I like the idea of a game where you don't have to kill things, I just wish it had better AI.
Agreed. I have no problem with the devs deciding to leave guns out of Subnautica and attempting to build a relatively nonviolent game.
However, I do have a problem with overly the overly aggressive AI and the lack of functional tools in many situations for managing the hostile wildlife or avoiding combat. As has been said, the torpedoes and decoys are effectively useless at this point. I'm not really interested in seeing Subnautica become a full-blown survival horror game and would like to see the environmental hostility scaled back so I can actually enjoy exploring.
Hopefully when the devs do their final balancing pass they'll be able to finally address these longstanding issues.
I doubt that there are all that many people who want to play a game where whenever you encounter an enemy, you have to either:
A- just avoid it's immense aggro range, pretty much cutting off large sections of the map with overlapping aggro circles.
B- stop what your doing every minuet or so to exploit bad pathfinding to lose whatever is after you for a moment, or poke it with something sharp to get rid of it for a similarly short time, so you can go back to exploring or whatever.
C- Spend the next half hour of your life circle strafing and knifing it to death.
None of these are fun, and since decoys, torpedoes, Ect. don't work, there are your only options, and this is something that shows no signs of changing.
But, apparently we aren't allowed to discuss the massive flaw in the game, no matter how civil a manner we do it in.
Subnautica is a game about avoiding the fish in the sea not a game about killing them.
Subnautica is a game about avoiding the fish in the sea not a game about killing them.
Subnautica is a game about avoiding the fish in the sea not a game about killing them.
...
(Keep repeating that a hundred times.)
If you try to turn Subnautica into a game where you think you have to kill everything, then, yeah, you will ALWAYS be disappointed at how ineffective the weapons are. On the other hand, if you figure out it is a game about avoiding stuff, I think you'll quickly discover the creatures in the game don't really have any AI to speak of. They show up and make some sounds and might occasionally get a lucky hit in on the player. But, for the most part, you can just ignore the creatures and be just fine.
I doubt that there are all that many people who want to play a game where whenever you encounter an enemy, you have to either:
A- just avoid it's immense aggro range, pretty much cutting off large sections of the map with overlapping aggro circles.
B- stop what your doing every minuet or so to exploit bad pathfinding to lose whatever is after you for a moment, or poke it with something sharp to get rid of it for a similarly short time, so you can go back to exploring or whatever.
C- Spend the next half hour of your life circle strafing and knifing it to death.
None of these are fun, and since decoys, torpedoes, Ect. don't work, there are your only options, and this is something that shows no signs of changing.
But, apparently we aren't allowed to discuss the massive flaw in the game, no matter how civil a manner we do it in.
Subnautica is a game about avoiding the fish in the sea not a game about killing them.
Subnautica is a game about avoiding the fish in the sea not a game about killing them.
Subnautica is a game about avoiding the fish in the sea not a game about killing them.
...
(Keep repeating that a hundred times.)
If you try to turn Subnautica into a game where you think you have to kill everything, then, yeah, you will ALWAYS be disappointed at how ineffective the weapons are. On the other hand, if you figure out it is a game about avoiding stuff, I think you'll quickly discover the creatures in the game don't really have any AI to speak of. They show up and make some sounds and might occasionally get a lucky hit in on the player. But, for the most part, you can just ignore the creatures and be just fine.
You've just really effectively proved all my points, and shown that you are not paying any attention to what I'm saying.
Subnautica is a game about avoiding the fish in the sea not a game about killing them.
Subnautica is a game about avoiding the fish in the sea not a game about killing them.
Subnautica is a game about avoiding the fish in the sea not a game about killing them.
...
(Keep repeating that a hundred times.)
If you try to turn Subnautica into a game where you think you have to kill everything, then, yeah, you will ALWAYS be disappointed at how ineffective the weapons are. On the other hand, if you figure out it is a game about avoiding stuff, I think you'll quickly discover the creatures in the game don't really have any AI to speak of. They show up and make some sounds and might occasionally get a lucky hit in on the player. But, for the most part, you can just ignore the creatures and be just fine.
It's almost like you don't even bother reading what you're replying to.
He literally just explained in detail that "violence" isn't the only solution, is only one of the three current solutions to dealing with predators he gave as examples, and torpedoes and decoy beacons would be an effective solution yet are so ineffective as to be rendered pointless as it stands.
