Best Of

Garou wrote: »

I completely disagree with both the points made above me, the other side, SJWs, are 100% the bad guys here and need to be rebuked by society and gaming culture. Again, an extremely talented individual who greatly contributed to the game was FIRED for his personal views that had absolutely no bearing on the game. Sorry, but the SJWs have no leg to stand on, there is no other side. There is no possible way you can be an advocate for free think and free speech and in ANY capacity take the side of the SJW crybullies. You either side with the anti-SJWs or you side with the SJWs, there is absolutely NO in-between or centrist position.

The political mood in this nation is changing, and you can either be on the correct side, those who stand against SJW nonsense, or you can side with the authoritarian Leftist fascists who'd have you shutdown for going against their worldview. Stop treating this like the SJWs have an argument at all and aren't totally the villains here. They are 100% wrong and need to be condemned.

The Subnautica Devs made a fatal mistake in siding with the SJWs, they've actively sided with the bad guys.

The implication was that people from third world countries are inferior to the rest of the world. I don't think Si meant it that way, but that's the way the 'other side' if you will took it, as well as his other comments (although I think he was merely talking facts, the way things are currently, rather than implicating the actual people there as a whole). He was rather... what do you say, insensitive? regardless. And people that actually are racists / bigots often couch their problem with 'realism' when the 'realism' is just a glove for their hatred for other people.

As a reminder, the messages in question are here

So I guess I'm saying, @Garou, you can disagree with SJWs if you want, but realize you're probably only disagreeing with the most outspoken of the bunch, that are out for blood. There's plenty of people who are genuinely concerned about matters, and only get information from their group, just like on the other side there's people who talk harshly, but personally will bend over backwards to helps someone (but they will refuse to "put it nicely" as they think it's dishonest and avoiding the problem) -- and they think others in their group are the same way, when in fact there are genuine racists that act as if they're just being realists.

It's really all-around sad. And again, without knowing the people involved, we're stuck as spectators.

I will say this though, you can't satisfy the fringe on either side (except with complete capitulation, and then they'd probably just find something else to stir up trouble about). There exist those who don't want the problem solved, as they derive their power / influence from rabble-rousing.

I just don't know anymore...

I've felt pretty much every single side of the argument said here today, bouncing around ideal after ideal in my head. It's been long, sad, confusing, and angry day. And there's only one conclusion I can come to.

We have to move on.

If we dwell on who's in the right or wrong in this debate, this could last for weeks. I know there are plenty of people who would gladly devote their time to such an elongated argument, but it does no one any good. If we do nothing but echo our ideals, we stagnate. And stagnant water tastes terrible.

So, honestly, even though this thread has (for the most part) stayed pleasurable and in line, it will come to a point where this thread will be nothing but a shouting contest. I don't want to see that, not any more. We don't need another Female Character or Crafting Time thread.

I'm angry that Si was fired, but at the end of the day, it's UWE choice. For better or for worse. We have to respect their decisions, no matter how questionable.

For the good of the game, for the good of the innocent employees at UW, for the good of Si himself, just let this hot button topic die. Unless a Dev comments themselves, there's not much more we can contribute to the situation, if anything at all.

Disagree with me all you want, but this is where I stand.

I can't stand Internet fights...

Nothing but a huge mess that no one knows how to clean up.

Anger and fear are unfortunately our crutches in the modern world. Rather than simply disagreeing or expressing concern, we quickly go to extreme reactions, whatever our viewpoints. We are so afraid of the other side "winning" that we tear each other down. Both sides need to respect that the other is free to form their own opinion, and we cannot force it to change.

I do hope UnknownWorlds acted out of concern when terminating employment, rather than fear of reprisal. It is very believable that they would have concern over how the employee would behave toward others as the company became larger and more divers. <-I was going to fix this typo, but decided against it.

Calarand77 wrote: »

bwc153 wrote: »

Is it murder if you're trying to defend yourself from aggressive creatures? Please demonstrate, oh so enlightened one, to the audience the way in which one can co-exist ("to exist separately or independently but peaceably") with a creature that will kill you on sight with zero provocation, and that the game even describes with the statement: "This creature is all muscle. No brain. No reflexes. No sense of morality. Just muscle, sinew and teeth". I'll wait.

I can only tell you how I do it, which is exactly how I'd do it if I was a non-battle trained sole survivor of a spaceship crash on a an alien planet, without weapons - by staying the heck away. By escaping. By keeping distance. By hiding. By not engaging if I have it clearly written in my log that the creature is aggressive and dangerous. And yes, sometimes by dying and learning from my mistake. It's just a game, I can afford to die.

