The difficulty and replay value of Subnautica.

SushiDiver500SushiDiver500 Members Join Date: 2016-05-28 Member: 217686Posts: 33 Advanced user
Earlier i posted a discussion about making the game more difficult, many people disagreed, some people agreed.
(If you're here just to complain, shut your stupid mouth, and tell why you dont think the game should be harder instead)

Also this game lacks most modules for replay value, how could that be improved? What could help?
(No complaining about the game, awesome and kind devs!❤❤❤)

So lets start with difficulty:
1. Subnautica is a very pretty game, and some people probably just want to explore, and relax.
Others, like me, prefer a challenging game expirience. And I never really felt like subnautica had too much to offer around this place.
The game is very easy if you ask me, and you can unlock all blueprints and build a mansion of a base in a single afternoon.
Stuff that would make the game hardere could be: Rarer materials, smarter creatures, weaker cyclops.Etc.

The games replay value is at the ocean bottom (down in the void outside the map) and if this doesnt get fixed subnautica will be utterly broken beyond repair, what could help this? Figure it would make an interesting discussion.

Love, SushiDiver500
Bossblaster
«13

Comments

  • EnglishInfidelEnglishInfidel CanadaMembers Join Date: 2016-07-04 Member: 219533Posts: 676 Advanced user
    edited March 2017
    Well you brought up forum stats @Kouji_San, and nobody mentioned them before. Certainly I don't. So of course I'm going to assume you must care about such nonsense and are projecting your cares onto other people, or why bring it up?
    Kouji_San wrote: »
    People are lazy fucks, some just want to make a statement without putting the effort in. Hence those buttons are perfect for them. Not everyone gets on here to have discussion. Most are just here to read and think.. Meh that's "good/wrong/awesome" -> Button pressers. TBH sometimes those little icons do have a shred of truth behind them... Heheheh or can cause a mob mentality, I find both hilarious

    Well those people aren't welcome, Dude. They're just not welcome!
    This is a respectable forum for respectable people who want to have a respectable discussion!
    This is not freaking Reddit, where the peasants roam with their upvotes and downvotes and childish crap!
    0x6A7232
  • EnglishInfidelEnglishInfidel CanadaMembers Join Date: 2016-07-04 Member: 219533Posts: 676 Advanced user
    I just don't think anything can be done, @SushiDiver500. It's a survival game, and all survival games have very little replay value, as discussed in the previous thread.

    They're designed in a very specific way, with very little random elements. They are essentially a static sandbox which has to behave in one, specific way otherwise it becomes completely ineffective.

    There is no solution. Even if you made the game super hard, and made surviving almost impossible, once you know HOW to do it, you can do it every single time you play.
    A leads to B leads to C and you can survive, no matter how hard those steps are.
  • Kouji_SanKouji_San Sr. Hινε Uρкεερεг - EUPT Deputy The NetherlandsMembers, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue Join Date: 2003-05-13 Member: 16271Posts: 15,782 Advanced user
    edited March 2017
    @EnglishInfidel
    Oh I dunno, mostly because we had threads on it. Threads where people were so butt hurt about the disagree button, they wanted demanded it's removal

    And that is elitists yo, they are hiding behind buttons, not posting, basically just hangin' around. Sooooooo, what exactly is the issue of them being on these here forums, we hardly see them and as I said, sometimes they do have a core truth behind them when you have a post with 20+ disagrees :D


    Also let's not spoil this thread ey, apparently we need to "shut our stupid mouth" :D



    Like I mentioned in the other thread

    - Adding to the difficulty and ramping it up gradually
    - We do have to have a look at the unlimited resource generation and how easy it is to get to that point
    - Tier based area denial is already on point and can be easilly and greatly expanded upon
    - Option to customise the damage/hunger issues for hardcore mode
    - Hardcore mode is not really hardcore, just because it has one life and no warning VOX...

    For replay value
    - More scripted events based on your tier or what you have done (triggers Terraria style)
    - Semi random generation of cave systems, with rewards/rare creatures? (surely that could be possible with prefabs, I hope)


    > I do believe this is actually going to be the natural progression of Subnautica's development to some extent anyways...

    Guardian of the "magic cookiejar" 

    Retired forum Admin, I mostly used a flamethrower tank for disputes... Mostly

    Retired EUPT Deputy | Moral Support | Squad 5 Blue | 102 1HP Skulk escapes and counting

  • ResolutionBlazeResolutionBlaze The DunesMembers Join Date: 2016-04-06 Member: 215392Posts: 410 Advanced user
    Greybeard wrote: »
    Well, at risk of being snarky, there doesn't really have to be a reason. One persons argument for wanting gameplay to be harder is no different than someone wanting it easier, or to stay as is. We all have our idea of what adds up to fun/entertainment. In the end, the game is what it is. We can choose to play it, or not.