Besides, the discussion of violence is a moot point as we kill and eat hundreds of fish. The discussion about weapons is entirely different.
Our already violent behaviour is in direct opposition with the anti-weapon politics of the game which leads to extreme ludonarrative dissonance.
I read what he said. I just didn't buy it. He wants me to believe the creatures in the game are so utterly dangerous and ominipresent that merely avoiding them isn't a viable option. I just don't buy it. I think the creatures randomly show up and randomly move around the map. Personally, I think using the word "aggro range" in the context of Subnautica is utterly laughable.
Our already violent behaviour is in direct opposition with the anti-weapon politics of the game which leads to extreme ludonarrative dissonance.
In my opinion, gathering fish to cook and eat does not directly oppose an anti-weapon stance. I mean, I wouldn't even cal that violent behavior. That's just trying to survive. Now sure, you may play the game violently on purpose, but the game doesn't force you to. I know that because I specifically try to avoid violence, and are no worse the wear for it. I think it comes down to a matter of playstyle.
I think this entire conversation is utterly laughable.
Arguing about how somebody else decides to design aspects of a videogame that one has the option to play or not, is like throwing daggers up into the air and trying to catch them with your teeth...
Eventually you'll succeed, but you'll probably give yourself a tonsillectomy in the process.
I read what he said. I just didn't buy it. He wants me to believe the creatures in the game are so utterly dangerous and ominipresent that merely avoiding them isn't a viable option. I just don't buy it. I think the creatures randomly show up and randomly move around the map. Personally, I think using the word "aggro range" in the context of Subnautica is utterly laughable.
He didn't say it wasn't a viable option, he said it's a boring, frustrating option.
Our already violent behaviour is in direct opposition with the anti-weapon politics of the game which leads to extreme ludonarrative dissonance.
In my opinion, gathering fish to cook and eat does not directly oppose an anti-weapon stance. I mean, I wouldn't even cal that violent behavior. That's just trying to survive. Now sure, you may play the game violently on purpose, but the game doesn't force you to. I know that because I specifically try to avoid violence, and are no worse the wear for it. I think it comes down to a matter of playstyle.
You're right, really. I just want to keep the distinction between the killing discussion and the violence/weapon discussion. They are very different and people are starting to say "I like the idea of a game where you don't have to kill things" when that's not the case, nor the issue.
My two cents: I like that this game has enemies that you can't really do anything about except run and pray. It's terrifying, and exhilarating, and I don't really get that anywhere else.
There are parts where the AI could be improved (bonesharks being the standout contender there, since they are just stalkers without interesting AI or sandsharks without predictable behavior), but overall I really do love being mostly powerless against the bigger and badder creatures.
I've gotten very, very good at running away, or diving into a place, grabbing the one thing I need, and then getting the hell out of there.
So I'd say there definitely are people for whom the current state of the game is fun, although of course it could always use polish. ...Also that Dunning-Kreuger pic is hilarious and I am stealing it.
Our already violent behaviour is in direct opposition with the anti-weapon politics of the game which leads to extreme ludonarrative dissonance.
Thank you for using a phrase I'd never heard before. This entire discussion was worth it just to expand my vocabularly--not that I'm agreeing you used those words correctly.
Of course, since I had to go look it up, you can easily argue I'm not the best one to say you aren't using it correctly. LOL.
I read what he said. I just didn't buy it. He wants me to believe the creatures in the game are so utterly dangerous and ominipresent that merely avoiding them isn't a viable option.
Again, not what I said at all. If you could be so kind as to show me the sentence where I said or even implied that?
Personally, I think using the word "aggro range" in the context of Subnautica is utterly laughable.
Aggro range is objectively a mechanic in subnautica. The mob behavior code literally has "If player is less than X distance, move towards and attack." Paraphrasing, but it's definitely there. How is that not an aggro range? The same code is in pretty much every even modern-ish game out there, except it's often actually more complex.
kingkumacancels Work: distracted by Dwarf FortressJoin Date: 2015-09-25Member: 208137Members
Ok, everyone, we get it. Some of you dislike the devs decision. Some of you are fine with it. You've all made your points, and this is getting slightly out of hand. Please, stop, before some poor fool confirms godwin's law. I do have a stance on this, but as I am an internet pacifist, I will not elaborate on my opinions as they may cause dissention in this forum. Thank you, peace out.
