I still remember the first time I played the game. I didn't know about the fabricator in the lifepod. So, I exited the lifepod and was swimming around the ocean just admiring the scenery. Then, I got the message about the Aurora blowing up that said I needed to get 1,000 meters from the ship. I thought that meant I needed to swim for my life 1,000 meters away from the Aurora. I remember swimming all the way to some island. I don't remember which.
All I have to say is... The folks who work on the WIKI are AWESOME!!!
So, yeah, the game is definitely a much different experience for a first time player versus someone like me who has now put maybe 150 hours in the game.
For me, figuring all that chit out over a couple of plays...
The developers have a really tough decision to make. Do they spend THOUSANDS of hours making the game harder for one player? Or, do they continue improving the game so the game will appeal to a billion new players who buy the game. Tough choice. I'm not sure which way I would go.
Thousands of hours? Do you think the devs are incompetent? Or is it just that you're imagining that "harder" means an entirely new game?
You're definitely imagining that only one person in the entire world wants to be challenged by the games they play, or wants the games they spend money on to last more than one playthrough.
I've played somewhere between thirty and forty hours and I'm done with the game. An entirely predictable world with no danger or difficulty means there's no reason to go back for another run. For a while, I was addicted to the naked Skinner box of trying to find anything other than gold, but that is the only "rewarding" gameplay in the game, and serotonin hits lose potency with repetition.
I like the Subnautica world very much. I wish there was a reason to want to spend time in it. That's why I'm one of the voices arguing for more difficulty options. Unpredictability and challenge will hook many players who won't buy a walking simulator, and it will keep many players interested for longer than one or two playthroughs. I bought the game in the first place because it was marketed as multiplayer and survival, and I regret it. One of the claims that I paid money for has proved to be false. The other is currently false, but there's no need for it to stay that way.
The developers have a really tough decision to make. Do they spend THOUSANDS of hours making the game harder for one player? Or, do they continue improving the game so the game will appeal to a billion new players who buy the game. Tough choice. I'm not sure which way I would go.
Thousands of hours? Do you think the devs are incompetent? Or is it just that you're imagining that "harder" means an entirely new game?
You're definitely imagining that only one person in the entire world wants to be challenged by the games they play, or wants the games they spend money on to last more than one playthrough.
I've played somewhere between thirty and forty hours and I'm done with the game. An entirely predictable world with no danger or difficulty means there's no reason to go back for another run. For a while, I was addicted to the naked Skinner box of trying to find anything other than gold, but that is the only "rewarding" gameplay in the game, and serotonin hits lose potency with repetition.
I like the Subnautica world very much. I wish there was a reason to want to spend time in it. That's why I'm one of the voices arguing for more difficulty options. Unpredictability and challenge will hook many players who won't buy a walking simulator, and it will keep many players interested for longer than one or two playthroughs. I bought the game in the first place because it was marketed as multiplayer and survival, and I regret it. One of the claims that I paid money for has proved to be false. The other is currently false, but there's no need for it to stay that way.
Ain't Buyers Remorse a bitch...
Folks invested in an Early Alpha Game with little to no knowledge as to what it would be like in its final form...
And now that it is somewhat nearing its completion date, they find they don't like the direction the developers are taking.
So, it's apparently time to make vailed demands that the games creators should change course because "It's Not What I Want"
Subnautica, with it's design philosophy, is never going to be a meaningfully challenging game. Because of the idea that it was to be a game without a combat component, it is nearly impossible to make threats actually challenging. Threatening creatures need to be easily circumvented because they cannot be removed, and when they added a creature that prevents easily running, the Warper, it was just annoying rather than challenging because the Player's only recourse is to keep trying to run until it works.
What you could have are cat and mouse moments, such as in Alien: Isolation or Resident Evil 7, where the Player is able to remain in close proximity to something capable of instantly killing them due to having cover and things to hide in nearby, but it sadly won't happen. The AI is no where near developed enough to allow for this and many biomes would have to be redesigned to allow players to sneak through them.
Naw, a new dive suit with active camouflage when moving slowly enough should do the trick nicely. We almost have this tech right now; I imagine in the future it wouldn't be that difficult.
Subnautica, with it's design philosophy, is never going to be a meaningfully challenging game. Because of the idea that it was to be a game without a combat component, it is nearly impossible to make threats actually challenging. Threatening creatures need to be easily circumvented because they cannot be removed, and when they added a creature that prevents easily running, the Warper, it was just annoying rather than challenging because the Player's only recourse is to keep trying to run until it works.
What you could have are cat and mouse moments, such as in Alien: Isolation or Resident Evil 7, where the Player is able to remain in close proximity to something capable of instantly killing them due to having cover and things to hide in nearby, but it sadly won't happen. The AI is no where near developed enough to allow for this and many biomes would have to be redesigned to allow players to sneak through them.
Ok, in real life, if you were next to a shark, and you were in scuba gear, would it likely attack YOU or the easier to catch, tastier fish nearby? I think I know what the shark would pick. Not many predators stalk their prey - mountain lions are the only one I can think of. Also, if you don't like the game, don't play it. Just because you dislike the game does not mean you have to convince others to dislike it too.