    Besides, I have no doubt there will be oodles of mods for Subnautica (guessing there already are), allowing for various gameplay. The devs have a vision, and build the game to be played as they intend it to be (to a degree). Beyond that, it's a sandbox.

    So, to give my REASON: the game is just fine, and fun, as it is. What more explanation does one need? The counter argument is: "I want the game to be harder, so it's more fun." *shrug*

    We might as well discuss why we prefer certain toppings on our pizza.

    It would be a start if Subnautica would stop having an identity crisis and decide what it wants to be:

    A survival game with a story.

    Or an exploration game with survival elements for giggles.

    So far it's the latter. And I don't think that's a good direction considering so far the story is kinda eh. It certainly isn't driven by the story like that of TWD or Journey. So it can't rely on that. What it needs is balanced gameplay to complement this game. So far the game is not balanced. It feels VERY automated by late game. Like the game plays for you while you look at stuff and complete the story, avoiding the occasional nearby shark or Reaper.

    There are a few things that can change this:

    - Making Warpers a bigger threat that will actively hunt you down as you progress... Instead of just regular fish with tele powers.
    - Getting rid of the damn Med Kit Fabricator.
    - Force players to take care of trees to an extent, or at least plant them near fresh water access with sunlight. That means you cannot take them on the Sub.
    - Implement damage to Sub by Leviathans ASAP. We have to see how well this feature needs to be balanced out.

    These four things will add more central conflict and make the game feel less automated.
    Deus Vult, Infidels.

    Reapers have a 125% chance of stealing yo Aurora Crash Zone.
  • 0x6A72320x6A7232 USMembers Join Date: 2016-10-06 Member: 222906Posts: 5,270 Advanced user
    For the medkit fabricator, in later game closer to v1.0, perhaps you could make it drain an insane amount of power (like, all the regen power that the lifepod can provide, so no power is charged while it's fabbing) to fab up a kit (but once the kit is complete, no extra power is used). I mean, it's making a medkit from what, Oxygen?

    I agree about the Warper needing to be more deadly. It is a hunter-killer unit, after all. Just make it dumb, like most automated machines that deal with nuisance creatures mostly would be (it was designed to take out Carar infected fish, and unless something large gets infected and requires multiple units to respond, it shouldn't be too hard to distract it by swimming away, at least until the player is fully infected and seen as a high priority target for them).

    @SushiDiver500 - if people are getting snarky in your thread, you can always ask them to tone it down, and if they don't, you can always page @ Foxy and request moderation, especially if they're being rude.

    See here:
    https://unknownworlds.com/subnautica/community/

    The Unknown Worlds community is a place for human beings to be nice about, friendly towards, and respectful of one another. Here are some guidelines for posting on our forums and acting in our community:
    • Please behave politely at all times. That means refraining from swearing and disrespectful comments (racist, homophobic, religious, etc.).
    • Be a decent human in general: Don’t flame, troll, or be mean to other people
    • Our admins will, in the worst cases, ban accounts and IPs for bad behaviour.

    We hope you meet many great new friends both online and offline because of our games. It’s good to have you with us.
    UWE Community guidelines | Guide to play in VR with Google Cardboard or Gear | Increase Subnautica view distance | Useful info to post with error reports | Recovery of corrupted saved games | How to easily update your drivers
    Crashing, lag problems? Or maybe your old save didn't get the latest update? Upload your saved game folder to help the devs troubleshoot, then try clearing your cache directories | Automatic Cache cleaning tool here | How to use the Debug Console | How to play any version of Subnautica using Steam | Tips for Subnautica beginners | Why can't the devs "just fix it"? - a modding session for you to educate yourself with Want more frames? Try adding this to your launch options: -window-mode exclusive | Solve options not saving or black screens by deleting options file | Possible workaround for Pause / Menu Bug | Rescue a trapped Seamoth / PRAWN
    Slow loading / textures popping in? Try moving Subnautica to an SSD | How to switch Subnautica to Experimental mode (clear cache afterwards) | How to run chkdsk on your drive | How to verify integrity of your game cache (in the "Installation" section) | Blue screens or computer freezing up? Try this fix (updates a corrupted DX10 compatibility file in the graphics driver that sometimes doesn't get updated)
    Subnautica launches in a tiny window? Use Task Manager to Maximize it (Thanks FlippingPower) | How to place your Moonpool so it connects correctly (includes diagrams) | Want to hang out with fellow players and the devs? Subnautica Discord server ← swing on by! | SuspensionRailway's Modding Emporium Categorized list of mods, including 1st playthrough-friendly Hey, look, mods! ReShade mods Subnautica NexusMods | TERRAFORMING mod
    Humans don't crush at the depths you might think
    Joystick problems? | Xpadder | UJR / vJoy | JoyToKey | Get detailed info for troubleshooting: CPU-Z | GPU-Z | HWiNFO64 | Speccy | Pastebin | Recover the data on your crashed hard disk! | I'm a Total Geek
    Forum BBCode Rainbow text generator
  • ResolutionBlazeResolutionBlaze The DunesMembers Join Date: 2016-04-06 Member: 215392Posts: 410 Advanced user
    edited March 2017
    pie1055 wrote: »
    People are seriously up in arms over a med kit fabricator? If it's so offensive to you then just don't use it or build it. It's not like avoiding building the thing gives you so many extra resources the game is easier for it. It's also not like you have to worry about whether or not other players are using it, the game doesn't have multiplayer so balancing abilities like that doesn't come into play.

