Yeesh... I guess no Cyclops in Subnautica 3.

[ClunkerSlim]

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2993675764

https://www.reddit.com/r/OceanGateTitan/comments/14hauq3/oceangate_licensed_the_cyclopstitan_to_the_video/

Talk about a partnership that hasn't aged well. If Oceangate goes under or revokes its license, what happens to Subnautica?

[Kain]

Somehow I don't think Logitech is loving the attention either.

[dreamrider]

I think UWE's reputation will weather the typhoon. THEIR craft is made largely of (virtual) titanium, after all, and 3D printed in one piece (virtually).

Wouldn't be surprised, if there is ever another update, if the picture gets removed, though.

[Cursed Hawkins]

Originally posted by dreamrider:

Wouldn't be surprised, if there is ever another update, if the picture gets removed, though.

You understand that the MODEL would need to be changed as well... which means we might now end up getting the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Sea Truck as its replacement!

[ClunkerSlim]

Originally posted by Cursed Hawkins:

Originally posted by dreamrider:

Wouldn't be surprised, if there is ever another update, if the picture gets removed, though.

You understand that the MODEL would need to be changed as well... which means we might now end up getting the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Sea Truck as its replacement!

Noooooo!!!!! Time to replace it with the Atlas.

[dragonbornzyra]

I'm amused by the comparison between Oceangate and UWE.

[LosttSnekk]

The model in subnautica 1 is different and more advanced. Though, that looks like the sea truck compared to size.

[dreamrider]

Originally posted by Cursed Hawkins:

Originally posted by dreamrider:

Wouldn't be surprised, if there is ever another update, if the picture gets removed, though.

You understand that the MODEL would need to be changed as well... which means we might now end up getting the ******* Sea Truck as its replacement!

Why would the model need to be changed? There is a complete history of the development of the artwork independently, over several years, as an aspect of UWE's project. I am quite sure that UWE owns the IP for their Cyclops model and artwork. Among other things, the vessels are not that similar.

There is no implication in the acknowledgement of the NAME trademark (which I am actually surprised was ever issued a trademark, considering the scope of items, and even vessels, which have used it over the years and centuries) that there is any attachment or collision of rights over the game imagery.

[Copper-dovak]

Originally posted by dreamrider:

Originally posted by Cursed Hawkins:

You understand that the MODEL would need to be changed as well... which means we might now end up getting the ******* Sea Truck as its replacement!

Why would the model need to be changed? There is a complete history of the development of the artwork independently, over several years, as an aspect of UWE's project. I am quite sure that UWE owns the IP for their Cyclops model and artwork. Among other things, the vessels are not that similar.

There is no implication in the acknowledgement of the NAME trademark (which I am actually surprised was ever issued a trademark, considering the scope of items, and even vessels, which have used it over the years and centuries) that there is any attachment or collision of rights over the game imagery.

Yeah, that's all well and good. But these are the same devs that refuse to add guns into their game because Sandy Hook traumatized them. Their personal feelings on world events and the need to come across as "moral" supersede their creative integrity. Them retconning the cyclops out of existence and replacing it with something awful like the sea truck or butchering the design to be some hideous thing is well within character.

[dreamrider]

They don't "refuse". They decided against it as a basic design parameter and game limit during the concept phase, before there was ever any public debate. It IS a key aspect of this particular game's design.

And, OBTW. I think you missed the point. In their view, their creative integrity was SERVED by not making the game in a gun-based, dominate the environment style.

I don't blame them for not responding to a fraction of the community's calls for making the game more gun based - that would be kind of like moving it to the ski slopes of Colorado as the background environment.

[dragonbornzyra]

Originally posted by dreamrider:

They don't "refuse". They decided against it as a basic design parameter and game limit during the concept phase, before there was ever any public debate. It IS a key aspect of this particular game's design.

And, OBTW. I think you missed the point. In their view, their creative integrity was SERVED by not making the game in a gun-based, dominate the environment style.

I don't blame them for not responding to a fraction of the community's calls for making the game more gun based - that would be kind of like moving it to the ski slopes of Colorado as the background environment.

Stasis Rifle + Knife = More overpowered than any weapon combo I've seen in nearly any other game with actual weapons and guns meant to be used to shoot the enemy.

In those games with weapons the player is actually placed at risk. In Subnautica, a player is free to murder every living organism the game let's them with impunity and ease with the Stasis Rifle and any other choice of item able to inflict damage.

What integrity was served? What moral goal was served?

If a player chooses to there is no limit to the level of violence they can commit, if anything they made it even worse in the sequel. Both in game mechanic wise and story lore wise, they champion and support violent behavior so long as it lines up with their ideals and methods (Guns bad, explosives are okay)

They wanted no guns, but put in a combo of weapons that increased violence. In Below Zero they removed the Stasis Rifle, and now everyone rams into everything with the invincible Seatruck. Oh, they removed about 5 pieces of non lethal threat deterrance from Below Zero, which has the active and opposite effect of ENCOURAGING lethal response from the player, considering their non-lethal options have been stripped.

Subnautica was the amazing game it was by coincidence, not by design. We see the game UWE makes when they are in full swing (Below Zero) the second they struck lightning they immediately tried to do it again and failed so hard by doubling down on all the wrong things and removing/ignoring/toning down the very same things that made the first game the hit success it was.

So yeah Subnautica was incredible, but it wasn't because Charlie didn't want guns in it.

You can make any and every correlation equals causation argument in your mind you want.

The longest running, longest surviving, still existing today game franchises are violent and have guns in them. Sorry. Doom doesn't stay relevant to this day if guns are so evil and bad. Just because you take a contrarian stance to what's accepted, popular, and norm, does not inherently grant you any significance.

