I don't understand. How can you have fun? There's nothing to do. Nothing at all. I'm serious. Just.. please, someone give me a straight answer, because I feel as though people are playing a different game. Like, zork Vs. world of tanks level of different, I.E nothing in common other than being a program on a computer it.
Do you like the gameplay? What gameplay? What do you like about it? What unique thing does it offer?
Do you like the story? Why do you like the story? What makes the story a good story? What makes it special? Does it pull you into the world? How, why?
I really, really, really don't understand why I'm getting so many disagrees for stating what seem to me to be the most self-evident facts possible, because right now all I can think that makes any sense is fanboyisim and a bandwagon effect, and I don't want to think that that is all this community is, so someone PLEASE give me an answer that is not a troll, not an insult, not something completely random and nonsensical, just straight, factual, measurable things that make subnautica not the crap game that it feels like every time I pick it up. I don't want "go away, we hate you", I don't want "It's not your thing, go away, we hate you". I just want to understand or have my only working hypothisis that this community is just awful and are whiteknighting the devs confirmed if nothing else.
It is a matter of taste. People like the game for what it is. Why can't you accept this? Some people gave you explanations and reasons why they enjoy the game. So please stop with accusations of fanboyism or whiteknighting.
[
So, by this logic, if someones car is broken down by the side of the road, and they ask you "hey, can you help me out with this?", then the correct response is "Go away troll! I don't have to help you! Get reked!"
And here is the problem: You claim that Subnautica is a broken car and that is the basis for your arguments. However this is your subjective view and other people have the right do disagree. People can write what they want: You will always disagree and not be satisfied by the answer, because only your definition of what Subnautica has to be is valid. Smells like trolling to me.
This is pretty valid, but I'm curious as to what makes it tense?
.... are you playing a different game than I am?
There aren't any sort of jumpscares or... well any threats at all really.
Yep. Now I *know* you're playing a different game than I am.
I'm also not sure why you think a survival game is just a type of horror game, because they are totally different, with the overlap of "survival horror". Most horror games do not have survival elements, and most survival games do not have horror elements.
Also, for the record, jumpscares don't make for a compelling horror game. Tension does. Jumpscares can work if they 'pay off' tension, or work with it, but very few of them do.
InsaneAnomalyJoin Date: 2002-05-13Member: 605Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Subnautica Developer, Pistachionauts, Future Perfect Developer
Sayerulz, I can appreciate that you came to this game hoping for one thing and ending up with another. Unfortunately it's just a property of Early Access development that this happens and I'm sorry about that.
But that doesn't give you the license to insult anyone or insist that the forum population at large account for why they do like the game. Kindly tone it down a notch or two.
The #1 selling PC game of all time is MineCraft, and this game is classified as an open world surival game. It is a survival game not because surviving is hard but simply because you have to eat in the game. If you don't eat, you die. Similarly, in Subnautica, you have to eat, drink and consume oxygen. Thus, you must "survive". A game doesn't have to be ridiculously hard for it to be classified as a "survival" game. In fact, I might argue that ridiculously hard survival games don't sell nearly as well as less hard survival games. Again, MineCraft is the #1 selling PC game of all time. Personally, I play a few other games. I have 270 hours in Subnautica and 190 hours in a space survival game called Empyrion Galactic Survival. Contrast that with the 11 hours of play I have in 7 Days to Die. Personally, I find that game to be quite hard and just not nearly as much fun for me personally. Thus, I have only 11 hours. So, I don't think a game has to be ridiculously hard for it to be classified as a survival game.
In an earlier post, you seemed to say you didn't want to call Subnautica an "Open World" game because it sounded like every biome was the same. Again, let me reference the #1 selling PC game of all time, MineCraft. Certainly, you can't say this game isn't an open world game. The whole insanely huge map is procedural generated with just the odd difference here and there. If that game can be classed as open world, then certainly Subnautica is open world. Each biome is just a bit different. There isn't an insanely huge number of things to do in each biome. But there is definitely a unique wreck in each biome, etc, etc.
Compared to the complete open-endedness of MineCraft, the story in Subnautica might seem a bit less "open world". But if you so desire, you can completely ignore all the incoming signals and just spend your entire gameplay experience in Subnautica exploring and building bases in various and different biomes. You don't have to follow the story at all. Indeed, watching many play throughs, you'll see a number of folks who have virtually completed the game and build insanely huge bases before they ever listen to the messages. Indeed, it sounds like the DEVs are now adding a cinematic for the arrival of the Sunbeam for when the gun has been disabled.
We get that some folks, personally, don't like the game. That's fine. You don't have to like the game. But we *do* like the game. And.... guess what? You aren't going to somehow magically convince us we don't like the game. Is the game perfect? Nope. But do a lot of us enjoy the game just as it is, absolutely.
After having to sort though a number of replies that both didn't make any attempt to answer my question and said that I didn't have the right to ask it, I have, finally, gained some understanding, which is all I was looking for in the first place. I'll admit that I got really, REALLY angry towards the end, and may have responded to some people unfairly when my anger ought to have been directed at others. The second response to me pleading to have a question answered was just so condescending, mean spirited, and trollish that I lost focus.
However, I think I now understand why some people like the game, as well as why those reasons don't work for me:
1: The game has tension, and people enjoy that.
Why it doesn't work for me: Tension is, fundamentally, a heightened state of alertness coming from the belief that you will need to spring into action on a moments notice. Subnautica provides an environment that encourages tension: spooky noises, dark shadows, Ect. However, while the environment does give the feeling that something might jump out and get you, and that you will have to react, I can only play a game of slow-moving sharks and leviathans you can see a mile off for so long before I realize that that feeling just isn't true. To maintain a state of tension for me, there has to be an actual threat that will arrive with little warning, and I must have a solution on hand that I can enact if I am fast enough. Subnautica doesn't really have either of those things.
