the building in this game sucks

[bearsboi]

i love subnautica but the base building is so annoying. u should be able to destroy smaller environment things. i cant build anywhere cuz it keeps highlighting everything in yellow saying stuff is in the way. also why is the terraformer not in this game? so much cut content, the first subnautica is way better

[Coops]

There was no terraformer in the release of Subnautica.

[Drakolyr]

"The first subnautica is way better"

... the base building in the first one was exactly like in this one.


Except we have more things to build.

[bearsboi]

Originally posted by Drakolyr:

"The first subnautica is way better"

... the base building in the first one was exactly like in this one.


Except we have more things to build.

in general, not in terms of building

[The Big Brzezinski]

It's meant to be a story-driven game. It's not, but it's meant to be. Base building is functional, but it's not up to the genre standard in terms of player expression.

[bearsboi]

Originally posted by The Big Brzezinski:

It's meant to be a story-driven game. It's not, but it's meant to be. Base building is functional, but it's not up to the genre standard in terms of player expression.

thats another thing, at some point alan just stopped giving me locations and now i have no idea what to do or where to go

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Drakolyr:

"The first subnautica is way better"

... the base building in the first one was exactly like in this one.

Except we have more things to build.

The big difference is, in Subnautica there are a lot of places where you can conveniently construct a base, whereas in BZ most of the sea floor is so jagged and/or covered with stuff, that there's hardly any good place at all.

And two of the best places are already occupied by existing bases. -.-

[ParrotLord]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Originally posted by Drakolyr:

"The first subnautica is way better"

... the base building in the first one was exactly like in this one.

Except we have more things to build.

The big difference is, in Subnautica there are a lot of places where you can conveniently construct a base, whereas in BZ most of the sea floor is so jagged and/or covered with stuff, that there's hardly any good place at all.

And two of the best places are already occupied by existing bases. -.-

existing bases u can not use, expand upon, or repair i wanna add

[bearsboi]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Originally posted by Drakolyr:

"The first subnautica is way better"

... the base building in the first one was exactly like in this one.

Except we have more things to build.

The big difference is, in Subnautica there are a lot of places where you can conveniently construct a base, whereas in BZ most of the sea floor is so jagged and/or covered with stuff, that there's hardly any good place at all.

And two of the best places are already occupied by existing bases. -.-

yea exactly this

[YertyL]

The experience I would love from Subnautica is living deeply underwater for an extended period of time, like in Bart Torgal's journal entry: "This is the first time I've seen sunlight in months". I feel it does not really work in both games though:
In the first, the cyclops is so sufficient as a mobile base that there is no real incentive to expand after your first base.
In the second, as others have mentioned, the map is so small and there are so few truly deep zones that a single central base is more than sufficient to reach all points in the map in a comfortable time. The only location I would consider good for a deep base in the second game is the one which Marguerit's base is already at :-/

[TyresTyco]

Interesting.. seldom take here. But I gotta agree. I'm also not a fan of the large room tbh. Because that thing alone now is enough. The large room could be your base. Everything functional and useful fits in there.

Everything besides that is fluffy busywork with ten thousand beds and a kitchen in times where your fabricator can grill everything for you.. or a shower middle in the ocean.

IN that sense alone subnautica is better.. since you would NEED more multipurpose rooms for your base.

Here.. slap in a large room, water.. plants... power.. done.

The only reason why people would use a multipurpose room now is for the lulz or if you want it to be practical... build it far away and plant your nuclear reactor in it since they didnt bother to turn down that awful noise it produces.

Everytime I look at the building features in subnautica I'm kinda disappointed by all the wasted potential. Sci fi future space universe.. and what do we get? Stuff that got invented in 1900+.

[Evil Tim]

Not to mention that rather than being able to pick up science gizmos and make your base look like you actually have a work area, you now have a bunch of weird items that make it look like you robbed a jumble sale. Wow, I can have some dude's shaving kit and an aromatherapy lamp?