I seriously doubt that you could complete the game in a whole afternoon (which is from 1:00-6:00, which is about 5 hours). Besides, with the one update I'm sure there was a new terrain model that makes most of the game unrecognizable and some lifepods were moved as well.
If you know what to do, yeah, it could be done quickly, but learn to challenge yourself. Like me; I'm new to the game, but I have challenged myself to scan EVERY creature in Subnautica WITHOUT a Stasis Rifle (mainly because I can't find the darn fragments for them.... they moved the fragments around on the xbox one after the Precursor/Castle-Coffee update. The only creature I will scan with a Stasis Rifle is the Reaper cuz that thing only has a "hit box" right up around his claws and I nearly died trying to scan the thing (after it got into the safe shallows). And I'm also going to scan every bit of flora as well! (I also literally realized I have to scan a crashfish and the crashfish habitat...... nuts!)
Try hardcore mode
Try to kill the Sea Dragon with just a knife (I know, it's not part of the game to kill creatures ((aside from those annoying parasites)) cuz if it was, you'd be handed more weapons).
Try to make a massive underwater garden with every type of underwater flora and try to make a massive indoor garden with every type of indoor flora (aside from the marblemelon cuz those things drop nothing and I don't think they can be replanted)
Try and see if you can get every type of creature egg and hatch them!
Try to collect one of each (collectible) herbivore fish and put them in a tank (that includes Lava fish)
Try to tame every Stalker you see (which can be done, mind you)
Keep challenging yourself with new things, it'll make the game more interesting and more fun!
Ok, in real life, if you were next to a shark, and you were in scuba gear, would it likely attack YOU or the easier to catch, tastier fish nearby? I think I know what the shark would pick. Not many predators stalk their prey - mountain lions are the only one I can think of. Also, if you don't like the game, don't play it. Just because you dislike the game does not mean you have to convince others to dislike it too.
I'm not stating this from a realism perspective, but from one of how difficulty can be included in a game without the player having direct means to remove hostile npcs. I never stated I disliked the game either, I find it quite enjoyable actually, I made that post in response to the notion that the game should be made more difficult, and how from a design perspective there are very few ways to actually do that. In many of these types of discussions I just see vague things such as "increase difficulty" or "increase the damage hostiles deal" without the poster recognizing that there is little that can be done short of a massive overhaul of AI and stealth mechanics to make the game more challenging without making the player feel like it is unfair (like is what happens with the Warper).
Ok, in real life, if you were next to a shark, and you were in scuba gear, would it likely attack YOU or the easier to catch, tastier fish nearby? I think I know what the shark would pick. Not many predators stalk their prey - mountain lions are the only one I can think of. Also, if you don't like the game, don't play it. Just because you dislike the game does not mean you have to convince others to dislike it too.
I'm not stating this from a realism perspective, but from one of how difficulty can be included in a game without the player having direct means to remove hostile npcs. I never stated I disliked the game either, I find it quite enjoyable actually, I made that post in response to the notion that the game should be made more difficult, and how from a design perspective there are very few ways to actually do that. In many of these types of discussions I just see vague things such as "increase difficulty" or "increase the damage hostiles deal" without the poster recognizing that there is little that can be done short of a massive overhaul of AI and stealth mechanics to make the game more challenging without making the player feel like it is unfair (like is what happens with the Warper).
I'm sure somebody will make a mod for that eventually.
The developers have a really tough decision to make. Do they spend THOUSANDS of hours making the game harder for one player? Or, do they continue improving the game so the game will appeal to a billion new players who buy the game. Tough choice. I'm not sure which way I would go.
Thousands of hours? Do you think the devs are incompetent? Or is it just that you're imagining that "harder" means an entirely new game?
You're definitely imagining that only one person in the entire world wants to be challenged by the games they play, or wants the games they spend money on to last more than one playthrough.
I've played somewhere between thirty and forty hours and I'm done with the game. An entirely predictable world with no danger or difficulty means there's no reason to go back for another run. For a while, I was addicted to the naked Skinner box of trying to find anything other than gold, but that is the only "rewarding" gameplay in the game, and serotonin hits lose potency with repetition.
I like the Subnautica world very much. I wish there was a reason to want to spend time in it. That's why I'm one of the voices arguing for more difficulty options. Unpredictability and challenge will hook many players who won't buy a walking simulator, and it will keep many players interested for longer than one or two playthroughs. I bought the game in the first place because it was marketed as multiplayer and survival, and I regret it. One of the claims that I paid money for has proved to be false. The other is currently false, but there's no need for it to stay that way.
Ain't Buyers Remorse a bitch...
Folks invested in an Early Alpha Game with little to no knowledge as to what it would be like in its final form...
And now that it is somewhat nearing its completion date, they find they don't like the direction the developers are taking.
So, it's apparently time to make vailed demands that the games creators should change course because "It's Not What I Want"
Sounds very much like carping to me.
Ahhh, so your debate tactic is "be an >< to everyone you disagree with." Gotcha.