I concede all points made by people who added to my vocabulary today: @EnglishInfidel and @kingkuma. Since the point @Kingkuma made last that I must concede to is to stop this discussion, to quote him, "Peace out".
I don't know if people were reading my discussion in the 1.0 release thread, but I'm just going to copy/paste it here as it's applicable. Suffice to say there's no reason that "pacifism" thread should have been closed, it was a peaceful discussion. Nobody was being offensive, nobody was being demanding, and there's no reason the thread couldn't be left quietly to play out on it's own. People should be allowed to discuss the same old issues if that's what makes them happy. We're not all veterans, either.
2. The community needs to knock off the nonsense. Reading how these boards get, I'd be anxious to be done with the project and move on, too. We collectively need to stop with the nagging about things we know and have known are off the table. More vehicles, multiplayer, weapons, more creatures, area X is too (fill in random subjective complaint here), and the parade of "suggestions" that would involve completely rewriting core game elements - and then the inevitable flame wars that follow. Part of what drives a game development team is community energy, and when that community starts going sour, it saps your will to keep doing anything that would keep you heavily invested in that community...which means developing the game. There comes a point where the attitudes get to you and you just want the project over with so you can just say "sorry; game's finished, we won't be adding (blank) to it or making substantive changes." The multi-page arguments that have become commonplace are generally just ego wars that don't help the development process. If you really need to fight, do it in private. Productive debate is one thing; the endless "You're wrong because" "No, you're wrong because" gainsaying is another.
You know I love you but I have to disagree with a few things here. I feel you're putting far too much onus on this forum community when in reality we should have absolutely no bearing on the developer's motivation or lack thereof. Their motivation should come not from our verbal support but from the millions of dollars we have collectively given them in the hope (not guarantee, hope) that we end up with a decent game to play. They may only be legally obligated to deliver a bare minimum quality product, but morally they are certainly obligated to deliver the best product they are capable of producing. Their motivation should be all the support we've given financially, nothing more, nothing less. The support they receive here on the forums is an added bonus along with the feedback they require to make the game "better." And criticism (no matter how strong) on the same forums is part of the process.
If the community "starts going sour", as you put it, and that "saps your will... (to be) heavily invested and develop the game" (I'm paraphrasing) then that reeks of both immaturity and unprofessionalism, not to mention an inability to take criticism. If the community "goes sour" it's usually a very strong indicator that the developers haven't been listening to that community in the first place. The responsibility is theirs, and theirs alone. However, I'd like to think the developers in this particular case are far more professional than that.
Also, forums should be places for both healthy debate and yes, sometimes arguments. And never forget that one person's idea of what constitutes "toxic" is not the same as the next person's;
I just spent the last 2 weeks "jailed" (what ever that means) because I made clear my opinions on console gaming and the damage the console culture has done to gaming as a whole. It was made very clear that my opinions were not welcome, I was censored and punished. But this is a privately owned website and they have the absolute right to censor whatever they like and ban anything they like. I respect that, even though I happen to disagree and find it immoral.
My point in bringing this up is that to others, including the forum mods, my opinions were toxic (not to mention potentially damaging to potentially console customers) so they made the decision to censor those opinions.
But to me, the decision to censor those opinions was far more toxic, and creates a climate of fear where people are afraid to speak up lest they be punished. That's the world we live in IRL, and it's awful to see it leak into the online world too.
Anyway, that's a bit off topic, and I always respect your opinions @scifiwriterguy, I hope you know that. I just think forums are a place specifically designed for conflict and sharing opposing ideas. That's the entire point in their existence. It'd be boring and entirely pointless if we all agreed all the time.
@EnglishInfidel While I disagree to a certain extent, I do think you do have some good points, and I think you made an excellent, high-quality post.
Main difference being, while it's true the devs are driven by the money paid for their service, there's also an element of community that can drive people to excel above and beyond. As for the effect a toxic community has, you'll find most of your best and brightest idea and support people will begin avoiding the community, because they aren't interested in, to put it bluntly, pissing matches (when two or more people with opposing views have expressed their reasoning quite clearly, but won't shut up and move on, but instead resort to trench warfare).
