Another sequel?

[Sasquatch]

Has there been any talk of a third game? Or did the relatively disappointing performance of BZ kill the franchise? I'd really like a new edition, more to explore, more to be afraid of.

[dragonbornzyra]

Originally posted by JCDenton_191:

Originally posted by Red Foreman:

I'd like multiplayer and I get it "play another game if you want multiplayer, we don't want to play with friends, rawr rawr". I've heard it all and I'm sure some people don't want multiplayer so don't play it, stay on single player. People get so pissed at the thought of playing a game with others like they're forced at gunpoint to click multiplayer from the main menu I did the multiplayer mod but later in the game things got buggy and it just killed the excitement for us.

It's a design decision.
When I look at Osiris New Dawn, e.g., the SP and MP experience don't really differ.
While I would not mind playing Subnautica cooperatively, the key element of the finished product was the feeling of being in there alone.
An inverse example is Star Trek Bridge Crew: That game is most fun in MP and the SP experience exists so you can learn how the game works. Occasionally, GenZ joins and becomes whiny about needing to communicate and collaborate to accomplish and exceed what they have done in SP - NOT the point of the game.

Having said that, I would actually enjoy a thirds playthrough of SUbnautica with friends, now that I have had enjoyed the experience as intended.

*Memories of 2017 era OND alpha build* Ah.........

[Saddam Hussein]

Originally posted by Sputnik:

Soon after a straw man I kinda fade out. Sorry

Apparently you also fade out before reading the post. You're the one strawmanning.

[dragonbornzyra]

Originally posted by Saddam Hussein:

Originally posted by Sputnik:

Soon after a straw man I kinda fade out. Sorry

Apparently you also fade out before reading the post. You're the one strawmanning.

I think you both have more in common than seems readily available!

[Copper-dovak]

Originally posted by Sputnik:

I'll take that on - really just with an interest in both art and commerce (although i too share dragonbornzyra's disappointments).

Art and Commerce are a cranky old couple condemned to live together (yes, video games really are art - just as much as movies).

• Very little art gets made at all without financial return. Creatives gotta eat, right?
  
• Very little good art gets made when bean counters have too much artistic control.

OK OK, we can briefly argue semantics about 'good art:
It's not doing the same safe thing endlessly over to reassure investor.s (e.g. fps).
And it's not about just picking an untapped cohort audience and feeding them sugar (e.g. Below Standard Zero)

Right now the Art-Commerce relationship is tilted way too far in favour of Commerce. The accountants have now assumed most of the artistic control, and little gets pre-financed unless it fits a familiar cookie-cutter, so naturally the most of the art is ordinary at best.

No offense, I get that you're trying to play devil's advocate and argue in favor of the practical side of commerce by trying to argue it's necessary for art to exist.

But ultimately I disagree. Video games, movies, TV shows, books are ultimately frivolous activities that take time away from actually experiencing life. Humans are obviously aesthetic creatures and have been making art since there have been materials to manipulate. And I would argue the existence of art is pretty important to the mental well-being of humans.

But I would also argue art only has value at its best. It needs to be high quality, detailed, interesting, original, etc. And appealing to commerce almost always diminishes this. Nothing new can appear under the sun if you're using star wars: a new hope as a pacing template for 60 years. Nothing relevant or profound can be said if you're cutting your canvas in order to appeal to feeble-minded crowds of oversensitive people. No growth is ever going to be achieved if you're forced to follow current market trends.

A good book, movie, or game can be an extremely enriching experience and these things can contain valuable knowledge within them, but only at their highest level. If you validate making compromises then you're sacrificing any value these pieces had and will instead make time-wasting garbage that has no effect on anyone other than inducing boredom if not depression and other mental illnesses.

Originally posted by Sputnik:

Of course, at times in the past the balance has been to far in the other direction, and a lot of irrelevant pretentious stuff got made (OK, maybe that still happens in France!)