I mean it's cool that you're so intent on lying to yourself about what we want out of the game. It makes you an ><, but you know, that's your right.
It's cool that you're willing to lie to yourself about what early access is and what its function is. It makes you an ><, but hey, that's your right.
It's cool that you've closed your ears and your mind so hard that you won't even read what people say. It makes you an ><, but whatever, that's your right.
I seriously doubt that you could complete the game in a whole afternoon (which is from 1:00-6:00, which is about 5 hours). Besides, with the one update I'm sure there was a new terrain model that makes most of the game unrecognizable and some lifepods were moved as well.
If you know what to do, yeah, it could be done quickly, but learn to challenge yourself. Like me; I'm new to the game, but I have challenged myself to scan EVERY creature in Subnautica WITHOUT a Stasis Rifle (mainly because I can't find the darn fragments for them.... they moved the fragments around on the xbox one after the Precursor/Castle-Coffee update. The only creature I will scan with a Stasis Rifle is the Reaper cuz that thing only has a "hit box" right up around his claws and I nearly died trying to scan the thing (after it got into the safe shallows). And I'm also going to scan every bit of flora as well! (I also literally realized I have to scan a crashfish and the crashfish habitat...... nuts!)
Try hardcore mode
Try to kill the Sea Dragon with just a knife (I know, it's not part of the game to kill creatures ((aside from those annoying parasites)) cuz if it was, you'd be handed more weapons).
Try to make a massive underwater garden with every type of underwater flora and try to make a massive indoor garden with every type of indoor flora (aside from the marblemelon cuz those things drop nothing and I don't think they can be replanted)
Try and see if you can get every type of creature egg and hatch them!
Try to collect one of each (collectible) herbivore fish and put them in a tank (that includes Lava fish)
Try to tame every Stalker you see (which can be done, mind you)
Keep challenging yourself with new things, it'll make the game more interesting and more fun!
That's bullshit. "Challenge yourself" is just saying "you have exhausted every possibility in this game, so now you need to help it out." By advising that people "challenge themselves," you are agreeing with the assertion that there's not enough game in this game.
Subnautica's development is not finished. Nothing is set in stone. This is an early access forum for an early access game. This is exactly the right time and the right venue to point out that there's not enough game in this game, which is a statement you agree with.
Subnautica, with it's design philosophy, is never going to be a meaningfully challenging game. Because of the idea that it was to be a game without a combat component, it is nearly impossible to make threats actually challenging. Threatening creatures need to be easily circumvented because they cannot be removed, and when they added a creature that prevents easily running, the Warper, it was just annoying rather than challenging because the Player's only recourse is to keep trying to run until it works.
What you could have are cat and mouse moments, such as in Alien: Isolation or Resident Evil 7, where the Player is able to remain in close proximity to something capable of instantly killing them due to having cover and things to hide in nearby, but it sadly won't happen. The AI is no where near developed enough to allow for this and many biomes would have to be redesigned to allow players to sneak through them.
I tend to disagree. Well, not with the second paragraph, you're totally right on that. But the first paragraph is exactly what I've been thinking about when I keep suggesting new difficulty modes. The one variable quality the devs have left in the game is the spawn locations of mobs. That means that, on harder difficulties, more mobs could spawn; they could spawn in different locations; and both of those things could be tied to time passed in the game. Additionally, mob behaviors could be changed on higher difficulty levels. Warpers who come to your base? Why not?
It's an alien ocean. To raise the difficulty of survival, we only need to not feel safe all the time. Even with the limited set of tools the devs have allowed themselves, that is still achievable.
I'm sure somebody will make a mod for that eventually.
Is there any hard evidence that there will be modding support? I've not seen any so far, so I've come to assume that the Bethesda-style "mods will fix it" claims are a pipe dream.
Subnautica, with it's design philosophy, is never going to be a meaningfully challenging game. Because of the idea that it was to be a game without a combat component, it is nearly impossible to make threats actually challenging. Threatening creatures need to be easily circumvented because they cannot be removed, and when they added a creature that prevents easily running, the Warper, it was just annoying rather than challenging because the Player's only recourse is to keep trying to run until it works.
What you could have are cat and mouse moments, such as in Alien: Isolation or Resident Evil 7, where the Player is able to remain in close proximity to something capable of instantly killing them due to having cover and things to hide in nearby, but it sadly won't happen. The AI is no where near developed enough to allow for this and many biomes would have to be redesigned to allow players to sneak through them.
Ok, in real life, if you were next to a shark, and you were in scuba gear, would it likely attack YOU or the easier to catch, tastier fish nearby? I think I know what the shark would pick. Not many predators stalk their prey - mountain lions are the only one I can think of. Also, if you don't like the game, don't play it. Just because you dislike the game does not mean you have to convince others to dislike it too.
I think you'll find that Subnautica is not real life. Nor are there sharks. Instead, there are alien creatures who evolved with alien pressures. Which is the long way of saying "it's a game, so fun beats realism."
And don't be an asshole. This is the beta period of a game that is under active development. We are on the beta forum for that beta game. This is exactly the correct place to lodge complaints and argue about design decisions, and doing that is not "convincing others to dislike the game." If you're that easily convinced, then you should leave the forum before you get corrupted.