How many years will Subnautica stay relevant? How many Subnautica games will we see coming out? Will Subnautica stand the test of time? Will it find or reach the level of success any other game has come before it or will come after?

If the lack of weapons in games creates this perfect amazing wonderful experience, why aren't more game developers making those kinds of games? Why aren't more gamers paying for and playing those kinds of games? Hm?

"I don't blame them for not responding to a fraction of the community's calls for making the game more gun based - that would be kind of like moving it to the ski slopes of Colorado as the background environment."

Below Zero: *Exists*

You walked into that one sorry.

[Copper-dovak]

Originally posted by dreamrider:

They don't "refuse". They decided against it as a basic design parameter and game limit during the concept phase, before there was ever any public debate. It IS a key aspect of this particular game's design.

I disagree. The devs exclusion of "guns" is purely ideological. It wasn't a decision made in order to make things more interesting or fulfill a design goal it was a self-indulgent "protest" because a recent event seemed to be very important to them during a period of time. It isn't something baked into the game's design that would spoil it were it any different it's something the devs decided on for sentimental reasons which had nothing to do with the game.

Originally posted by dreamrider:

And, OBTW. I think you missed the point. In their view, their creative integrity was SERVED by not making the game in a gun-based, dominate the environment style.

Not at all. I'd argue the lack of combat and the minimization of violence hinders Subnautica because it limits the ways in which the player can interact with the world.

I'm not saying the game should be a combat oriented FPS but having more combative interactions with leviathans and predators and being able to use weapons like harpoons and spears would make the game more interesting. But they can't break that ideological promise so they've already hindered the ways a player can explore with the world.

Originally posted by dreamrider:

I don't blame them for not responding to a fraction of the community's calls for making the game more gun based - that would be kind of like moving it to the ski slopes of Colorado as the background environment.

Uh, no. Non violence has nothing to do with the appeal of subnautica much less its core. Subnautica fundementally is about the world they created and the animals in it. A survival game involving a castaway in an alien world filled with predators naturally entails violence. Giving weapons to subnautica players would not make the game into an FPS because it would presumedly still be an exploration based game about this alien planet and instead would deepen the interactions the players can have with the NPCs.


Anyway my point is to illustrate that the devs care more about being self-righteous and coming across as morally pure than making the game as interesting as possible and would absolutely take the cyclops out of the game and replace it with something else in order to "do the right thing" and be "heccin respectful to the families" even when they absolutely don't have to. This isn't having creative integrity, this is putting one's own vanity before their creative vision.

[HuskyDynamics]

As far as I'm aware, other than some general design cues like the cockpit bubble and side-mounted thruster pods, the only tie (and the only direct tie) was the "Cyclops" name, trademarked by OceanGate for their Cyclops 1 submersible unveiled in 2015 (a submersible that has notably not imploded, because it was properly tested to ensure it met safety regulations).

I'm not sure how legalese works with trademarks for a company that no longer exists, so I can't say what would happen if OceanGate goes under (pun intended) with regards to the licensing of the name of the vehicle, but I see no real reason to remove the Cyclops submarine from any future appearances in the Subnautica franchise based on what happened when OceanGate's CEO thought that regulations would get in the way of innovation[web.archive.org].


Plus, I think it's rather moot at this point anyway. I highly doubt that the Cyclops will be removed from Subnautica both because UW is presumably busy with whatever Sub3 will end up to be, and because at this point the Cyclops is undeniably an integral element and icon of the game (something that can't be said about weapons, since they were never in the game to begin with). As for Sub3, there was never a guarantee that the Cyclops would even show up to begin with.

[ClunkerSlim]

Originally posted by HuskyDynamics:

As far as I'm aware, other than some general design cues like the cockpit bubble and side-mounted thruster pods, the only tie (and the only direct tie) was the "Cyclops" name, trademarked by OceanGate for their Cyclops 1 submersible unveiled in 2015 (a submersible that has notably not imploded, because it was properly tested to ensure it met safety regulations).

I'm not sure how legalese works with trademarks for a company that no longer exists, so I can't say what would happen if OceanGate goes under (pun intended) with regards to the licensing of the name of the vehicle, but I see no real reason to remove the Cyclops submarine from any future appearances

I don't know. Given that OceanGate has shut down their website and are probably burning documents right now, I doubt they'd have time to fight a trademark case in the near future. But given the current publicity I doubt the devs will name any future subs "cyclops" or "titan." And they'll probably be designed to look radically different from any OceanGate subs.

[Copper-dovak]

Originally posted by ClunkerSlim:

Originally posted by HuskyDynamics:

As far as I'm aware, other than some general design cues like the cockpit bubble and side-mounted thruster pods, the only tie (and the only direct tie) was the "Cyclops" name, trademarked by OceanGate for their Cyclops 1 submersible unveiled in 2015 (a submersible that has notably not imploded, because it was properly tested to ensure it met safety regulations).

I'm not sure how legalese works with trademarks for a company that no longer exists, so I can't say what would happen if OceanGate goes under (pun intended) with regards to the licensing of the name of the vehicle, but I see no real reason to remove the Cyclops submarine from any future appearances

I don't know. Given that OceanGate has shut down their website and are probably burning documents right now, I doubt they'd have time to fight a trademark case in the near future. But given the current publicity I doubt the devs will name any future subs "cyclops" or "titan." And they'll probably be designed to look radically different from any OceanGate subs.

The new designs will probably suck tbh

[HuskyDynamics]

Originally posted by Copper-dovak:

The new designs will probably suck tbh

Personally I hope they go back to some of the earlier concept art pieces for the Cyclops (and maybe the 'Moth too) for new designs; some of those concepts were pretty neat!