The fact that SN has creatures that can destroy me and some of my equipment so easily, the fact that there is exactly nothing I can do about it but run, is a huge part of the game's appeal for me. It adds to the sense of danger by ripping the player character out of his established, comfortable place in the food chain, and putting him down on the bottom to learn how to survive all over again. I, personally, enjoy that far more than grabbing a gun, killing everything that is a threat to me and... yeah, what then? Sit on my king of the jungle's throne and be bored, I suppose.

That said, I am not telling ANY of you how to play your game, so you can keep your sarcasm and semi-witty jabs with youtube clips that have absolutely no relevance for the discussion. All I'm doing is sharing my own views, same as everyone else does here, that is what a forum is for. Want to be an apex predator - by all means, grab your PRAWN and be that, enjoy yourself if you can. As I often repeat while posting here: we do not have to agree on anything.

Oh, right, because hiding in a little dark hole makes for such fun and exiting gameplay!

You have one of the most obnoxious holier-than-thou attitudes I have ever seen. You claim that every game about destruction is some sort of garbage clone, and that the very existence of weapons in a game means that the sole goal of the game is to destroy? That is an utterly ridiculous, hyberbolic, and totally indefensible position.

This game's community sickens me. Most of you do nothing but politely imply that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. "I personally enjoy that far more than grabbing a gun, killing everything that is a threat to me and... yea, what then? Sit on my king of the jungles throne and be bored, I suppose". That right there is a perfect example of what's wrong here. You just used one of the worst pieces of hyperbole that I have ever had the misfortune of seeing. Are you seriously saying that there are only two ways to make a game, non-violent or short lived and boring? Are you saying that every game that has a gun is instantly part of an "overflowing cesspool of near-identical clones"? I'm sure that you would respond with "no, that's not it at all", but those are your words.

Think I'm flaming? That would imply I'm looking for a reaction. I honestly don't give a damm. I'm just stating my honest and very low opinion of this game. Which is another problem with this community: no one is allowed to criticize the game. Just look at all the "disagrees" on any post saying subnautica is anything but the ultimate expression of game design, rising above the "overflowing cesspool of near-identical clones" like a pillar of game development perfection.

The warpers are indeed annoying. Had one pull me out of the Seamoth and then hit me for 80% of my health in two seconds. Seems a bit messed up given you get vehicles for utilitarian and defensive purposes in the first place.

Fortunately, their teleportation globe attack thingies are slow and easy to dodge. Assuming you see it coming.

0x6A7232 wrote: »

-snip-

Excellent points, and that video is exactly the baseline point one should begin at when starting to talk about immigration.

The worst part about trying to discuss any of this of course, is that some people will see one piece of information they don't agree with, and use that as a basis for dismissing everything that a person says. I have close friends that I definitely don't see eye-to-eye with on a lot of hot topics, but instead of resenting them for it or degrading them, I value their opinions and try to understand them better so that I can understand my own better, with the hope of coming to a "better" resolution wherein the differing opinions have paved the way for a more thorough solution.

Even with people I respect far less I'm willing to debate, albeit with the important stance against resorting to using logical fallacies in order to disregard arguments. At best, you come to a resolution, at worst, you learn something new. Keeping one's mind closed to such doesn't really stand to gain much.

Hammy2211 wrote: »

I know this has been necroed, but honestly I think that people want to kill the things due to what's basically a morbid curiosity. Like, I'm personally fine with not hunting down and murdering everything I see. With the exception of that one Crabsnake who would not shut up and was giving me a headache. That I had no qualms about killing.

But at the same time, part of me sees things like leviathans and thinks, "I wonder if I can kill that." It's the same kind of thing as shooting a quest NPC in the face in an FPS or something; we kind of want to see what happens.

That's dead on imo.

I might have lost interest in the game due to not liking direction it took but I always said it was a good game, hell I bought something in beta... there are 2 companies out there that can make me do that so it was pretty interesting experience. Now... Well... Steam is in flames. Reviews are going down like a brick.

GJ UWE, you joined the exclusive club of devs that finally got a nice break and then you just took a shit on all of that. Real smooth. Reminds me of Warframe, was at the top... then devs decided to sell to chinas EA... worst yet they did everything to cover it up, banning people that talked about it, removing any mention of it and then it was public a year later. I dumped that shit show in the blink of an eye.

So much for deciding to give it another go finally, after it was fully released.

Interesting thread, I've certainly read both the extremes, from sensible intelligence to absolute insanity.

How could we expect anything else than what happened, though? Ask Don Imus or Anthony Cumia how this BS goes down. And it's only getting worse.

DrownedOut wrote: »

The moment one defends saying colonialism is a good thing, that includes a defense of saying genocide is a good thing.

