure developers don't dupe their customers.
The problem with Subnautica can be summarized in three words: Not Enough Content.
A "sandbox" game like this should be coming out with content patches every week, with new items, base parts, creatures, vehicles, etc. I mean, we are two years into Early Access. There should realistically be three or four times as much content as there is now.
What happened instead is that lots of early adopters played through the game, saw everything there is to see, and then got bored and left. Those who come back after months find that not much else has been added. Sure, we'll have a story soon, but for a survival sandbox game I think story is kinda secondary.
The problem with Subnautica can be summarized in three words: Not Enough Content.
A "sandbox" game like this should be coming out with content patches every week, with new items, base parts, creatures, vehicles, etc. I mean, we are two years into Early Access. There should realistically be three or four times as much content as there is now.
What happened instead is that lots of early adopters played through the game, saw everything there is to see, and then got bored and left. Those who come back after months find that not much else has been added. Sure, we'll have a story soon, but for a survival sandbox game I think story is kinda secondary.
Anyway, yeah. Just my 2 cents.
Requoting what I said earlier on the sandbox part, as I really think people are incorrectly applying that term to the game when it really doesn't fit. Subnautica isn't a "sandbox" game, nor is it trying to be.
I see the word 'sandbox' thrown around left and right with games when at times it really doesn't seem to "fit". At times I feel like the word's beginning to lose its meaning and just gets slapped onto games that have a large or relatively large world that you explore at will and can build a base in. I wouldn't really call Subnautica a sandbox game to be honest; if we could go around planting our own kelp forests or turning the Dunes into a Mushroom Forest - Koosh hybrid area, and so on... I'd be a little more willing to think of it as such. The freedom of what you can do to the world is fairly limited, so to me it's an open world survival game but not a sandbox one.
Games like Space Engineers and Minecraft are more suited to that tag, but Subnautica definitely not. In a sandbox game as I see it, the world and everything within it is yours to manipulate as you see fit and the only true limitations are the engine, your computer's power, and your imagination. Subnautica doesn't really fit that.
Content every week is definitely not something that Unknown Worlds can do. They're a small team that simply doesn't have the resources, funds, or staff to do that much so quickly.
My apologies if I've used the term sandbox incorrectly. It's not a category of games I pursue and my knowledge of what it entails is a mixture of wikipedia, any time I've seen a game get called sandbox, and a handful of articles on game categories in general. Always thought it was nearly equal to free roam.
My apologies if I've used the term sandbox incorrectly. It's not a category of games I pursue and my knowledge of what it entails is a mixture of wikipedia, any time I've seen a game get called sandbox, and a handful of articles on game categories in general. Always thought it was nearly equal to free roam.
It's more my opinion than outright fact of course - but from my experiences in sandbox games in general, Subnautica just doesn't fit the description to me. When I think 'sandbox' I think of games like Space Engineers, Minecraft, Dwarf Fortress, etc; so that's largely why I don't really think sandbox when I look at or play Subnautica.
My apologies if I've used the term sandbox incorrectly. It's not a category of games I pursue and my knowledge of what it entails is a mixture of wikipedia, any time I've seen a game get called sandbox, and a handful of articles on game categories in general. Always thought it was nearly equal to free roam.
Don't listen to Rezca. Subnautica is definitely a sandbox. It may have a story, but unlike actual story-driven games, the player isn't forced to follow the story, and is free to roam around, gather resources and build things as they want. Sure, you can't do things like plant kelp forests, but you can do underwater farming and creature breeding. Also keep in mind that until recently you could actually dig the soil and shape the terrain, and they removed that only due to technical reasons (it massively increased the size of saved games).
SkopeWouldn't you like to know ;)Join Date: 2016-06-07Member: 218212Members
I have to say, the comment at the start of this thread is the most disliked comment I've ever seen. Either people really hate No Mans Sky, or people really like Subnautica. I'm going with both.
Don't listen to Rezca. Subnautica is definitely a sandbox. It may have a story, but unlike actual story-driven games, the player isn't forced to follow the story, and is free to roam around, gather resources and build things as they want. Sure, you can't do things like plant kelp forests, but you can do underwater farming and creature breeding. Also keep in mind that until recently you could actually dig the soil and shape the terrain, and they removed that only due to technical reasons (it massively increased the size of saved games).