Nor is complaining a sign that we don't like the game. If we didn't like the game, we wouldn't be here trying to make it better. We'd have given up on it months or years ago. Pushing for a better game is why this forum exists. So please stow your cultish devotion to the game that exists at this particular moment.
And this forum's culture is individual posts. Conformity is important around here, after all.
No it's not, what you're doing is bumping the thread with each post... That is annoying behavior
Sorry for bumping the thread over the course of ten minutes. Bumping it for hours to complain about bumping seems like a perfectly reasonable response.
Holy Mother of Leviathans, a hexapost! Even the legends don't mention such a thing!
Back on topic: I really want to say there was a dev that mentioned that they were willing to have mods, but were uncertain as to whether it would be implementable. Obraxis maybe? I need better search-fu to dig up the quote.
Sorry that's not much to go on, I have the memory of a block of swiss cheese, but I know its been replied to by a dev at some point.
And this forum's culture is individual posts. Conformity is important around here, after all.
No it's not, what you're doing is bumping the thread with each post... That is annoying behavior
Sorry for bumping the thread over the course of ten minutes. Bumping it for hours to complain about bumping seems like a perfectly reasonable response.
Folks invested in an Early Alpha Game with little to no knowledge as to what it would be like in its final form...
And now that it is somewhat nearing its completion date, they find they don't like the direction the developers are taking.
So, it's apparently time to make vailed demands that the games creators should change course because "It's Not What I Want"
Sounds very much like carping to me.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Don't be an asshole.
Awww, somebody disagree with your opinion? Dry your eyes princess!
Isn't it interesting how the ones who think their opinions are always completely correct, are the first to start 'flinging the poo' when other folks disagree.
It's almost like their mental functions go all Neanderthal, when they come up against a differing opinion that they apparently can't, and/or aren't willing to comprehend.
It is fun to occasionally rattle their cage and watch their antics, but after a while..., it just stinks the place up.
Then it's time to move on to the more reasonably intelligent creatures who dwell here.
This game IS easy after a few plays, but personally, I think that's going to be its most intrinsic and long lasting charm which will bring folks back over and over again.
I'm sure somebody will make a mod for that eventually.
Is there any hard evidence that there will be modding support? I've not seen any so far, so I've come to assume that the Bethesda-style "mods will fix it" claims are a pipe dream.
I have to disagree with it being a 'fix' since there are a wide variety of wishes for the game that the devs can't possibly fulfill. We've had the explorers v survivalists debate many times on here. Thinking about it, even if they went full hardcore survival from this point it still wouldn't be as difficult as modded skyrim, which is to date the toughest survival game I've played. (it is totally a fix in Bethesda's case though), but they have addressed it at some point.
Ramble begins here:
There is the human element that is lacking in most survival games which I think is a large part of why no other game has come close to that for me. With the possible exception of Ark, no survival game really keeps the player down for long, creatures don't pose a threat for that long, but those assassins and forsworn will keep you checking your back for quite a while (with scaling stopper, those nutcases will kill you in one to two hits) Subnautica does kinda get around that in a way since we have 2 major threats that once engaged are pretty difficult to deal with (reapers and dragon) though... they're more interested in eating other fish than they are in you. I think that part just needs a tweak, they shouldn't be suicidally aggressive like the biters were, but they should acknowledge my existence before I'm in ramming distance.
Ah come on, there's loads of single player games that are still challenging. Especially in the Indie market. Darkest Dungeon? FTL? Infested Planet? I recently played Hotline Miami again, and that's a challenge no matter how good you are, because random things will always happen. Every time you play the AI acts completely differently. And from that, comes the challenge. You might still beat the game, but compared to any survival game, it's a thousand times more challenging.
And no X-Com player worth a damn plays vanilla. Long War Iron Man is the only way to play it. When people talk about X-Com being hard, it's Long War they're really talking about.
I am one of those guys with several hundreds of hours and I wouldn't ever consider playing vanilla X-Com, because you're right, it's too easy for an experienced player.
But even vanilla X-Com, on easy difficulty, is still harder than most survival games. Because you actually have to think about what you're doing, where you're moving your units, how to best engage the enemy. You have to actually think. Survival games require nearly no thought.
There is a difference between difficulty and pointless grinding.
For example, let's take a look at Dark Souls.
Bosses from this game are tough and unforgiving opponents. However over time you learn their attack patterns and learn what is the best way to dodge them and how to deal damage safely, when it is safe to heal.
This fella is my favorite from the series:
First time we met, he killed me again and again and again for like 4 hours or so. But eventually I figured out correct approach to this fight. On the next playthrough I beat him almost at first attempt.
Now let's take a look at Civilization (4 as it was the last I played) at higher difficulties (Emperor and Deity). The computer basically cheats, and since this game is basically game of numbers, you have to find and abuse exploits that allows you to get higher numbers then ai-controlled opponent (civ players call these exploits "strategies" and "good micromanaging"). It gets boring really quickly. So while it is hard to win at such conditions, its not fun. Your opponent doesn't surprise you with new tactics or better strategy, he simply cheats. Is it hard to win in such conditions? Is it entertaining? Hell no.
