0
4

[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I love this game. I dislike its creators. I probably would not support their business if I knew about their SJW leftism beforehand. But I don’t regret owning the game.

1
4

[–] AmaleksHairyAss 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Video is not the proper format for this. The information is audio and the video data adds nothing to it.

2
1

[–] makingreen [S] 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

Subnautica is a great game. It's a futuristic survival sandbox that takes place on a vast ocean planet with several interesting locations and intriguing creatures, ranging from small and cute to massive and ferocious. I loved it, I got 25 hours out of it. I didn't really have mixed feelings about it until I started to read about it.

Mechanically, Subnautica is stellar. I feel that the choice not to include many conventional weapons was refreshing because it created a relationship with the world and its inhabitants far more complex than what we see in most games. It forced you to be clever and resourceful, and to know when to run away. It also created a sense of vulnerability that was diminished as you progressed through the game, which makes the player feel like they have grown.

Unlike a lot of sandbox survival games, Subnautica is not procedurally generated. There is a crafted world and a story. This may not lead to infinite replayability like you see in Minecraft, but it also means the developers had a chance to really develop the world. The different biomes feel great, the story is engaging without being obtrusive or diminishing the sandbox experience. Without wishing to spoil, the pacing is also well done and it seemed like a lot of thought went into the player experience.

It's not a perfect game. I encountered some minor bugs and some of the mechanics felt underdeveloped to me, namely the fact that your base could be damaged even though you had few tools to defend it and no real threat--other than your own vehicles--unless you consciously built in a dangerous area. However, at $25 I think it was a steal. I loved it, got over 25 hours of playtime out of it, and if it had been a $60 full price game, I would have still been completely satisfied.

Interestingly enough, the only issues I have came after beating the game and reading some news about it, and comments from the developer, while searching for mods.

Before I go deeper into these topics, I would like to point out that I think you can disagree with someone and still enjoy their art. I don't like this sort of tribalism we see today; the "you're either with us or you're against us" mentality where some people feel like they need to distance themselves from people who have differing viewpoints. I may not agree with some of the business decisions of Unknown Worlds or some of the political stances of Subnautica's game director, Charlie Cleveland, but that doesn't mean that I didn't enjoy the game or appreciate the artistic decisions.

For example, the decision not to include guns in this game was controversial to some. It was deliberate. The game director mentioned that Sandy Hook was one of the factors that they considered, and was even quoted as calling the decision "one vote towards a world with less guns". I am a gun owner and a hunter. I, too, want to live in a world with less needless violence--as I'm sure most people do--but I think it's fair to say that I would disagree on what the best path to that kind of world is.

Yet, as I already stated, not including guns was, mechanically, a great decision and it increased my enjoyment of the game. It was possibly one of the reasons that made the game so notable. In most other survival sandboxes, I would have just cleared out every threat until I was the apex predator. In Subnautica, I often found it more expedient to ignore creatures unless they spotted me, and even then I would scare them away over killing them. My friend commented that the wildlife in most games feels like World of Warcraft mobs; they just try to kill the nearest thing. In Subnautica, the animals feel like animals.

What I really have mixed feelings about is some of the reactions that the developer has had to the community. For example, the sound designer, Simon Chylinski, who did a really good job on the game, was fired over comments that he made on social media. There were accusations that the statements were "hateful" and at least one outburst directly referenced the game.

In response to a very vocal subgroup within the game's community clamoring for a female character, Mr. Chlyinski posted a poll where he asked if players would rather have development time spent on adding a female player character--or--improving the core mechanics of the game and bug fixes. One could argue that due to his position at the company, that he is perceived to represent the views of the company, but I don't think that's giving people enough credit. As reasoning individuals we are capable of recognizing when people are speaking for themselves. It is also notable that about 75% of the responses were in favor of core mechanics and bug fixes over a gender option. Small sample size, charged topic; it's not clear if that poll would be representative of the opinions of the playerbase as a whole, but in a game that takes place 100% in first person and the main character does not speak, it does fit with what my expectations would be.