    If the game is too easy for you, why not come up with your own ways of making it more difficult? Three heart runs in Zelda, One tank runs in Metroid, and nuzlocke runs in Pokemon all arose due to players much like yourselves.

    Devs seem more focused on adding content to the game than balancing difficulty at the moment and if that's the case I agree with them. What's the point of balancing out energy usage to be in perfect balance when Ion batteries and power cells are going to be added later? What's the point in balancing out hunger and thirst when there's going to be new mechanics that interact with them later? What's the point balancing out how much damage creatures do and take when new ones are going to be added later, etc? You'll just have to redo all of that work fine tuning things because a recent update added space apples or coffee, every single time something new is added.

    Energy and batteries are a prime example right now. There's not much point in trying to make their management more difficult because wrecks have a tendency to spawn multiple laser cutter doors on top of each other last I checked. This is obviously a bug and getting batteries to a point of perfect balance is kinda pointless when they're going to get a buff when its fixed later on.

    I'm not worried about difficulty at the moment. Just get the game done and fix bugs/performance first, please.



    That all said I don't mean to sound like I'm raining on your parade if you want to brainstorm changes to the game to affect difficulty and make it more fun for you, tone is hard to get across sometimes. I just don't see the need for the devs to be concerned with it yet. From what I hear some people over on Xbox can't even load saved games currently.

    You should know better than using the "don't like, don't use" argument.

    "Don't like the balance of the Cyclops? DON'T USE!" Because it totally isn't the Devs JOB to make a competent game right? @pie1055


    Also, "The game isn't multiplayer so you don't have to worry about balance" you don't seem aware about how balancing works.

    The Forest would be no fun if the cannibals NEVER attacked you except once or twice. It would be frustrating if the cannibals attacked you ALL THE TIME RELENTLESSLY! Balance needs to be kept.

    Deus Vult, Infidels.

    Reapers have a 125% chance of stealing yo Aurora Crash Zone.
  • ThomasGideonThomasGideon USAMembers Join Date: 2016-07-06 Member: 219745Posts: 13 Fully active user
    I'm pretty sure Subnautica is not intended to be a game with difficulty or large replay value.
    It's great for what it is. I wouldn't expect it to be something it isn't.
    GreybeardundefilerSpongedogNolrovos
  • ResolutionBlazeResolutionBlaze The DunesMembers Join Date: 2016-04-06 Member: 215392Posts: 410 Advanced user
    I'm pretty sure Subnautica is not intended to be a game with difficulty or large replay value.
    It's great for what it is. I wouldn't expect it to be something it isn't.

    And yet when criticism comes its way:

    "It's Early Access"

    When praise comes:

    "The game is perfect the way it is!"
    Deus Vult, Infidels.

    Reapers have a 125% chance of stealing yo Aurora Crash Zone.
    v3gan_p0rkch0p
  • ResolutionBlazeResolutionBlaze The DunesMembers Join Date: 2016-04-06 Member: 215392Posts: 410 Advanced user
    edited March 2017
    Kyman201 wrote: »
    And yet when criticism comes its way:

    "It's Early Access"

    When praise comes:

    "The game is perfect the way it is!"

    Is "Well jeeze, bro, I like the game the way it's heading" really that odd a concept to wrap your head around? Like, some people might have different ideas and desires for the game, and maybe some people aren't looking for the same thing you think Subnautica should be?

    So why is it masqurading as a survival game if that isn't the direction it wants to go?