I don't think it is a good idea to raise Subnautica difficulty by increasing price of the stuff or damage from monsters. That would mean only more boring grinding. Subnautica already have too much of this.
PS. Speaking of XCOM, I never played long war because it seems to be too long: XCOM is fun during the first 2 months, maybe 3, but after that you are just breeding enough colonels and collecting enough loot to get enough ghost armours for final assault. You have to assault 2 landed Supply Barges, 1 downed Supply Barge and horde of disposable thin men on Council mission. IMHO Firaxis screwed up on late game. They should have made alien base assaults regular thing for late game. They should have made attacks on XCOM bases regular thing as well (I mean there are several XCOM bases over the globe where Intercepters are located, not just our home base). Imagine that instead of another freaking Supply Barge we would be defending aircraft carrier in the middle of the Pacific... Ah, I know, budget limitations. But that would have been an example of good difficulty - not just raising hp, damage and number of enemies on identical maps.
The inherent problem is that it's pretty much impossible to make a game that's both challenging for experienced players, and approachable for new players. The devs are obviously tuning it mostly for newer players, because those are the people who refund it on Steam if they only get killed for an hour.
There's not a lot of good ways to tune it, either. Difficulty levels help, and I suppose they could make AI tweaks so that things can be made more aggressive. The only games that I can think of that are approachable, yet still challenging, are Roguelikes that use RNG a lot, so a playthrough can be either oddly easy, or abusively hard, for any skill level.
So, hopefully they can work in some harder difficulties, or a few sliders to make things nastier when people want it.
I never played long war because it seems to be too long: XCOM is fun during the first 2 months, maybe 3, but after that you are just breeding enough colonels and collecting enough loot to get enough ghost armours for final assault.
Not in Long War, my friend. That's why it's not grindy (at least in most player's opinions) and it stays consistently tactical right until the end. Armour and weapons are all rebalanced, there are way more tiers, and game winning stuff like the ghost armour ain't so OP anymore.
You have to assault 2 landed Supply Barges, 1 downed Supply Barge and horde of disposable thin men on Council mission. IMHO Firaxis screwed up on late game. They should have made alien base assaults regular thing for late game. They should have made attacks on XCOM bases regular thing as well (I mean there are several XCOM bases over the globe where Intercepters are located, not just our home base). Imagine that instead of another freaking Supply Barge we would be defending aircraft carrier in the middle of the Pacific... Ah, I know, budget limitations. But that would have been an example of good difficulty - not just raising hp, damage and number of enemies on identical maps.
Yep, you're describing Long War. Mutliple alien base attacks, and base defence missions. You know how the aliens down satellites and then cause countries to leave the council, and then they get "taken" by the aliens? Well you have to take them back, by doing base assault missions.
Your criticisms of vanilla X-Com are completely valid, that's why Long War was created.
The only real weakness that remains is the lack of many maps. But even that is mitigated by creating multiple starting locations. It does a really good job of making old maps feel new, simply by positioning the drop zone in completely different places. You'd be surprised how effective it is at making it feel fresh every time. Especially when you factor in all the customisable options, enemy pod differences, the fact that enemies come in LOTS of different varieties, etc.
It's just how X-Com should be played.
As for Dark Souls, I never enjoyed it, despite playing through the first game and half the second. I found it quite challenging, at times, but as you said it's just a lesson in memorising enemy attack patterns which never vary. It really isn't as "hard" as it's often considered. To me, Dark Souls was a thousand times more "grindy" than most other games. The entire game is one big grind from start to finish.
It suffers from the same static aspect of other games which I previously described. There's no randomised nature to the enemy's patterns, so you can learn them, and never find them tough again. The fact you acknowledge that you beat that boss with ease the second time you played the game is a testament to that.
Oh, and I've never liked the Civ games, either, because of those exact reasons you gave. I'm a Total War player. (But again, never vanilla, because the AI sucks. It's mods mods mods all the way.)
[I don't think it is a good idea to raise Subnautica difficulty by increasing price of the stuff or damage from monsters. That would mean only more boring grinding. Subnautica already have too much of this.
I agree. I've never wanted them to increase prices or damage. And personally, I don't think there's any real way they could increase difficulty without rewriting the AI of predators, completely. It always comes down to AI, in any game. It's the hardest thing to program and I think it always will be. You simply cannot program randomness, which is exactly what's needed for a completely surprising challenge every single time you play. It's why multiplayer is always so much more challenging, because people are not programmed, they behave in random ways which cannot always be predicted.
Even Alien Isolation was predictable, in it's own way, and that's probably the closest games have ever come when talking about the kind of AI a Subnautica predator has.
There's absolutely no point in artificially increasing difficulty if the main thing that should be a threat remains completely predictable, though. That's exactly why people think Subnautica is an easy game. Because it just is. Predators act the same way, always, every single time. Bumping up the damage they cause isn't going to fix anything. Their behaviour would have to change.
And I don't think that's ever going to happen, and so Subnautica will always be an easy game. It's just the way it is, and if people want a challenge then they should play another game.
The inherent problem is that it's pretty much impossible to make a game that's both challenging for experienced players, and approachable for new players. The devs are obviously tuning it mostly for newer players, because those are the people who refund it on Steam if they only get killed for an hour.
There's not a lot of good ways to tune it, either. Difficulty levels help, and I suppose they could make AI tweaks so that things can be made more aggressive. The only games that I can think of that are approachable, yet still challenging, are Roguelikes that use RNG a lot, so a playthrough can be either oddly easy, or abusively hard, for any skill level.
So, hopefully they can work in some harder difficulties, or a few sliders to make things nastier when people want it.
+1. Rogue like games, or games which have massive RNG and randomness are the only really challenging games for multiple playthroughs these days, other than certain 4X/strategy games. I can still play FTL and get murdered in the first sector if I'm unlucky. I still lose Battle Brothers campaigns because I run into a random, roaming pack of Orc Warriors who one-shot-behead all my low level guys.
I still can't get into Darkest Dungeon because it's too brutal on the morale side. (Though I hear they've made it a little easier now.)
I've completed multiple runs of Skyshine's Bedlam and unlocked nearly all the Dozers, but I still die on a new campaign if things go bad and I start losing men.
Comments
For me, figuring all that chit out over a couple of plays...
Was the best part of the game.
Thousands of hours? Do you think the devs are incompetent? Or is it just that you're imagining that "harder" means an entirely new game?
You're definitely imagining that only one person in the entire world wants to be challenged by the games they play, or wants the games they spend money on to last more than one playthrough.
I've played somewhere between thirty and forty hours and I'm done with the game. An entirely predictable world with no danger or difficulty means there's no reason to go back for another run. For a while, I was addicted to the naked Skinner box of trying to find anything other than gold, but that is the only "rewarding" gameplay in the game, and serotonin hits lose potency with repetition.
I like the Subnautica world very much. I wish there was a reason to want to spend time in it. That's why I'm one of the voices arguing for more difficulty options. Unpredictability and challenge will hook many players who won't buy a walking simulator, and it will keep many players interested for longer than one or two playthroughs. I bought the game in the first place because it was marketed as multiplayer and survival, and I regret it. One of the claims that I paid money for has proved to be false. The other is currently false, but there's no need for it to stay that way.
"Break out the crocodile!"
Ain't Buyers Remorse a bitch...
Folks invested in an Early Alpha Game with little to no knowledge as to what it would be like in its final form...
And now that it is somewhat nearing its completion date, they find they don't like the direction the developers are taking.
So, it's apparently time to make vailed demands that the games creators should change course because "It's Not What I Want"
Sounds very much like carping to me.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
What you could have are cat and mouse moments, such as in Alien: Isolation or Resident Evil 7, where the Player is able to remain in close proximity to something capable of instantly killing them due to having cover and things to hide in nearby, but it sadly won't happen. The AI is no where near developed enough to allow for this and many biomes would have to be redesigned to allow players to sneak through them.
Ok, in real life, if you were next to a shark, and you were in scuba gear, would it likely attack YOU or the easier to catch, tastier fish nearby? I think I know what the shark would pick. Not many predators stalk their prey - mountain lions are the only one I can think of. Also, if you don't like the game, don't play it. Just because you dislike the game does not mean you have to convince others to dislike it too.
If you know what to do, yeah, it could be done quickly, but learn to challenge yourself. Like me; I'm new to the game, but I have challenged myself to scan EVERY creature in Subnautica WITHOUT a Stasis Rifle (mainly because I can't find the darn fragments for them.... they moved the fragments around on the xbox one after the Precursor/Castle-Coffee update. The only creature I will scan with a Stasis Rifle is the Reaper cuz that thing only has a "hit box" right up around his claws and I nearly died trying to scan the thing (after it got into the safe shallows). And I'm also going to scan every bit of flora as well! (I also literally realized I have to scan a crashfish and the crashfish habitat...... nuts!)
Try hardcore mode
Try to kill the Sea Dragon with just a knife (I know, it's not part of the game to kill creatures ((aside from those annoying parasites)) cuz if it was, you'd be handed more weapons).
Try to make a massive underwater garden with every type of underwater flora and try to make a massive indoor garden with every type of indoor flora (aside from the marblemelon cuz those things drop nothing and I don't think they can be replanted)
Try and see if you can get every type of creature egg and hatch them!
Try to collect one of each (collectible) herbivore fish and put them in a tank (that includes Lava fish)
Try to tame every Stalker you see (which can be done, mind you)
Keep challenging yourself with new things, it'll make the game more interesting and more fun!
I'm not stating this from a realism perspective, but from one of how difficulty can be included in a game without the player having direct means to remove hostile npcs. I never stated I disliked the game either, I find it quite enjoyable actually, I made that post in response to the notion that the game should be made more difficult, and how from a design perspective there are very few ways to actually do that. In many of these types of discussions I just see vague things such as "increase difficulty" or "increase the damage hostiles deal" without the poster recognizing that there is little that can be done short of a massive overhaul of AI and stealth mechanics to make the game more challenging without making the player feel like it is unfair (like is what happens with the Warper).
I'm sure somebody will make a mod for that eventually.
Ahhh, so your debate tactic is "be an >< to everyone you disagree with." Gotcha.
I mean it's cool that you're so intent on lying to yourself about what we want out of the game. It makes you an ><, but you know, that's your right.
It's cool that you're willing to lie to yourself about what early access is and what its function is. It makes you an ><, but hey, that's your right.
It's cool that you've closed your ears and your mind so hard that you won't even read what people say. It makes you an ><, but whatever, that's your right.
That's bullshit. "Challenge yourself" is just saying "you have exhausted every possibility in this game, so now you need to help it out." By advising that people "challenge themselves," you are agreeing with the assertion that there's not enough game in this game.
Subnautica's development is not finished. Nothing is set in stone. This is an early access forum for an early access game. This is exactly the right time and the right venue to point out that there's not enough game in this game, which is a statement you agree with.
Don't be an asshole.
I tend to disagree. Well, not with the second paragraph, you're totally right on that. But the first paragraph is exactly what I've been thinking about when I keep suggesting new difficulty modes. The one variable quality the devs have left in the game is the spawn locations of mobs. That means that, on harder difficulties, more mobs could spawn; they could spawn in different locations; and both of those things could be tied to time passed in the game. Additionally, mob behaviors could be changed on higher difficulty levels. Warpers who come to your base? Why not?
It's an alien ocean. To raise the difficulty of survival, we only need to not feel safe all the time. Even with the limited set of tools the devs have allowed themselves, that is still achievable.
Is there any hard evidence that there will be modding support? I've not seen any so far, so I've come to assume that the Bethesda-style "mods will fix it" claims are a pipe dream.
I think you'll find that Subnautica is not real life. Nor are there sharks. Instead, there are alien creatures who evolved with alien pressures. Which is the long way of saying "it's a game, so fun beats realism."
And don't be an asshole. This is the beta period of a game that is under active development. We are on the beta forum for that beta game. This is exactly the correct place to lodge complaints and argue about design decisions, and doing that is not "convincing others to dislike the game." If you're that easily convinced, then you should leave the forum before you get corrupted.
Nor is complaining a sign that we don't like the game. If we didn't like the game, we wouldn't be here trying to make it better. We'd have given up on it months or years ago. Pushing for a better game is why this forum exists. So please stow your cultish devotion to the game that exists at this particular moment.
And this forum's culture is individual posts. Conformity is important around here, after all.
No it's not, what you're doing is bumping the thread with each post... That is annoying behavior
Sorry for bumping the thread over the course of ten minutes. Bumping it for hours to complain about bumping seems like a perfectly reasonable response.
Back on topic: I really want to say there was a dev that mentioned that they were willing to have mods, but were uncertain as to whether it would be implementable. Obraxis maybe? I need better search-fu to dig up the quote.
You're not sorry, you're not sorry at all
Awww, somebody disagree with your opinion? Dry your eyes princess!
Isn't it interesting how the ones who think their opinions are always completely correct, are the first to start 'flinging the poo' when other folks disagree.
It's almost like their mental functions go all Neanderthal, when they come up against a differing opinion that they apparently can't, and/or aren't willing to comprehend.
It is fun to occasionally rattle their cage and watch their antics, but after a while..., it just stinks the place up.
Then it's time to move on to the more reasonably intelligent creatures who dwell here.
This game IS easy after a few plays, but personally, I think that's going to be its most intrinsic and long lasting charm which will bring folks back over and over again.
I have to disagree with it being a 'fix' since there are a wide variety of wishes for the game that the devs can't possibly fulfill. We've had the explorers v survivalists debate many times on here. Thinking about it, even if they went full hardcore survival from this point it still wouldn't be as difficult as modded skyrim, which is to date the toughest survival game I've played. (it is totally a fix in Bethesda's case though), but they have addressed it at some point.
Ramble begins here:
There is the human element that is lacking in most survival games which I think is a large part of why no other game has come close to that for me. With the possible exception of Ark, no survival game really keeps the player down for long, creatures don't pose a threat for that long, but those assassins and forsworn will keep you checking your back for quite a while (with scaling stopper, those nutcases will kill you in one to two hits) Subnautica does kinda get around that in a way since we have 2 major threats that once engaged are pretty difficult to deal with (reapers and dragon) though... they're more interested in eating other fish than they are in you. I think that part just needs a tweak, they shouldn't be suicidally aggressive like the biters were, but they should acknowledge my existence before I'm in ramming distance.
Another pair of pennies for whatever its worth.
For example, let's take a look at Dark Souls.
Bosses from this game are tough and unforgiving opponents. However over time you learn their attack patterns and learn what is the best way to dodge them and how to deal damage safely, when it is safe to heal.
This fella is my favorite from the series:
First time we met, he killed me again and again and again for like 4 hours or so. But eventually I figured out correct approach to this fight. On the next playthrough I beat him almost at first attempt.