On the topic of a female main character, I do strongly disagree with Charlie Cleveland's position. In response to the perceived community reaction, he tweeted: "To clear up some miscommunication - I REALLY wish we had made the main character female. We didn’t have time to address that in @Subnautica but I really want to fix that for the expansion (not by a selection screen but by making the player female)". To me, this smacks of blatant tokenism. Wishing to retroactively capitulate to a minority of vocal players in the most extreme way possible. Arguing inclusivity but wanting to make the character strictly female, not for story or mechanical purposes, not because it fit the artistic vision of the people who worked hard on the game, but simply because he feels that women aren't well enough represented in gaming.

For the announced Subnautica DLC, the main character is going to be female. I don't oppose this. Like I said, this is a game that takes place 100% in first person, so it is largely irrelevant. Besides, I play as characters who are not like me all the time. It has never once diminished my enjoyment. I like to roleplay as other people, especially people who aren't like me at all. But I question the motives behind the decision.

In regards to the accusations of hateful comments by the sound director, a Kotaku article wrote: "Twitter users subsequently found many questionable statements in Chylinski’s Twitter feed, including tweets about immigration claiming “importing random ppl from the 3rd world is also importing 3rd world tier crime rates and IQ.” Another tweet mocked a poll on YouTube about gender diversity by referencing attack helicopters, a meme commonly used to make light of transgender issues. Other tweets make light of global pay inequalities between men and women, praise colonialism, or reference “SJW logic.”

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I get the feeling that if he had said something truly outrageous, the press would have jumped on it and lambasted him over it. To me, this seems like someone with a conservative viewpoint who grew up in the same internet age as a lot of us memeing about controversial topics. It feels like that same small but vocal portion of the gaming community that loves to get offended about things is looking for any excuse to rake someone over the coals for disagreeing with them, and that the developer, regardless of what their motivations may be, are more than happy to oblige.

I don't claim to know the whole story. Maybe Chylinski is an asshole and he was already on the way out. But what I do know is that I wish gaming could be separate from identity politics.

I commend Cleveland on one thing, when people complain about things like "games are too violent", "there isn't enough representation in gaming", my response is usually "Ok, so make a game without guns. Make a game with a female protagonist." And that's what Unknown World did. They made a game--a really, really good game--with no guns. Then they added a DLC with a female character. I may not agree with their motivations, but at least they are incorporating the change that they want to see into their games instead of demanding that everyone else do it.

I think as members of a capitalist society, we vote with our wallets. But I think it's also important to recognize what you are voting for. I enjoyed Subnautica a lot. I would gladly play more games by this developer if they were as fun and inventive and made with as much care. It is likely that I will pick up the DLC. That doesn't mean that I support of the decisions or views of the developer or the game director. It doesn't mean that I'm picking sides. They made a good game, and as long as the games stay good I'm happy to pay. And that's what I hope for: that political views and shoehorned ideology don't work against the quality of DLC or future games. That Subnautica wasn't just a fluke.

Consider this one vote towards a world with less identity politics... and more fun.

0
4

[–] Thrus2 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Just going to number paragraphs I’m responding to here instead of quote to reduce the length of my response.

1/4) 25 hours out of a survival game that goes for $25 is not much. If it had been $60 it would never be in my or my friends libraries. to be honest it was gifted to me when there was talk of multiplayer that is why I have it. Price to value is subjective though so lets just say we disagree based on your numbers.

2) The weapons thing while a choice on the dev and influencing the playstyle, is silly. Imagine being trapped on a planet with fish that want to eat you, you have the skill set and tools to build a large sub and mech suits with a grappling hook, you have a knife you can use to cut things. However you don't figure out to use a long pointed rod to keep things further away than the knife? You made the grappling hook but don't bother to use the exact same tech without the rope or extra prongs to shoot a rod as a harpoon gun. Either of those would let you gather larger fish for food or do it safer. In survival not getting hurt is a huge factor especially in water with sharks as blood attracts them and would mean limiting you to your shelter until it healed. The constant hits would mean replacing/repairing your protective suit constantly. Your goal is to survive until you escape, there are no others of your species so you alone are not a risk to the environment especially compared to that giant ship that is crashed and sitting in ocean leaking who knows what. Even logs show others facing a choice of live or preserve the planet with preserve leading to broken shelters and no people.