[Just Chill]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Originally posted by Drakolyr:

"The first subnautica is way better"

... the base building in the first one was exactly like in this one.

Except we have more things to build.

The big difference is, in Subnautica there are a lot of places where you can conveniently construct a base, whereas in BZ most of the sea floor is so jagged and/or covered with stuff, that there's hardly any good place at all.

And two of the best places are already occupied by existing bases. -.-

While I actually have nothing against your negative stance regarding the seatruck and the snowfox and many other stuff, I really have to say that this is now complaining on a ridiculously high standard.

The base building in Below Zero is amazing and far better than in the original.

Just because the map is smaller and 2 places are already taken, doesn't change the fact that you can fairly create big bases that go over various biomes without any issues.



If you don't believe me, I have a savegame which has more than 3 days on its counter.
And I've uploaded the previous versions of this savegames to Nexus and either recorded tons of videos about.
And this is my newest crime:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2521125209
My first Crystal Cave Base, which perfectly fits there in front of the entrance to the deeper cave with the big red crystals.


And to make a direct comparison:

The lava passage I made in Subnautica,
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2493272191
is by far not as long as my connected bases in Below Zero:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2509816906

So when it comes to base building, I like both games.
Yet BZ offers a lot more diversity about what you can build.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Just Chill:

Originally posted by Andreas:

The big difference is, in Subnautica there are a lot of places where you can conveniently construct a base, whereas in BZ most of the sea floor is so jagged and/or covered with stuff, that there's hardly any good place at all.

And two of the best places are already occupied by existing bases. -.-

While I actually have nothing against your negative stance regarding the seatruck and the snowfox and many other stuff, I really have to say that this is now complaining on a ridiculously high standard.

As always, you are obviously entitled to your own opinion.

Fact is, I found exactly zero spots in Below Zero where I actually wanted to build a base and had the space to do so.

I have no such problems in Subnautica. There are dozens of places with a nice view and lots of space.

Fact is also, that I complained about this during early access. But like lots of other feedback, it was just completely ignored.

It's one of many points that ruin the experience for me.
(Which is why I uninstalled BZ after finishing the - severely disappointing - story.)

[Just Chill]

If you are speaking about me being entitled to my own opinion, but then posting a "fact" that is merely subjective either is pretty wrong.

Especially when I can back up my claims with evidence.

Sorry but that's a personal issue of your own.
I bet you haven't watched any video I recorded and either I doubt you will as the videos simply prove your "facts" to be wrong.

There is enough space for building bases.

Originally posted by Andreas:

Fact is, I found exactly zero spots in Below Zero where I actually wanted to build a base and had the space to do so.

That's not a fact, that's a personal issue.

Originally posted by Andreas:

Fact is also, that I complained about this during early access. But like lots of other feedback, it was just completely ignored.

That might be a fact.
I'm not about running through all your posts, but I bet you posted your recommendations during early access.
As I said, I am there with you, when games are in early access but community feedback is ignored.


However, having enough room to build big bases is a fact that not only I but dozens of other people backing up by videos and pictures.

You not being able to build a base where you want, as you don't have the space is merely a personal issue.
As it's your decision where you want to build a base. The game offers enough places for and yet you only named 2 that are already taken.

[bearsboi]

Originally posted by YertyL:

The experience I would love from Subnautica is living deeply underwater for an extended period of time, like in Bart Torgal's journal entry: "This is the first time I've seen sunlight in months". I feel it does not really work in both games though:
In the first, the cyclops is so sufficient as a mobile base that there is no real incentive to expand after your first base.
In the second, as others have mentioned, the map is so small and there are so few truly deep zones that a single central base is more than sufficient to reach all points in the map in a comfortable time. The only location I would consider good for a deep base in the second game is the one which Marguerit's base is already at :-/

i thought i was gaslighting myself, i knew the map felt smaller. its been a year or two since i played the og subnautica and coulda sworn that had a bigger map