2: People like the eye candy.
Why it doesn't work for me: Basically, it's because while I do like to look at cool stuff, I need something more, otherwise I may as well google "coral reef artwork" or something and look at the image results. Subnautica just doesn't provide me with enough to do while I look at whatever new space-fish I've run across.
3: People enjoy exploring a handcrafted world.
Why it doesn't work for me: Basically same reason as above: I need more than visuals. The world can't really be interacted with. Yes, you can look at X new biome, but you can't interact with it. Making yet another comparison to fallout, there are tons of things you can do to interact with the world around you. One quest I completed in particular strikes me when thinking about subnautica: In this quest, you can find a deathclaw egg that was taken by gunners (bad guys), who are at the point the player arrives, already dead, having seemingly wandered into the den of a totally different deathclaw. You can recover a single deathclaw egg, and either bring it to whoever the gunners were destined for, return it to it's nest, or I suppose eat it (which hardly seems worth it). When you return it to it's nest, it's (mother?) then becomes passive towards the player. Translated in subnautica, perhaps you could return a reaper egg to it's mother, who will then no longer hunt you down like a smart missile with Peter Griffin's face. The point of this ramble, basically, is that the world feels empty and static, and I wish for more interactability.
I'd also like to specifically address comparisons to minecraft, and also why for me it is nothing like minecraft. Minecraft's world might seem samey, since it is after all algorithim-generated. But, what makes minecraft's world VERY different from subnautica's is that, from bedrock to the world height limit, you can edit every single part of it. So yes, mountain A might look a lot like mountain B, until, that is, you turn mountain A into a mighty fortress, with high walls, tall towers, barracks, storehouses, roads leading to farms, mines, and quarries, whatever you like. Add in multiplayer, and perhaps your friend has turned mountain B into a foul warren of dark tunnels and forges spitting evil fumes as they churn out weapons for his dark armies. With no story and a 100% editable world, minecraft is what you make of it.
In subnautica, no matter what you do, your base is a bunch of space tin cans. No matter what, you are a survivor from a crashed ship. The world is what it is, not what you make of it. That can be OK if it's a really compelling world, but, and I know for certain I'm not alone in this, it isn't.
So perhaps people can enjoy it, but I can't, and I think that of the internet as a whole, I'm in the vast majority.
Thanks for explaining yourself more completely, and I agree, it's not a game everyone will find enjoyable for reasons already stated in this thread, and it's open world falls short of other games with bigger budgets and different goals. (Just the decision to keep the game as kid friendly as possible precluded the inclusion of many elements that would have engaged more players.)
Perhaps in the future if they include a robust modding toolkit and the ability for players to add to, and remake the game, it could become something you find "fun" in several months or so, but until then I hope you do keep tabs on the games development and see how it progresses after 1.0 release next month, and if any future updates and DLC change your opinion of it's appeal.
So perhaps people can enjoy it, but I can't, and I think that of the internet as a whole, I'm in the vast majority.
92 % of approx 41,000 steam reviews are positive. 93 % of the 1,041 user reviews in the last 30 days are positive. I really think that the vast majority of people do like the game. At least these numbers tell us that.
This post is off-topic and not even on Subnautica, so most content in spoilers. But I think it's worth it.
@sayerulz, from reading your post above and trying to perceive what you would like, I think you should try Dwarf Fortress if you haven't before now. It was one of the inspirations for Minecraft. I'll try to give you an idea of the game so you can judge for yourself.
There's a lot of detail. But there's also an extensive wiki with great articles and the forums are very good at getting information and answer from the community.
With planning and work, you can completely reshape the world. People really do build mountain-sized dwarven statues spouting water and/or lava.
It's a management game (for the default Fortress mode). In fact, there's so much to managing a fortress full of dwarves that there are external tools to do it better than the default internal interface. There is an Adventurer mode in which you more directly control a group of dwarves exploring, but the main game is the indirect direction of a pack of dwarves to keep them alive and make a cool fortress.
The other side of being a management game is that once you get skilled at setting them to tasks (and finding out all the ways Urist McWhatwasisupposedtodo can find to not do a task), you can do rather grand things.
You start from scratch, putting together a expedition of a few dwarves to found a new fortress.
You need to set up a place to live, to raise livestock, to grow crops, and most important of all, to brew. 'Cause a dwarf without his drink....
There doesn't seem to be a lot of tension. Until DOOM strikes. There are a lot of things in the world that will wound, maim, and kill the dwarves and their livestock. Have to plan, prepare, and build for those you can anticipate. And react fast to those you didn't. Of course, this is also where abandonned Dwarf Fortresses come from to give adventurers a place to explore. Or another dwarven expedition a place to recover and restore. Because there's several tiers of DOOM out there waiting....
Links
Bay 12 Games Dwarf Fortress
Main source of the game. Also comes repacked with other utilities. Info and links on the wiki for that
So perhaps people can enjoy it, but I can't, and I think that of the internet as a whole, I'm in the vast majority.
Let's assume a world pop of 7.5 billion. Let's say only 10%, or 750 million) are on the internet. Now, let's say the #1 selling game only sold 30 million copies. So, we can easily say the internet as a whole hates ALL games. LOL.
I agree with your comments about MineCraft. It is fun in MineCraft to re-make the entire world into something different. But the "blocky" graphics get old after a while, and i want to go play a game with beautiful graphics like Subnautica.