I'll have to second Saddam's response on this one. Pretentious art films that are obsessed with the ordinary and mundane are not the end result of unbridled creative freedom and in many ways are also themselves products of commerce, just to a different market. In my experience, the people who make and watch these film as obsessed with making money and being socially safe as the hollywood people are while being more concerned about what tasty snacks they'll be eating during production than the film itself.

I disagree with the notion art can't exist without commerce. Many masterpieces are the exact product of total creative freedom and the absence of commercial interest. The holy mountain, Apocalypse Now, Blood Meridian are all masterpieces that would be irreparably dragged into mediocrity if they were made to be more commercially viable.

In fact, can't think of a masterpiece that's been made with the intention of being commercially safe or that has benefited from being made in a way to increase profit.

This is a case in particular where playing the centrist card is entirely pointless.

[Sputnik]

Hey @Copper-dovak.

I liked your evenhanded reply. I can't completely agree with you, but as a perpetually unpublished would-be-writer, I find your position very appealing.

But just to be clarify my position with a couple negatives:

• I'm not saying good art CAN'T exist without money (all that ice-age cave painting is superb). Just that people won't make a heck of a lot of it unless they can be supported as art-specialists. Realistically, in our current social system, that means making enough sales And for sustaining any development team it usually means competing for investment just to get stuff started (even Coppola had to raise tens of millions for Apocalypse)
  
• Also I am definitely NOT arguing for the current creative status quo. Which, as you describe is pretty damn awful, thanks to commerce.

Now, if only some games publisher will recognise my creative genius we can finally get this second cultural Renascence started (right submanauts, that IS a joke!)

[dragonbornzyra]

Sure seems to me like a whole lotta healthy, productive discussion going on here in these forums.

Please continue

[Sputnik]

Still haven't quite got to the shouting match yet

[Sputnik]

Returning to the topic of sequels - i posted this a while back, but i think it's filled out properly since then:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2993763066

[giguy2002]

I read the discussions here after I bought the whole SN game bundle for $23. I started playing BZ first by accident not knowing/realizing it was a totally separate game rather than an Add-On or DLC enhancing the original.

The beginnings of both are similar except in BZ I start with no scanner, tools, resources and trying to find out what happened to my sister whereas in SN I have food , water..etc and seems to be the initial crash into the ocean and nothing about my sister.

I've only played a few minutes of each but wanted to check with the community if playing BZ provides the game play experience of SN? Since I started BZ first I'm intrigued to find out what happened to my sister but if it's actually a second game, separate story lines and sub-par to the original perhaps I should continue and then circle back around to SN afterwards unless doing BZ first ruins story line of SN??

Thoughts?? And thank you for any input.

[Maviba]

Originally posted by giguy2002:

Thoughts?? And thank you for any input.

I see your dilemma. In theory, you could start with Below Zero as both games are more or less separate entities.
However, it's worth noting that there are some differences in concept between SN and SN:BZ.

In Subnautica, the focus is primarily on the exploration of the vast underwater world. Players are mostly left to their own devices, needing to build bases and overcome environmental hazards.
While there is a storyline present in Subnautica, it takes a somewhat secondary role as the emphasis lies more on exploration and survival.

In Subnautica: Below Zero, on the other hand, the story takes a more prominent role. Players assume the role of a researcher trying to uncover the mystery behind the disappearance of their sister. The map is slightly smaller compared to the main game, but there are more frequent interactions with other entities.
Story elements are more prevalent and contribute to driving the narrative forward.

Considering these differences, if experiencing the story and interacting with other entities are important to you, starting with Subnautica: Below Zero might be the way to go. However, keep in mind that playing BZ first might reveal some references or events that could potentially impact your experience of Subnautica later on.

But if you're asking me about my personal preferences:
I'd start with BZ, because SN was the better experience for me. It lasts longer, offers way more freedom and immersion for me.
So starting with SN and playing BZ afterwards made me feel a bit disappointed, since I had a different expectation on BZ because of the frist game. Although BZ is a good game too.