    It certainly has survival elements in it. It's gameplay has it. But apparently we can't balance the survival because "that isn't what the game is supposed to be" even though all evidence points to the contrary.

    My goodness, it says right in the description of the game that it is about survival. So the Devs need to just remove food and water or survival elements all together and stop pretending to be one, or it needs to shapen up and give itself a competent gameplay mechanic and not a half-finished one.
    Post edited by ResolutionBlaze on
    Deus Vult, Infidels.

    Reapers have a 125% chance of stealing yo Aurora Crash Zone.
  • skyreaperking211skyreaperking211 TennesseeMembers Join Date: 2017-03-06 Member: 228672Posts: 4 Fully active user
    The game should not be harder until the game becomes a actual full game.Meaning out of game preview and bugs fixed for a smooth gameplay.
    Kyman201
  • ResolutionBlazeResolutionBlaze The DunesMembers Join Date: 2016-04-06 Member: 215392Posts: 410 Advanced user
    The game should not be harder until the game becomes a actual full game.Meaning out of game preview and bugs fixed for a smooth gameplay.

    That would be awful.

    Balance is about trial and error. You really think it's a good idea to wait until the game is launched to balance a core mechanic of the game?
    Deus Vult, Infidels.

    Reapers have a 125% chance of stealing yo Aurora Crash Zone.
    SpongedogTenebrousNova
  • Kyman201Kyman201 Washington StateMembers Join Date: 2016-01-23 Member: 211880Posts: 380 Advanced user
    give itself a competent gameplay mechanic and not a half-finished one.

    Oh gosh and golly gee how dare a game that says right on the front page that it is in development have something that's in-progress? How were we, the players, supposed to know that a game that discloses itself as being in Early Access is in development and is subject to change?
  • GreybeardGreybeard USAMembers Join Date: 2016-09-24 Member: 222538Posts: 75 Advanced user
    edited March 2017
    Kyman201 wrote: »
    And yet when criticism comes its way:

    "It's Early Access"

    When praise comes:

    "The game is perfect the way it is!"

    Is "Well jeeze, bro, I like the game the way it's heading" really that odd a concept to wrap your head around? Like, some people might have different ideas and desires for the game, and maybe some people aren't looking for the same thing you think Subnautica should be?

    So why is it masqurading as a survival game if that isn't the direction it wants to go?

    It certainly has survival elements in it. It's gameplay has it. But apparently we can't balance the survival because "that isn't what the game is supposed to be" even though all evidence points to the contrary.

    My goodness, it says right in the description of the game that it is about survival. So the Devs need to just remove food and water or survival elements all together and stop pretending to be one, or it needs to shapen up and give itself a competent gameplay mechanic and not a half-finished one.

    Sheesh, man, you got stock invested in this game or something? I can appreciate a few criticisms and critiques tossed at a game, but you've entered into some sort of obsessive fervor over this game.

    Having your say about what you would like is one thing, but at this point, you seem to just want to argue with folks on the forum. I would grant you that forums are for discussion, but nobody really seems to want to have a healthy debate with you. Perhaps move on? *shrug*
    CaptainFearlessundefilerSpongedogNolrovos
  • CaptainFearlessCaptainFearless CO, USMembers Join Date: 2016-12-14 Member: 224941Posts: 366 Advanced user
    ye lol
    Nyeh heh heh
    Beanboy Delivery
    You may know me as Tipoff Giggots
  • HerugrimHerugrim The PoconosMembers Join Date: 2016-08-15 Member: 221402Posts: 127 Advanced user
    This game is a unique balance of crafting, exploration, and survival and I would like to see it stay that way. Sacrificing the former for the latter would make this just another survival game and pointless to play. If you really want straight underwater survival, go play stranded deep. The survival genre is huge and has a ton of choices, no reason to strip this game of its identity. I'm glad we've got a rocket to build and a disease to cure ourselves of. It's so much more interesting that watering plants, chopping wood, rubbing sticks together, and waiting for timers to count down while crafting tools.

    Of course some sliders would be an easy solution for eveybody.
    undefiler0x6A7232
  • DrownedOutDrownedOut HabitatMembers Join Date: 2016-05-26 Member: 217559Posts: 1,091 Advanced user
    edited March 2017
    So why is it masqurading as a survival game if that isn't the direction it wants to go?

    It certainly has survival elements in it. It's gameplay has it. But apparently we can't balance the survival because "that isn't what the game is supposed to be" even though all evidence points to the contrary.

    My goodness, it says right in the description of the game that it is about survival. So the Devs need to just remove food and water or survival elements all together and stop pretending to be one, or it needs to shapen up and give itself a competent gameplay mechanic and not a half-finished one.

    So... people who like the way it is should be deprived of half the gameplay because you think that portion should only be if it's all of the game? It's okay that you have very strict ideas of what a survival game may and may not be, but for some of us (ie, me) SN is just the kind of formula that makes survival games attractive. It's not wrong for SN to try something a little fresh and find itself appealing for different reasons and/or to a different audience.
    undefiler
  • ResolutionBlazeResolutionBlaze The DunesMembers Join Date: 2016-04-06 Member: 215392Posts: 410 Advanced user
    Kyman201 wrote: »
    give itself a competent gameplay mechanic and not a half-finished one.

    Oh gosh and golly gee how dare a game that says right on the front page that it is in development have something that's in-progress? How were we, the players, supposed to know that a game that discloses itself as being in Early Access is in development and is subject to change?

    Considering the launch is supposed to be May 2017, I'd say there is reason for concern.

    Gee golly gosh, a legitimate criticism. Better whip out my "early access" argument and call it a day!
    Deus Vult, Infidels.

    Reapers have a 125% chance of stealing yo Aurora Crash Zone.
  • ResolutionBlazeResolutionBlaze The DunesMembers Join Date: 2016-04-06 Member: 215392Posts: 410 Advanced user
    DrownedOut wrote: »
    So why is it masqurading as a survival game if that isn't the direction it wants to go?

    It certainly has survival elements in it. It's gameplay has it. But apparently we can't balance the survival because "that isn't what the game is supposed to be" even though all evidence points to the contrary.

    My goodness, it says right in the description of the game that it is about survival. So the Devs need to just remove food and water or survival elements all together and stop pretending to be one, or it needs to shapen up and give itself a competent gameplay mechanic and not a half-finished one.

    So... people who like the way it is should be deprived of half the gameplay because you think that portion should only be if it's all of the game? It's okay that you have very strict ideas of what a survival game may and may not be, but for some of us (ie, me) SN is just the kind of formula that makes survival games attractive. It's not wrong for SN to try something a little fresh and find itself appealing for different reasons and/or to a different audience.

    It SUPPOSED to have a difficulty gap?

    It's SUPPOSED to be difficult the first half and easy the second?

    What? There's nothing to say here: do you understand how games work?

    This isn't a feature or freshness. This is incompetence.
    Deus Vult, Infidels.

    Reapers have a 125% chance of stealing yo Aurora Crash Zone.
  • ResolutionBlazeResolutionBlaze The DunesMembers Join Date: 2016-04-06 Member: 215392Posts: 410 Advanced user
    edited March 2017
    Herugrim wrote: »
    This game is a unique balance of crafting, exploration, and survival and I would like to see it stay that way. Sacrificing the former for the latter would make this just another survival game and pointless to play. If you really want straight underwater survival, go play stranded deep. The survival genre is huge and has a ton of choices, no reason to strip this game of its identity. I'm glad we've got a rocket to build and a disease to cure ourselves of. It's so much more interesting that watering plants, chopping wood, rubbing sticks together, and waiting for timers to count down while crafting tools.

    Of course some sliders would be an easy solution for eveybody.

    "We shouldn't have survival elements because that'd make it a survival game."

    That's the whole point. This game isnt a unique survival game. It's a bad survival game. It's difficult the first couple hours, then you can practically speed run it through. Areas that should take an hour or two to explore fully takes less than ten minutes. Creatures cannot touch your tech and you're rarely forced outside them in any situation.

    This game has no identity. It doesn't know what it want's to be.

    It has survival elements, so that tells me the gameplay is meant to be survival oriented. Big woop it has a story. How is that an argument against having an actual good survival game? It's not. It's a cop out to ignore the glaring issue.

    The game already stands out on its own right. It's already clear. So what do you fear losing by adding on the the survival game play THAT IS ALREADY IN THE GAME?

    I ask for creatures to still be able to stand a threat to you despite advancements in technology. Is that really too much to ask for from this community though?
    Deus Vult, Infidels.

    Reapers have a 125% chance of stealing yo Aurora Crash Zone.
  • WodenifferousWodenifferous Members Join Date: 2017-03-01 Member: 228458Posts: 31 Advanced user
    The game should not be harder until the game becomes a actual full game.Meaning out of game preview and bugs fixed for a smooth gameplay.

    That would be awful.

    Balance is about trial and error. You really think it's a good idea to wait until the game is launched to balance a core mechanic of the game?

    He's right, you know. If UW intend the game to be a survival game, then it's a long way off from that. If they intend it to be a walking simulator, then why sell it as a survival game? Right now, it's trying to be both, so it's succeeding at neither. I think some additional mode choices (e.g. a challenging difficulty and a suicidal difficulty) would solve the problem neatly by giving survival people options that suit them, without breaking the fun for anyone who wants the game to feel like it does now. Regardless of what happens, 1.0 is approaching day by day, and balancing requires iteration, so hopefully we'll start seeing work on balancing sooner rather than later.
    ResolutionBlaze
  • DrownedOutDrownedOut HabitatMembers Join Date: 2016-05-26 Member: 217559Posts: 1,091 Advanced user
    It SUPPOSED to have a difficulty gap?

    It's SUPPOSED to be difficult the first half and easy the second?

    What? There's nothing to say here: do you understand how games work?

    This isn't a feature or freshness. This is incompetence.

    Right. I won't be the first to tell you that you are being unpleasant. Instead of doing all this e-yelling and leaving negative reviews on Steam, you can also pick up my question from the other thread to explain what exactly you are yelling about because I can't make head nor tail of what your stance is. Like, this is the first time I see you explicitly address the difficulty gap of SN, which I don't disagree with you on, but am confused you bring it up in response to something of mine that isn't about the difficulty gap at all but rather genre policing/gatekeeping.
    He's right, you know. If UW intend the game to be a survival game, then it's a long way off from that. If they intend it to be a walking simulator, then why sell it as a survival game? Right now, it's trying to be both, so it's succeeding at neither. I think some additional mode choices (e.g. a challenging difficulty and a suicidal difficulty) would solve the problem neatly by giving survival people options that suit them, without breaking the fun for anyone who wants the game to feel like it does now. Regardless of what happens, 1.0 is approaching day by day, and balancing requires iteration, so hopefully we'll start seeing work on balancing sooner rather than later.

    Well, geez, if I were looking for an exploration game, found SN marketed as only that, and then discovered I'd have to dodge angry fishes, manage food & water & air, and would be halted in my progress by stuff I need to find >somewhere< on the map, I'd be peeved. And the suggestion a game can't be two genres is preposterous; action-adventure games are literally that! Part action, part adventure. They generally don't have the story power of full adventure games or the skill challenge of true action games, but they manage to strike a nice balance between the two. Purists are free to dislike, but fact is there's a huge market for those games.

    You and RB are doing this thing where you treat survival games as more worthy than exploration games. It's annoying, to say the least.
    Nolrovos
  • undefilerundefiler Members Join Date: 2017-03-02 Member: 228496Posts: 8 Fully active user
    edited March 2017
    I really don't see the point in engaging ResolutionBlaze in further argument. Either he is committed to trolling or he is too dense to understand that his opinions are disagreeable to many as evidenced by the voting trends. A survival game does not have to be hard to make it a survival game. It has survival elements - I don't think that's debatable. Just because they're not hard to fulfil doesn't make it less of a survival game. If I wanted a difficult survival game I could pick up Resident Evil or Don't Starve.

    To address the OP directly - put quite simply, I am happy with where Subnautica falls on the spectrum between survival and exploration. I don't think it needs to be harder because different games will inevitably fall on different sides of the survival/exploration gradient and Subnautica happens to fall closer to the exploration end, but with a few survival elements thrown in. I frankly don't care for more dangerous monsters or more punishing food/water experiences - if anything, I would rather have more building options, more resource types and more customization eg paintjobs for buildings. I've always played in Survival and always will, because I do like that little sense of tension in my gaming experience, but to say that I particularly want it any harder... really not.

    I want... more types of buildings. Larger alien containments. Teleportation. Electronics! I want more underwater caverns, and more secrets to discover, and more treasures to plunder. More keys and mysteries and puzzles to solve. And all that doesn't have to be difficult survival-wise to be engaging. The fact that it also has a storyline, and survival elements, doesn't mean they have to become the focus of the game entirely and overbearingly. I am quite happy with where they are. The 30 seconds warning when you're running out of air, that rush of fear when you get turned around and can't find the exit to that wreck you're in, the mad scramble to find your Seamoth beacon when you can barely tell which way is up -- that's plenty enough survival excitement! While it is true that death carries very little penalty - it doesn't need to. Humans instinctually avoid death and the mere threat of it is enough to cause tension in the scene.

    For a game that is retailing at ~$10 USD I have already sunk well over 50 hours into it - and plan to do more, which is more than I can say for several AAA games going for 5-6x that price. That's for a single playthrough. I plan to do it once more on full release. And then I would put it down and likely never play it again. And that's FINE! 100+ hours of entertainment for $10? How is that remotely insufficient for anyone? Are you that entitled that you expect infinite replay value out of $10? I'm not saying it's a bad thing - I'm also saying you shouldn't expect it.