So perhaps people can enjoy it, but I can't, and I think that of the internet as a whole, I'm in the vast majority.
92 % of approx 41,000 steam reviews are positive. 93 % of the 1,041 user reviews in the last 30 days are positive. I really think that the vast majority of people do like the game. At least these numbers tell us that.
Steam reviews don't tell the full story though. Mostly what they don't tell you about that's important here is the people who see the game and go "nope, not interested".
I've spoken to a fair few people who enjoy the survival/building genera, and most of them agree that subnautica isn't very good at doing those things.
And tons of people even here on this forum agree that the storytelling and worldcrafting are meh at best, cringey at worst.
As for games built around exploring alien worlds but without much else to do... we know what happened there. People hated it.
As for games built around exploring alien worlds but without much else to do... we know what happened there. People hated it.
Meanwhile, personally, I love(d) it.
And I can't stand Minecraft, because it makes me motion sick to play.
Does that mean that I would say Minecraft is obviously an inferior game? Not at all. It's not for me. I'll take Terraria any day. Minecraft satisfies most people's needs, while I have Terraria, Subnautica, and Banished (and am always looking for more).
I also have put over 100 hours into a game that is nothing but painting pictures over and over again, with no additional storyline.
Subnautica is not a bad game because you can find a handful of names who don't like it; it means that you have friends who like the same kind and style of game you do. Guess what? That makes sense to me. And offers a naturally biased selection.
Instead of stating why the game is bad to you, find a game that's good to you. Subnautica isn't going to become the kind of game you're looking for. Instead, it's going to be the kind of game other people are looking for. It's going to lose you as a player, and in the mean time, going to keep tons of others on.
Everyone's happy. Including you.
Unless what makes you happy is complaining about things. If so, then I guess leaving wouldn't make you happy...
Calarand77lurking in general forumsJoin Date: 2016-01-22Member: 211786Members
edited September 2017
Arguments for and against aside, I have a question for you @sayerulz : what are you trying to achieve here?
Time and again I see you chime in on various topics just to harp on the game, tell the whole wide world how much you dislike SN now, and how frustrated you are with it. You usually wind yourself up so much that you get a warning from a moderator. And what for? To what purpose?
The people who respond to you here offering their arguments and experiences obviously do enjoy the game. Same with those 38 thousands of people who have left positive reviews on Steam. It's highly unlikely you are going to change their minds, they simply do like the game as it is, done deal. The game itself is on its last stretch towards the full release and there will be no drastic changes made to any part of it at this point, be it story or gameplay, not a snowball's chance in hell for that.
I do understand that you bought the game expecting one thing and got something else in the end. It's unfortunate and you are disappointed, we all get it. And, trust me on that, you made your point abundantly clear to everyone here. But, as I said, there is absolutely nothing to be gained from your personal crusade against SN's current state. You won't be able to get a refund, you won't get your dream game, you won't gather a following here to march on UWE's headquarters to start riots. All you are accomplishing by going on and on is hurting all those people you call idiots for enjoying the game (not in those words, but the message is pretty darn clear), and... making yourself look like an angry hater sometimes.
You made your point, you shared your opinion and it has been acknowledged by everyone, there's nothing more the developers or fellow players can offer you at this point, so why you refuse so vehemently to simply move on? What's your point?
@sayerulz It's not that we're saying "leave", it's that you're saying "I hate what everyone is here for" over and over, so the question people are asking is "why are you still here?". You've already stated you hate the game, and that you think the forum community is rotten to the core, so what are you doing??
Here's an idea: try to find a game that you absolutely love, that you think Subnautica fans might also love. That'll give us something in common to talk about.
If the idea of doing that makes you want to go barf, perhaps you are, indeed, in the wrong place.
PS Do you like multiplayer shooters? If so, what's your opinion of Natural Selection 2?
And tons of people even here on this forum agree that the storytelling and worldcrafting are meh at best, cringey at worst.
Yes, there is criticism but as far as i can tell these people do not say that the game is nothing more than a pile of crap which is not enjoyable. They acknowledge the qualities too. The only person that does so is you - my impression. That's not meant to be an insult.
kingkumacancels Work: distracted by Dwarf FortressJoin Date: 2015-09-25Member: 208137Members
edited September 2017
Is there things in the game I dislike? Yes. There are things in all games I would prefer changed. Is it worth complaning to the developers about? To me, no. In my opinion, as the game is made by the developers, the developers have the final say in how the game is made. Sure, they can listen, (and they do, why else would the actively ask for feedback, press f8), but it's their game, they're doing all the work programming it, so honestly, until we get a job at unknown worlds working on this game, the devs have the final say, not us.
So perhaps people can enjoy it, but I can't, and I think that of the internet as a whole, I'm in the vast majority.
92 % of approx 41,000 steam reviews are positive. 93 % of the 1,041 user reviews in the last 30 days are positive. I really think that the vast majority of people do like the game. At least these numbers tell us that.
I've spoken to a fair few people who enjoy the survival/building genera, and most of them agree that subnautica isn't very good at doing those things.
Ok, just to say my steam library consists of the following games:
Besiege
Factorio
Terriria
Subnautica
The last Leviathan
Space engineers
They are all building / survival games. I buy them because I can sink lots of time into them, and they are still good. To me, replay value is god. Just saying that there are people who enjoy the survival / building genres, and also enjoy Subnautica.
Steam reviews don't tell the full story though. Mostly what they don't tell you about that's important here is the people who see the game and go "nope, not interested".
I've spoken to a fair few people who enjoy the survival/building genera, and most of them agree that subnautica isn't very good at doing those things.
And tons of people even here on this forum agree that the storytelling and worldcrafting are meh at best, cringey at worst.
As for games built around exploring alien worlds but without much else to do... we know what happened there. People hated it.
As @t38 noted, Subnautica reviews no steam are awesome. You have compared time and time again with Fallout. If you check Fallout 4 reviews (also on steam) they aren't anything to write home about. We're talking here of ~30k - 60k people. If you take the time to learn some statistics, you'll see how relevant those numbers are and how misguide your comment was.
Your other examples are simply anecdotal and don't have much relevance beyond that.
@Calarand77 put up a very fair point. If you haven't done it yet you should read his last comment on this thread very thoroughly.
As for your question about valid reasons to play, I think you might be missing the point. To me, games wander between art and sports. They can be simply appreciated and/or very competitive. In this sense Subnautica stands fully on the former classification.
Art does not need to appease to everyone. It is subjective, so the way you perceive does not need to be shared with other individuals. That's what a lot of people here are trying to tell you. There are no real valid reasons to why it is good, because such reasons will also be subjective.
Instead, what I'm getting from you is some vibe like "why is everyone enjoying this, and why can't I?". And that's okay, I don't get a lot of art either. I stood in front of Mona Lisa, gave it a pretty long look and was like "meh".
For myself, I enjoy it for the same majority of reasons that were presented here. If you don't enjoy it you should just quit playing.
Subnautica, unfortunately fell between these category buckets and landed in the netherworld. There are story elements like the PDAs and crashed pods, the abandoned seabases, and the enormous wreck of the Aurora, but none of them are ever brought together into a cogent story. The ingredients are there, but they were never cooked into a narrative. As a result, players want to know how the pieces fit together and the story they tell, but they don't, which leaves story-driven players feeling unfulfilled. "I must have missed something!" where, in fact, what they feel they're missing isn't there to be found. So the ending feels misplaced, going straight from Luke farting around on Tatooine to blowing up the Death Star. There's the nagging feeling that something is missing, which means we're missing out.
The other side of the problem is the difficulty in simulating an aquatic world. The world feels emptier than it should in large part because it has to be. Anybody who's gone snorkeling or diving at a coral reef, lagoon, or other similar environment will tell you the same thing: it's so alive! Big fish, little fish, microfish, and all kinds of plants. Busy, busy, busy. Trying to put all of that in a simulated game world, developing it, then rendering it in the player's machine...you're looking at a nightmare. Developers of games like Fallout can go nuts because their clutter is inanimate and the environment is cooperative; air is empty. In a water environment, though, almost everything is alive, which means animation; everything needs to move realistically in three dimensions, which is AI calculations; and there's a lot more of everything, which pushes resources to the limit. If a realistic world were built, one teeming with life as we might expect, most of the gamer base would be eliminated because they simply couldn't run it (c.f. the Crysis Problem). For people like Markiplier or Jacksepticeye, their videos would look great; for someone with a bargain Best Buy HP craptop, you're dead out of luck - heck, even someone with an upper-middle-range machine would be out of luck or running on ultra-low-quality settings. Accessibility means a wider sales base and a better experience for more people.
@scifiwriterguy
Kudos on your post, I always enjoy reading them and feel like I'm learning a thing or two.
However I disagree with you on some points.
O this first paragraph I love that we never get the full story, just chips of it. I'm also the kind of guy that reads every book on an Elder Scrolls game. I'll will acknowledge and enjoy the story elements if they are present, but their lack will not denigrate my experience. I believe there's a lot of people like this.
On the second paragraph, I disagree that water is teeming with life. It is, but we don't see it all the time (unless we are, as you said it, on a coral reef, lagoon or some other very rich ecosystem). In the open ocean you have to search a while before finding some animals and on most sand beaches you need a trained eye to spot most of the fauna.
Add to the point that we are talking about an alien ecosystem that does not need to be as rich as those you mentioned.
I am acquainted with most aquatic ecosystems of the western south Atlantic and I did not feel like the game felt empty. I know it is only my personal opinion, but that's the best I got.
Add to the point that we are talking about an alien ecosystem that does not need to be as rich as those you mentioned.
I am acquainted with most aquatic ecosystems of the western south Atlantic and I did not feel like the game felt empty. I know it is only my personal opinion, but that's the best I got.
One could also argue that the Carar Bacterium infection that's already in the ecosystem decimated the former variety of species down to the bare few we see in game, hence the feeling of emptiness we sometimes experience in the shallows and other areas one might expect to be teeming with macro organisms.
I've been here pretty much since day 1, saying what is wrong with the game, why it's a problem, and how I think it can be fixed. And since day 1, not only have my concerns received no response from the devs, but any post saying that something is wrong with the game has been actively witch-hunted by the community.
I say that the game isn't any good, and how it can be made better, and I get unqualified psychoanalysis, claims that my suggestions don't mean anything to the devs (true it seems) and that I should therefor not make them, and more recently, PM demands that I leave the forum.
I ask for info on why people spam me with disagrees, and I get accusations from several people that I'm trolling.
And despite all of that, I persist in trying to make the game and forum a better place, because there are a few good people on the forums, and the game does have potential.
Perhaps what I really want is for people to see the closed-minded echo chamber community they have built.
The is a forum where a totally random new person will get hazed for suggesting multiplayer or weapons. Think about that for a second. The community response to so many random people independently asking for something is to dismiss them as violent people, trolls, or idiots? How did it reach this point?
@sayerulz you've had a response from a dev IN THIS THREAD, so stop playing a victim and stop implying that everything you do here is positive. Every thread I see that you 'contribute' to consists of you making massive posts with several quotes in that are pretty much just you prolonging discussions that everyone is sick of or arguing with people who refute the things you say. Just because people here don't agree with your suggestions, the forum is not a "closed-minded echo chamber" it's just that your ideas don't appeal to the majority and although you may not like this, it's the way it is.