3) Procedure or made all is up to the game and the devs for how they want it to play no beef with either choice from me. Though for survival made means that replay value goes down as it will be the same each time. Pacing I would disagree with you for ti being good, I finished the blueprints for the prawn suit and the big sub at the same time literally the last piece I needed for each was right near each other found at the same time. Trying to find the suit without using a wiki resulted in me finding lots of tech that was ahead of it before I built it, I knew of it from friends talking about the game as they had it and played before I acquired it.

6) For some it is less with us or against us and more choosing not to support them when they use that art to spread a message we disagree with. They have the right to their opinion and to spread it, I have the right to not give them money due to the underlying message even if I like the art. I will add that I don't pick to torrent if I want the game and not the message, if the game is worth it to me i will buy it or decide that I am enough against the message that I don't play the game at all. 7) A school shooting and survival on a planet with no one else are not even similar situations, as you said. Even something like 7 Days to Die is closer to a school shooting due to city like areas and humanoid zombies regardless of weapon choice. This all ignores the fact that anyone that has ever seen a gun could tell if it was a mouse and keyboard, controller, or gun blindfolded and with one hand. Anyone familiar with recoil can tell you that one doesn’t train you for how the other is going to feel to use.

10) Mechanics was the only logical choice, the thing I would disagree with is the time to do either and the staff that would do either. A female would have been for the graphics and just changing the skin on the character most of the game is first person so it would have zero change on it. Mechanics is a programming person. In a small company these roles may overlap for people but still the time to do a reskin with different lumps in places would not be significant compared to the time to adjust and test core mechanics changes. Personally I don’t care but to think of the two as mutually exclusive is silly.

11) Totally agree.

12) So it will be a new crash on a new planet with a new character? Because otherwise it makes no sense to suddenly change the gender. If it is the same planet they would have seen the giant smoking ship laying in the ocean or the explosion and went to investigate to see if they could find some survival tools, just like you go in to find stuff. Using his own logic he should add further features as that vs the character model exclude each other and he could reuse the existing models if the character stayed male.

17) This we disagree on. If they make a good game and they keep their politics out of it and keep their politics out of their game decisions, make a logical choice in the game world not based on your politics that have nothing to do with that world, don’t speak their personal politics through channels that they use for business; then sure support them. BUT if they are using the game as a method of distributing their views and the company as a mouthpiece for those views and you decide to buy it you ARE supporting those views and voting for them with your wallet.

0
2

[–] klobos 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

They explain in the game why you can't make weapons. I don't remember the exact reason but if you read the pda entries or something you come across a paragraph explaining some massacre on a planet which is why your build tool can only make knives. Your character isn't smart enough to make his own blueprints, he is relying on what is allowed through his replicator. Which is why you have to find them.

3
0

[–] Mumbleberry 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

Try reading the second paragraph; https://voat.co/help/faq And only jews use jewtube

0
1

[–] DrSelfAppointed 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Fuck anyone downvoating this. I like the content, but @MumbleFaggot is right. A brief look at @makingreen 's comment and submission history shows it's spam by the definition of the Voat FAQ page. Reminds me of that parrot-haired-faggot @xylex, except I actually enjoy makingreen's content. 'Green, how about posting some other shit around Voat? I mean, we need content, so keep OC shit flowing, but how about not just using this place for pimping out your youtube. You say it's not monetized, you are also engaging people (so at least your not a parrot haired faggot,) but it has reached spam level.

Edit: Some good arguments in the video. I never heard someone put the learning-monotony of these games as doing homework.

0
0

[–] AndrewBlazeIt 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Good game, fuck the studio.

1
-1

[–] derram 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago