which subnautica is best?

[The_Lone_Merk]

i have never played, only ever watched people play and have heard how good the original game was, but also how good the second dlc is, that it is basically like a second game. in your opinion, which is best? are both actually that good? should i play them in order? are they both worth their price tags? of course ill check cdkeys or maybe wait for next sale (sighs). anyway, thanks in advance!

[NikUnit]

Интересная игра

[penner3]

Pretty much everyone will tell you that the first game is better, although there are some dissenters. But, if you have watched gameplay videos of both, that should have given you a good idea of which one you will enjoy more.

[Soren]

The original here is the better experience in my opinion. Below Zero has more voice acting and a more direct/involved story. But I think Below Zero is also slightly smaller of a game and less sandbox oriented. Keep in mind I am someone who doesn't really value story telling that much, direct or indirect like via lore and stuff.

I'd say both games are more than worth their money though.

[rcf5089]

the first one defiantly, second has some cool new ideas even if most are poorly implimented and pretty biomes. The story is strange to say the least. Also the second is a much smaller game. second game is still fun, just does not live up to the first in any way.

[MADE IN IRON]

The one and only Original Subnautica. But you already spoiled the experience watching gameplays (don't know why people these days do such things) so stop watching videos of people playing, and start palying yourself. Stop spoiling yourself a great game, it's best played blind.
I wish I could forget my memories from this game to play it again as a new game.

[Artek [General]]

I think Sub1 is a superior product. The pieces came together just right for it to be a unique experience it is.

BZ has its' moments, is notably more technically stable (somewhat...), got more features to play with, but is ruined by a fairly uninteresting plot carried by exceptionally lame characters. The single most interesting and the least infuriating / cringeworthy character in the game is an alien. That says it all really. I played that game once to completion and honestly not feeling the desire to do it again.

[GoWeegee24]

the original subnautica gives you a open world to explore, while below zero makes me feel cramped because the world is a lot smaller. i'd start with original then if you want, go to BZ, because it does have a pretty good story. but i prefer the original.

[Pisaro]

Subnautica is waaay better then below zero. Below zero is, in fact, crap.

Originally posted by The_Lone_Wolf:

i have never played, only ever watched people play and have heard how good the original game was, but also how good the second dlc is, that it is basically like a second game. in your opinion, which is best? are both actually that good? should i play them in order? are they both worth their price tags? of course ill check cdkeys or maybe wait for next sale (sighs). anyway, thanks in advance!

Well Below Zero is a second game, NOT a DLC.

[Sonic K]

The original is better.

[The_Lone_Merk]

thank you all for your input! ill be checking out the first one and giving it a shot

[Steelfleece]

Objectively, Below Zero isn't a bad game. In an alternate timeline where the original Subnautica never got beyond tech demo and only Below Zero was finished and released, it would be remembered more fondly.

That said, we have both, and the original's more lonely atmosphere, larger and more expansive setting, and protagonist who doesn't eat like they're in a McDonald's commercial trying to make as much noise as possible to make sure you know they're eating or drinking because that's still one of my biggest peeves, seem to fit much better.

I'd buy the original first. Of course, if you can get a bundle with both on sale, that's the best option.

[Meldiron]

The original Subnautica is an amazing game and experience. Playing it blind is 100% the way to go though. Some of the best parts of the game is the discovery of new creatures, areas, and lore. The exploration of the world is truly great. Also, building fun cool bases is really cool, especially since they added stuff from BZ into Subnautica so you have more options of how to build your bases. So basically, the original game is 100% without a doubt worth the full price.

Below Zero (BZ) is basically a standalone expansion. It is a smaller game that is sort of a continuation of the first game (it takes place on the same planet, sometime after the events of the original game). I have not played the entire game yet, but from everything I know about it and everything I have heard about it from other people, it is not as good overall as the original game. However, it does have its own merits. The story is mostly seen as good, sometimes even better than the original. There are new areas and creatures to find as well which is what made Subnautica so enjoyable. But it is a smaller map, and a bit more of a guided experience. I do think it is worth the money, but I wouldn't argue with others who would say to buy it on sale.

[Mohguy]

Originally posted by Meldiron:

The story is mostly seen as good, sometimes even better than the original

I believe on the contrary that the story is the element that is almost unanimously considered to be catastrophic or close to it.
What people say rather is that the story is more present, more visible, that it occupies more space in the progression, but "more" does not mean "better", and this is a good example.
The story in SN1 was quite discreet and it was very good like that, there was a mysterious and rather interesting side that was more than enough. In BZ the story is more visible but it's a big mess, so it's just harmful to the experience.

The story/narration is precisely the most failed aspect, with the land phase, moreover 2 things that few players had asked for I think