The "pacifism" thread just got closed for absolutely no good reason; it was completely peaceable, no insults, no drama, no reason for it to be closed. It had strayed off topic, must like this thread now has, but that's how conversations usually work. It should be (in my opinion) encouraged, not suppressed. If people want to engage in "trench warfare" then so what?
Now instead of having a peaceful thread where old ideas are being rehashed, we have a closed thread, anti-censorship thread and a lot of annoyed community members. Which is the more toxic environment?
(Censorship, whether unfair or not, will always be more toxic than any community behaviour or action. Especially in the long run. Even if a bunch of racist, sexist homophobes suddenly populated the forums, their behaviour would be a small term problem and the hatred of the 99% of the population would soon drive them out. However, to censor them closes the door on freedom of speech for all. It serves no purpose other than punishing everyone for the actions of the few, and the negative impact will be felt for ever more, long after those undesirables have gone.)
I would strongly suggest that this sort of over-zealous, unreasonable censorship is far more likely to drive away the "best and brightest idea people" as those sorts of people are usually intelligent and thoughtful, and both respect and require the freedom to both "think out-loud" and follow the natural path of conversation.
No free thinker has ever been in favour of censorship. The two ideas are absolutely opposed.
The "pacifism post" was the thread I started yes.....
Someone posted that the devs didn't want to put guns in the game because the game was released close to the time of the Sandy Hook Shooting.
The Sandy Hook shooter was Autistic.
I am autistic, as I stated in the thread and I was requesting more ways to defend myself from monsters in the game, like a harpoon gun.
I also stated that I don't believe violent games make people more violent, but I do believe violence in games give violent people an outlet for their violence through simulated violence in a video game, instead of acting on the impulse in real life.
I don't understand how a moderator would feel that any of that was off-topic or unrelated nonsense....
I think the statement that it was unrelated nonsense IS nonsense and unfair censorship....
Also, as someone who is a high functioning autistic person, obviously I was relentlessly bullied the entire time I was socially developing. Bullies typically bully you because you are different, they are bigger than you, and they can get away with it because of your inability to do anything to stop them from doing so....
That is a lot like the monsters in this game. They are bigger than me and they are going to attack, hurt and/or kill me. Also I can't really do anything about it. I am virtually defenseless in this virtual world.
If anything this game promotes bullying and killing of smaller weaker creatures by larger stronger creatures. After playing it I feel more agitated and angry because of feelings of inadequacy and weakness. I can understand how people would label it "not fun" in reviews. It isn't...
Also, as someone who is a high functioning autistic person, obviously I was relentlessly bullied the entire time I was socially developing. Bullies typically bully you because you are different, they are bigger than you, and they can get away with it because of your inability to do anything to stop them from doing so....
That is a lot like the monsters in this game. They are bigger than me and they are going to attack, hurt and/or kill me. Also I can't really do anything about it. I am virtually defenseless in this virtual world.
If anything this game promotes bullying and killing of smaller weaker creatures by larger stronger creatures. After playing it I feel more agitated and angry because of feelings of inadequacy and weakness. I can understand how people would label it "not fun" in reviews. It isn't...
I can relate to a lot of these points. While I'm not considered autistic, I do have many of the personality traits and was bullied a lot when I was in school. Games that make me feel helpless are not really fun for me either.
I think the core issue is that despite the dev's intentions, killing things is still the most effective ways to manage threats and the aggressive creature AI tends to bring out aggression in the player. Since we don't have effective ways to kill things (or even avoid them in many cases), this often makes the player feel helpless and ends up making the game annoying and frustrating and not particularly fun in some areas.
Great, now I've received a PM demanding that I leave the forum. And not just by some random troll who just joined, but by a longstanding, well known member of the community.
Is this the climate we want? For a "peaceful" game, the players sure are toxic.
Are you effing serious, people? You want guns in SN because you were bullied at school? WHAT?
Seriously, what does one have to do with the other? Murdering fish will not make your school trauma go away. If you're so uncomfortable having to hide from FISH (who are NOT there to kill you because of your autism but because you're alien to them like every other player, BTW), then perhaps you need to A ) seek professional help, and B ) seek other games that let you have guns and go on a rampage.