DrownedOut wrote: »

As a descendent of colonizers, colonized, and groups caught in-between, I believe defenses of colonialism (at least by people with no personal stake or appropriate knowledge) warrants something way worse than being told you're not colleague material.

When did you manage to break out of the asylum, exactly? Freaking hilarious. I can't even begin to fathom how a person could actually think this way.

ShuttleBug wrote: »

noneofyourbusiness wrote: »

just registered to say, I will never buy one of your games. Ever. Pathetic cowards.

That seems a bit harsh

I agree. But, flipside, I'm guessing @noneofyourbusiness thinks firing someone for insensitive remarks is and considers it fair turnabout.

Honestly, I wish someone could have tried to add to the conversation. You miss a lot of what people think when you stick to hot button Q&A quotes.

Example, ask Si what he thinks would best help 3rd world countries, and what he thinks harm them the most. How does he think they got to where they are now?

Ask him what he thinks of people who identify as whatever gender they choose, but are otherwise respectful of everyone's opinions etc (basically acting like a normal person who realizes others have wildly differing opinions than their own).

What did Si mean when he said he would "debate them just like any other member of the team"? Think about it, does he have a confrontational rude personality? Or is he simply expressing his identity, his belief system, online without attacking anyone?

If someone directly talked to Si and told him they thought his remarks were meant in a dehumanizing way because that someone was one of the people Si was talking about, what would he say to them?

Now I realize that this may have already been done, and the results were not satisfactory. I think what has people upset is 1) some of them don't hate anyone, and believe the same or similar way as Si - so according to UWE, they are hateful bigots who should be shunned because of their identity (yes, your beliefs are a part of your identity). 2) Perhaps some see UWE as a small family, and someone just got kicked out because of their identity.

You can reject someone's view without rejecting them as a fellow human being. It's either that or back to tribalism and feuding. I mean the exception is when the other party literally will not tolerate, or abuses others, as in actively refuses to respect (not agree with, respect) that other people believe very differently from them, and either have mutually consensual, respectful discussions on those topics, or respectful agreement to agree to disagree.

Now, again, we don't know a lot about Si's views beyond his (admittedly poorly worded) tweets that got him fired.

You (everyone, left, right, "center" [everyone claims the center, see]) would be surprised by some things. 1) how similar the end goals of "the other side" are to your own, while the means to achieve that end are completely different 2) how hateful fringe elements of your own (right, left, "center") side can be and how much they will twist the other side's and their own side's words to achieve their end goals (which may even just be as simple as wanting to pick fights and tear down any cooperative coalition between opposing viewpoints).

Here's an example: the debate on immigration. You can get quotes from the same politicians ten years apart, supporting opposite views, depending on what is popular to support. Obviously pols being pols.

But beyond that, if you stop and look at numbers and the countries involved, you realize that 1) We are stealing the best / richest citizens of disadvantaged countries, while arguably hurting job opportunities for our poorest. What about the rest of those countries, the ones who are even worse off than the ones we accept?? The ones that CAN'T make it? 2) It is mathematically impossible to affect change for a statistically significant portion of the world's poor through immigration. You could import 5 million per year. 85 million poor are born. Losing game. (See here for a visual demonstration and explanation of that.) How do we help? We must find a way to help (not simply throw money at, or it will "disappear") these countries gain their footing. Look at Germany or Japan after the Allies absolutely demolished them in WW2. Or Korea after the North and South ravaged the peninsula down and up and down again. Now they are all economic powerhouses, and their citizens are happy and proud to be where they are.

Now is it easier to say all of that? Or to just say what Si said?

So what did Si mean? Did he mean we are playing a losing game and killing ourselves without helping anyone in the long run? Or was it more of a bigoted slur at anyone from those areas, saying that they are inferior mentally to us genetically (which is completely bogus, btw, it's up to the individual to choose as long as they are given a good opportunity and motivation to succeed. By the same token, it also goes the other way, you hear about crazy well to do people running off to join ISIS as well... individual choice, effort, and with a decent chance, success).

So much talk. Ok I'm done. But seriously, we talk past each other so much due to our being divided by those in the media and politics it's absolutely tragic. I'd say a good 90% of people can get along if it were not for that constant pot-stirring by both sides and especially the media to gain advertising dollars and votes (really think we need term limits across the board in government just like we have for the office of President.. heh, yeah right, that would be like asking them (both sides) to forfeit their pay during government shutdown or not have exemptions and grants to make ACA not apply to them, and raises when they barely work, don't skip any holidays, get nothing done through obstructionism and stuffing bills with favors for their donors so the other side has to either support wasteful spending or things they object to, or vote against common sense proposals. Bet they would try harder to do things right if it also affected them personally!)