Does Subnautica need an ending?

SalmonJEDlSalmonJEDl Finland Join Date: 2015-05-14 Member: 204465Members
State your opinion and give some reasoning and ideas if you want to, but please don't start a comment war here. There's another thread for that here.  Keep the discussion mature.
«1

Comments

  • TerraBladeTerraBlade Join Date: 2015-05-25 Member: 204886Members
    I think if there is going to be any kind of story, there in turn needs to be a good resolution to that story. But having multiple outcomes and solutions to problems would add re-playability. Considering the map is static, all the varience we can put in will prolong the feeling of exploration that the game is trying to invoke. So that is the choice that gets my vote.

    Plus, even with a definitive ending there is no reason people can't be put back in the ocean to keep playing. The mass effect games did this so even after the conclusion of the story you could still enjoy DLC with your built up character. I don't see why that can't be done here as well.
  • reaperLeviathenfoodreaperLeviathenfood florida Join Date: 2015-05-19 Member: 204681Members
    edited May 2015
    I think branched endings works best (though it requires much more work for the devs)  One branch could end with you being rescued for ppl who do want a final outcome and be done (poll doesn't suggest that lols), but yeah adds replayability as well as you can decide what happens, which is something that goes well with the feel of this game.
    edit- i realized now that I'm the 3rd commenter, sooo yeah...maybe ppl do want the other ones just they haven't seen this yet
  • sayerulzsayerulz oregon Join Date: 2015-04-15 Member: 203493Members
    I still want it to be a endless sandbox. I don't see subnautica as a story driven game.
  • TotallyLemonTotallyLemon Atlanta Georgia Join Date: 2015-05-22 Member: 204764Members
    I love good storylines in games, and Subnautica has some nice potential for that. But I'm strictly against an ending being final. All the exploration and building wouldn't have any purpose ultimately. Giving reason to stay instead could work. You could finish an optional storyline, but would still remain on the planet to complete the terraforming and research mission of Aurora, for example. You would have have the ability to build your own destiny.

    The whole purpose was to terraform the planet... so what happened to that mission objective? What if ships are already on their way expecting a habitable planet?

  • conscioussoulconscioussoul Canada Join Date: 2015-05-17 Member: 204607Members, Subnautica Playtester
    Branched ending based on multiple combo of random / planned events that allows various choices for player.  It's perfectly possible for players to continue playing in "storyless" mode once the story is over, with just a bit of twicking.  For example: say one of the possible ending is that you repair the aurora.  You can have a final choice of bording the Aurora, or sending it back on auto-pilot to seek your people while you continue terraforming.  Or if the ending is that you get rescued by a ship arriving soon, that will either be shot down by the unknown force (if you haven't completed the story leading you to stop that from happening) or land, you could have an option to not go back with them. etc etc. 
    The idea is to have a story, and have event trigger and happen around you, yet leaving you your own will to chose how and which events to react to, or on the flip side suffer the consequences if you don't.
  • conscioussoulconscioussoul Canada Join Date: 2015-05-17 Member: 204607Members, Subnautica Playtester

    The whole purpose was to terraform the planet... so what happened to that mission objective? What if ships are already on their way expecting a habitable planet?

    That's one possible branch of a good story.  Ships might be on their way to the planet, and are scheduled to arrive in 1 year game time (say, 300 days/nights).
    By that time, if you have not advanced far enough in your discovery of the planet's mysteries to figure out what shot the Aurora down, the next ship will suffer the same fate. Some elements of story might lead you to build a communication array and reach out to the rescue/terraforming next ship and warn them not to come; another branch might be to remove the threat. Another might be to discover a sentient race and figure out that the terraforming party will kill them all when they terraform the environment to make it suitable for humans, leading you to an ethical conflict.  The possibilities are endless.
  • aeroripperaeroripper Join Date: 2005-02-25 Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
    You have to figure out what shot down your ship.  I'm assuming its aliens in the deep, so there's some goal to be achieved there.  My preference:

    1) You find a very deep hole in the lava zone.  
    2) You need an exosuit to establish a base at the bottom and hull upgrades to bring your cyclops down.  
    3) Even deeper down, there's a large artificial door on the bottom of the ocean.  Your hud instructs you that you can penetrate this door.  You find a large drill fragment and construct a large base around this gate.  
    4) You drill through it which takes you to the alien city with strange bio-luminescent life and intelligence.  
    5) Some goal to achieve there.  After completing it, you should be left on the planet to explore as much as you want.  




  • conscioussoulconscioussoul Canada Join Date: 2015-05-17 Member: 204607Members, Subnautica Playtester
    You have to figure out what shot down your ship.  I'm assuming its aliens in the deep, so there's some goal to be achieved there.  My preference:

    1) You find a very deep hole in the lava zone.  
    2) You need an exosuit to establish a base at the bottom and hull upgrades to bring your cyclops down.  
    3) Even deeper down, there's a large artificial door on the bottom of the ocean.  Your hud instructs you that you can penetrate this door.  You find a large drill fragment and construct a large base around this gate.  
    4) You drill through it which takes you to the alien city with strange bio-luminescent life and intelligence.  
    5) Some goal to achieve there.  After completing it, you should be left on the planet to explore as much as you want.  


    Lotis of great ideas there!
    I think it would be important to build these story arcs in ways that promote non-linerity howerver.
    I.e, maybe there are other ways to manage your way all the way deep to the alien ruin.
    Maybe you need the addition of a combination of several tech and certain specific research before you can enter the ruin.
    Etc.


  • TerraBladeTerraBlade Join Date: 2015-05-25 Member: 204886Members

    The whole purpose was to terraform the planet... so what happened to that mission objective? What if ships are already on their way expecting a habitable planet?

    That's one possible branch of a good story.  Ships might be on their way to the planet, and are scheduled to arrive in 1 year game time (say, 300 days/nights).
    By that time, if you have not advanced far enough in your discovery of the planet's mysteries to figure out what shot the Aurora down, the next ship will suffer the same fate. Some elements of story might lead you to build a communication array and reach out to the rescue/terraforming next ship and warn them not to come; another branch might be to remove the threat. Another might be to discover a sentient race and figure out that the terraforming party will kill them all when they terraform the environment to make it suitable for humans, leading you to an ethical conflict.  The possibilities are endless.
    Exactly, though I feel a page should be taken from Bethesda's book and not advance the plot until you do certain things or have satisfied X amount of objectives from the list of Y. Heck, some of these could even be future DLC if they can't put it all in at launch.
  • SalmonJEDlSalmonJEDl Finland Join Date: 2015-05-14 Member: 204465Members
    You have to figure out what shot down your ship.  I'm assuming its aliens in the deep, so there's some goal to be achieved there.  My preference:

    1) You find a very deep hole in the lava zone.  
    2) You need an exosuit to establish a base at the bottom and hull upgrades to bring your cyclops down.  
    3) Even deeper down, there's a large artificial door on the bottom of the ocean.  Your hud instructs you that you can penetrate this door.  You find a large drill fragment and construct a large base around this gate.  
    4) You drill through it which takes you to the alien city with strange bio-luminescent life and intelligence.  
    5) Some goal to achieve there.  After completing it, you should be left on the planet to explore as much as you want.  




    Kinda nice ideas, but I would like to keep player the only highly intelligent creature on the planet. Old ruin city could work.
  • ReefseekerReefseeker Finland Join Date: 2015-05-21 Member: 204740Members
    edited June 2015
    Multiple endings seems like the best way to add depth and encourage playing the game again. It would seem to blend well into an open world/sandbox -type of game.

    Also I think some endings/outcomes should be the kind in which the player "fails" at something, like the one suggested by @conscioussoul ;;:
    conscioussoul said:

    By that time, if you have not advanced far enough in your discovery of the planet's mysteries to figure out what shot the Aurora down, the next ship will suffer the same fate.
    Other "fail endings" could include:

    - Not containing the Aurora's radiation field in time, so the radiation will slowly creep up to cover the whole game map causing player death or at least an ecological disaster (see below)

    - Disastrous failure when attempting to repair the Aurora = the whole thing blows to smithereens/sinks too deep beyond all help (a consequence of multiple relatively foreseeable failures when repairing, like trying to jumpstart the engine/reactor core too early in the process)

    - A self-inflicted ecological disaster caused by unsustainable living habits of the player. A failure to estabilish a sustainable economy to support your living/existence, leading to the death of the player in some way. A non-story driven, tragic ending to teach some manners for those who would just dive around and killing everything that is killable

    Still, there should be some outcomes that don't erase the player's reason to reside on the planet. What if a player, realizing that life on the planet has value in itself, not only as a resource to be used by humans, does no longer wish for the planned future colonization?
  • conscioussoulconscioussoul Canada Join Date: 2015-05-17 Member: 204607Members, Subnautica Playtester
    Since this is a non violent game,  maybe the humans have reached a place of ethics like in star trek and as per the prime directive the minute they realize there us sentient race on the planey they must cancel their colonization...?  ;) 
  • ReefseekerReefseeker Finland Join Date: 2015-05-21 Member: 204740Members
    Since this is a non violent game,  maybe the humans have reached a place of ethics like in star trek and as per the prime directive the minute they realize there us sentient race on the planey they must cancel their colonization...?  ;) 
    Good thinking. That might be an extra motive to explore the found alien structures; does the sentient race still exist?

    Overall I think at some point the devs should address the ethical side of the colonization project in the backstory.
  • TerraBladeTerraBlade Join Date: 2015-05-25 Member: 204886Members
    Multiple endings seems like the best way to add depth and encourage playing the game again. It would seem to blend well into an open world/sandbox -type of game.

    Also I think some endings/outcomes should be the kind in which the player "fails" at something, like the one suggested by @conscioussoul ;;:
    conscioussoul said:

    By that time, if you have not advanced far enough in your discovery of the planet's mysteries to figure out what shot the Aurora down, the next ship will suffer the same fate.
    Other "fail endings" could include:

    - Not containing the Aurora's radiation field in time, so the radiation will slowly creep up to cover the whole game map causing player death or at least an ecological disaster (see below)

    - Disastrous failure when attempting to repair the Aurora = the whole thing blows to smithereens/sinks too deep beyond all help (a consequence of multiple relatively foreseeable failures when repairing, like trying to jumpstart the engine/reactor core too early in the process)

    - A self-inflicted ecological disaster caused by unsustainable living habits of the player. A failure to estabilish a sustainable economy to support your living/existence, leading to the death of the player in some way. A non-story driven, tragic ending to teach some manners for those who would just dive around and killing everything that is killable

    Still, there should be some outcomes that don't erase the player's reason to reside on the planet. What if a player, realizing that life on the planet has value in itself, not only as a resource to be used by humans, does no longer wish for the planned future colonization?
    I've never been a fan of ticking clock games where you have to speed through the content to get the 'best ending'. While I don't think endings in and of themselves will kill the feeling of exploration a ticking clock, for me, definitely kill it. Not to mention that the whole game, even if it is survival, feels relaxing. Adding a clock just would kill that and add unnecessary pressure. If there must be a clock it needs to be something like escaping a blast area. Or something the player has complete control over, such as needing to activate X then get to Y to throw a switch in time.

    In short, I would be very much against ticking clocks in the background that measure good vs bad endings. So much so it would probably cause me to shelve the game indefinitely. They are that much of a dealbreaker to me.
  • conscioussoulconscioussoul Canada Join Date: 2015-05-17 Member: 204607Members, Subnautica Playtester
    edited June 2015

    I've never been a fan of ticking clock games where you have to speed through the content to get the 'best ending'. While I don't think endings in and of themselves will kill the feeling of exploration a ticking clock, for me, definitely kill it. Not to mention that the whole game, even if it is survival, feels relaxing. Adding a clock just would kill that and add unnecessary pressure. If there must be a clock it needs to be something like escaping a blast area. Or something the player has complete control over, such as needing to activate X then get to Y to throw a switch in time.

    In short, I would be very much against ticking clocks in the background that measure good vs bad endings. So much so it would probably cause me to shelve the game indefinitely. They are that much of a dealbreaker to me.
    It's like you said about implementation: it's all about it.
    it's difficult to have some important events happening if you don't have an internal clock as one of the possible trigger.
    For instance, the Aurora blows up after 3 days. It's not because you get close it it, or any other trigger. it's related to time. And it make sens with the story.

    Another example? Say the Aurora isn't repaired in time and radiations are starting to degrade the bio diversity and break down the ecology.  The dev can decide that it will happen in 10 days, or in 100 days, whatever, but if they don't set a "timer" on it, then nobody will believe the story. If the radiation is leeking, hell, better put an end to it. Not SO fast that you go there without preparations... but not lazily anytime to are so bored you have nothing else to try. Ideally, the environment would start to degrade slowly, but decay may accelerate exponentially if you wait too much, and your onboard computer might give you warning of the effect of DNA and biodiversity, or even on your own health.

    Take now an end event like a rescue ship. If a rescue ship is arriving, it make sens that it's arriving in a set amount of time... but nothing prevents that time to be a fairly long time. Right now, on experimental, I have start my whole game over from scratch 3 times and reach the max you can do, and I must have perhaps 50 hours of gameplay. I know the game is not yet ready and all, but what I am saying is, what if the rescue team is planned to arrive in - say - roughly 100h of game play?

    You could even combine the idea of a timer with a random or specific event.
    For instance, maybe the rescue team will arrive within 40 days of you meeting a sentient being. Or any other trigger, depending on what the game story requires.

    The point is: events planned on a timeline do not mean that the player will be pressured; if it happens, it may happen purposely at the end when events start to cascade.


  • SalmonJEDlSalmonJEDl Finland Join Date: 2015-05-14 Member: 204465Members
    @conscioussoul The explosion of Aurora is OK as a timed event, since it doesn't push the player to do anything quickly. It doesn't break the freedom of the game. But events with a definite timer for completion on them would be really bad. You should be able to reach all the content without a hurry. As @TerraBlade said, if you have to complete a task in specific time, there should be multiple tries. So no final failings, please.
    I'm generally against concluding endings, but they wouldn't ruin the game. However, ticking timers would.
  • conscioussoulconscioussoul Canada Join Date: 2015-05-17 Member: 204607Members, Subnautica Playtester
    edited June 2015
    You should be able to reach all the content without a hurry. As @TerraBlade said, if you have to complete a task in specific time, there should be multiple tries. So no final failings, please.
    Ah! But if there are multiple endings, with each new gameplay having certain random events, or if you could chose which decisions to make at different moment, it's no longer a matter of "hurrying".  You just do your stuff. And so does the world you live in.  You *MAY* decide to hurry before a certain event happens (such as the bio lifeforms being dead from radiations) or you may NOT. It's a choice. If it's not linear, then there is NO NEED to hurry. Each new game is a fresh start with new decisions to make and possibly different choices.

    Point is, no choice leads you to "fail".  It only changes the story.
    Failed to stop the aurora from exploding? (after all, you had 3 days warning!) well, that's ok. Now cleanup the mess.
    Failed to cleanup the radiations in time? Hell, that might be even GOOD, if your end goal is to terraform the planet out of its dangerous lifeforms. Or not. It's a choice, to hurry or not to hurry to goal A or goal B, or none.
    That's the beauty of a non-linear story system.

  • HenryFHenryF Australia Join Date: 2015-06-02 Member: 205163Members
    In a hand crafted world, once a player turns over every rock, builds every toy, and has closets groaning under the weight of all the extra mats they'll never get around to using, there really is nothing left for them to do but go loopy from all the loneliness until they strike upon the idea that all the mysteries of the universe will be answered if only they'd take a nice, cool bath in a thermal vent. Pretty unfulfilling end if you ask me.

    If instead all the foraging, construction, exploration, battery licking, and alive staying the player will be concerning themself with helps kick along a slick narrative, it means everything they do will be layered with added dimensions of purpose and meaning, making the overall experience all the more fulfilling. So I'm of the opinion there should definitely be a story - preferably a killer one. And a killer story should have a killer ending. Whether or not the player still gets the option to take that thermal vent sojourn after things wrap up is my only question, but I'd have no regrets if I'm faced with a wall of credits once all is said and done. Don't get me wrong, I love the hell out of Subnautica, but there's only so much one can do in a game before it's all been done.

  • TerraBladeTerraBlade Join Date: 2015-05-25 Member: 204886Members
    edited June 2015

    I've never been a fan of ticking clock games where you have to speed through the content to get the 'best ending'. While I don't think endings in and of themselves will kill the feeling of exploration a ticking clock, for me, definitely kill it. Not to mention that the whole game, even if it is survival, feels relaxing. Adding a clock just would kill that and add unnecessary pressure. If there must be a clock it needs to be something like escaping a blast area. Or something the player has complete control over, such as needing to activate X then get to Y to throw a switch in time.

    In short, I would be very much against ticking clocks in the background that measure good vs bad endings. So much so it would probably cause me to shelve the game indefinitely. They are that much of a dealbreaker to me.
    It's like you said about implementation: it's all about it.
    it's difficult to have some important events happening if you don't have an internal clock as one of the possible trigger.
    For instance, the Aurora blows up after 3 days. It's not because you get close it it, or any other trigger. it's related to time. And it make sens with the story.

    Another example? Say the Aurora isn't repaired in time and radiations are starting to degrade the bio diversity and break down the ecology.  The dev can decide that it will happen in 10 days, or in 100 days, whatever, but if they don't set a "timer" on it, then nobody will believe the story. If the radiation is leeking, hell, better put an end to it. Not SO fast that you go there without preparations... but not lazily anytime to are so bored you have nothing else to try. Ideally, the environment would start to degrade slowly, but decay may accelerate exponentially if you wait too much, and your onboard computer might give you warning of the effect of DNA and biodiversity, or even on your own health.

    Take now an end event like a rescue ship. If a rescue ship is arriving, it make sens that it's arriving in a set amount of time... but nothing prevents that time to be a fairly long time. Right now, on experimental, I have start my whole game over from scratch 3 times and reach the max you can do, and I must have perhaps 50 hours of gameplay. I know the game is not yet ready and all, but what I am saying is, what if the rescue team is planned to arrive in - say - roughly 100h of game play?

    You could even combine the idea of a timer with a random or specific event.
    For instance, maybe the rescue team will arrive within 40 days of you meeting a sentient being. Or any other trigger, depending on what the game story requires.

    The point is: events planned on a timeline do not mean that the player will be pressured; if it happens, it may happen purposely at the end when events start to cascade.


    I could be biased against it, and you are right it could be a matter of implementation. But a timer is inherently about urgency, and exploration is about being careful and observant. They aren't mutually exclusive, but that doesn't mean the marriage of concepts is necessary or easy to pull off.

    But I don't think that changes my point that it kills exploration. Plugging a component in that the RNG says is now going to fail, leading to a timer to escape? That is ok in my book, since it is cause and effect. But having an overall 'time to failure' to get the best ending...well that is the problem. Because now you have to beat the clock to get the 'best ending'. If you put it to a random event, how do you prevent a player that might have put hours in already from being frustrated if they are unable to meet the timer and now are relegated to a 'bad ending'? Because personally I'd be rather rightly upset.

    You can have a timer tied to a random event, but again the timer must be a consequence to a players action so it feels organic. The exploding Aurora isn't tied to anything the player does, but now has to contend with. As it is now, that means it's a goal, fix the aurora so you can build in deeper water, use better suits, and more easily get to things that the radiation is preventing you currently from doing. Add a timer though and it can be frustrating if you just aren't finding what you need fast enough, as the game then focuses on learning what biome has what and the quickest way to get what you want. The opposite of exploration, or at least natural exploration.

    As for tying it to doing meeting aliens...you can run into problems there. Because again...what if you weren't ready? Again, I could have stumbled into the nest and not realized what was going on and now put myself on the road to the bad ending due to either beginner's luck or bad luck. Both of which build frustration, since if it was a static location now I know to just not go there until later (kills exploration) or if it were a RNG event then I could feel cheated as pointed out before.

    I know some of this might contradict what I have said earlier. But timers should be on players action as a result of player action. For instance if we knew, or were warned, that throwing a switch might dump toxins and in doing so results in a timer...well then the player has nothing to blame but themselves. So timers need to be limited, if used at all.

  • conscioussoulconscioussoul Canada Join Date: 2015-05-17 Member: 204607Members, Subnautica Playtester
    I could be biased against it, and you are right it could be a matter of implementation. But a timer is inherently about urgency, and exploration is about being careful and observant. They aren't mutually exclusive, but that doesn't mean the marriage of concepts is necessary or easy to pull off.

    But I don't think that changes my point that it kills exploration. Plugging a component in that the RNG says is now going to fail, leading to a timer to escape? That is ok in my book, since it is cause and effect. But having an overall 'time to failure' to get the best ending...well that is the problem. Because now you have to beat the clock to get the 'best ending'. If you put it to a random event, how do you prevent a player that might have put hours in already from being frustrated if they are unable to meet the timer and now are relegated to a 'bad ending'? Because personally I'd be rather rightly upset.

    You can have a timer tied to a random event, but again the timer must be a consequence to a players action so it feels organic. The exploding Aurora isn't tied to anything the player does, but now has to contend with. As it is now, that means it's a goal, fix the aurora so you can build in deeper water, use better suits, and more easily get to things that the radiation is preventing you currently from doing. Add a timer though and it can be frustrating if you just aren't finding what you need fast enough, as the game then focuses on learning what biome has what and the quickest way to get what you want. The opposite of exploration, or at least natural exploration.

    As for tying it to doing meeting aliens...you can run into problems there. Because again...what if you weren't ready? Again, I could have stumbled into the nest and not realized what was going on and now put myself on the road to the bad ending due to either beginner's luck or bad luck. Both of which build frustration, since if it was a static location now I know to just not go there until later (kills exploration) or if it were a RNG event then I could feel cheated as pointed out before.

    I know some of this might contradict what I have said earlier. But timers should be on players action as a result of player action. For instance if we knew, or were warned, that throwing a switch might dump toxins and in doing so results in a timer...well then the player has nothing to blame but themselves. So timers need to be limited, if used at all.


    If it's like in was implemented in star control II, it can work really well. What they did is that the game story is made so that the first in-game year is super slow, no pressuring events are triggered, and you can explore etc. This can go a quite a long while, enough for a LOT of exploration.   Then you get into the second half of the game, time-wise, and some events gets triggered. A merchant tells you he has a device that can turn black as it predicts its own destruction, and that it will be destroyed at the current rate within another 2 years. A bit later,  you start seeing massive move of one of the galaxy friendly specie on your scanner. If they reach their destination (which will take a month in game or two) they will be destroyed at the arrival (they are too naive to think they won't be welcomed with open arms). So you have to talk to them to convince them to return home. You can do this 3 times, after which they won't listen to you anymore and will go.  So by that time you must be sure the other lifeform at the other side becomes peaceful.  etc etc.
    In other words: they managed it so that the event ticking are starting to arrive roughly when the player has reached a strong knowledge of the galaxy and has explored quite a bit.
    The same principle could apply.

    I think it feels a lot more organic when major events that are not tied to the user eventually are set to happens, with or without you. It makes the whole story believable, and not totally player-centered.

    Yet of course, yes, it's possible you aren't realizing fast enough that, say, radiations will eventually frack your ecology.  That can be addressed several ways:
    • different events and quests allows you to repair the damage done.  The longer you take, the more work (or different story lines) you will have to take. It does not mean you can only reach a "bad" ending
    • you can reach a less desriable outcome and realize that new endings are possibles, and that will motivate you to replay again.  And this time, you will need less time to explore because you have seen it all already, which means it will naturally go faster
    • In one game you might want to try to lazy exploration stance (and see what happens and what comes out of it). In another playthrough, you may enjoy very much purposly speeding up to change some events. Both experiences would be totally different which is awesome.
    More importantly, if it doesn't matter and EVERY ending is reachable to you regardless of time, IMO you will feel cheated at the story level and feel like in a linear story. That's what I don't like with Skyrim. The open-world is fantastic. But I know I can just purposly ignore quests until I feel like doing it, which means quests like "rescuing a kidnapped girl" become, from a narrative point of view, totally stupid. You know the world will "conveninantly" stop rotating for you because, god forbid, the "main" quest has to stay open. That's LINEAR.
    Personally, it's an insult to my intelligence.

    What if you aren't ready?
    Well, what of it? That's life. It's much more interesting that way.  Not everything happens when you are perfectly ready. It's part of the challenge.

    But don't get me wrong.  There are NO BAD ENDING. There are only DIFFERENT ending.  Even an ending that results in the whole planet exploding with you on it isn't "bad" IMO, it's actually fun and you bet I'd want to replay the game to meet that ending too.
  • AlphaBlueArxAlphaBlueArx Join Date: 2015-05-11 Member: 204402Members
    edited June 2015
    I'd have suggestion for the ending, how about the survivor manages to send a message to mission control or Alterra and they'd tell him that other vessels are on their way, but also saying that it would take a reaaaally long time, like years for example, and that in the meantime he'll have to continue the exploration mission and data gathering.

    Oh and i got another idea, how about to launch the message he'd need the help from the sentients inhabitants of the planet? maybe after trying to negotiate with them for it.
  • TerraBladeTerraBlade Join Date: 2015-05-25 Member: 204886Members
    But don't get me wrong.  There are NO BAD ENDING. There are only DIFFERENT ending.  Even an ending that results in the whole planet exploding with you on it isn't "bad" IMO, it's actually fun and you bet I'd want to replay the game to meet that ending too.

    Things like having a game over from killing the ocean and having a secondary ship crash WOULD be bad endings, by most anyone's standard.

    I've yet to play a game with a timer that didn't drive me to just go to a walk through and follow that to get the 'good' ending. At this point, you have killed the concept of exploration and the joy of discovery. I don't know if everyone else would be driven to that point, but I would and it would just cause me to walk away as soon as I got the 'good' ending. This is also why if there is a definitively good ending there needs to be more then one.

    Endings just should not be on a timer, and event he example of Star Control would be a limiting timer since you knew you had to be prepared in a year...and thus removing a lot of the organic feeling of the game. Timers just flat out limit the nature of exploration by their very nature, which is something we want to avoid in an adventure game.
  • FalcoFalco Germany Join Date: 2015-06-05 Member: 205271Members
    I'd like some kind of story progression. It might be optional but it should reward the player in some way if he does so. For example welding the radiation leaks was kinda what I would imagine to be part of such a story.
    But in the end it's both optional and if you do it you could either choose if you want to end or just stay on the planet.
    For me it felt kind of exciting to know that I have to do something, even if it was just a 10 minute trip to the aurora to fix it up a bit...
  • UnknownGentlemenUnknownGentlemen Florida? Join Date: 2015-08-12 Member: 207072Members
    edited August 2015
  • HamsterIVHamsterIV San Diego CA Join Date: 2015-08-12 Member: 207066Members
    All I would need for a satisfactory ending is to reestablish a connection with humanity. Finding the cause of the Aurora's crash, retrieving/building a communication array, mounting it on the top of the floating island, sending a signal to a rescue ship, and getting a vague promise of rescue in a few years would be enough for me to feel satisfied with this game. Also completing the Aurora's mission of establishing human settlements on the planet via base building would be a nice bonus. Perhaps an ending showing a thriving human community on a floating city with a mostly salvaged Aurora in the background and a Monument to the player and his crash pod in the foreground.
  • destroyah87destroyah87 Join Date: 2015-08-08 Member: 206913Members
    Yeah, without knowing what's planned on the story side of things, I really don't know what kind of ending or even story I'd prefer.

    I know that as things stand right now, all I really need to be happy is some more gameplay systems to tinker around with.

    On the whole, I'd prefer different story objectives with different completion methods. That and mostly non-game ending consequences for failure. At least, not without many warnings and chances to correct the circumstances that's leading toward a catastrophic game end-state.
  • ZixinusZixinus Hungary Join Date: 2015-07-22 Member: 206338Members
    They hired a story writer and something hit the Aurora. I definitely would like a story. For players that just want to mess around with stuff like now, there could be an "endless" mode (what the game basically is now) that lacks story elements, has resources respawn at a faster rate and does not have an end.

    I get that the developers want an exploratory approach, having the player discover stuff like in Minecraft rather than chain them along. But I'd definitely would like to learn more about the world, how it exists and why the Aurora was shot down.

    A bit of speculation: let's assume that the energy wave that attacked the Aurora wasn't an accident or a flicker of nature. With the level of tech displayed, nothing natural should be able to hurt the ship that it couldn't foreseen or know about. So that leaves that someone or something wanted the Aurora hurt. Yet nobody comes to the escape pod, there is no sign of civilization beside the Aurora. That's a mystery, a mystery worth exploring.

    Multiple choices on what to do when the mystery is untangled would be perhaps various responses to the mystery itself. Maybe the player walks away, maybe the player decides to live on the planet, maybe the player devotes themselves to the mystery or maybe the player decides to do drastic action. We have no hint of what that mystery is so far.
  • 04Leonhardt04Leonhardt I came here to laugh at you Join Date: 2015-08-01 Member: 206618Members
    I had an idea that would add some semblance of a story, based on what repairs you can do to the Aurora here

    Basically, you restart the Aurora, and it starts slowly giving you things to do to help it recover. Auto repair systems open up new sections of the ship, allowing you access to new technology. The Cartographer maps out the ocean floor, the Archive catalogues fish populations, the Flight Deck allows you to build aircraft to travel to new maps, the Hydroponics Farm lets the player grow plants for food, etc.
  • ghostking679ghostking679 california Join Date: 2015-08-23 Member: 207400Members
    Personally ive spent a lot of time in this game and i love it i think its very well made and just a legitimate game throughout but me personally i would prefer the game to have an overarching goal in such the survivor/main character figures out a way to get home i just think this would make this game hit gold
Sign In or Register to comment.