I'm curious to know what you would consider Skyrim then. As I understand it, Skyrim is considered a story based game yet there is absolutely no reason you have to follow the story line. It is also by no means considered a sandbox.
Slapping labels on a game and then blaming the game it does not fit what the label implies is not an argument. Arguing about the definition of the labels doesn't help either.
Slapping labels on a game and then blaming the game it does not fit what the label implies is not an argument. Arguing about the definition of the labels doesn't help either.
Amen to that.
NS2 doesn't fit into a labeled genre either and it's bloody brilliant.
A "sandbox" game like this should be coming out with content patches every week, with new items, base parts, creatures, vehicles, etc. I mean, we are two years into Early Access. There should realistically be three or four times as much content as there is now.
If we were creating a world the size of Skyrim, with a team of 200 people, I would totally agree with you. But we're a team of ~20 people, and we're making a game that's realistic in terms of scope with what we want to achieve in both game, world-size and story-wise. Biting off more than a team can chew has been the downfall of many indie dev teams (ourselves included). We're hoping for the money you pay, you get a great experience with Subnautica.
Biting off more than a team can chew has been the downfall of many indie dev teams (ourselves included).
@Obraxis Care to go into detail on that? Genuinely curious what happened / how it was handled. I mean, NS2 was great (so I hear, I bought it but it's in my backlog, but from my impressions, it's like Tremulous, and Tremulous = awesome). Was there another game that didn't make it?
I have to overall agree with the OP's sentiment regarding subnautica, although I don't have a whole lot of experience with NMS. Watched some videos, but quickly got bored of them.
Anyway, in terms of Subnautica, I find the actual gameplay quite lacking. The way I see it, there are three main types of gameplay that most games share in some amounts:
Micro gameplay:This is the sort of gameplay predominant in FPS games. It involves making quick, reflexive actions, and making decisions with immediate causes and effects.
Macro gameplay: This kind of gameplay is predominant in strategy games, and involves making decisions whose impact will often not be felt until much farther down the line, such as wether to invest in a strong military right away, or build up you economy first in a 4X game.
Creative gameplay: This sort of gameplay is about customizing the game world. It can be as minimal as basic character customization and putting decals on weapons, or can go as far as having a fully modifiable world like minecraft or starmade.
Subnautica is, for me, lacking in all three respects. Micro gameplay is pretty much limited to circle strafing around predators. Macro decision making is basically nonexistent. The closest thing to a decision one can make that will have far reaching effects is where to put your base. Even then though, there isn't all that much practical difference between locations. There is a modest amount of creative gameplay, with some basic base building and interior customization, but the base building system is too rigid to allow that much freedom, so the main aesthetic decision is where to put it. Subnautica has very good environment and ambience, to be sure, but those are not gameplay, and do not make up for a lack of meaningful gameplay.
Pffft, if you want to play another AAA clone, you're in the wrong place. Honestly, if you have those kind of (IMHO boring) expectations, then just don't ever pick up an indie game. Your expectations are unrealistic.
If you want Electronic Arts to purchase UWE so Subnautica can become the next big name cash cow with 13 mosltly samish sequels... -_-
I'm hopeful for more content, but I'm also hopeful for release sometime before 2027, and with a team 1/10th (probably smaller) the size of most professional dev teams for AAA titles, I'd like to know, what exactly does any of the complainers in this thread think UWE should do? What would you do in their shoes? Sprinkle some magic pixie dust because it's an emergency?????
If we were creating a world the size of Skyrim, with a team of 200 people, I would totally agree with you. But we're a team of ~20 people, and we're making a game that's realistic in terms of scope with what we want to achieve in both game, world-size and story-wise. Biting off more than a team can chew has been the downfall of many indie dev teams (ourselves included). We're hoping for the money you pay, you get a great experience with Subnautica.
Plus your game is only £15, I feel I got my money's worth about a year ago.
Just in case you see this, I really do love all the work that UWE has done. The quality of your games is only superceded by the commitment of your company to your fans, but I'm just a fanboy so what do I know.
Pffft, if you want to play another AAA clone, you're in the wrong place. Honestly, if you have those kind of (IMHO boring) expectations, then just don't ever pick up an indie game. Your expectations are unrealistic.
If you want Electronic Arts to purchase UWE so Subnautica can become the next big name cash cow with 13 mosltly samish sequels... -_-
I'm hopeful for more content, but I'm also hopeful for release sometime before 2027, and with a team 1/10th (probably smaller) the size of most professional dev teams for AAA titles, I'd like to know, what exactly does any of the complainers in this thread think UWE should do? What would you do in their shoes? Sprinkle some magic pixie dust because it's an emergency?????
/end rant
What?
No, sorry, WHAT?
You appear to be reading something totally unrelated to the words I wrote.
Pffft, if you want to play another AAA clone, you're in the wrong place. Honestly, if you have those kind of (IMHO boring) expectations, then just don't ever pick up an indie game. Your expectations are unrealistic.
If you want Electronic Arts to purchase UWE so Subnautica can become the next big name cash cow with 13 mosltly samish sequels... -_-
I'm hopeful for more content, but I'm also hopeful for release sometime before 2027, and with a team 1/10th (probably smaller) the size of most professional dev teams for AAA titles, I'd like to know, what exactly does any of the complainers in this thread think UWE should do? What would you do in their shoes? Sprinkle some magic pixie dust because it's an emergency?????
/end rant
What?
No, sorry, WHAT?
You appear to be reading something totally unrelated to the words I wrote.
Subnautica is, for me, lacking in all three respects. Micro gameplay is pretty much limited to circle strafing around predators. Macro decision making is basically nonexistent. The closest thing to a decision one can make that will have far reaching effects is where to put your base. Even then though, there isn't all that much practical difference between locations. There is a modest amount of creative gameplay, with some basic base building and interior customization, but the base building system is too rigid to allow that much freedom, so the main aesthetic decision is where to put it. Subnautica has very good environment and ambience, to be sure, but those are not gameplay, and do not make up for a lack of meaningful gameplay.
What I got out of that is "All the other games (AAA Electronic Arts, Blizzard, et al) do this, and this is the only way a game can be good, so Subnautica should really really be like them."
What I read is "I want a clone of my halo/mw/cod/whateverkewlkidsplaynow" if it is not it's shallow and boring and lacks immersion. Bethesda tried to be kool and make building, aside from how buggy the entire game its their building aspect that is generally the part about the game disliked the most because it's half baked, in usual way buggy as all hell and they will never polish that turd. Don't shove things in games just because it's "trendy" according to someone. That rarely works and tends to backfire in all kinds of ways.
Also your idea on "3 aspects" of gameplay is ludicrous. Enter any game that relies on grind or loot treadmill, enter things like Fahrenheit. There is a world of other things that carry a game to either obscurity or a pedestal.
Folks saying they play SN for a day and see everything it has to offer and get bored... I mean, I believe you, but, really?
I'm a pretty "hardcore" gamer (just shy of 1K hours in the xb1 MC, add to that the 360 version too!). I play a lot of games a lot of the time, I always have. I play SN for hours at a time, and have barely seen anything! I've started over a few times (as I'm want to do with games like this). Perhaps I like to smell the roses too much? I like to poke around at all the crevices and caves. I like to build various bases in various areas. I like to amass mats, because... well, because. I know I've barely seen what the game has to offer just in biomes alone!
I certainly can't tell someone else how to enjoy their game, or how a game is meant to be played, or what equals fun. I just don't understand how someone could spend, sayyyyy 24 hours with Subnautica and feel "done". Perhaps I'm just getting slow in my old age. Of course, being literally terrified of going into open, dark water tends to slow my progress a bit. Honestly, just scanning and exploring fill up a lot of time, never mind random exploring and base building.
I agree some game labels have been morphing (MMORPG was a great example). Is SN a "sandbox" game? I think it could be squeezed into that box, but if I was explaining SN to another gamer, I would say "survival crafting game." Honestly, I don't know if "sandbox" is a great term for any game. Rather, "open-ended"?
What I read is "I want a clone of my halo/mw/cod/whateverkewlkidsplaynow" if it is not it's shallow and boring and lacks immersion. Bethesda tried to be kool and make building, aside from how buggy the entire game its their building aspect that is generally the part about the game disliked the most because it's half baked, in usual way buggy as all hell and they will never polish that turd. Don't shove things in games just because it's "trendy" according to someone. That rarely works and tends to backfire in all kinds of ways.
Also your idea on "3 aspects" of gameplay is ludicrous. Enter any game that relies on grind or loot treadmill, enter things like Fahrenheit. There is a world of other things that carry a game to either obscurity or a pedestal.
As a steady survival/crafting player, I enjoy the settlement building in FO4. It's no Minecraft, but it works. In fact, you can play the entire game without building. Also, the way settlements tie into the game (should you choose to), is pretty cool. It's not about how great the mechanics are, but that you even can. It adds a lot of interesting elements (some shallow, yes, like merchants). It starts to take on a tycoon/Sims/tower defense feel. There's certainly plenty to goof around with, allowing for creative builds. People are too hard on it, I think. I've enjoyed the heck out of it, no regrets. Buggy? No arguments there. But nothing to make me rage quit.
What the hell are you guys talking about? That wasn't what I said at all. Literally, that has nothing at all to do with what I said. Nothing. It's like saying "I think the weather here is a bit too warm" and then everyone in the room going "oh, so your a communist?".
I have to say, the comment at the start of this thread is the most disliked comment I've ever seen. Either people really hate No Mans Sky, or people really like Subnautica. I'm going with both.
I think it has to do with the absolute absurdity of the post and having a game we all know and love being compared with the biggest failure and dissapointment in recent video game history.
I love the 'not enough content' people, I mean the game's story isnt even in yet! Follow along anything in the trello and you can see that everything up to this point has been the background and environmental things. The content isnt here because it hasn't been released yet. We are definitely getting there and building up for some big releases, but its not here yet.
@sayerulz I think we need to give it more time before these things come into play. We definitely have at least some of the creative aspect with the bases, designs like you mentioned but dont forget all the nifty customization options on the seamoth, prawn, and cyclops. When the transfuser comes into play and we get effects from various fish the strategic aspect should come into its own. Perhaps it affects my playstyle more, but there is the strategic effect of knowing how much gear to bring with you on an expedition somewhere and how that will effect the amount of salvage you can return home with. I have to agree that the micro could definitely use some variation with the different predators.
Comments
Speaking in hyperbole and rhetoric isn't usually a good way to make your point as it means people automatically disregard what you have to say.
I disagree, why would "survival" mean a closure or end-game? I can't think of many games labelled as "survival" which have a defined end. There are many survival games where the only goal is to survive for as long as possible, with no story or end-game criteria what-so-ever. A little google search shows that pretty clearly.
I agree. I have no real desire to build any base beyond one, in the safe-shallows, just so I can access everything. The bases absolutely serve no real purpose beyond progressing mechanically and this feels empty.
I think at this point we're all sick of hearing the multiplayer discussion, and the devs certainly are. It's not happening and so be it.
I don't even agree that it would solve anything in the long term.
The game is great, but of course it has faults. I say again; it all depends on the player and their own patience, desires and expectations.
I still hope we can mod a real hardcore realism mode eventually, that would be something I'd find adds hours of genuine, realistic "survival" gameplay.
I just reinstalled FO4 myself, weirdly enough. I just have to find a spare 6 or 7 hours to get it modded properly (I often find I actually enjoy modding games more than I enjoy playing them) and I'll be away to the wasteland. Hopefully I can find some decent mods to make guns and loot rare, give me a need to eat, drink and sleep, realistic damage, etc. so I can enjoy a challenge this time instead of the boring FPS it was on release.
It's a real shame though, when a game has to be modded so heavily just to make it an actual RPG.
I think the game will boil down to speed runs, see how fast you can leave the planet or ignore the ending and just build a big cool looking but all to pointless base.
Don't get me wrong I actually like the game but it's lacking any kinda replay value at the moment, since some one mentioned No Man's Sky, I think what would be amazing for this game would be if the first planet was just that, the FIRST, and leaving it only saw you having to land on another procedural planet where the word Exploration could actually mean something.
Lets face it our game world is tiny no matter how much they ad depth wise once you have seen it once, you have seen it a million times because its all static, once you dump more than a day into the game you'v pretty much seen it all and I think that's a shame.
As some one who's been actively mapping the world I think I might be more aware of its size than most players just floating around looking for resources.