Both games offer unique experiences, and while they are connected, they can be enjoyed independently as well. So, it's up to you to decide which approach suits your interests and storytelling preferences.

[BlackSunEmpire]

Originally posted by Sasquatch:

An all-new team could be a good thing. Take the game in a more serious direction. I like the look of the original. But some of the critters were silly.

I cant remember a single time were a sequel profited from most of the team leaving the company.

If it is actually true that most of them left the studio, than I do not expect much from Subnautica 3.

If you look at Below Zero than they rather made the sequel more childish, cartoony and handholdy instead of going in the "more serious" direction.

[BlackSunEmpire]

Originally posted by giguy2002:

I've only played a few minutes of each but wanted to check with the community if playing BZ provides the game play experience of SN?

No it does not.

Subnautica is about exploring an entire ocean in a mostly non-linear fashion.
Below Zero is about exploring a shallow subregion, including a lot of narrow underwater caves. The deepsea exploration aspect of the first game is mostly gone. The game is also much more linear and handholdy and the on land exploration part really sucks due to low visability-constant snowstorms, low item density and maze like level design.

Here is a pretty good summery of the issues of Below Zero, compared to the original one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-AWFjBONp8

If I were you I would uninstall Below Zero and just pretend that there is only one Subnautica. Thats the best way of experiencing Subnautica.

[Sasquatch]

Originally posted by Red Foreman:

I'd like multiplayer and I get it "play another game if you want multiplayer, we don't want to play with friends, rawr rawr". I've heard it all and I'm sure some people don't want multiplayer so don't play it, stay on single player. People get so pissed at the thought of playing a game with others like they're forced at gunpoint to click multiplayer from the main menu I did the multiplayer mod but later in the game things got buggy and it just killed the excitement for us.

What people get pissed about is literally every game there is somebody wanting it to be multiplayer. Why can't people just accept that some games are solo? Is it that difficult? Are you that entitled that you think every game should be remade to suit your desires? You don't see me on MMO game threads asking for solo mode, I just don't play those games. I specifically look for solo games. So, yeah, I get pissed when people think the games I go out of my way to find should be changed to something different.

It isn't just a matter of clicking "solo" on a menu. Adding multiplayer adds a massive amount of work to the devs. It means they have to operate servers to let people connect. It means they have to deal with networking problems. That's a ton of resources that could be put to other uses. People act like it's a trivial task to "just add multiplayer". Nevermind the gameplay problems it creates for both groups. How do you make vehicles that can be operated solo, but that give multiple players something to do? You can't. So you end up like "Star Citizen"... there are dinky solo ships that can't do anything and all the good stuff is reserved for the frat parties.

[Sasquatch]

Originally posted by BlackSunEmpire:

Originally posted by Sasquatch:

An all-new team could be a good thing. Take the game in a more serious direction. I like the look of the original. But some of the critters were silly.

I cant remember a single time were a sequel profited from most of the team leaving the company.

If it is actually true that most of them left the studio, than I do not expect much from Subnautica 3.

If you look at Below Zero than they rather made the sequel more childish, cartoony and handholdy instead of going in the "more serious" direction.

Exactly. And BZ was mostly the original team. So a new team might head back the other way with it. Any more childish and it would be one of the manga games.

[Sputnik]

Originally posted by Sasquatch:

Exactly. And BZ was mostly the original team. So a new team might head back the other way with it. Any more childish and it would be one of the manga games.

BZ may have retained some of its founding UWE team, but it DID have a change of lead writer, who was certainly instrumental in the changed tone of BZ. She may have just been following orders to aim at a young female audience (the Nuremberg Defence for atrocity)

UWE is no longer an edgy independent, crafting what it can from scraps and an attitude. Nor do they correspond with their fan base as they did back in 2015. But they appear to be well resourced now so, I guess we'll get the kind of sequel they want to make.

All that's certain is they are now working on an unrelated game aimed a very young casual audience. UWE may have found its niche. I don't have high hopes of a return to their roots.


https://store.steampowered.com/app/845890/Moonbreaker/