Now let's take a look at Civilization (4 as it was the last I played) at higher difficulties (Emperor and Deity). The computer basically cheats, and since this game is basically game of numbers, you have to find and abuse exploits that allows you to get higher numbers then ai-controlled opponent (civ players call these exploits "strategies" and "good micromanaging"). It gets boring really quickly. So while it is hard to win at such conditions, its not fun. Your opponent doesn't surprise you with new tactics or better strategy, he simply cheats. Is it hard to win in such conditions? Is it entertaining? Hell no.
I don't think it is a good idea to raise Subnautica difficulty by increasing price of the stuff or damage from monsters. That would mean only more boring grinding. Subnautica already have too much of this.
PS. Speaking of XCOM, I never played long war because it seems to be too long: XCOM is fun during the first 2 months, maybe 3, but after that you are just breeding enough colonels and collecting enough loot to get enough ghost armours for final assault. You have to assault 2 landed Supply Barges, 1 downed Supply Barge and horde of disposable thin men on Council mission. IMHO Firaxis screwed up on late game. They should have made alien base assaults regular thing for late game. They should have made attacks on XCOM bases regular thing as well (I mean there are several XCOM bases over the globe where Intercepters are located, not just our home base). Imagine that instead of another freaking Supply Barge we would be defending aircraft carrier in the middle of the Pacific... Ah, I know, budget limitations. But that would have been an example of good difficulty - not just raising hp, damage and number of enemies on identical maps.
There's not a lot of good ways to tune it, either. Difficulty levels help, and I suppose they could make AI tweaks so that things can be made more aggressive. The only games that I can think of that are approachable, yet still challenging, are Roguelikes that use RNG a lot, so a playthrough can be either oddly easy, or abusively hard, for any skill level.
So, hopefully they can work in some harder difficulties, or a few sliders to make things nastier when people want it.
Not in Long War, my friend. That's why it's not grindy (at least in most player's opinions) and it stays consistently tactical right until the end. Armour and weapons are all rebalanced, there are way more tiers, and game winning stuff like the ghost armour ain't so OP anymore.
Yep, you're describing Long War. Mutliple alien base attacks, and base defence missions. You know how the aliens down satellites and then cause countries to leave the council, and then they get "taken" by the aliens? Well you have to take them back, by doing base assault missions.
Your criticisms of vanilla X-Com are completely valid, that's why Long War was created.
The only real weakness that remains is the lack of many maps. But even that is mitigated by creating multiple starting locations. It does a really good job of making old maps feel new, simply by positioning the drop zone in completely different places. You'd be surprised how effective it is at making it feel fresh every time. Especially when you factor in all the customisable options, enemy pod differences, the fact that enemies come in LOTS of different varieties, etc.
It's just how X-Com should be played.
As for Dark Souls, I never enjoyed it, despite playing through the first game and half the second. I found it quite challenging, at times, but as you said it's just a lesson in memorising enemy attack patterns which never vary. It really isn't as "hard" as it's often considered. To me, Dark Souls was a thousand times more "grindy" than most other games. The entire game is one big grind from start to finish.
It suffers from the same static aspect of other games which I previously described. There's no randomised nature to the enemy's patterns, so you can learn them, and never find them tough again. The fact you acknowledge that you beat that boss with ease the second time you played the game is a testament to that.
Oh, and I've never liked the Civ games, either, because of those exact reasons you gave. I'm a Total War player. (But again, never vanilla, because the AI sucks. It's mods mods mods all the way.)
I agree. I've never wanted them to increase prices or damage. And personally, I don't think there's any real way they could increase difficulty without rewriting the AI of predators, completely. It always comes down to AI, in any game. It's the hardest thing to program and I think it always will be. You simply cannot program randomness, which is exactly what's needed for a completely surprising challenge every single time you play. It's why multiplayer is always so much more challenging, because people are not programmed, they behave in random ways which cannot always be predicted.
Even Alien Isolation was predictable, in it's own way, and that's probably the closest games have ever come when talking about the kind of AI a Subnautica predator has.
There's absolutely no point in artificially increasing difficulty if the main thing that should be a threat remains completely predictable, though. That's exactly why people think Subnautica is an easy game. Because it just is. Predators act the same way, always, every single time. Bumping up the damage they cause isn't going to fix anything. Their behaviour would have to change.
And I don't think that's ever going to happen, and so Subnautica will always be an easy game. It's just the way it is, and if people want a challenge then they should play another game.
+1. Rogue like games, or games which have massive RNG and randomness are the only really challenging games for multiple playthroughs these days, other than certain 4X/strategy games. I can still play FTL and get murdered in the first sector if I'm unlucky. I still lose Battle Brothers campaigns because I run into a random, roaming pack of Orc Warriors who one-shot-behead all my low level guys.
I still can't get into Darkest Dungeon because it's too brutal on the morale side. (Though I hear they've made it a little easier now.)
I've completed multiple runs of Skyshine's Bedlam and unlocked nearly all the Dozers, but I still die on a new campaign if things go bad and I start losing men.
Etc. Etc. Etc.