There are a few sci fi sandboxes out there like Starmade (which I've been playing) and Empyrion if those are what you're looking for.
I see the word 'sandbox' thrown around left and right with games when at times it really doesn't seem to "fit". At times I feel like the word's beginning to lose its meaning and just gets slapped onto games that have a large or relatively large world that you explore at will and can build a base in. I wouldn't really call Subnautica a sandbox game to be honest; if we could go around planting our own kelp forests or turning the Dunes into a Mushroom Forest - Koosh hybrid area, and so on... I'd be a little more willing to think of it as such. The freedom of what you can do to the world is fairly limited, so to me it's an open world survival game but not a sandbox one.
QFT
A "sandbox" game like this should be coming out with content patches every week, with new items, base parts, creatures, vehicles, etc. I mean, we are two years into Early Access. There should realistically be three or four times as much content as there is now.
What happened instead is that lots of early adopters played through the game, saw everything there is to see, and then got bored and left. Those who come back after months find that not much else has been added. Sure, we'll have a story soon, but for a survival sandbox game I think story is kinda secondary.
Anyway, yeah. Just my 2 cents.
Requoting what I said earlier on the sandbox part, as I really think people are incorrectly applying that term to the game when it really doesn't fit. Subnautica isn't a "sandbox" game, nor is it trying to be.
Games like Space Engineers and Minecraft are more suited to that tag, but Subnautica definitely not. In a sandbox game as I see it, the world and everything within it is yours to manipulate as you see fit and the only true limitations are the engine, your computer's power, and your imagination. Subnautica doesn't really fit that.
Content every week is definitely not something that Unknown Worlds can do. They're a small team that simply doesn't have the resources, funds, or staff to do that much so quickly.
It's more my opinion than outright fact of course - but from my experiences in sandbox games in general, Subnautica just doesn't fit the description to me. When I think 'sandbox' I think of games like Space Engineers, Minecraft, Dwarf Fortress, etc; so that's largely why I don't really think sandbox when I look at or play Subnautica.
Don't listen to Rezca. Subnautica is definitely a sandbox. It may have a story, but unlike actual story-driven games, the player isn't forced to follow the story, and is free to roam around, gather resources and build things as they want. Sure, you can't do things like plant kelp forests, but you can do underwater farming and creature breeding. Also keep in mind that until recently you could actually dig the soil and shape the terrain, and they removed that only due to technical reasons (it massively increased the size of saved games).
I'm curious to know what you would consider Skyrim then. As I understand it, Skyrim is considered a story based game yet there is absolutely no reason you have to follow the story line. It is also by no means considered a sandbox.
Amen to that.
NS2 doesn't fit into a labeled genre either and it's bloody brilliant.
If we were creating a world the size of Skyrim, with a team of 200 people, I would totally agree with you. But we're a team of ~20 people, and we're making a game that's realistic in terms of scope with what we want to achieve in both game, world-size and story-wise. Biting off more than a team can chew has been the downfall of many indie dev teams (ourselves included). We're hoping for the money you pay, you get a great experience with Subnautica.
Anyway, in terms of Subnautica, I find the actual gameplay quite lacking. The way I see it, there are three main types of gameplay that most games share in some amounts:
Micro gameplay:This is the sort of gameplay predominant in FPS games. It involves making quick, reflexive actions, and making decisions with immediate causes and effects.
Macro gameplay: This kind of gameplay is predominant in strategy games, and involves making decisions whose impact will often not be felt until much farther down the line, such as wether to invest in a strong military right away, or build up you economy first in a 4X game.
Creative gameplay: This sort of gameplay is about customizing the game world. It can be as minimal as basic character customization and putting decals on weapons, or can go as far as having a fully modifiable world like minecraft or starmade.
Subnautica is, for me, lacking in all three respects. Micro gameplay is pretty much limited to circle strafing around predators. Macro decision making is basically nonexistent. The closest thing to a decision one can make that will have far reaching effects is where to put your base. Even then though, there isn't all that much practical difference between locations. There is a modest amount of creative gameplay, with some basic base building and interior customization, but the base building system is too rigid to allow that much freedom, so the main aesthetic decision is where to put it. Subnautica has very good environment and ambience, to be sure, but those are not gameplay, and do not make up for a lack of meaningful gameplay.