Also, I've seen the PM you keep referring to as a 'demand to leave the forum' and it was one off the cuff remark from someone who has already apologised several times for it. Let it go.
You've been politely asked to tone this behaviour down once, now I'm insisting that you tone it down.
saying what is wrong with the game, why it's a problem, and how I think it can be fixed.
But every bit of that is extremely subjective.
Everything that's not an actual bug is subjective (and I've been shot down for saying that those need to be fixed before working on things like DLC and post-1.0 content patches). What is objectively true however is that this forum has a long history of attacking anyone who says the game is subjectively broken. I'm just the only one who is stubborn enough to stick around.
And foxy, you can't intimidate me. Either ban me and be done with it or leave me be. I've broken a few rules, but no more than anyone else. But I did disagree with the majority, and continued to do so even when the world is stacked against me, and so if that's a crime, go ahead, ban me.
But I would do so while considering what you might think if you saw someone on the street saying to another: "We told you not to talk about that, but you just couldn't keep quiet, could you? You're willing to put it all on the line because you don't want to get in line with all the others? Now we're going to have to make you disappear."
Because this is just a micro scale version of that. The stakes are lower, but the game is the same.
One could also argue that the Carar Bacterium infection that's already in the ecosystem decimated the former variety of species down to the bare few we see in game, hence the feeling of emptiness we sometimes experience in the shallows and other areas one might expect to be teeming with macro organisms.
I've been here pretty much since day 1, saying what is wrong with the game, why it's a problem, and how I think it can be fixed.
But you have had little impact on the community and Subnautica. And most of that impact has been to irritate people rightly or wrongly. That doesn't help you and it doesn't help Subnautica nor Subnautica's community.
Subnautica is the vision and product of UWE and its staff. They've crafted it and a lot of us like Subnautica. We also want to see some changes.
Forcing UWE or the community to justify their vision and support is just a good way to irritate them and ensure whatever good is in your words will be lost or ignored.
Do you want to change Subnautica? You or I or the whole community won't be able to cause Subnautica to be changed in major ways. But we could possibly convince the devs to change it in some minor ways. There's now 3.5 months until release and for at least part of that time we could be a force for Subnautica improvement.
But not if we dwell on lost battles. Not if we attack those who we're trying to convince or those who could support our ideas.
Do you want to be a positive influence on Subnautica? Don't propose massive changes; they ain't going to happen at this late date. The more simple the change and the greater the community support, the more likely it will receive attention from the devs and the more likely it could be implemented.
Make simple suggestions. Make shorter comments (I know, I break that one all the time).
Here's a chance. Make a simple comment on topic, about what you think about the game ending in the context of the game as it is. Should it be final? Should it be open ended? How?
I am really dissapointed with the fact that the game has an ending. Just like i was with terraria when it "ended" but it had alot of content before getting there at least.
What happened to arctic zone? Or other zones for that part. There is so much potential for a big sandbox open world with many mechanics like special suits for the cold.
One word: Progression. Giving the player a reason to keep playing. Something to explore.
i want zones far away, far far away, thats what gives a good feeling of exploration.
I think the game ending could be optional or flexible. It could end at anywhere from completing the rocket, launching the rocket, flying through space, to entering some sort of suspended animation after launch. Because at any point circumstances could easily bring the Protagonist (let's call him Dave ) back to 4546B. I definitely agree we haven't seen enough of 4546B, especially the places envisioned but not added in.
1. Dave could happen to not launch or not escape and end up back on 4546B, either in the corner of the world we all know and love or somewhere else. Kind of like going from "Aliens" to "Alien 3", hopefully without the depressing prison.
2. Dave is special. He's now immune to the Carar bacteria. That immunity may not be easily transferable. So Dave's a prime candidate to be pressganged recruited for a return exploration of 4546B. More like going from "Alien" to "Aliens". There may be other defences that can come online after Dave leaves, so coming back could be more like a Starship Troopers (the novel) drop than a more sedate planetary landing. Of course, compared to Dave's last landing on 4546B, a drop even into a hot LZ might be a bit calmer.
Comments
It is a matter of taste. People like the game for what it is. Why can't you accept this? Some people gave you explanations and reasons why they enjoy the game. So please stop with accusations of fanboyism or whiteknighting.
And here is the problem: You claim that Subnautica is a broken car and that is the basis for your arguments. However this is your subjective view and other people have the right do disagree. People can write what they want: You will always disagree and not be satisfied by the answer, because only your definition of what Subnautica has to be is valid. Smells like trolling to me.
.... are you playing a different game than I am?
Yep. Now I *know* you're playing a different game than I am.
Exactly! I'm glad you understand my point, then.
That's not true. There were some users who gave you explanations.
Really?
That's your opinion but not universal truth.
But that doesn't give you the license to insult anyone or insist that the forum population at large account for why they do like the game. Kindly tone it down a notch or two.
In an earlier post, you seemed to say you didn't want to call Subnautica an "Open World" game because it sounded like every biome was the same. Again, let me reference the #1 selling PC game of all time, MineCraft. Certainly, you can't say this game isn't an open world game. The whole insanely huge map is procedural generated with just the odd difference here and there. If that game can be classed as open world, then certainly Subnautica is open world. Each biome is just a bit different. There isn't an insanely huge number of things to do in each biome. But there is definitely a unique wreck in each biome, etc, etc.
Compared to the complete open-endedness of MineCraft, the story in Subnautica might seem a bit less "open world". But if you so desire, you can completely ignore all the incoming signals and just spend your entire gameplay experience in Subnautica exploring and building bases in various and different biomes. You don't have to follow the story at all. Indeed, watching many play throughs, you'll see a number of folks who have virtually completed the game and build insanely huge bases before they ever listen to the messages. Indeed, it sounds like the DEVs are now adding a cinematic for the arrival of the Sunbeam for when the gun has been disabled.
We get that some folks, personally, don't like the game. That's fine. You don't have to like the game. But we *do* like the game. And.... guess what? You aren't going to somehow magically convince us we don't like the game. Is the game perfect? Nope. But do a lot of us enjoy the game just as it is, absolutely.
However, I think I now understand why some people like the game, as well as why those reasons don't work for me:
1: The game has tension, and people enjoy that.
Why it doesn't work for me: Tension is, fundamentally, a heightened state of alertness coming from the belief that you will need to spring into action on a moments notice. Subnautica provides an environment that encourages tension: spooky noises, dark shadows, Ect. However, while the environment does give the feeling that something might jump out and get you, and that you will have to react, I can only play a game of slow-moving sharks and leviathans you can see a mile off for so long before I realize that that feeling just isn't true. To maintain a state of tension for me, there has to be an actual threat that will arrive with little warning, and I must have a solution on hand that I can enact if I am fast enough. Subnautica doesn't really have either of those things.
2: People like the eye candy.
Why it doesn't work for me: Basically, it's because while I do like to look at cool stuff, I need something more, otherwise I may as well google "coral reef artwork" or something and look at the image results. Subnautica just doesn't provide me with enough to do while I look at whatever new space-fish I've run across.
3: People enjoy exploring a handcrafted world.
Why it doesn't work for me: Basically same reason as above: I need more than visuals. The world can't really be interacted with. Yes, you can look at X new biome, but you can't interact with it. Making yet another comparison to fallout, there are tons of things you can do to interact with the world around you. One quest I completed in particular strikes me when thinking about subnautica: In this quest, you can find a deathclaw egg that was taken by gunners (bad guys), who are at the point the player arrives, already dead, having seemingly wandered into the den of a totally different deathclaw. You can recover a single deathclaw egg, and either bring it to whoever the gunners were destined for, return it to it's nest, or I suppose eat it (which hardly seems worth it). When you return it to it's nest, it's (mother?) then becomes passive towards the player. Translated in subnautica, perhaps you could return a reaper egg to it's mother, who will then no longer hunt you down like a smart missile with Peter Griffin's face. The point of this ramble, basically, is that the world feels empty and static, and I wish for more interactability.
I'd also like to specifically address comparisons to minecraft, and also why for me it is nothing like minecraft. Minecraft's world might seem samey, since it is after all algorithim-generated. But, what makes minecraft's world VERY different from subnautica's is that, from bedrock to the world height limit, you can edit every single part of it. So yes, mountain A might look a lot like mountain B, until, that is, you turn mountain A into a mighty fortress, with high walls, tall towers, barracks, storehouses, roads leading to farms, mines, and quarries, whatever you like. Add in multiplayer, and perhaps your friend has turned mountain B into a foul warren of dark tunnels and forges spitting evil fumes as they churn out weapons for his dark armies. With no story and a 100% editable world, minecraft is what you make of it.
In subnautica, no matter what you do, your base is a bunch of space tin cans. No matter what, you are a survivor from a crashed ship. The world is what it is, not what you make of it. That can be OK if it's a really compelling world, but, and I know for certain I'm not alone in this, it isn't.
So perhaps people can enjoy it, but I can't, and I think that of the internet as a whole, I'm in the vast majority.
Thanks for explaining yourself more completely, and I agree, it's not a game everyone will find enjoyable for reasons already stated in this thread, and it's open world falls short of other games with bigger budgets and different goals. (Just the decision to keep the game as kid friendly as possible precluded the inclusion of many elements that would have engaged more players.)
I would suggest a couple other games as alternatives though you may find more to your liking, such as Stranded Deep ( http://store.steampowered.com/app/313120/Stranded_Deep/ ) or Far Sky ( http://store.steampowered.com/app/286340/FarSky/ ) Which are similar to Subnautica and might have the additional elements you find fun?
Perhaps in the future if they include a robust modding toolkit and the ability for players to add to, and remake the game, it could become something you find "fun" in several months or so, but until then I hope you do keep tabs on the games development and see how it progresses after 1.0 release next month, and if any future updates and DLC change your opinion of it's appeal.
@sayerulz, from reading your post above and trying to perceive what you would like, I think you should try Dwarf Fortress if you haven't before now. It was one of the inspirations for Minecraft. I'll try to give you an idea of the game so you can judge for yourself.
With planning and work, you can completely reshape the world. People really do build mountain-sized dwarven statues spouting water and/or lava.
It's a management game (for the default Fortress mode). In fact, there's so much to managing a fortress full of dwarves that there are external tools to do it better than the default internal interface. There is an Adventurer mode in which you more directly control a group of dwarves exploring, but the main game is the indirect direction of a pack of dwarves to keep them alive and make a cool fortress.
The other side of being a management game is that once you get skilled at setting them to tasks (and finding out all the ways Urist McWhatwasisupposedtodo can find to not do a task), you can do rather grand things.
You start from scratch, putting together a expedition of a few dwarves to found a new fortress.
You need to set up a place to live, to raise livestock, to grow crops, and most important of all, to brew. 'Cause a dwarf without his drink....
There doesn't seem to be a lot of tension. Until DOOM strikes. There are a lot of things in the world that will wound, maim, and kill the dwarves and their livestock. Have to plan, prepare, and build for those you can anticipate. And react fast to those you didn't. Of course, this is also where abandonned Dwarf Fortresses come from to give adventurers a place to explore. Or another dwarven expedition a place to recover and restore. Because there's several tiers of DOOM out there waiting....
Links
Main source of the game. Also comes repacked with other utilities. Info and links on the wiki for that
Bay 12 Games Forums for Dwarf Fortress
Dwarf Fortress Wiki
The wiki groups DF articles by the major versions they cover. The tag DF2014 is for the 2014+ 0.40 versions released.
DF2014:Installation
Covers the various ways to install Dwarf Fortress, including on different operating systems.
DF2014:Dwarf fortress mode
DF2014:Tutorials
DF2014:Quickstart guide
Note to Urist--In which you express your frustration to your dwarves
A long running forum topic. It's funny and even moreso once you learn more about DF. This link is to page 466 from end of May 2017.
DF2014:Losing
Victory in Dwarf Fortress isn't quite like other games. Losing is far more common. But in DF, Losing is fun! DF fun, mind you.
I hope you find this helpful. Now if I could only spend the hours in Dwarf Fortress what I've spent in Subnautica....
Let's assume a world pop of 7.5 billion. Let's say only 10%, or 750 million) are on the internet. Now, let's say the #1 selling game only sold 30 million copies. So, we can easily say the internet as a whole hates ALL games. LOL.
I agree with your comments about MineCraft. It is fun in MineCraft to re-make the entire world into something different. But the "blocky" graphics get old after a while, and i want to go play a game with beautiful graphics like Subnautica.
Steam reviews don't tell the full story though. Mostly what they don't tell you about that's important here is the people who see the game and go "nope, not interested".
I've spoken to a fair few people who enjoy the survival/building genera, and most of them agree that subnautica isn't very good at doing those things.
And tons of people even here on this forum agree that the storytelling and worldcrafting are meh at best, cringey at worst.
As for games built around exploring alien worlds but without much else to do... we know what happened there. People hated it.
Meanwhile, personally, I love(d) it.
And I can't stand Minecraft, because it makes me motion sick to play.
Does that mean that I would say Minecraft is obviously an inferior game? Not at all. It's not for me. I'll take Terraria any day. Minecraft satisfies most people's needs, while I have Terraria, Subnautica, and Banished (and am always looking for more).
I also have put over 100 hours into a game that is nothing but painting pictures over and over again, with no additional storyline.
Subnautica is not a bad game because you can find a handful of names who don't like it; it means that you have friends who like the same kind and style of game you do. Guess what? That makes sense to me. And offers a naturally biased selection.
Instead of stating why the game is bad to you, find a game that's good to you. Subnautica isn't going to become the kind of game you're looking for. Instead, it's going to be the kind of game other people are looking for. It's going to lose you as a player, and in the mean time, going to keep tons of others on.
Everyone's happy. Including you.
Unless what makes you happy is complaining about things. If so, then I guess leaving wouldn't make you happy...
Time and again I see you chime in on various topics just to harp on the game, tell the whole wide world how much you dislike SN now, and how frustrated you are with it. You usually wind yourself up so much that you get a warning from a moderator. And what for? To what purpose?
The people who respond to you here offering their arguments and experiences obviously do enjoy the game. Same with those 38 thousands of people who have left positive reviews on Steam. It's highly unlikely you are going to change their minds, they simply do like the game as it is, done deal. The game itself is on its last stretch towards the full release and there will be no drastic changes made to any part of it at this point, be it story or gameplay, not a snowball's chance in hell for that.
I do understand that you bought the game expecting one thing and got something else in the end. It's unfortunate and you are disappointed, we all get it. And, trust me on that, you made your point abundantly clear to everyone here. But, as I said, there is absolutely nothing to be gained from your personal crusade against SN's current state. You won't be able to get a refund, you won't get your dream game, you won't gather a following here to march on UWE's headquarters to start riots. All you are accomplishing by going on and on is hurting all those people you call idiots for enjoying the game (not in those words, but the message is pretty darn clear), and... making yourself look like an angry hater sometimes.
You made your point, you shared your opinion and it has been acknowledged by everyone, there's nothing more the developers or fellow players can offer you at this point, so why you refuse so vehemently to simply move on? What's your point?
Here's an idea: try to find a game that you absolutely love, that you think Subnautica fans might also love. That'll give us something in common to talk about.
If the idea of doing that makes you want to go barf, perhaps you are, indeed, in the wrong place.
PS Do you like multiplayer shooters? If so, what's your opinion of Natural Selection 2?
Yes, there is criticism but as far as i can tell these people do not say that the game is nothing more than a pile of crap which is not enjoyable. They acknowledge the qualities too. The only person that does so is you - my impression. That's not meant to be an insult.
They are all building / survival games. I buy them because I can sink lots of time into them, and they are still good. To me, replay value is god. Just saying that there are people who enjoy the survival / building genres, and also enjoy Subnautica.
As @t38 noted, Subnautica reviews no steam are awesome. You have compared time and time again with Fallout. If you check Fallout 4 reviews (also on steam) they aren't anything to write home about. We're talking here of ~30k - 60k people. If you take the time to learn some statistics, you'll see how relevant those numbers are and how misguide your comment was.
Your other examples are simply anecdotal and don't have much relevance beyond that.
@Calarand77 put up a very fair point. If you haven't done it yet you should read his last comment on this thread very thoroughly.
As for your question about valid reasons to play, I think you might be missing the point. To me, games wander between art and sports. They can be simply appreciated and/or very competitive. In this sense Subnautica stands fully on the former classification.
Art does not need to appease to everyone. It is subjective, so the way you perceive does not need to be shared with other individuals. That's what a lot of people here are trying to tell you. There are no real valid reasons to why it is good, because such reasons will also be subjective.
Instead, what I'm getting from you is some vibe like "why is everyone enjoying this, and why can't I?". And that's okay, I don't get a lot of art either. I stood in front of Mona Lisa, gave it a pretty long look and was like "meh".
For myself, I enjoy it for the same majority of reasons that were presented here. If you don't enjoy it you should just quit playing.
@scifiwriterguy
Kudos on your post, I always enjoy reading them and feel like I'm learning a thing or two.
However I disagree with you on some points.
O this first paragraph I love that we never get the full story, just chips of it. I'm also the kind of guy that reads every book on an Elder Scrolls game. I'll will acknowledge and enjoy the story elements if they are present, but their lack will not denigrate my experience. I believe there's a lot of people like this.
On the second paragraph, I disagree that water is teeming with life. It is, but we don't see it all the time (unless we are, as you said it, on a coral reef, lagoon or some other very rich ecosystem). In the open ocean you have to search a while before finding some animals and on most sand beaches you need a trained eye to spot most of the fauna.
Add to the point that we are talking about an alien ecosystem that does not need to be as rich as those you mentioned.
I am acquainted with most aquatic ecosystems of the western south Atlantic and I did not feel like the game felt empty. I know it is only my personal opinion, but that's the best I got.
One could also argue that the Carar Bacterium infection that's already in the ecosystem decimated the former variety of species down to the bare few we see in game, hence the feeling of emptiness we sometimes experience in the shallows and other areas one might expect to be teeming with macro organisms.
I've been here pretty much since day 1, saying what is wrong with the game, why it's a problem, and how I think it can be fixed. And since day 1, not only have my concerns received no response from the devs, but any post saying that something is wrong with the game has been actively witch-hunted by the community.
I say that the game isn't any good, and how it can be made better, and I get unqualified psychoanalysis, claims that my suggestions don't mean anything to the devs (true it seems) and that I should therefor not make them, and more recently, PM demands that I leave the forum.
I ask for info on why people spam me with disagrees, and I get accusations from several people that I'm trolling.
And despite all of that, I persist in trying to make the game and forum a better place, because there are a few good people on the forums, and the game does have potential.
Perhaps what I really want is for people to see the closed-minded echo chamber community they have built.
The is a forum where a totally random new person will get hazed for suggesting multiplayer or weapons. Think about that for a second. The community response to so many random people independently asking for something is to dismiss them as violent people, trolls, or idiots? How did it reach this point?
Also, I've seen the PM you keep referring to as a 'demand to leave the forum' and it was one off the cuff remark from someone who has already apologised several times for it. Let it go.
You've been politely asked to tone this behaviour down once, now I'm insisting that you tone it down.
But every bit of that is extremely subjective.
Everything that's not an actual bug is subjective (and I've been shot down for saying that those need to be fixed before working on things like DLC and post-1.0 content patches). What is objectively true however is that this forum has a long history of attacking anyone who says the game is subjectively broken. I'm just the only one who is stubborn enough to stick around.
And foxy, you can't intimidate me. Either ban me and be done with it or leave me be. I've broken a few rules, but no more than anyone else. But I did disagree with the majority, and continued to do so even when the world is stacked against me, and so if that's a crime, go ahead, ban me.
But I would do so while considering what you might think if you saw someone on the street saying to another: "We told you not to talk about that, but you just couldn't keep quiet, could you? You're willing to put it all on the line because you don't want to get in line with all the others? Now we're going to have to make you disappear."
Because this is just a micro scale version of that. The stakes are lower, but the game is the same.
Pretty sure this is actually canon.
Subnautica is the vision and product of UWE and its staff. They've crafted it and a lot of us like Subnautica. We also want to see some changes.
Forcing UWE or the community to justify their vision and support is just a good way to irritate them and ensure whatever good is in your words will be lost or ignored.
Do you want to change Subnautica? You or I or the whole community won't be able to cause Subnautica to be changed in major ways. But we could possibly convince the devs to change it in some minor ways. There's now 3.5 months until release and for at least part of that time we could be a force for Subnautica improvement.
But not if we dwell on lost battles. Not if we attack those who we're trying to convince or those who could support our ideas.
Do you want to be a positive influence on Subnautica? Don't propose massive changes; they ain't going to happen at this late date. The more simple the change and the greater the community support, the more likely it will receive attention from the devs and the more likely it could be implemented.
Make simple suggestions. Make shorter comments (I know, I break that one all the time).
Here's a chance. Make a simple comment on topic, about what you think about the game ending in the context of the game as it is. Should it be final? Should it be open ended? How?
I never quite spoke to the original post.
I think the game ending could be optional or flexible. It could end at anywhere from completing the rocket, launching the rocket, flying through space, to entering some sort of suspended animation after launch. Because at any point circumstances could easily bring the Protagonist (let's call him Dave
1. Dave could happen to not launch or not escape and end up back on 4546B, either in the corner of the world we all know and love or somewhere else. Kind of like going from "Aliens" to "Alien 3", hopefully without the depressing prison.
2. Dave is special. He's now immune to the Carar bacteria. That immunity may not be easily transferable. So Dave's a prime candidate to be pressganged recruited for a return exploration of 4546B. More like going from "Alien" to "Aliens". There may be other defences that can come online after Dave leaves, so coming back could be more like a Starship Troopers (the novel) drop than a more sedate planetary landing. Of course, compared to Dave's last landing on 4546B, a drop even into a hot LZ might be a bit calmer.