Yes, this may sound insensitive when told to an autistic person, but come ON. You are asking a game developer to change the whole damn premise and point of the game to cater to your personal issues. It won't happen, no matter how well you argue and how many sensitive cards like autism you try to play here.
SN is not a game for you, simple as that, so you'd do better to try and move on rather than try to force your preference on the game developers and other players who are enjoying the no guns approach.
Great, now I've received a PM demanding that I leave the forum. And not just by some random troll who just joined, but by a longstanding, well known member of the community.
Is this the climate we want? For a "peaceful" game, the players sure are toxic.
This is the point where I realize that my exposure to the Ark Steam forum has completely desensitized me to what normal people consider "toxic"... There was a time when I would have been like "holy crap, that's kinda shocking."
Now I'm just like "well, thousands of people didn't review-bomb the game when the Cyclops became destructible so it's not really that toxic..."
Great, now I've received a PM demanding that I leave the forum. And not just by some random troll who just joined, but by a longstanding, well known member of the community.
Is this the climate we want? For a "peaceful" game, the players sure are toxic.
I admit I did pm you earlier, and sorry for how I worded it and all of that. I was very stressed out earlier, and almost had a mental breakdown and I guess I took some of it out on you, which I am very sorry for. I am just trying to deal with and cope with a family crisis that may take months to heal, or fix. Anyways, it is hard to explain this, but I don't mean to leave a bad reputation or set that type of "example" I guess, but I just made a mistake. Sorry @sayerulz Won't happen again though, I love this forum, and Unknownworlds to death!
Part of the reason we close threads like this is because they descend into drama, name-calling and problems. Every single time.
The time for debate on this subject is over, and years old. Please feel free to continue discussions via PM if you wish, but we've already made clear our thoughts on this matter.
Comments
Agreed. I have no problem with the devs deciding to leave guns out of Subnautica and attempting to build a relatively nonviolent game.
However, I do have a problem with overly the overly aggressive AI and the lack of functional tools in many situations for managing the hostile wildlife or avoiding combat. As has been said, the torpedoes and decoys are effectively useless at this point. I'm not really interested in seeing Subnautica become a full-blown survival horror game and would like to see the environmental hostility scaled back so I can actually enjoy exploring.
Hopefully when the devs do their final balancing pass they'll be able to finally address these longstanding issues.
Subnautica is a game about avoiding the fish in the sea not a game about killing them.
Subnautica is a game about avoiding the fish in the sea not a game about killing them.
Subnautica is a game about avoiding the fish in the sea not a game about killing them.
...
(Keep repeating that a hundred times.)
If you try to turn Subnautica into a game where you think you have to kill everything, then, yeah, you will ALWAYS be disappointed at how ineffective the weapons are. On the other hand, if you figure out it is a game about avoiding stuff, I think you'll quickly discover the creatures in the game don't really have any AI to speak of. They show up and make some sounds and might occasionally get a lucky hit in on the player. But, for the most part, you can just ignore the creatures and be just fine.
You've just really effectively proved all my points, and shown that you are not paying any attention to what I'm saying.
It's almost like you don't even bother reading what you're replying to.
He literally just explained in detail that "violence" isn't the only solution, is only one of the three current solutions to dealing with predators he gave as examples, and torpedoes and decoy beacons would be an effective solution yet are so ineffective as to be rendered pointless as it stands.
Besides, the discussion of violence is a moot point as we kill and eat hundreds of fish. The discussion about weapons is entirely different.
Our already violent behaviour is in direct opposition with the anti-weapon politics of the game which leads to extreme ludonarrative dissonance.
Arguing about how somebody else decides to design aspects of a videogame that one has the option to play or not, is like throwing daggers up into the air and trying to catch them with your teeth...
Eventually you'll succeed, but you'll probably give yourself a tonsillectomy in the process.
He didn't say it wasn't a viable option, he said it's a boring, frustrating option.
You're right, really. I just want to keep the distinction between the killing discussion and the violence/weapon discussion. They are very different and people are starting to say "I like the idea of a game where you don't have to kill things" when that's not the case, nor the issue.
There are parts where the AI could be improved (bonesharks being the standout contender there, since they are just stalkers without interesting AI or sandsharks without predictable behavior), but overall I really do love being mostly powerless against the bigger and badder creatures.