Pffft, if you want to play another AAA clone, you're in the wrong place. Honestly, if you have those kind of (IMHO boring) expectations, then just don't ever pick up an indie game. Your expectations are unrealistic.
If you want Electronic Arts to purchase UWE so Subnautica can become the next big name cash cow with 13 mosltly samish sequels... -_-
I'm hopeful for more content, but I'm also hopeful for release sometime before 2027, and with a team 1/10th (probably smaller) the size of most professional dev teams for AAA titles, I'd like to know, what exactly does any of the complainers in this thread think UWE should do? What would you do in their shoes? Sprinkle some magic pixie dust because it's an emergency?????
/end rant
Plus your game is only £15, I feel I got my money's worth about a year ago.
Just in case you see this, I really do love all the work that UWE has done. The quality of your games is only superceded by the commitment of your company to your fans, but I'm just a fanboy so what do I know.
What?
No, sorry, WHAT?
You appear to be reading something totally unrelated to the words I wrote.
What I got out of that is "All the other games (AAA Electronic Arts, Blizzard, et al) do this, and this is the only way a game can be good, so Subnautica should really really be like them."
What I read is "I want a clone of my halo/mw/cod/whateverkewlkidsplaynow" if it is not it's shallow and boring and lacks immersion. Bethesda tried to be kool and make building, aside from how buggy the entire game its their building aspect that is generally the part about the game disliked the most because it's half baked, in usual way buggy as all hell and they will never polish that turd. Don't shove things in games just because it's "trendy" according to someone. That rarely works and tends to backfire in all kinds of ways.
Also your idea on "3 aspects" of gameplay is ludicrous. Enter any game that relies on grind or loot treadmill, enter things like Fahrenheit. There is a world of other things that carry a game to either obscurity or a pedestal.
I'm a pretty "hardcore" gamer (just shy of 1K hours in the xb1 MC, add to that the 360 version too!). I play a lot of games a lot of the time, I always have. I play SN for hours at a time, and have barely seen anything! I've started over a few times (as I'm want to do with games like this). Perhaps I like to smell the roses too much? I like to poke around at all the crevices and caves. I like to build various bases in various areas. I like to amass mats, because... well, because. I know I've barely seen what the game has to offer just in biomes alone!
I certainly can't tell someone else how to enjoy their game, or how a game is meant to be played, or what equals fun. I just don't understand how someone could spend, sayyyyy 24 hours with Subnautica and feel "done". Perhaps I'm just getting slow in my old age. Of course, being literally terrified of going into open, dark water tends to slow my progress a bit. Honestly, just scanning and exploring fill up a lot of time, never mind random exploring and base building.
I agree some game labels have been morphing (MMORPG was a great example). Is SN a "sandbox" game? I think it could be squeezed into that box, but if I was explaining SN to another gamer, I would say "survival crafting game." Honestly, I don't know if "sandbox" is a great term for any game. Rather, "open-ended"?
As a steady survival/crafting player, I enjoy the settlement building in FO4. It's no Minecraft, but it works. In fact, you can play the entire game without building. Also, the way settlements tie into the game (should you choose to), is pretty cool. It's not about how great the mechanics are, but that you even can. It adds a lot of interesting elements (some shallow, yes, like merchants). It starts to take on a tycoon/Sims/tower defense feel. There's certainly plenty to goof around with, allowing for creative builds. People are too hard on it, I think. I've enjoyed the heck out of it, no regrets. Buggy? No arguments there. But nothing to make me rage quit.
I love the 'not enough content' people, I mean the game's story isnt even in yet! Follow along anything in the trello and you can see that everything up to this point has been the background and environmental things. The content isnt here because it hasn't been released yet. We are definitely getting there and building up for some big releases, but its not here yet.
@sayerulz I think we need to give it more time before these things come into play. We definitely have at least some of the creative aspect with the bases, designs like you mentioned but dont forget all the nifty customization options on the seamoth, prawn, and cyclops. When the transfuser comes into play and we get effects from various fish the strategic aspect should come into its own. Perhaps it affects my playstyle more, but there is the strategic effect of knowing how much gear to bring with you on an expedition somewhere and how that will effect the amount of salvage you can return home with. I have to agree that the micro could definitely use some variation with the different predators.
Also, everyone knows that commies love the cold