    Not all games need replayability to be good games. There are many adventure games like Curse of Monkey Island or Myst that also have zero replayability, yet no one would call them bad. Subnautica is an interesting and unique hybrid of exploration/survival/adventure and I would rather they spend developer time polishing up the actual gamebreaking bugs than attempting to implement further difficulty levels or replayability at this point.

    The only thing that would improve replay value for me would be randomized terrain generation, but I quite frankly don't expect that to be possible here. Do remember how much you are spending here. In the end it all comes down to money and if and when Subnautica 2 comes out, with randomized terrain and multiplayer, then I will gladly put down even more money for that experience.
    Post edited by undefiler on
    Greybeard0x6A7232Nolrovos
  • ResolutionBlazeResolutionBlaze The DunesMembers Join Date: 2016-04-06 Member: 215392Posts: 410 Advanced user
    DrownedOut wrote: »
    It SUPPOSED to have a difficulty gap?

    It's SUPPOSED to be difficult the first half and easy the second?

    What? There's nothing to say here: do you understand how games work?

    This isn't a feature or freshness. This is incompetence.

    Right. I won't be the first to tell you that you are being unpleasant. Instead of doing all this e-yelling and leaving negative reviews on Steam, you can also pick up my question from the other thread to explain what exactly you are yelling about because I can't make head nor tail of what your stance is. Like, this is the first time I see you explicitly address the difficulty gap of SN, which I don't disagree with you on, but am confused you bring it up in response to something of mine that isn't about the difficulty gap at all but rather genre policing/gatekeeping.
    He's right, you know. If UW intend the game to be a survival game, then it's a long way off from that. If they intend it to be a walking simulator, then why sell it as a survival game? Right now, it's trying to be both, so it's succeeding at neither. I think some additional mode choices (e.g. a challenging difficulty and a suicidal difficulty) would solve the problem neatly by giving survival people options that suit them, without breaking the fun for anyone who wants the game to feel like it does now. Regardless of what happens, 1.0 is approaching day by day, and balancing requires iteration, so hopefully we'll start seeing work on balancing sooner rather than later.

    Well, geez, if I were looking for an exploration game, found SN marketed as only that, and then discovered I'd have to dodge angry fishes, manage food & water & air, and would be halted in my progress by stuff I need to find >somewhere< on the map, I'd be peeved. And the suggestion a game can't be two genres is preposterous; action-adventure games are literally that! Part action, part adventure. They generally don't have the story power of full adventure games or the skill challenge of true action games, but they manage to strike a nice balance between the two. Purists are free to dislike, but fact is there's a huge market for those games.

    You and RB are doing this thing where you treat survival games as more worthy than exploration games. It's annoying, to say the least.

    We want Subnautica to pick it's damn poison. I could care less if it were survival. Maybe it would be a good thing if it weren't. Who knows: the team is trying to be an exploration-adventure-survival with the survival element kinda just half put in. I want them to finish what they gol dang started, it has nothing to do with genre elitism.
    Deus Vult, Infidels.

    Reapers have a 125% chance of stealing yo Aurora Crash Zone.
    Skope
  • ResolutionBlazeResolutionBlaze The DunesMembers Join Date: 2016-04-06 Member: 215392Posts: 410 Advanced user
    edited March 2017
    undefiler wrote: »
    I really don't see the point in engaging ResolutionBlaze in further argument. Either he is committed to trolling or he is too dense to understand that his opinions are disagreeable to many as evidenced by the voting trends. A survival game does not have to be hard to make it a survival game. It has survival elements - I don't think that's debatable. Just because they're not hard to fulfil doesn't make it less of a survival game. If I wanted a difficult survival game I could pick up Resident Evil or Don't Starve.

    Simply because people disagree with an unpopular opinion doesn't make me a troll nor does it make me dense. How can I take anything you say seriously if you're openly willing to say something so fallacious and moronic?

    On the note of survival games; the goal is to make it a good survival game if you're going to put gameplay elements of survival in it. I'm not necessarily looking to make it hard. I'm looking for it to be consistent.

    And I don't agree with your idea of replay value and price. The Forest has far more replay value than Subnautica, looks great, and the survival is excellent because as you progress further along the cannibals become more violent... and it's cheaper. So I dont buy the "they can only do so much" argument when all I'm asking for is a bit of consistency and balance.

    The survival elements are already there. They just need to be consistant.
    Post edited by ResolutionBlaze on
    Deus Vult, Infidels.