I've gotten very, very good at running away, or diving into a place, grabbing the one thing I need, and then getting the hell out of there.
So I'd say there definitely are people for whom the current state of the game is fun, although of course it could always use polish. ...Also that Dunning-Kreuger pic is hilarious and I am stealing it.
Thank you for using a phrase I'd never heard before. This entire discussion was worth it just to expand my vocabularly--not that I'm agreeing you used those words correctly.
Of course, since I had to go look it up, you can easily argue I'm not the best one to say you aren't using it correctly. LOL.
Again, not what I said at all. If you could be so kind as to show me the sentence where I said or even implied that?
Aggro range is objectively a mechanic in subnautica. The mob behavior code literally has "If player is less than X distance, move towards and attack." Paraphrasing, but it's definitely there. How is that not an aggro range? The same code is in pretty much every even modern-ish game out there, except it's often actually more complex.
The "pacifism post" was the thread I started yes.....
Someone posted that the devs didn't want to put guns in the game because the game was released close to the time of the Sandy Hook Shooting.
The Sandy Hook shooter was Autistic.
I am autistic, as I stated in the thread and I was requesting more ways to defend myself from monsters in the game, like a harpoon gun.
I also stated that I don't believe violent games make people more violent, but I do believe violence in games give violent people an outlet for their violence through simulated violence in a video game, instead of acting on the impulse in real life.
I don't understand how a moderator would feel that any of that was off-topic or unrelated nonsense....
I think the statement that it was unrelated nonsense IS nonsense and unfair censorship....
Also, as someone who is a high functioning autistic person, obviously I was relentlessly bullied the entire time I was socially developing. Bullies typically bully you because you are different, they are bigger than you, and they can get away with it because of your inability to do anything to stop them from doing so....
That is a lot like the monsters in this game. They are bigger than me and they are going to attack, hurt and/or kill me. Also I can't really do anything about it. I am virtually defenseless in this virtual world.
If anything this game promotes bullying and killing of smaller weaker creatures by larger stronger creatures. After playing it I feel more agitated and angry because of feelings of inadequacy and weakness. I can understand how people would label it "not fun" in reviews. It isn't...
I can relate to a lot of these points. While I'm not considered autistic, I do have many of the personality traits and was bullied a lot when I was in school. Games that make me feel helpless are not really fun for me either.
I think the core issue is that despite the dev's intentions, killing things is still the most effective ways to manage threats and the aggressive creature AI tends to bring out aggression in the player. Since we don't have effective ways to kill things (or even avoid them in many cases), this often makes the player feel helpless and ends up making the game annoying and frustrating and not particularly fun in some areas.
Is this the climate we want? For a "peaceful" game, the players sure are toxic.
Seriously, what does one have to do with the other? Murdering fish will not make your school trauma go away. If you're so uncomfortable having to hide from FISH (who are NOT there to kill you because of your autism but because you're alien to them like every other player, BTW), then perhaps you need to A ) seek professional help, and B ) seek other games that let you have guns and go on a rampage.
Yes, this may sound insensitive when told to an autistic person, but come ON. You are asking a game developer to change the whole damn premise and point of the game to cater to your personal issues. It won't happen, no matter how well you argue and how many sensitive cards like autism you try to play here.
SN is not a game for you, simple as that, so you'd do better to try and move on rather than try to force your preference on the game developers and other players who are enjoying the no guns approach.
This is the point where I realize that my exposure to the Ark Steam forum has completely desensitized me to what normal people consider "toxic"... There was a time when I would have been like "holy crap, that's kinda shocking."
Now I'm just like "well, thousands of people didn't review-bomb the game when the Cyclops became destructible so it's not really that toxic..."
I admit I did pm you earlier, and sorry for how I worded it and all of that. I was very stressed out earlier, and almost had a mental breakdown and I guess I took some of it out on you, which I am very sorry for. I am just trying to deal with and cope with a family crisis that may take months to heal, or fix. Anyways, it is hard to explain this, but I don't mean to leave a bad reputation or set that type of "example" I guess, but I just made a mistake. Sorry @sayerulz Won't happen again though, I love this forum, and Unknownworlds to death!
The time for debate on this subject is over, and years old. Please feel free to continue discussions via PM if you wish, but we've already made clear our thoughts on this matter.