    Reapers have a 125% chance of stealing yo Aurora Crash Zone.
  • ResolutionBlazeResolutionBlaze The DunesMembers Join Date: 2016-04-06 Member: 215392Posts: 410 Advanced user
    I'd probably be less hostile if this were a live discussion so I don't have to type paragraphs at a time to explain myself again and again.

    When I say difficulty, I don't mean make the game harder.

    I want the game to remain consistant. I want late game to be just as dangerous as early game if not moreso, Cyclops and technology be damned.
    Deus Vult, Infidels.

    Reapers have a 125% chance of stealing yo Aurora Crash Zone.
  • kingkumakingkuma cancels Work: distracted by Dwarf FortressMembers Join Date: 2015-09-25 Member: 208137Posts: 825 Advanced user
    edited March 2017
    I'd probably be less hostile if this were a live discussion so I don't have to type paragraphs at a time to explain myself again and again.

    When I say difficulty, I don't mean make the game harder.

    I want the game to remain consistant. I want late game to be just as dangerous as early game if not moreso, Cyclops and technology be damned.

    Ok, please don't yell at me. This is an internet discussion forum, let's keep this civil. (even though internet discussion forums are likely the most hate / rage - infested place known to mankind)
    I agree, the game does get easier as you go along. And again, I agree it gets a bit boring as you fill your large lockers with loads and loads of gold and diamonds. But - the reason the game seems harder at the start is because you don't really have any time to build a seabase, or color your cyclops, or do any other kind of leisure activities. It's just flat out survival. Most open world games start this way.

    For example:
    • Minecraft
    • Stranded Deep
    • Space engineers
    • GTA (in a sense)
    • That new Zelda game that just came out

    What I'm trying to say is, when you start a game, any game, you really only have one real path to progress down. As the game progresses, and you play more hours into it, you get new opportunities for things to do.

    WAYS TO CURE BOREDOM IN SUBNAUTICA
    • Go running around on the mountain island with a repulsion cannon, shooting everything while yelling "FUS RO DAH" at the top of your lungs
    • Build some seabase so big, you have no real use for it.
    • Speedrun getting a prawn suit / cyclops
    • SCAN EVERYTHING.
    • Take a photo of every creature ingame.
    • Try and kill a warper. Good luck
    • Play "Lava larva pinball": go to an area with lots of lava larvae, use the prawn's propulsion cannon, and see how many richochets you can get with one shot.
    • Harass reaper leviathans with your prawn suit.
    • Climb the precursor gun and yell "I'm the king of the world"
    • Climb the Aurora
    • Build a veritical connector from the lava castle precursor base to the surface.
    • Kill every carar- infected fauna you see (except yourself). Make the warper's job easier.
    • See how many spadefish you can catch in the sparse reef in 3 minutes.
    • See how much airtime you can get on the seamoth.
    • Mine all the minerals ingame.
    • Build a wall across the sea treader's path (make a new save)
    • See how many bad ampeel puns you can make.
    • Build a shrine to the sea emperor / larry the ludicrous leviathan of lamentable loadings.
      j4yzjbuaood8.png
      He's baaaaAAAAAaaaack.
    • Make some song about airsacks.
    Post edited by kingkuma on
    I am Kingkuma, Leader of the PH/SP , Slayer of Cuddlefish, Conspiracy theorist , Humanizer of warpers , Shifter of sands , Creator of Fanart , Enemy of Crabsquids , Hater of Lava Larvae , Winner of the great stalker bar brawl of 2017 , Creator of flowcharts , Killer of time , Romancer of warpers ,and head designer for the ALTERRA 5th airborne division.

    I have a webcomic. It involves Tsundere Nereids, Canadians, magic, girls wielding crossbows, and possibly Scott Pilgrim. It updates every Wednesday at 4 pm EST. Check it out. (No, please, check it out.)

    Also: Stop hating on the warpers. They have feelings too, ya'know.
  • Kouji_SanKouji_San Sr. Hινε Uρкεερεг - EUPT Deputy The NetherlandsMembers, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue Join Date: 2003-05-13 Member: 16271Posts: 15,782 Advanced user
    edited March 2017
    Just as a completely unrelated sidenote, the GTA's are in my case a motorcycle stunts simulator mostly :tongue:
    Post edited by Kouji_San on

    Guardian of the "magic cookiejar" 

    Retired forum Admin, I mostly used a flamethrower tank for disputes... Mostly

    Retired EUPT Deputy | Moral Support | Squad 5 Blue | 102 1HP Skulk escapes and counting

    kingkuma0x6A7232Jamezorg
Sign In or Register to comment.